The federal budget proposal for fiscal year 2027 once again seeks to eliminate long-standing conservation programs.

On March 3, the White House released a comprehensive budget proposal to fund the federal government in fiscal year 2027. The president’s budget is largely a messaging tool—Congress maintains the constitutional authority to set federal spending levels. But the budget clearly communicates the administration’s priorities for natural resource programming across the federal government. The recently proposed budget cuts spending across the Department of the Interior (DOI) and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) compared to fiscal year 2026.

As with the previous fiscal year, the budget proposes to completely eliminate funding for programs in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Forest Service, Natural Resources Conservation Service and National Institute of Food and Agriculture. Other programs would see drastic reductions in funding. Proposed funding levels for programs of interest to wildlife professionals include:

 

Final FY26 Appropriations ($M) Administration Proposal FY27 ($M)
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
State and Tribal Wildlife Grants $73.812 M $0 M
National Wildlife Refuge System $522.035 M $416.988 M
Ecological Services (Listing, Planning, and Conservation and Restoration combined) $167.307 M $142.765 M
North American Wetlands Conservation Act $49 M $10 M
Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act $5 M $0 M
Migratory Bird Management $51.356 M $39.933 M
Science Applications $30.781 M $0
U.S. Geological Survey
Ecosystems Mission Area $294.705 M $0
U.S. Forest Service
Wildlife and Fisheries Habitat Management $21 M $22 M
Forest and Rangelands Research $308.697 M $0
Bureau of Land Management
Wildlife Habitat Management $142.980 M $33.343 M
Wild Horse and Burro Management $144 M $106.769 M
Natural Resources Conservation Service
Conservation Technical Assistance $697.624 M $0
National Institute of Food and Agriculture
McIntire-Stennis Grants $38 M $20 M
Renewable Resources Extension Act $4 M $0
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Wildlife Services
Wildlife Damage Management $122.750 M $126.227 M
Methods Development $25.5 M $25.5 M

Beyond the numbers: What wildlife professionals need to know

Congress unilaterally rejected the administration’s proposal to defund USDA/DOI programs in FY26 spending bills. Still, in light of issues like ongoing staff departures, hiring freezes and restructuring efforts that include the closure of regional offices, there is a continued need to voice the importance of these programs and the wildlife professionals who implement them to appropriators, the members of Congress on subcommittees who decide how federal money is spent. Appropriations subcommittees will begin to accept outside witness testimonies to inform their responses to the president’s budget over the coming weeks. These testimonies help shape the final spending bills by prioritizing needs and highlighting the consequences of changes in funding. TWS will continue to provide guidance to our members on how to meaningfully engage in support of robust federal conservation funding.

There’s more in the budget proposal than just line-item budget numbers. The administration is proposing a major shift in endangered species conservation by moving Endangered Species Act (ESA) and Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) permitting authority from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to the USFWS. This is purportedly to increase efficiency in listed species permitting across the DOI. Similar mergers have been proposed in the past, raising concerns across stakeholder groups around the loss of marine expertise in ESA permitting.

Within the budget proposed for the Department of Energy is a “government-wide prohibition on publishing and subscription fees,” which “prohibits the use of federal funds for expensive subscriptions to academic journals and prohibitively high publishing costs unless required by federal statute or approved in advance by a federal agency.” Specifics on how this provision would be implemented are sparse at this time. There could be significant impacts on peer-reviewed literature, such as wildlife management research published with assistance from Pittman-Robertson funds, published in society journals.

TWS chapters, sections and working groups have identified conservation funding as the most important policy priority for The Wildlife Society. TWS is committed to championing diverse, sustainable funding sources for wildlife conservation. Visit the Conservation Affairs Network Policy Toolkit to learn more about using your voice to engage with the U.S. congressional appropriations process.

 

 

 

Article by Kelly O'Connor