Bill bars federal protection for migratory species, cuts international habitat funding

What it does

This bill amends the Endangered Species Act to prohibit the federal government from listing non-native species as endangered or threatened, and bars federal funding for acquiring land or water rights in foreign countries under the ESA's financial assistance program. The bill restricts the scope of species protection to those native to the United States only.

Why we flagged it

The bill narrows the scope of the Endangered Species Act by excluding non-native species from federal protection and eliminating international habitat acquisition funding. It is a targeted restriction on conservation authority, not a broad deregulation or a public benefit measure.

What the text implies

• Migratory species (monarch butterflies, gray whales, sea turtles) that breed or feed outside the U.S. but depend on U.S. habitat may lose protection if their critical foreign habitat is destroyed, since the U.S. cannot fund conservation there.
• International conservation partnerships funded under ESA Section 8 (e.g., protecting rainforest habitat for jaguars, cloud forests for quetzals) would be defunded, shifting costs to foreign governments or NGOs with less capacity.
• Non-native invasive species (zebra mussels, Asian carp, Burmese pythons) already established in the U.S. remain unaffected; the bill only prevents NEW listings of species not yet present in the U.S., so it does not address existing invasive-species management.
• The bill's title emphasizes 'American Sovereignty' but the operative effect is to reduce U.S. conservation leverage in international negotiations and habitat protection agreements.

Section numbers refer to the bill text the analysis read — linked under Primary records below.

Who it affects

Ordinary citizens lose access to federal protections for migratory species, transboundary ecosystems, and species whose survival depends on habitat outside U.S. borders (e.g., monarch butterflies, sea turtles, migratory birds). The bill also eliminates a conservation funding mechanism that supported international habitat protection, reducing the effectiveness of species recovery programs that depend on cross-border cooperation.

Who stands to gain

• industries benefiting from reduced habitat protection in foreign countries (agriculture, resource ex
• domestic industries facing reduced competition from non-native species protections

Named in the bill

Endangered Species Act of 1973, U.S. Department of Interior (Secretary), Section 4(a) ESA (listing authority), Section 8(a) ESA (financial assistance)

Where it stands

• Jan 3, 2025 — Introduced · Congress.gov: “Introduced in House”
• Jan 3, 2025 — Referred to House Committee on Natural Resources · Congress.gov: “Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources”

Dates and quoted wording are Congress.gov's action record; the timeline shows status changes, not every procedural step.

Money around this bill

3 lobbying clients named this bill on 5 disclosure filings across 2 quarters, Dec 2025 to Jun 2026. Those filings disclosed $120,000 in lobbying spend. A filing names 20 bills on average, so that figure is what each filing reported, not a share belonging to this bill.

More lobbying clients named this bill than 61% of bills with at least one filing.

Andy Biggs, the sponsor, reported $9,100 in PAC receipts in the 2026 cycle.

• Defenders of Wildlife — $100,000 on 1 filing
• Zoological Association of America — $20,000 on 2 filings
• Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council — $0 on 2 filings

Lobbying Disclosure Act filings through Jul 17, 2026. A filing shows who paid to lobby on a bill it names, not what changed.