Congress delists Mexican wolf, strips future recovery plans of cross-border data

What it does

This bill removes the Mexican wolf from federal protection under the Endangered Species Act, delisting it entirely. It also nullifies two prior Fish and Wildlife Service rules governing Mexican wolf management and prohibits future recovery plans from considering the wolf's status in Mexico—only U.S. populations would count. The stated rationale is that the U.S. wolf population has grown and poses livestock predation and safety risks to rural communities.

Why we flagged it

The bill's operative mechanism is straightforward—remove ESA protection for Mexican wolves—but the title 'Enhancing Safety for Animals Act' is misleading: the bill does not enhance safety for the Mexican wolf (the animal being delisted) but rather for livestock and humans in ranching areas. The framing inverts the actual effect.

• Section 3 (Bifurcation of Mexican wolf population criteria) prohibits future recovery plans from considering Mexican wolf status in Mexico. This is a forward-looking constraint on regulatory authority unrelated to the delisting itself and appears designed to prevent re-listing or recovery-plan revision based on cross-border population data.

What the text implies

• Delisting removes federal funding and coordination for Mexican wolf recovery, shifting all management costs to states and private landowners. Rural counties and Tribal governments may face uncompensated predation losses without federal mitigation programs.
• The bifurcation provision (Section 3) pre-emptively constrains the Secretary of Interior's authority to consider Mexican wolf populations in Mexico when making future listing decisions. This narrows the scientific and ecological basis for recovery planning and may prevent re-listing even if U.S. populations decline.
• By nullifying the 2022 rule on the Nonessential Experimental Population, the bill removes a regulatory framework that allowed for adaptive management and conflict mitigation. Future wolf management will default to state law, which varies widely and may permit unrestricted lethal removal.
• The bill's findings criticize Fish and Wildlife Service depredation evidentiary standards (subcutaneous hemorrhaging requirement) but do not reform them—delisting simply removes the federal agency's authority to set or enforce any standard, leaving ranchers without a federal compensation mechanism.
• Delisting may trigger state-level predator-control programs with minimal environmental review, as ESA protections and federal consultation requirements no longer apply. This could accelerate wolf population decline in the U.S., undermining the bill's own finding that the population is 'thriving.'

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

Who it affects

The bill eliminates federal protection for a species that has not yet reached its own recovery goals, shifting the burden of wildlife management entirely to states and private landowners while removing a tool for resolving conflicts between ranching and conservation. Rural residents may face increased predation costs without federal mitigation support, and the public loses a voice in species recovery decisions that were previously subject to federal oversight and public process.

Who stands to gain

• livestock producers and ranching operations in the Mexican Wolf Experimental Population Area
• state wildlife agencies (reduced federal oversight and funding obligations)

Named in the bill

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), Department of Interior, Mexican Wolf Experimental Population Area, Endangered Species Act of 1973, Canis lupus baileyi (Mexican wolf)

Where it stands

12 cosponsors: 12 Republicans.

• Jun 30, 2025 — Introduced · Congress.gov: “Introduced in House”
• Jun 30, 2025 — Referred to House Committee on Natural Resources · Congress.gov: “Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources”
• Sep 3, 2025 — Hearing held · Congress.gov: “Subcommittee Hearings Held”
• Jan 22, 2026 — Markup held in committee · Congress.gov: “Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held”
• Jan 22, 2026 — Reported out of committee · Congress.gov: “Ordered to be Reported in the Nature of a Substitute (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 23 - 13”

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 6 disclosure filings across 2 quarters, Dec 2025 to Jun 2026. Those filings disclosed $1,088,709 in lobbying spend. A filing names 50 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.

Paul Gosar, the sponsor, reported $87,570 in PAC receipts in the 2026 cycle.

• American Farm Bureau Fed — $720,409 on 3 filings
• Earthjustice Action — $188,300 on 1 filing
• Sierra Club — $180,000 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.