PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Subcommittee Hearings Held
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jan 3, 2025
Endangered Species Transparency and Reasonableness Act of 2025
This bill modifies requirements concerning determinations on whether a species is a threatened or endangered species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), caps attorney's fees to prevailing parties in ESA citizen suits, and makes related requirements.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) must publish online, subject to privacy or administrative limitations, the best scientific and commercial data available that are the basis for each determination. The bill states that the term best scientific and commercial data available includes all data submitted by a state, tribal, or county government. Thus, such data is automatically deemed to be the best scientific and commercial data available. Before making a determination on whether a species is an endangered or threatened species, the FWS and NMFS must provide affected states with all of the data that is the basis of the determination.
The Department of the Interior must also publish and maintain an online searchable database that discloses federal expenditures related to litigation under the ESA.
People & committees
Rep. McClintock, Tom [R-CA-5] · R–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Subcommittee Hearings Held
Referred to the Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries.
Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Jul 18, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.180 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.180 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.180 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.180 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.
PlainBill explanation
Based on the full Introduced in House · 2025-01-03 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.
This bill proposes changes to how the federal government shares evidence and litigation costs under the Endangered Species Act. It would require online publication of evidence supporting species-listing regulations, with state-law and classified-information exceptions, and give affected states data before certain decisions. It would also expressly include state, Tribal, and county scientific and commercial data in the statutory definition, require litigation spending reports, and change the legal rules referenced for litigation-cost awards.
The Secretary shall make publicly available on the internet the best scientific and commercial data available that are the basis for each regulation, including each proposed regulation
public disclosure of such information is prohibited by a law or regulation of such State
prevents the disclosure of classified information pertaining to Department of Defense personnel, facilities, lands, or waters
before making a determination under section 4(a), providing to States affected by such determination all data that is the basis of the determination
The term best scientific and commercial data available includes all such data submitted by a State, Tribal, or county government.
an annual report detailing Federal Government expenditures for covered suits during the preceding fiscal year
inserting in accordance with section 2412 of title 28, United States Code and section 504 of title 5, United States Code.
Section 1 would name the bill the Endangered Species Transparency and Reasonableness Act of 2025.
This Act may be cited as the Endangered Species Transparency and Reasonableness Act of 2025.
Section 2 would require the Secretary to publish online the best available scientific and commercial data supporting each regulation under section 4(a)(1), including proposed regulations.
The Secretary shall make publicly available on the internet the best scientific and commercial data available that are the basis for each regulation, including each proposed regulation, promulgated under subsection (a)(1)
The Secretary would have to withhold information from that online publication requirement when a governor, state agency, or state legislature requests it and the state determines that disclosure is prohibited by state law or regulation, including personal-information protections.
at the request of a Governor, State agency, or legislature of a State, the Secretary shall not make information available under this paragraph if such State determines that public disclosure of such information is prohibited by a law or regulation of such State, including any law or regulation requiring the protection of personal information
Within 30 days after enactment of the new publication provision, the Secretary would have to enter an agreement with the Secretary of Defense preventing disclosure of classified information about Defense Department personnel, facilities, lands, or waters.
within 30 days after the date of the enactment of this paragraph, the Secretary shall execute an agreement with the Secretary of Defense that prevents the disclosure of classified information pertaining to Department of Defense personnel, facilities, lands, or waters.
Section 3 would require affected states to receive all data supporting a determination under section 4(a) before that determination is made.
Such cooperation shall include— (A) before making a determination under section 4(a), providing to States affected by such determination all data that is the basis of the determination
Section 3 would also define “best scientific and commercial data available” to include all such data submitted by a state, Tribal, or county government.
The term best scientific and commercial data available includes all such data submitted by a State, Tribal, or county government.
Section 4 would require the Interior Secretary, consulting with the Commerce Secretary, to report federal spending on covered litigation for each fiscal year within 90 days after that year ends. Reports would go to the House Natural Resources Committee and Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.
The Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with the Secretary of Commerce, shall— (1) not later than 90 days after the end of each fiscal year, submit to the Committee on Natural Resources of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate an annual report detailing Federal Government expenditures for covered suits during the preceding fiscal year
The same required information would have to appear in a searchable public internet database updated monthly.
make publicly available through the internet a searchable database, updated monthly, of the information described in subsection (b).
The disclosures would identify each covered case, its claims, the plaintiffs, and the covered agencies whose actions prompted the claims. They would also include links to specified court and settlement documents.
the case name and number of each covered suit, and a hyperlink to the settlement decisions, final decision, consent decrees, stipulations of dismissal, releases, interim decisions, motions to dismiss, partial motions for summary judgement, or related final documents
a description of each claim or cause of action in each covered suit
the name of each covered agency whose actions give rise to any claim in a covered suit and each plaintiff in such suit
Agencies would have to disclose spending, broken down by agency account, on responding to specified notices, preparing and conducting litigation, negotiating settlements or court-approved agreements, and providing related assistance. They would also report participating staff in full-time-equivalent units, a measure of staffing expressed as full-time positions.
funds expended by each covered agency (disaggregated by agency account) to receive and respond to notices referred to in section 11(g)(2) or to prepare for litigation of, litigate, negotiate a settlement agreement or consent decree in, or provide material, technical, or other assistance in relation to, a covered suit
the number of full-time equivalent employees that participated in the activities described in paragraph (4)
The disclosures would include information required by 31 U.S.C. 1304 for a covered suit and any federal funding a person or government or nongovernmental entity used to bring a covered claim.
any information required to be published under section 1304 of title 31, United States Code, with respect to a covered suit
any Federal funding used by a person or a governmental or nongovernmental entity in bringing a claim in a covered suit
Attorney-fee and other expense awards, their bases, and their agency-account breakdowns would have to be disclosed even when contained in sealed or confidential settlements or court-approved agreements. Restrictions on disclosing information outside the required categories would remain unaffected.
attorneys fees and other expenses (disaggregated by agency account) awarded in covered suits, including any consent decrees or settlement agreements (regardless of whether a decree or settlement agreement is sealed or otherwise subject to nondisclosure provisions), including the bases for such awards
this section shall not affect any restriction in a consent decree or settlement agreement on the disclosure of information that is not described in subsection (b).
Each covered agency's head would have to provide requested information to the Secretary in a timely manner so the reporting requirements could be met.
The head of each covered agency shall provide to the Secretary in a timely manner all information requested by the Secretary to comply with the requirements of this section.
Covered agencies would include all Interior Department agencies, the Forest Service, Environmental Protection Agency, National Marine Fisheries Service, and the Bonneville, Western Area, Southwestern, and Southeastern Power Administrations.
The term covered agency means any agency of the Department of the Interior, the Forest Service, the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Marine Fisheries Service, the Bonneville Power Administration, the Western Area Power Administration, the Southwestern Power Administration, or the Southeastern Power Administration.
Covered cases would include civil actions against the federal government containing an Endangered Species Act claim based on a covered agency's action. The definition separately includes administrative proceedings in which the United States awards fees and expenses to a third party under 5 U.S.C. 504; that clause does not expressly repeat the Endangered Species Act or covered-agency conditions.
The term covered suit means— (A) any civil action containing any claim arising under this Act against the Federal Government and based on the action of a covered agency; and (B) any administrative proceeding under which the United States awards fees and other expenses to a third party under section 504 of title 5, United States Code.
Section 4 would replace the existing section 13 with the spending-disclosure provisions and update its table-of-contents entry, while preserving amendments previously made by the old section 13.
Section 13 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (87 Stat. 902; relating to conforming amendments which have executed) is amended to read as follows
The table of contents in the first section of such Act is amended by striking the item relating to section 13 and inserting the following: Sec. 13. Disclosure of expenditures.
This section shall not be construed to affect the amendments made by section 13 of such Act, as in effect before the enactment of this Act.
Section 5 would amend the Endangered Species Act's litigation-cost provision by replacing the portion beginning “to any” through the sentence's end with a requirement to act in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 2412 and 5 U.S.C. 504. Those referenced laws and the complete existing sentence are not reproduced, so this text alone does not establish the resulting eligibility rules or award limits.
Section 11(g)(4) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1540(g)(4)) is amended by striking to any and all that follows through the end of the sentence and inserting in accordance with section 2412 of title 28, United States Code and section 504 of title 5, United States Code.
The supplied actions snapshot, updated July 18, 2026, records introduction and referral to the House Natural Resources Committee on January 3, 2025, referral to the Water, Wildlife and Fisheries Subcommittee on July 16, 2025, and subcommittee hearings on July 22, 2025. It does not establish later legislative action or enactment.
Source snapshot updated 2026-07-18T00:01:09Z. 2025-07-22: Subcommittee Hearings Held 2025-07-16: Referred to the Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries. 2025-01-03: Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources. 2025-01-03: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2025-01-03. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.
This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.
Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.
None identified in the reviewed text
No unrelated provision or policy change attached to appropriations was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish what appeared in other versions or accompanying materials.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No congressionally directed spending for a particular recipient or place was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This text-limited conclusion does not establish formal earmark status in other versions or accompanying materials.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
None identified in the reviewed text
No materially narrow preferential benefit warranting a finding was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. The information-sharing rules and disclosure safeguards were assessed as administration of the main policy. This conclusion does not extend to other versions or accompanying materials.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Jul 18, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI