Endangered Species Transparency and Reasonableness Act of 2025
HB180, titled the Endangered Species Transparency and Reasonableness Act of 2025, would amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to increase disclosure and procedural transparency around federal endangered-species listings and related litigation. The bill requires the Secretary of the Interior to publish online the best scientific and commercial data supporting each endangered or threatened species regulation, including proposed listings, while allowing states to request nondisclosure where state law protects the information and protecting classified Department of Defense information through an agreement with the Secretary of Defense.
The bill also requires the federal government to provide affected states the data underlying listing determinations before those determinations are made, and it expands the definition of “best scientific and commercial data available” to expressly include data submitted by state, tribal, or county governments. In addition, it creates a new reporting and database requirement for expenditures tied to Endangered Species Act litigation, including case details, agency costs, staffing, attorney fees, settlement information, and federal funding used by plaintiffs, and it limits attorney-fee awards to the standards already found in existing federal fee-shifting laws.
If enacted, HB180 would amend multiple sections of the Endangered Species Act, adding new publication, disclosure, and reporting duties for the Department of the Interior and related agencies. It would change how listing decisions are documented and shared, require broader consideration of state, tribal, and local government data, and create a public database of federal expenditures in ESA-related suits. It would also revise the Act’s litigation-cost provision to align fee awards with existing federal statutes governing attorney fees and costs.
The available context shows no recorded votes or committee transcript debate, so there is no direct evidence of support or opposition from hearings or floor action. Based on the bill text and title, the measure appears to be framed as a transparency and accountability reform, suggesting a generally pro-disclosure posture. The bill had subcommittee hearings held as of the latest action, indicating it received at least preliminary committee attention.
The main points of potential contention are likely to be the bill’s expanded disclosure requirements and its effect on endangered-species decision-making and litigation. Environmental advocates or federal agencies may object that mandatory publication of underlying data and litigation-cost reporting could burden agency operations, expose sensitive information, or complicate enforcement. State, tribal, and local governments, along with supporters of the bill, are likely to favor the added transparency, the requirement to use their submitted data, and the limitation on fee awards to existing law. The bill’s exceptions for state-protected information and classified defense-related information appear designed to address some of these concerns.