Endangered Species Act Overhaul: No Protection for Non-Native Species, Limits on Foreign Aid

The "American Sovereignty and Species Protection Act of 2025" changes the rules on which species can be protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The bill, straight up, says that only species native to the United States can be listed as endangered or threatened. It also blocks any financial aid, normally used for conservation, from being spent to acquire land or water rights in other countries.

What's the Deal?

The core change is a strict "natives only" policy for the Endangered Species Act (SEC. 2). Previously, the ESA didn't make a big distinction about where a species originated. If it was endangered and present in the US, it could get protection. This bill changes that. It also puts a hard stop on using federal funds to buy land or water for conservation in foreign countries.

Real-World Rollout

Imagine a non-native plant that's become crucial for controlling erosion in a specific US region, but that plant is now facing extinction. Under this bill, it wouldn't qualify for ESA protection because it's not originally from the US. Or, picture a US-funded project working to protect a critical wetland area in another country. This bill says "no go" to using federal money to acquire that land, even if it's vital for migratory birds that spend part of their lives in the US.

Who Feels the Change?

This could hit conservation groups hard. They often work across borders and with non-native species that have become part of the local ecosystem. It also affects landowners, whether they're farmers or developers. If a non-native but beneficial species is on their land, they won't face ESA restrictions, which could be a plus or minus depending on the situation. The bill may also affect international relations, especially with countries that collaborate with the US on environmental projects.

Challenges and Connections

One major challenge is defining "native." Does it mean species present before European colonization? Or is there a specific cutoff date? The bill doesn't clarify this, and that ambiguity could lead to disputes. This bill also clashes with the broader idea of global biodiversity. Many ecosystems rely on species that have migrated or been introduced over time. By focusing solely on "native" species, the bill ignores the complex reality of how ecosystems actually work. It also potentially puts the US at odds with international conservation agreements that take a more global approach.