The Endangered Species Transparency and Reasonableness Act of 2025 would require the Interior Secretary to publish on the internet the best scientific and commercial data used to justify endangered or threatened species determinations, with limited exceptions for privacy and national security. It also tightens decisional transparency with states and tribes and creates a public, searchable database of federal litigation expenditures related to species protections.
The bill further aligns the cost-shifting of litigation with existing law.
For compliance professionals, the bill signals a shift toward auditable, data-driven decisionmaking in ESA listings, open data access for researchers, and new reporting obligations that could affect agency workloads and budgets. It also introduces potential tensions between transparency and privacy, postures on state data sovereignty, and security classifications that may complicate rapid determinations.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill requires the Secretary to publish online the best scientific and commercial data underpinning ESA regulations and proposed regulations, with certain exemptions for state privacy laws and DoD classified information.
Who It Affects
Federal agencies implementing the ESA, state/tribal/local governments providing data, and the public including researchers and advocacy groups seeking transparency.
Why It Matters
Public access to the evidentiary basis for listings improves accountability and enables external validation, while introducing new data-sharing and classification considerations that shape how quickly determinations can be made.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill expands transparency around Endangered Species Act determinations. It requires the Interior Secretary to publish on the internet the best data that supported each listing or proposed regulation, subject to state privacy and defense classification protections.
It also tightens the use of state, tribal, and local information in determining listings, insisting that before any listing decision is made, affected states receive all data the decision relies on. The term ‘best scientific and commercial data available’ would include data submitted by state, tribal, or county governments.
In addition, the bill requires a new annual report and public online database detailing expenditures related to covered suits under the ESA, including case names, descriptions, agencies involved, funding, and legal costs, with data updated monthly. Finally, it modifies how litigation costs are awarded to align with existing federal cost statutes.
These changes primarily aim to increase transparency and accountability while expanding data-sharing obligations across federal, state, and local governments. The bill also preserves protections around sensitive information where disclosure is restricted by law or national security considerations.
The overall effect is to make the decision-making process more open, detail-rich, and auditable, while imposing additional administrative burdens on agencies and their partners.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The Secretary must publish online the best data behind each regulatory listing or proposed regulation, with two exemptions for state privacy laws and DoD classified information.
Before making a listing determination, the bill requires sharing all data that forms the basis of the decision with affected States.
‘Best scientific and commercial data available’ expands to include data submitted by State, Tribal, or county governments.
The Act creates a publicly searchable, monthly-updated database detailing expenditures in covered suits, including agency funds, personnel, and attorney fees.
Litigation costs for ESA matters are now governed by existing cost-shifting statutes (28 U.S.C. 2412 and 5 U.S.C. 504).
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title and purpose
This section provides the act's formal title, the Endangered Species Transparency and Reasonableness Act of 2025, and states its general purpose: to require internet publication of the basis for ESA listings and to introduce related transparency measures. It signals the bill’s emphasis on public access to the decision-making trail behind endangered and threatened species determinations.
Publication of listing basis online
Section 2 adds a new subsection to the Endangered Species Act mandating that the Secretary publish on the internet the best scientific and commercial data available that underlie each regulation under subsection (a)(1). It also creates two carve-outs: information blocked by state law protecting personal data and a DoD agreement preventing disclosure of classified information. This provision directly operationalizes transparency for listings while preserving security and privacy interests.
Decisional transparency with states and use of state data
Section 3(a) requires enhanced cooperation with affected states, including providing all data the determination is based on before a listing decision is made. Section 3(b) broadens the data pool considered for ‘best data’ to include data submitted by State, Tribal, or county governments, expanding the inputs that inform listings. Together, these changes institutionalize state and local data voices in ESA decision-making and widen the evidentiary base considered by federal agencies.
Disclosure of expenditures under the ESA
Section 4 redefines Section 13 to require the Interior Secretary, with the Commerce Secretary, to publish an annual report detailing federal expenditures for covered suits and to maintain a publicly accessible, searchable monthly database. The data cover case identifiers, claims descriptions, agencies involved, funding, personnel, attorneys’ fees, and related expenses, providing a transparent ledger of ESA enforcement and litigation costs.
Litigation costs and related amendments
Section 5 modifies ESA cost provisions by substituting the existing language with a cross-reference to applicable cost-shifting statutes (28 U.S.C. 2412 and 5 U.S.C. 504). This aligns prevailing party cost awards with standard federal practice and clarifies the framework for litigation cost recovery in ESA matters.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Environment across all five countries.
Explore Environment in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- State wildlife agencies gain a formal channel to submit and share data underpinning listings before federal determinations, increasing visibility into the decision process.
- Environmental researchers and policy analysts gain access to underlying data and a more complete evidentiary trail for ESA decisions.
- Environmental advocacy groups and watchdog organizations obtain greater transparency to monitor listings and regulatory actions.
- Tribal and county governments gain formal inclusion and expanded data-sharing opportunities in listing decisions.
- Federal agencies face clearer requirements that may improve accountability and public trust in ESA determinations.
Who Bears the Cost
- Federal agencies must assemble, verify, and publish complex data sets and maintain a public database, creating ongoing administrative and IT workload.
- State, tribal, and county governments may need to prepare, standardize, and submit data to federal processes, incurring compliance costs.
- The Department of Defense must manage restrictions on classified information, including ensuring compliance with secrecy requirements and potential interagency coordination.
- Public funding is allocated to support new transparency infrastructure, data management, and ongoing reporting obligations.
- Claimant agencies and offices supporting covered suits could bear higher administrative costs due to expanded reporting and data-sharing obligations.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is balancing transparent, data-driven ESA decision-making with the need to protect sensitive information and national security while keeping listing processes timely and administratively feasible.
The bill meaningfully expands public access to the evidentiary basis for ESA determinations and requires systematic disclosure of litigation expenditures. This raises practical concerns about data privacy, state sovereignty, and national security—particularly with the DoD exception and state protections for personal information.
Implementing a robust, searchable online database and ensuring timely compilation of data from multiple agencies and jurisdictions will require substantial administrative effort and funding. Review will be needed to avoid disclosing sensitive information inadvertently and to ensure data quality and consistency across agencies.
The broader policy question centers on whether the added transparency improves conservation outcomes without introducing new procedural hurdles that slow timely protections or create unintended disclosure risks.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.