Congress Rejects Trump's Extreme Cuts to Public Land Agencies. But Does It Matter?

Rob Goldstein

Jul 21st, 2025

This is the 3rd article in a series on nature conservation and the federal budget. See:
Conservation Code Red: Reviewing the Must-Win Battles in the 2026 Funding Bills
Good News for NOAA, NRCS as Congress Rejects Trump's Radical Spending Cuts

The House and Senate have been releasing their draft spending bills for federal agencies and programs. There have been two big developments for nature.

1. The House released a draft spending bill for public land agencies that rejects Trump's steep cuts.

We now have a draft Congressional spending bill for: National Park Service (NPS), US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and US Forest Service (USFS).

If we look at the numbers, we can see that Congress has rejected the catastrophic funding cuts proposed by the Trump administration.

Instead, this bill—drafted by the House Committee on Environment and Interior—makes cuts that range from 0% to 8% below 2025 spending. These cuts are similar to those the House released earlier for NOAA and NRCS. And assuming the Senate numbers look better, this is an ok starting place.

If we look deeper at the House numbers, things look better. The Trump administration had proposed eliminating many funding areas entirely including several USWS grants and USFS State, Private, and Tribal Forestry. The House bill fully funds these programs.

The bill does include some riders that attempt to place limits on management of certain endangered species like the lesser prairie-chicken. But we can focus on striping those out as the process progresses.

2a. The Senate released a draft spending bill for NOAA. The numbers look good.

Second, the Senate committee overseeing NOAA released its draft budget and the numbers are very good. The Senate's draft bill funds NOAA at close to 2025 levels. It cuts agency funding less than 1% (compared to a 6% cut in the House version of the bill).

Importantly, the bill maintains funding for NOAA Research (OAR) which was inked for elimination (zero funding) in Trump's budget proposal. OAR is an entire division of NOAA with over 800 employees as of 2024. It includes 23 major research centers across the US. It conducts and supports the nation's leading scientific research on climate, weather, oceans, and lakes.

The Senate bill fully funds many other programs that Trump wants to eliminate including the National Estuarine Research Reserve System, Office of Habitat Conservation and Restoration, and the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund.

2b. The Senate bill uses striking language to assert control.

It is the language of the Senate bill that is most notable. Section-by-section, the bill goes into great detail describing each NOAA program, highlighting its importance and explicitly laying out expectations for spending and outcomes.

Let me give some examples below of some particularly striking language:

Explicit rejection of administration:

(pg 39) The Committee rejects the proposed termination of the NOAA Center of Excellence for Operational Ocean and Great Lakes Mapping and provides $10,000,000. The Center shall continue to work in unison with and leverage existing capabilities...

Detailing program rationale and purpose. This is everywhere in the bill:

(pg 41) Coral reefs provide substantial economic benefits by supporting fisheries, tourism, and coastal protection, buffering communities against devastating coastal storms and hurricanes. Environmentally, they sustain unparalleled biodiversity, serving as vital habitats for countless marine species. The alarming decline of coral populations in the United States demands immediate and robust action to reverse this trend and safeguard these invaluable ecosystems for future generations. Therefore, the Committee provides no less than $33,500,000 to conduct reef restoration activities under the Coral Reef Conservation Act.

Very detailed programatic directions and oversight. This is all over the bill:

(pg 46) Within the funding provided for Pacific Salmon, $375,000 shall be for the NMFS West Coast Region to... Further, the Committee directs NMFS to... Specifically, the report should include... The NMFS shall coordinate with... The NMFS is directed to brief the Committee within 60 days...

But we need to talk about the elephant in the room. Do the spending bills even matter?

In the sections below, I want to give my perspective on that question and the overall federal funding situation that nature conservation is facing. But I give the following caveat: I am not in the trenches working on these issues directly with lawmakers. These issues are extremely complicated and dynamic—especially this year. So my insights are limited. Take it for what it's worth.

There are real risks right now.

Last week, White House Budget Chief Russ Vought—in a very disconcerting speech—dismissed the importance of Congress and spending bills in directing administration's spending. We have already seen the administration repeatedly ignore the current budget and do what it wants in terms of mass layoffs and not spending appropriated money for programs.

Furthermore, recent Supreme Court decisions have limited the ability of the courts to quickly rein in the administration when it breaks the law. In the past, the courts could use temporary injunctions to force the administration to follow the letter of the law. But now the administration can ignore Congress for many months or even years before a final court ruling is handed down. And by that point, the damage will likely be irreversible.

The president's budget request—while usually is just a proposal for Congress to consider—may be a roadmap of what the administration intends to do, with or without the blessing of Congress. If so, it would be devastating for nature conservation and our natural resources.

We should be particularly concerned about the NOAA OAR and USGS Ecosystem Mission Area. Both divisions have been zeroed out and inked for elimination in the president's budget request. Together, they form the backbone of our nation's scientific research on wildlife, ecology, freshwater, oceans, and climate. Simply put, eliminating or severely cutting them would be a catastrophe for nature conservation.

Can a new spending bill ever get enacted?

Then there is the question of whether both chambers of Congress could agree by the fall deadline on a new spending bill that the President would sign. That will be a difficult challenge.

Reason For Some Optimism

With all of that being said, there is some reason for optimism. As I outlined earlier, the draft spending bills include strong language throughout. This would be a big change from our current situation.

Since the beginning of the 2nd Trump presidency, the government has been operating under two different Continuing Resolutions (CR). These are short term spending bills that Congress adopts to avoid a shutdown. The funding levels of these bills were originally set under Biden and a past session of Congress.

There is also a problem with the CR language. In stark contrast to the draft spending bills, the CR gives the Executive Branch wide discretion over how to operate and spend money.

Stronger statutory requirements for agencies and programs

By clearly defining the rationale, purpose, functions and expected outcomes, these new bills can set strong statutory requirements for agencies to do the work that Congress wants it to do. It leaves little wiggle room.

Of course the administration can still choose to ignore Congress and unilaterally terminate programs, freeze grants, and layoff employees. But these bills more clearly establish the legal pitfalls of doing so. And maybe I'm being overly optimistic, but—hopefully—they also show a willingness of Congress to assert some control over the administration's actions.

Below I have updated the numbers on my running list of funding priorities in nature conservation:

17 Funding Priorities in Nature Conservation

1) AmeriCorps

FY25 Funding Amount: $1.262 billion
FY26 Trump Proposal: $107 million ($1,155 billion cut), -91%
FY26 House Draft Bill:
FY26 Senate Draft Bill:
FY26 Final Spending Bill:

Discussion: AmeriCorps plays a major role in conservation work and early career professional development. Learn more about Trump's dismantling of AmeriCorps. Trump's budget request eliminates AmeriCorps entirely. The FY26 funding would be used for the administrative costs of winding down operations. Essentially this would help codify the elimination of AmeriCorps.

2) USGS - Ecosystem Mission Area

FY25 Funding Amount: $292 million
FY26 Trump Proposal: $0.00 ($292 million cut), 100% decrease.
FY26 House Draft Bill:
FY26 Senate Draft Bill:
FY26 Final Spending Bill:

Discussion: USGS Ecosystem Mission Area is the backbone of our nation's ecological research. Read more here. Trump is proposing elimination of this critically important agency division. The House draft bill doesn't break out USGS EMA figures yet.

3) National Park Service

FY25 Funding Amount: $3.337 billion
FY26 Trump Proposal: $2.116 billion ($1,220 billion cut), 37% debcrease.
FY26 House Draft Bill: $3.124 billion ($212 million cut), 6% decrease
FY26 Senate Draft Bill:
FY26 Final Spending Bill:

Discussion: Trump proposed steep cuts for an already underfunded agency. It would likely result in the closure or reduced visiting hours of many sites. The House draft bill makes significant but much lower cuts.

4) Bureau of Land Management - Management of Lands and Resources

FY25 Funding Amount: $1.294 billion
FY26 Trump Proposal: $827 million ($467 million cut), 36% decrease.
FY26 House Draft Bill: $1.193 billion ($101 million cut), 8% decrease.
FY26 Senate Draft Bill:
FY26 Final Spending Bill:

Discussion: The BLM manages 245 million acres land. Trump's funding proposal would fund those efforts for the entire year at less than $2 per acre. The House draft bill makes significant but much lower cuts.

5) US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) - Total Agency

FY25 Funding Amount: $1.677 billion
FY26 Trump Proposal: $1.139 billion ($538 million cut), 32% decrease.
FY26 House Draft Bill: $1.569 billion ($108 million), 6% decrease.
FY26 Senate Draft Bill:
FY26 Final Spending Bill:

Discussion: This is the funding level for the entire agency which includes enforcing federal laws like the Endangered Species Act and managing our National Wildlife Refuge system (which is larger than our National Parks). The House draft bill makes significant but much lower cuts.

6) USFWS - Wildlife Conservation Grants

FY25 Funding Amount: $169 million
FY26 Trump Proposal: $0.00 ($169 million cut), 100% decrease.
FY26 House Draft Bill: $167 million ($2 million cut), 1% decrease.
FY26 Senate Draft Bill:
FY26 Final Spending Bill:

Discussion: This also falls within (5) Total Agency, but I'm breaking it out separately due to the urgency.

In this funding area, I'm combing 5 conservation grant programs that Trump wants to end: Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund, North American Wetlands Conservation Fund, Multinational Species Conservation Fund, Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Fund, State and Tribal Wildlife Grants.

Trump's budget proposal completely eliminates funding for these grants. The House draft bill funds at close to 2025 levels.

7) US Forest Service - Forest and Rangeland Research

FY25 Funding Amount: $300 million
FY26 Trump Proposal: $0.00 ($300 million cut), 100% decrease.
FY26 House Draft Bill: $301 million ($1 million boost) 1% increase.
FY26 Senate Draft Bill:
FY26 Final Spending Bill:

Discussion: Trump is proposing eliminating the US Forest Service's Experimental Forests and Ranges. The House draft bill fully funds this division.

8) US Forest Service - State, Private, and Tribal Forestry

FY25 Funding Amount: $283 million
FY26 Trump Proposal: $0.00 ($283 million cut), 100% decrease.
FY26 House Draft Bill: $280 million ($3 million cut), 1% decrease.
FY26 Senate Draft Bill:
FY26 Final Spending Bill:

Discussion: Trump wants to completely eliminate US Forest Service's State, Private, Tribal Forestry. The House draft bill funds at close to 2025 levels.

9) US Forest Service - National Forest System

FY25 Funding Amount: $1.863 billion
FY26 Trump Proposal: $1.296 billion ($567 million cut), 30% decrease.
FY26 House Draft Bill: $1.866 billion ($3 million boost).
FY26 Senate Draft Bill:
FY26 Final Spending Bill:

Discussion: Once again, this is an already underfunded agency tasked with managing a large area of land (193 million acres, more than 2 x the size of our National Parks). The House bill rejects Trump's cuts and actually increases funding slightly.

10) Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) - Conservation Operations

FY25 Funding Amount: $896 million
FY26 Trump Proposal: $112 million ($784 million cut), 87% decrease.
FY26 House Draft Bill: $850 million ($46 million cut), 5% decrease.
FY26 Senate Draft Bill: $896 million, 0% decrease.
FY26 Final Spending Bill:

Discussion: The House and Senate Committees on Agriculture have rejected Trump's extreme cuts for NRCS.

11) NOAA - Total Agency

FY25 Funding Amount: $6.182 billion
FY26 Trump Proposal: $4.513 billion ($1.669 billion cut), 27% decrease.
FY26 House Draft Bill: $5.795 billion ($387 million cut), 6.27% decrease.
FY26 Senate Draft Bill: $6.141 billion ($41 million cut), 0.67% decrease.
FY26 Final Spending Bill:

Discussion: The House draft bill makes significant cuts to NOAA. But it rejects the extreme cuts that would be needed to eliminate the programs listed below. The Senate bill funds NOAA at close to 2025 levels.

12) NOAA - Oceanic And Atmospheric Research (OAR)

FY24 Funding Amount: $668 million
FY26 Trump Proposal: $0.00 ($668 million cut), 100% decrease.
FY26 House Draft Bill:
FY26 Senate Draft Bill: $657 million ($11 million cut), 1.7% decrease.
FY26 Final Spending Bill:

Discussion: Trump is proposing to completely eliminate a massive, wide ranging research wing of our government. NOAA Research and its 880 employers (as of 2024) make up our nation's leading research centers on climate, weather, oceans, and lakes. The Senate bill rejects Trump's cuts and funds NOAA at close to 2025 levels.

13) NOAA - National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)

FY24 Funding Amount: $1.219 billion
FY26 Trump Proposal: $789 million ($429 million cut), 35% decrease.
FY26 House Draft Bill:
FY26 Senate Draft Bill: $1.129 billion ($89 million cut), 7.36% decrease.
FY26 Final Spending Bill:

Discussion: NMFS (NOAA Fisheries) is another division of NOAA facing major cuts. Several offices get hit particularly hard. I feature two below.

14) NOAA - Protected Resources Science and Management

FY24 Funding Amount: $264 million
FY26 Trump Proposal: $115 million ($149 million cut), 56% decrease.
FY26 House Draft Bill:
FY26 Senate Draft Bill: $270 million ($6 million boost), 2.63% increase.
FY26 Final Spending Bill:

Discussion: This falls under (13) NMFS. The Office of Protected Resources is responsible for the protection and recovery of more than 150 endangered and threatened marine species under the Endangered Species Act. The Senate not only rejects Trump's extreme cuts here, they actually increase funding.

15) NOAA - Habitat Conservation and Restoration

FY24 Funding Amount: $56 million
FY26 Trump Proposal: $0.00 ($56 million cut), 100% decrease.
FY26 House Draft Bill:
FY26 Senate Draft Bill: $57 million ($1 million boost), 2.67% increase
FY26 Final Spending Bill:

Discussion: This falls under (13) NMFS. I've broken it out because the Office of Habitat Conservation and its 192 employees (as of 2024) face elimination unless Congress rejects Trump's cuts. The Senate not only rejects Trump's extreme cuts here, they actually increase funding.

16) NOAA - Ocean and Coastal Management and Services

FY24 Funding Amount: $296 million
FY26 Trump Proposal: $112 million ($184 million cut), 62% decrease.
FY26 House Draft Bill:
FY26 Senate Draft Bill: $299 million ($3 million boost), 1% increase.
FY26 Final Spending Bill:

Discussion: This section of the NOAA budget includes multiple divisions facing steep cuts: a) National Estuarine Research Reserve System (NERR); b) Sanctuaries and Marine Protected Areas; c) Coral Reef Conservation, and others. Of particular note, NERR is facing elimination unless Congress rejects Trump's cuts.

The Senate not only rejects Trump's extreme cuts here, they actually increase funding.

17) NOAA - Pacific Salmon Recovery Fund

FY24 Funding Amount: $65 million
FY26 Trump Proposal: $0.00 ($65 million cut), 100% decrease.
FY26 House Draft Bill: $65 million, 0% decrease.
FY26 Senate Draft Bill: $65 million, 0% decrease.
FY26 Final Spending Bill:

Discussion: The House and Senate draft bills reject Trump's cuts to the Pacific Salmon Recovery Fund and maintain funding at prior levels.