National Wildlife Refuge System Invasive Species Strike Team Act of 2025
Download PDFSponsored by
Rep. Case, Ed [D-HI-1]
ID: C001055
Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law
Track this bill's progress through the legislative process
Latest Action
Subcommittee Hearings Held
April 15, 2026
Introduced
Committee Review
📍 Current Status
Next: The bill moves to the floor for full chamber debate and voting.
Floor Action
Passed House
Senate Review
Passed Congress
Presidential Action
Became Law
📚 How does a bill become a law?
1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.
2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.
3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.
4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.
5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.
6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.
7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!
Bill Summary
Another masterpiece of legislative theater, courtesy of the intellectually bankrupt members of Congress. Let's dissect this farce, shall we?
**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The National Wildlife Refuge System Invasive Species Strike Team Act of 2025 aims to establish a program within the United States Fish and Wildlife Service to eradicate, control, and reduce the adverse effects of invasive species on and adjacent to National Wildlife Refuge System lands and waters. How quaint. It's like they think they're actually doing something meaningful.
**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to establish at least one invasive species strike team within each region, trained in early detection and rapid response for multiple invasive species taxa. Because, you know, throwing more money and bureaucracy at a problem always solves it. The bill also requires partnerships with various stakeholders, including Federal, State, Tribal, and local governments, as well as nongovernmental institutions and private entities. Because nothing says "effective management" like a committee of competing interests.
**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects: the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wildlife Refuge System lands and waters, adjacent landowners, State agencies, and various special interest groups. You know, the ones who will actually benefit from this bill – not the environment, but their own bank accounts and egos.
**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a classic example of "legislative lip service." It's a feel-good measure designed to appease environmentalists and conservationists while doing little to address the actual problem. The real impact will be on the wallets of taxpayers, who will foot the bill for this bureaucratic boondoggle. Meanwhile, the invasive species will continue to thrive, and the politicians will pat themselves on the back for "doing something" about it.
In medical terms, this bill is like prescribing a placebo to a patient with a terminal illness. It might make them feel better temporarily, but it won't cure the disease. The underlying condition – corruption, greed, and incompetence – remains untreated. And we're supposed to be impressed by this? Please. This bill is a symptom of a larger disease: the inability of our elected officials to address real problems with meaningful solutions. But hey, at least they tried. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have better things to do than watch this farce unfold.
Related Topics
💰 Campaign Finance Network
Rep. Case, Ed [D-HI-1]
Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle
No committee contributions found
Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance
This bill has 1 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.
Del. Moylan, James C. [R-GU-At Large]
ID: M001219
Top Contributors
0
No contribution data available
Donor Network - Rep. Case, Ed [D-HI-1]
Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.
Showing 24 nodes and 29 connections
Total contributions: $68,659
Top Donors - Rep. Case, Ed [D-HI-1]
Showing top 22 donors by contribution amount
Industry Impact
Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 2 harmed.
- −Agribusiness confidence 0.80
Section 2(b)(2)(A)(i) mentions conserving and restoring habitat conditions that help native biological communities flourish, which could potentially lead to restrictions on agricultural practices, thereby harming the agribusiness industry.
- −Crop Producers confidence 0.70
Section 2(b)(2)(A)(ii) discusses conducting prevention, early detection surveillance, eradication, containment, mapping, monitoring, and active management of invasive species, which may impact crop production and thus harm the crop producers industry.
Project 2025 Policy Matches
This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document. AI-enhanced analysis provides detailed alignment ratings.
Introduction
AI Analysis:
"The bill and the Project 2025 policy are tangentially related through their focus on environmental and conservation issues, but they address different specific topics, with the bill focusing on invasive species management and the policy covering a broader range of conservation and environmental regulation topics."
— 534 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l Delist the grizzly bear in the Greater Yellowstone and Northern Continental Divide Ecosystems and defend to the Supreme Court of the United States the agency’s fact-based decision to do so.84 l Delist the gray wolf in the lower 48 states in light of its full recovery under the ESA.85 l Cede to western states jurisdiction over the greater sage-grouse, recognizing the on-the-ground expertise of states and preventing use of the sage-grouse to interfere with public access to public land and economic activity. l Direct the Fish and Wildlife Service to end its abuse of Section 10(j) of the ESA by re-introducing so-called “experiment species” populations into areas that no longer qualify as habitat and lie outside the historic ranges of those species, which brings with it the full weight of the ESA in areas previously without federal government oversight.86 l Direct the Fish and Wildlife Service to design and implement an impartial conservation triage program by prioritizing the allocation of limited resources to maximize conservation returns, relative to the conservation goals, under a constrained budget.87 l Direct the Fish and Wildlife Service to make all data used in ESA decisions available to the public, with limited or no exceptions, to fulfill the public’s right to know and to prevent the agency’s previous opaque decision-making. l Abolish the Biological Resources Division of the U.S. Geological Survey and obtain necessary scientific research about species of concern from universities via competitive requests for proposals. l Direct the Fish and Wildlife Service to: (1) design and implement an Endangered Species Act program that ensures independent decision- making by ending reliance on so-called species specialists who have obvious self-interest, ideological bias, and land-use agendas; and (2) ensure conformity with the Information Quality Act.88 Office of Surface Mining. The Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) was created by the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA)89 to administer programs for controlling the impacts of surface coal mining operations. Although the coal industry is contracting, coal constitutes — 535 — Department of the Interior 20 percent of the nation’s electricity and is a mainstay of many regional economies. The following actions should ensure OSM’s ability to perform its mission while com- plying with SMCRA and without interfering with the production of high-quality American coal: l Relocate the OSM Reclamation and Enforcement headquarters to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, to recognize that the agency is field-driven and should be headquartered in the coal field.90 l Reduce the number of field coal-reclamation inspectors to recognize the industry is smaller. l Reissue Trump’s Schedule F executive order to permit discharge of nonperforming employees.91 l Permit coal company employees to benefit from the OSM Training Program, which is currently restricted to state and federal employees. l Revise the Applicant Violator System, the nationwide database for the federal and state programs, to permit federal and state regulators to consider extenuating circumstances. l Maintain the current “Ten-Day Notice” rule, which requires OSM to work with state regulators in determining if a SMCRA violation has taken place in recognition of the fact that a coal mining state with primacy has the lead in implementing state and federal law. l Preserve Directive INE-26, which relates to approximate original contour, a critical factor in permitting efficient and environmentally sound surface mining, especially in Appalachia.92 Western Water Issues. The American West, from the Great Plains to the Cas- cades Range, is arid, as recognized by John Wesley Powell during his famous trip across a large part of its length. Pursuant to an Executive Order signed by President Trump, and consistent with its authority along with other federal agencies, DOI’s Bureau of Reclamation must take the following actions: l Develop additional storage capacity across the arid west, including by: 1. Updating dam water control manuals for existing facilities during routine operations; and
Introduction
AI Analysis:
"The bill and Project 2025 policy are tangentially related through their focus on environmental management, but they have distinct objectives and approaches, with the bill aiming to control invasive species and the policy seeking to reform land management and regulatory frameworks. The alignment is weak due to the lack of direct overlap in their core goals."
— 524 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Rulemaking. The following policy reversals require rulemaking: l Rescind the Biden rules and reinstate the Trump rules regarding: 1. BLM waste prevention; 2. The Endangered Species Act rules defining Critical Habitat and Critical Habitat Exclusions;41 3. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act;42 and 4. CEQ reforms to NEPA.43 l Reinstate President Trump’s plan for opening most of the National Petroleum Reserve of Alaska to leasing and development. Personnel Changes. The new Administration should be able to draw on the enormous expertise of state agency personnel throughout the country who are capable and knowledgeable about land management and prove it daily. States are better resource managers than the federal government because they must live with the results. President Trump’s Schedule F proposal44 regarding accountability in hiring must be reinstituted to bring success to these reforms. Consistent with the theme of bringing successful state resource management examples to the forefront of federal policy, DOI should also look for opportunities to broaden state–federal and tribal–federal cooperative agreements. IMMEDIATE ACTIONS BLM Headquarters. BLM headquarters belongs in the American West. After all, the overwhelming majority of the 245 million surface acres (10 percent of the nation’s landmass) managed by the agency lies in the 11 western states and Alaska: A mere 50,000 surface acres lie elsewhere. Moreover, 97 percent of BLM employees are located in the American West. Thus, the Trump Administration’s decision to relocate BLM headquarters from Washington, D.C., to the West was the epitome of good governance: That is, it was not only well-informed, but it was also implemented efficiently, effectively, and with an eye toward affected career civil servants. Plus, despite overblown chatter from the inside-the-Beltway media, Congress, with bipartisan support, approved funding the move. Meanwhile, state, tribal, and local officials, the diverse collection of stakehold- ers who use public lands and western neighbors became accustomed to having top BLM decision-makers in Grand Junction, Colorado, rather than up to four
Introduction
AI Analysis:
"The bill and the Project 2025 policy are tangentially related through their focus on environmental management, but they do not share significant overlap in objectives, with the bill focusing on invasive species control and the policy emphasizing broader conservative reforms to land management and regulatory frameworks. The alignment is weak due to the distinct goals and themes presented in each document."
— 524 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Rulemaking. The following policy reversals require rulemaking: l Rescind the Biden rules and reinstate the Trump rules regarding: 1. BLM waste prevention; 2. The Endangered Species Act rules defining Critical Habitat and Critical Habitat Exclusions;41 3. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act;42 and 4. CEQ reforms to NEPA.43 l Reinstate President Trump’s plan for opening most of the National Petroleum Reserve of Alaska to leasing and development. Personnel Changes. The new Administration should be able to draw on the enormous expertise of state agency personnel throughout the country who are capable and knowledgeable about land management and prove it daily. States are better resource managers than the federal government because they must live with the results. President Trump’s Schedule F proposal44 regarding accountability in hiring must be reinstituted to bring success to these reforms. Consistent with the theme of bringing successful state resource management examples to the forefront of federal policy, DOI should also look for opportunities to broaden state–federal and tribal–federal cooperative agreements. IMMEDIATE ACTIONS BLM Headquarters. BLM headquarters belongs in the American West. After all, the overwhelming majority of the 245 million surface acres (10 percent of the nation’s landmass) managed by the agency lies in the 11 western states and Alaska: A mere 50,000 surface acres lie elsewhere. Moreover, 97 percent of BLM employees are located in the American West. Thus, the Trump Administration’s decision to relocate BLM headquarters from Washington, D.C., to the West was the epitome of good governance: That is, it was not only well-informed, but it was also implemented efficiently, effectively, and with an eye toward affected career civil servants. Plus, despite overblown chatter from the inside-the-Beltway media, Congress, with bipartisan support, approved funding the move. Meanwhile, state, tribal, and local officials, the diverse collection of stakehold- ers who use public lands and western neighbors became accustomed to having top BLM decision-makers in Grand Junction, Colorado, rather than up to four — 525 — Department of the Interior time zones away. All of them also appreciated that the BLM’s top subject matter experts were located not in the District of Columbia, but in the western states that most need their knowledge and expertise. Westerners no longer had to travel cross country to address BLM issues. Neither did officials in the West, closest to the resources and people they manage. On July 16, 2019, Secretary of the Interior David L. Bernhardt delivered to Con- gress the proposal for the relocation of nearly 600 BLM headquarters employees. On August 10, 2020, Secretary Bernhardt formally established the Robert F. Burford headquarters—named after the longest-serving BLM director, a Grand Junction native—with a staff of 41 senior officials and assistants. Another 76 positions were assigned to BLM state offices in western communities such as Billings, Montana; Boise, Idaho; Reno, Nevada; Salt Lake City, Utah; and Cheyenne, Wyoming, to meet critical needs. Scores of other positions were assigned to the states that required BLM expertise. For example, wild horse and burro professionals were relocated to Nevada, home to nearly 60 percent of these western icons. Sixty-one positions were retained in Washington, D.C., to address public, congressional, and regulatory affairs, Freedom of Information Act compliance, and budget development. Despite the dislocating impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, the BLM success- fully filled hundreds of long-vacant positions, as well as those that opened because of the move West. The BLM saw notable numbers of applicants for these positions— so numerous that the BLM capped the number of eligible applicants to no more than 50. Obviously, reduced commuting times (often from hours to mere minutes), lower cost of living, and opportunity to access vast public lands for recreation made these jobs attractive to potential employees. Many, if not most, applicants stated they would not have applied had the positions been based in Washington, D.C. At the same time, western positions attracted those with the skills needed to meet the BLM’s multiple-use, sustained-yield mandate, disproving the claim that the BLM was suffering a “brain drain.” The Trump Administration recognized that, despite its attractions, not every- one employed by BLM in Washington, D.C., could move West. The Administration applied a hands-on approach, with all-employee briefing and question-and-answer sessions, regular email communications, and a website devoted to frequently asked questions. Two human resources teams aided employees wishing to remain in federal jobs in the D.C. area: All received new opportunities. The BLM’s move West incurred no legal challenges, no formal Equal Employ- ment Opportunity or U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board complaints, and no adverse union activity. It is hard to please everyone, but the Trump Administra- tion’s BLM did just that, putting the lie to assertions, by some, that the BLM was trying to “fire” federal employees. The total cost of $17.9 million for relocation incentives, permanent change-of- station moves, temporary labor, travel, printing, rent, supplies, equipment, and
Showing 3 of 4 policy matches
About These Correlations
Policy matches are calculated using a hybrid approach: initial candidates are found using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text, then an AI model (Llama 3.1 70B) provides detailed alignment ratings and analysis. Ratings range from 1 (minimal alignment) to 5 (very strong alignment). This analysis does not imply direct causation or intent.
Related Bills
Other Bills by Rep. Case, Ed
American Seabed Protection Act
119/hr/664
To oppose the permitting of deep seabed mining and exploration for deep seabed mining, and for other purposes.
119/hr/663
To amend the Native American Tourism and Improving Visitor Experience Act to authorize grants to Indian tribes, tribal organizations, and Native Hawaiian organizations, and for other purposes.
119/hr/4276