HR-7840-118
ASSUMING FIRST SPONSORSHIP - Mr. Lieu asked unanimous consent that he may hereafter be considered as the first sponsor of H.R. 7840, a bill originally introduced by Representative Jackson Lee, for the purpose of adding cosponsors and requesting reprintings pursuant to clause 7 of rule XII. Agreed to without objection.
What it does
This bill would amend the Endangered Species Act (ESA) to prohibit the killing of any threatened species for a trophy within the United States or its territorial waters, and would ban the importation of trophies from both threatened and endangered species into the United States. It would also remove the Secretary of the Interior's authority to issue permits allowing trophy hunting of any ESA-listed species. The bill defines "trophy" as any whole dead animal or recognizable part obtained under a hunting license or authorization from a state, foreign government, or private landowner.
Who benefits
Conservation organizations and wildlife advocates who oppose trophy hunting of imperiled species. Threatened and endangered wildlife populations that would face reduced hunting pressure. Ecotourism operators who profit from live wildlife viewing rather than hunting. Communities in range countries where trophy hunting revenue is contested or minimal. Anti-poaching enforcement agencies, who argue legal trophy trade provides cover for illegal wildlife trafficking networks. Future generations who may benefit from more stable populations of listed species.
Who is hurt
Trophy hunters who currently hold or seek permits to hunt threatened species domestically or abroad and import trophies. Outfitters, guides, and hunting tourism operators — both domestic and international — who depend on legal trophy hunting revenue. Some wildlife conservation programs in foreign countries that use regulated trophy hunting fees to fund anti-poaching efforts and habitat preservation. Private landowners in the U.S. who manage threatened species on their land and use hunting permits as a financial incentive for conservation. State wildlife agencies that issue hunting licenses and may lose a regulatory tool. Taxidermists and related businesses that process trophy animals.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that trophy hunting of imperiled species is counterproductive to conservation because hunters selectively target the largest, strongest males — removing individuals with the highest genetic and reproductive value from already-stressed populations. They contend that legal trophy trade, worth up to $20 billion annually in illegal wildlife markets, provides cover for criminal networks engaged in poaching and trafficking, and that the ESA's existing gap — automatically protecting endangered species from trophy take but not threatened species — creates an inconsistency that this bill closes. They further argue that the U.S., as a major destination for imported trophies, has both the authority and responsibility to use its market power to reduce demand for parts of species already at risk of extinction.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that regulated trophy hunting, when properly managed, generates direct financial incentives for landowners and governments to preserve habitat and fund anti-poaching operations — and that removing this revenue stream could paradoxically harm the species the bill intends to protect. They contend that the bill's blanket prohibition eliminates the Secretary's permit authority even in cases where scientific evidence supports that a limited take would not harm the species' survival, stripping wildlife managers of a flexible conservation tool. They also argue that the bill's import ban reaches conduct occurring entirely in foreign countries, raising questions about its practical enforceability and potential diplomatic friction with nations that rely on hunting tourism revenue.
Constitutional context
The bill rests on Congress's Commerce Clause authority (Art. I, §8, cl. 3), which has long supported the ESA and federal regulation of wildlife imports and exports. Post-Loper Bright (2024), any implementing regulations issued under the bill's new provisions would face independent judicial scrutiny rather than agency deference, though the bill itself directly amends the statute rather than delegating broad rulemaking authority, which reduces — but does not eliminate — major questions doctrine exposure under West Virginia v. EPA (2022).
Checks and balances
Congress gains authority by directly amending the ESA and removing the executive branch's (Secretary of the Interior's) discretion to issue trophy hunting permits; judicial review remains available to challengers, and the antiques exemption preserved in the bill provides a narrow carve-out limiting the prohibition's reach.
Historical precedent
The African Elephant Conservation Act (1988) and the Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Act (1994) established precedents for Congress restricting imports of specific wildlife products, though neither imposed a blanket trophy import ban across all ESA-listed threatened species.