Blog

The Senate delivered some good news for Americorps. The appropriations committee approved a spending bill that funds AmeriCorps at close to FY2025 levels. This means we’re a step closer to saving thousands of service positions every year that protect nature and manage our public lands.

This is encouraging considering the circumstances. The Trump administration has been trying to dismantle Americorps. Trump proposed eliminating  AmeriCorps entirely in his 2026 budget request. Thankfully, the Senate, in bipartisan fashion, rejected Trump’s extreme cuts.

Voices for National Service, the leading advocate specifically for AmeriCorps, expressed optimism after the outcome.  According to President AnnMaura Connolly:

We’re encouraged by the Senate Appropriations Committee’s bipartisan agreement to protect AmeriCorps funding. It’s a positive signal, and we deeply appreciate Chairwoman Capito and Ranking Member Baldwin’s leadership in securing that support.

However, this is just one step in a long appropriations process. Next step: the House will release their spending bill for AmeriCorps. And these bills will then need to be approved by the full chambers, reconciled with each other,  and signed by the president. So it’s a long road ahead.

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.

There are some awful parts to the House bills.  And environmental groups have been understandably focusing on this. First, the bill makes major cuts to the EPA. I’m not trying to downplay the importance of these cuts, but they fall outside my analysis of public land agencies.

The bill also includes many anti-conservation riders. These are “add ons” to the bill that have nothing to do with spending.  For example, there are riders that attempt to place limits on management of certain endangered species like the lesser prairie-chicken. We need to strip 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.

Conservation agencies can breathe a little easier… for now. Congressional committees have largely rejected Trump’s extreme spending cuts for Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

In April, the Trump administration released a 2026 budget request that proposed radical cuts to many conservation agencies and programs. NRCS was slated for a massive 87% funding cut. The administration proposed eliminating NOAA’s entire research division (OAR). Other conservation agencies were facing extreme cuts as well—at least on paper.

But Congress holds the power of the purse. Congressional committees are right now drafting the 2026 spending bills—legislation that will require 60 votes to pass in the Senate. The big question agencies were facing: would Congress follow the president’s desire for severe cuts or would bipartisanship and common sense keep agency funding in line with past years?

The House and Senate Committees on Agriculture, which oversee NRCS funding, have released their draft 2026 spending bills. The Senate bill maintains NRCS discretionary spending at 2025 levels. The House bill cuts funding about 5%.

The House committee overseeing NOAA released an early version of its spending bill. It’s not all good news. The House bill makes significant cuts to NOAA. Total spending is cut 8% or $540 million below 2024 levels. But this is much less than the $1.8 billion in cuts to NOAA (below 2024 levels) sought by Trump.

The House bill currently doesn’t provide much detail on specific programs. However, we can see that it fully funds the Pacific Salmon Recovery Fund which Trump had proposed eliminating.  And NOAA’s top line number in the bill likely means that NOAA Research is safe.

We also don’t know if this trend will hold for the other committees that have yet to release their spending bills. This includes the Interior-Environment Committees that oversee agencies like the National Park Service. But the early news is promising.

Below I have updated the list of conservation funding at-risk:

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.

3) National Park Service

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

Discussion: These are steep cuts for an already underfunded agency. It would likely result in the closure or reduced visiting hours of many sites.

4) Bureau of Land Management – Conservation Funding

• FY25 Funding Amount:  $758 million
• FY26 Trump Proposal:  $395 million  ($362 million cut), 48% decrease. 
• FY26 House Draft Bill:
• FY26 Senate Draft Bill:
• FY26 Final Spending Bill:

Discussion: For this funding area, I’m combining the divisions within the BLM responsible for land management and conservation: a) Land Resources, b) Wildlife Habitat Management & Aquatic Resources, c) Recreation Management, d) Resource Protection & Maintenance, and e) National Conservation Lands.

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.

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:
• 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).

6) USFWS – Wildlife Conservation Grants 

• FY25 Funding Amount:  $169 million
• FY26 Trump Proposal:  $0.00 ($169 million cut). 100% decrease. 
• FY26 House Draft Bill:
• 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.

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:
• FY26 Senate Draft Bill:
• FY26 Final Spending Bill:

Discussion: Trump is proposing eliminating the US Forest Service’s Experimental Forests and Ranges.

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:
• FY26 Senate Draft Bill:
• FY26 Final Spending Bill:

Discussion:  Trump wants to completely eliminate US Forest Service’s State, Private, Tribal Forestry.

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:
• 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).

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

*  I can’t find FY2025 funding data for NOAA, only 2024 data. I will update when I find it.

• FY24 Funding Amount:  $6.336 billion*
• FY26 Trump Proposal:  $4.513  billion ($1.823 billion cut), 28.77% decrease.  
• FY26 House Draft Bill:  $5.795 billion ($601 million cut), 8.54 %decrease. 
• FY26 Senate Draft Bill:
• 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.

12) NOAA – Oceanic And Atmospheric Research (OAR) 

• FY24 Funding Amount:  $738 million
• FY26 Trump Proposal:  $0.00  ($738 million cut), 100% decrease.  
• FY26 House Draft Bill:
• FY26 Senate Draft Bill:
• 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.

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:
• 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:
• 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.

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:
• 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.

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:
• 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.

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:
• FY26 Final Spending Bill:

Discussion: The House draft bill rejects Trump’s cuts to the Pacific Salmon Recovery Fund and maintains funding at prior levels.

As we move through July, the field of nature conservation faces its most critical moment so far of the 2nd Trump presidency.

Congress has been drafting the fiscal year spending bills for 2026. The House and Senate committees are releasing their draft appropriations bills as I type this.

In normal years, this would be a very important moment. These bills set the annual spending and staffing for our nation’s conservation agencies and programs.

But this summer, the stakes are higher than Denali. Several critical programs in nature conservation face a battle for survival. Other programs are staring down steep cuts.

Trump wants to use the budget to officially eliminate many conservation programs.

Congress holds the power of the purse—it decides what goes in the spending bills. But the president always releases a budget request that sets the administration’s priorities.

In Trump’s budget request, he proposes either outright elimination or insanely, steep cuts to many agency programs. On the chopping block—AmeriCorps, NOAA research programs, USGS research programs, USFWS grant programs, and more.

This makes the upcoming legislation a high-stakes moment. If Congress adopts Trump’s proposal for steep cuts, it will codify what DOGE has been trying to do illegally—dismantle conservation agencies and programs. Conversely, if Congress rejects these cuts and maintains funding at 2025 levels, it makes the administration’s destructive efforts much harder.

The good news is we can stop this.

These spending bills will require 60 votes for passage in the Senate. That means Republicans need to negotiate with Democrats to the pass the bills.

But a couple of big questions await. First, will Republican leadership in the Senate and the House carry the president’s water and push for steep cuts? Or will they follow their conscience and the interests of their constituents? Second, will Democrats use their leverage to get the best spending deal possible for conservation. Or will they fold?

Conservation supporters can still play a role in the outcome. Now is the time to speak LOUD AND CLEAR that we will not accept any signficant cuts to conservation agencies or programs.

VICTORY = NO FUNDING CUTS TO CONSERVATION.

So what are the funding battles we need to win?

Below I outline key funding areas in conservation that are facing either steep cuts or outright elimination.

I include: A) the approved funding levels from FY25, and B) Trump’s proposed funding for FY26.

I also will include: C) the House and D) the Senate FY26 Spending Bills—as their latest versions are released.

As the process rolls along, I will continue to post updates with new numbers from the House, Senate, and—ultimately—the final bills.

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.

3) National Park Service

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

Discussion: These are steep cuts for an already underfunded agency. It would likely result in the closure or reduced visiting hours of many sites.

4) Bureau of Land Management – Conservation Funding

• FY25 Funding Amount:  $758 million
• FY26 Trump Proposal:  $395 million  ($362 million cut), 48% decrease. 
• FY26 House Draft Bill:
• FY26 Senate Draft Bill:
• FY26 Final Spending Bill:

Discussion: For this funding area, I’m combining the divisions within the BLM responsible for land management and conservation: a) Land Resources, b) Wildlife Habitat Management & Aquatic Resources, c) Recreation Management, d) Resource Protection & Maintenance, and e) National Conservation Lands.

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.

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:
• 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).

6) USFWS – Wildlife Conservation Grants 

• FY25 Funding Amount:  $169 million
• FY26 Trump Proposal:  $0.00 ($169 million cut). 100% decrease. 
• FY26 House Draft Bill:
• 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.

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:
• FY26 Senate Draft Bill:
• FY26 Final Spending Bill:

Discussion: Trump is proposing eliminating the US Forest Service’s Experimental Forests and Ranges.

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:
• FY26 Senate Draft Bill:
• FY26 Final Spending Bill:

Discussion:  Trump wants to completely eliminate US Forest Service’s State, Private, Tribal Forestry.

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:
• 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).

10) Natural Resource Conservation Service 

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

Discussion: Trump is proposing massive cuts here to NRCS – an agency that provides important conservation services to rural landowners across the US.

11) NOAA – Oceanic And Atmospheric Research (OAR)

*  I can’t find FY2025 funding data for NOAA. I will update when I find it.

• FY24 Funding Amount:  $738 million*
• FY26 Trump Proposal:  $0.00  ($738 million cut), 100% decrease.  
• FY26 House Draft Bill:
• FY26 Senate Draft Bill:
• 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.

12) 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:
• 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.

13) 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:
• FY26 Final Spending Bill:

Discussion: This falls under (12) 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.

14) 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:
• FY26 Final Spending Bill:

Discussion: This falls under (12) 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.

15) 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:
• 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.

16) NOAA – Pacific Coast Salmon Recovery Fund

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

Discussion:  Trump wants to eliminate this important program established in 2000 to reverse the decline of Pacific salmon populations in California, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and Alaska

A federal judge handed AmeriCorps advocates a temporary victory in their fight to save the embattled program.

On July 7, Judge Matthew Maddox ordered the Trump Administration to reinstate 400 terminated AmeriCorps employees.

In April, the administration laid off 85% of the agency—600 employees in total—placing the majority on administrative leave.

This move was part of Trump’s ongoing effort to eliminate AmeriCorps. The layoffs have left the agency inoperable.

This suit was filed by AmeriCorps Employees Union Local 2027 and only covers union members.

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court issued a ruling that gives the green light to the administration to proceed with its planned reductions in force. It is unclear if the Supreme Court decision affects Maddox’s order.

These rulings follow another recent victory for AmeriCorps.

On June 5, US District Judge Deborah Boardman ordered the administration to release $400 million in AmeriCorps grant funding it had canceled in April. However, that decision only applied to the 24 Democrat-led states + DC that had filed suit.

Maddox’s decision also orders the administration to release $400 million in cancelled grant funding. However, it is unclear if this ruling only applies to the 14 nonprofit organizations that joined the union in filing suit.

Both AmeriCorps rulings are only temporary injunctions while these cases continue through the courts—a process that can take many months.

The Senate rule keeper has nixed a Republican provision to sell upwards of 3 million acres of public lands. The Parliamentarian ruled that the measure falls outside what is allowable in the reconciliation process that enables the Senate to pass Trump’s “big, beautiful” bill with just a simple majority.

The public land sale proposal, championed by Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) sparked broad, bipartisan outrage. When a land sale provision gets the thumbs-down from Senator Mike Crapo (R-Idaho),  you know it’s deeply unpopular.

See: Public Lands – Attempt To Sell Off in our Nature Under Trump tracker.

Lee announced changes to his idea last night – as a last ditch effort to save his unpopular initiative. His new proposal would exempt Forest Service land and reduce the total acreage sold. We need to keep up the pressure to make sure Lee’s updated provision stays out of the bill.

The chances for success are looking increasingly difficult for a Republican proposal to sell up to 3 million acres of public lands.

See: Public Lands – Attempt To Sell Off in our Nature Under Trump tracker.

The provision was inserted by Mike Lee (R) of Utah into the Senate’s version of Trump’s “big, beautiful” bill.

Yesterday, both of Idaho’s senators – Jim Risch (R) and Mike Crapo (R) – came out in opposition to the proposal.

They were joined yesterday by both senators of Montana, Steve Daines (R) and Tim Sheehy (R), who also said they now oppose the measure.

This shows the success of the field of the conservation in organizing and uniting broad opposition across the political spectrum against the sale of public lands.

The proposal sparked a massive backlash including from Western hunters who represent a large voting continent in Idaho and Montana.

It’s hard to see how Lee’s proposal survives the opposition from Western state Republicans. Nevertheless, for public land advocates, now is not the time to let the foot off the gas.

We need to continue putting maximum public focus on this issue – not just to kill the provision, but to make the idea of selling public lands so politically toxic that even Heritage Foundation sycophants know not to pursue it ever again.

 

View our tracker: Nature Under Trump — tracking Trump’s impacts on nature conservation.

On June 5, 2025, a federal judge in Maryland issued an order blocking the Administration’s cancellation of AmericCorps grants and early termination of corps members. Unfortunately, this block only applies in the 24 states and the District of Columbia that filed suit. The judge also denied the states’ request to restore the 85% of AmeriCorps agency staff that were placed on leave in April.

Nevertheless, the overall ruling is good news. It should mean that thousands of early discharged AmeriCorps members can return to service, if they are still interested. And funding should be restored to AmeriCorps service organizations that have been hit hard by the cuts. Of course all of this depends on the administration abiding by the ruling.