Written by Justin Park|
Last updated
Wildlife is a public resource in the United States, which means it requires public funding. Cuts to conservation programs proposed by the White House across multiple federal agencies could have massive implications for the animals we hunt and observe on both public and private lands.
While the executive branch can't unilaterally cut programs and Congress will ultimately need to pass the next budget, conservation groups are sounding the alarm due to roughly $1.76 billion in cuts to wildlife and conservation funding in the next fiscal year.
What's on the chopping block?
Despite lip service for funding wildlife and conservation for the next 250 years via the "Make American Beautiful Again" initiative, the Trump administration released its suggestions for budget cuts on April 3 and they don't look good for wildlife.
The biggest cut comes from a proposal to reduce funding for NRCS Conservation Technical Assistance from nearly $700M in 2026 to $0 in 2027. These proposed cuts are surprising given the emphasis the White House has put on supporting public-private partnerships to support conservation.
A February Department of the Interior press release emphasized supporting voluntary, private conservation efforts as one of five key areas of emphasis for the White House's MABA vision specifically vowing to "promote voluntary private conservation efforts."
The NRCS Conservation Technical Assistance program is a great example of this type of support, but that wasn't enough to spare it from an administration in search of places to cut. According to the NRCS, the CTA "helps decision makers with the conservation planning process ranging from site-specific plans for individuals to more complex community, watershed, or area-wide plans for groups of land managers."
Farmers aren't happy about the proposed gutting of the CTA programs. The National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition called the proposed USDA budget "one of the most staggering disinvestments from farmers and rural communities in recent memory," in a release.
If it's any consolation, last year proposed cuts were decried by conservation and farming groups, and they ultimately were funded in the final budget.
What other conservation programs could go?
Other programs are proposed to be cut to zero as well, including U.S. Forest Service research programs to the tune of $308M and the USGS Ecosystems Mission Area research programs, totaling nearly $300M.
Environmental and outdoor groups have come out against the proposed cuts. “People are getting outside in record numbers, but the agencies that steward these places haven’t been given the resources to keep up,” said Jamie Ervin at the Outdoor Alliance.
For now, conservation advocates can take some comfort in the fact that these cuts are only proposals. A months-long process remains before the federal budget is finalized.
Justin Park is a Colorado-based writer, editor, and avid hunter with a passion for the outdoors. He contributes to leading publications such as GearJunkie, Popular Mechanics, Powder, and Men's Journal, and serves as Editor of Wild Snow. Park is deeply involved in conservation and recreation advocacy, serving as Chapter Chair of the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation (RMEF) in Summit County. He also represents RMEF on a state recreation committee focused on proactively addressing land use conflicts.