13. Environmental Protection Agency · Notable · Needs Congress
Reform the Endangered Species Act as applied to pesticides
Printed page 435 13. Environmental Protection Agency
“ESA reform for pesticides is necessary. When approving pesticides, FIFRA allows for cost-benefit balancing, recognizing that pesticides are effective precisely because they harm pests. However, the ESA does not allow for any consideration of the beneficial effects of pesticides.”
What has happened
- Not started
Congress did not reform the Endangered Species Act as it applies to pesticides. Nothing in the 119th Congress addresses the Quote's point — that FIFRA allows cost-benefit balancing while the ESA does not permit consideration of a pesticide's beneficial effects. The ESA bills that moved are about other things: H.R. 1897, the ESA Amendments Act of 2025, was given a closed rule by the Rules Committee on 2026-04-20 and has had no floor vote, and the pesticide bills introduced (S. 2324, H.R. 10144, H.R. 10145) run the other way, toward liability and research requirements.
No action found yet. This entry is the starting point, not a finding.
Research log
What was searched, and what didn’t count as evidence
Research notes
- One negative search covered the OCSPP chemicals and pesticides asks on pp. 433-435.
- A search of the bill titles we keep and search for “Endangered Species”, “Pesticide”, “FIFRA” and “Registration Improvement” returns 24 measures; none is an ESA-for-pesticides reform. For an ask that needs an act of Congress, only passage by a chamber moves it off not started, so a Rules Committee resolution does not: H.R. 1897 stays at not started.
- The Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA rescission of the ESA definition of “harm” is an ESA action in the window but is not the pesticide reform this Quote asks for, and is not EPA’s; progress is measured on this ask, not on an adjacent one.
- Action
- other
- Object
- Endangered Species Act requirements for pesticides
- ID
- 1150