\u201cThe key term is \u2018unintended consequences,\u2019\u201d says the source, who asked not to be named because they don\u2019t have permission to speak on behalf of their clients. \u201cWhen we can prove that DOGE [Department of Government Efficiency] cuts and funding cuts have had harmful unintended consequences for our ability to deliver on the things that Trump cares about, then the [cabinet] secretaries have found ways to [restore budgets or avoid cutting].\u201d<\/p>\n
That\u2019s the case with a portfolio of habitat-stewardship projects approved by Congress and funded during the Biden administration. Called \u201ckeystone partnership contracts,\u201d they have directed over $100 million in federal funds to non-governmental conservation organizations, including the National Wild Turkey Federation, Mule Deer Foundation, and Ruffed Grouse Society, among others. The conservation NGOs use those funds, much of which was authorized in the Inflation Reduction Act, to hire private contractors to reduce wildfire risk while enhancing wildlife habitat. These projects have the dual benefit of keeping some species, sage grouse among them, away from federal protection while also injecting revenue in rural economies.<\/p>\n
While some of those stewardship projects were initially paused, they\u2019ve resumed, say sources. Mark Hatfield, NWTF\u2019s director of conservation, says that the Turkey Federation\u2019s $50 million master stewardship work has continued unimpeded.<\/p>\n
For many retired federal employees, however, the outlook is dire. For current federal employees, the situation is so uncertain and fraught that most contacted for this story were unwilling to comment, even on background. Non-governmental organizations are working to remain in good standing with the administration in order to continue their conservation mission.<\/p>\n
\u201cCalling out this administration doesn\u2019t work, especially because they\u2019re lame ducks\u201d who don\u2019t have to worry about facing voters in four years and are therefore unresponsive to popular discontent, says an insider who works with conservation groups and federal land-management agencies. \u201cIf you attack them publicly all you\u2019re doing is taking yourself off the battlefield for the next four years.\u201d<\/p>\n
Implications to conservation infrastructure fall into three main categories: staffing cuts achieved by DOGE reforms, budget cuts required by spending limits imposed by the Trump administration, and executive orders signed by President Trump. Here\u2019s how each is shaping the outlook for hunting, fishing, wildlife conservation, and outdoor recreation so far in the Trump presidency.<\/p>\n
The Price of Personnel Cuts<\/h2>\n
Steve Williams, the former USFWS director appointed by George W. Bush in 2002, says the wave of firings, offers of early retirement, and worries over the elimination of positions are paralyzing the USFWS and other conservation-oriented agencies.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe structures and mechanics to deliver conservation in America took a century to build, and they\u2019re being torn down in a month or two,\u201d says Williams, who also served as secretary of the Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks and later as president of the Wildlife Management Institute. \u201cDurable conservation is built on the successes and failures of the past. There doesn\u2019t appear to be any process, any plan, any research, or analysis. It\u2019s just chopping positions and programs and grant programs. Efficiency implies that there\u2019s some positive return on action taken. I don\u2019t see any positive return.\u201d<\/p>\n Staffing and funding cuts will hamstring the National Wildlife Refuge System, says Ron Cole, the retired manager of Oregon\u2019s Upper Klamath National Wildlife Refuge. Upper Klamath, along with Lower Klamath, was established in 1908 by President Theodore Roosevelt as the first American refuge dedicated to waterfowl conservation.<\/p>\n \u201cThe refuge system as a whole has taken a 30 percent staffing hit over the past 10 to 15 years,\u201d says Cole. \u201cNow between actual cuts and people taking an early out, that\u2019s another 20-25 percent. That doesn\u2019t count those federal employees who are too scared to do their jobs. Overall, it means fewer hands on deck, but you\u2019re also losing folks who steer the ship, and who make the ship go. On Klamath, you\u2019re talking about losing people who move water at critical times of the year. You will definitely see a hit to the resource, either birds that don\u2019t stay on the refuge or that aren\u2019t available for hunters or closures of visitor centers and reduction in access.\u201d<\/p>\n State agencies that depend on funding from the wildlife and fisheries restoration accounts, called Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson, respectively, are reporting stoppages or slow-downs in payment, say directors of two wildlife agencies who asked not to be named. Both PR and DJ funds are collected and distributed to state and tribal fish-and-wildlife programs by the USFWS. These funds are critical for supporting state habitat work, public-land acquisitions, stocking programs, hunter education, new shooting ranges, and much more.<\/p>\n \u201cThere\u2019s a trickle-down effect\u201d of this stymied conservation funding, says Williams. \u201cThe [federal] folks who review projects and grants can\u2019t keep up because of staffing cuts, which means reimbursement to state agencies for work that has already been done will be delayed. That means that states\u2019 projects for habitat work or access acquisition or basic wildlife management will suffer. Ultimately, hunters and anglers are going to pay the price in less access, less opportunity, and less service from state agencies.\u201d<\/p>\n Beyond staffing cuts at USFWS, conservation grant money is being held in limbo because of two new review mechanisms, says a Department of Interior employee who was not authorized to talk to the media. The first is a red-flag word list that all open grants (including those submitted last fall) are being checked against. If language within a grant application includes words on the list, it gets flagged for additional review.<\/p>\n However, this automated process will erroneously flag grants, says the DOI source. For example, a grant that uses the term \u201cbiodiversity\u201d could be flagged because it includes the word \u201cdiversity.\u201d It\u2019s unclear how long these flagged grants will remain under review.<\/p>\n The second reason for the hold up is that conservation grants are now subject to extra layers of tracking and require a higher level of approval. If grants are delayed much longer, it could create serious issues on the ground for state wildlife agencies, says the DOI source.<\/p>\n \u201cUnder previous administrations the states would be submitting their invoices, we\u2019d be reviewing them, and states would be getting their money within 30 days. Typically those invoices are coming in at regular intervals throughout the year. It\u2019s a very predictable pattern of when money is released to them,\u201d the DOI source says. \u201cWe are in a position right now where money has not been obligated to the states since October 1 [in at least one of our regions]. So we\u2019re well beyond what a normal return time would be for the states. And we\u2019re rapidly approaching the point where many states have their fiscal year starting, which is July 1.\u201d<\/p>\n A potential federal government shutdown only makes the timeline more uncertain.<\/p>\n But this much is certain: If grant money does not start flowing by the start of states\u2019 new fiscal year, any state wildlife agency that relies mostly on PR, DJ, and license dollars for their revenue will have to make some tough choices. Federal grant money funds not only state conservation projects and programs, but also state agency staff positions.<\/p>\n \u201cSo the outcome would include people potentially not receiving salaries because those salaries are tied to federal grants, as well as the work itself not getting done. It\u2019s hard to do a prescribed burn when you don\u2019t have the funding to pay for the personnel and equipment that it requires,\u201d the DOI source says.<\/p>\n Williams speculates that even programs as popular and effective as hunter education could be affected.<\/p>\n \u201cSome folks in Washington may interpret hunter education as a DEI program,\u201d he says. \u201cWhat? It\u2019s a program designed to be more inclusive of the folks who hunt. It\u2019s hard to imagine that DEI would trip up hunter education, but that\u2019s the level of nonsense we\u2019re dealing with.\u201d<\/p>\n The DOI source says that hopefully the Trump administration will soon recognize that the wildlife and fisheries restoration accounts are self-funding and historically successful.<\/p>\n \u201cThe entire PR and DJ apparatus is self funded by hunters, anglers, and recreational shooters,\u201d says the source. \u201cAny cuts to PR, DJ, or the programs that administer them will have no bearing on the national budget or national deficit. All they will do is make more work for the people who are left and slow things down for the states.\u201d<\/p>\n Apart from the impacts of staffing cuts are the elimination of conservation programs or reductions in the capacity of programs.<\/p>\n Beyond the USFWS\u2019s black-footed ferret program, work to update operational guidelines for the seven-state Colorado River management plan has reportedly been suspended, not only because of deep staffing cuts but because the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act earmarked $4 billion for water management in the region. That funding has been paused by executive order.<\/p>\n Most cooperative research grants that provide federal funds to universities have similarly been ended or paused.<\/p>\n \u201cThose cooperative research units represent the direct connection between all partners in conservation, to deal with real-world, applied problems,\u201d says Williams. \u201cI don\u2019t know who will fill that gap. Well, sure I do. There isn\u2019t anybody to fill that gap.\u201d<\/p>\n President Trump signed at least 73 executive orders in his first month in office, and many of them have direct impacts to conservation funding and programs.<\/p>\n Two of those EOs, to rescind Biden administration actions and to end diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs and preferences, have had their own \u201cunintended consequences,\u201d says the governmental-affairs lobbyist.<\/p>\n \u201cThe keystone [habitat] agreements had a little bit of a problem because those forest-products contracts had boiler-plate language that said the government would not discriminate in awarding contracts based on race, identity, or gender,\u201d they say. \u201cWell, that got rolled up in DEI and contracts got identified in a keyword search and kicked out that ultimately are consistent with administration policy to reduce ladder fuels, make healthier forests, and increase timber production.\u201d<\/p>\n When those goals were pointed out to the administration, those specific contracts were approved, even though some are in apparent disagreement with executive orders. Adding to the turnabout was a federal judge\u2019s ruling that the Trump administration must make payments to foreign aid contractors even after the president shut down the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The government is similarly on the hook to conservation organizations that have already paid stewardship contractors through keystone agreements.<\/p>\n Sources confirmed that payments made through Forest Service agreements resumed last week after a brief shutdown. Stewardship payments made through BLM agreements remain unpaid, says a source familiar with the details.<\/p>\n Executive Order 14154, titled Unleashing American Energy, immediately pauses the \u201cdisbursement of funds appropriated through the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022.\u201d That order also held up stewardship funds, which were ultimately restored after lobbyists and critter-group CEOs navigated personal relationships on Capitol Hill and within the White House.<\/p>\n EO 14154 has a further worry for conservationists. It eliminates regulatory barriers to energy and mineral production on lands and waters. Its language \u201cnarrows the scope of what science may be used and carefully avoids the use of terms like \u2018best available science\u2019 which carry legal meaning through regulations and years of established case law,\u201d observes The Wildlife Society\u2019s Cameron Kovach in a wide-reaching analysis of Trump\u2019s executive orders.<\/p>\n Another EO, 14156, declares a national energy emergency and allows the Interior Secretary to suspend or modify enforcement of the Endangered Species Act in order to expedite energy-related projects and activities. Significantly, it requires the ESA Committee to meet no less than quarterly. Sometimes called the \u201cGod Squad,\u201d this group of bureaucrats has congressional authority to overrule the ESA in order to approve specific projects. The God Squad has met only a handful of times in the 52-year history of the ESA. Given its required frequency of meetings and the number of energy projects that have previously been constrained by ESA concerns, this EO could upend five decades of conservation successes, say sources.<\/p>\n Related: The Endangered Species Act Has Been \u2018Warped by Decades of Radical Environmental Litigation,\u2019 Says Lawmaker Who Wants to Overhaul It<\/p>\n Combined with EO 14192, \u201cUnleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation,\u201d and a handful of other executive orders, the administration seeks to shrink the country\u2019s regulatory framework by requiring that any time an agency proposes a regulation \u201cit shall identify at least 10 existing regulations to be repealed.\u201d<\/p>\n The Wildlife Society\u2019s Kovach notes that the cumulative impact of these orders \u201ccould soon have significant effects on environment regulations through the elimination of various protections and standards related to air and water quality, forever chemicals, endangered species, migratory birds, and more.\u201d<\/p>\n The conservation lobbyist says that the first months of the Trump administration have been an exercise in retail politics.<\/p>\n \u201cFirst, you have to know someone in the administration who will take a meeting,\u201d they say. \u201cSecond, you have to have your talking points in order. You have to collect, synthesize, and quickly deploy information to inform their future decisions or retract their past decisions, but it\u2019s a guessing game because administration priorities are not being rolled out in a principled or objective way.\u201d<\/p>\n But the lobbyist is optimistic that many conservation priorities will ultimately prevail, both because they align with Trump\u2019s small-government agenda and because they reflect values of the rural voters who elected him.<\/p>\n \u201cUnderstand that this administration is full of very metric-driven people,\u201d they say. \u201cOnce they get through this first phase of reductions and efficiencies, they\u2019re going to have unrealistic, ridiculous metrics for agencies to hit to achieve their statutory mission. In order to meet those goals, [agencies] are going to have to rely on partners, like Pheasants Forever, Ruffed Grouse Society, Mule Deer Federation, and RMEF to deliver. These groups can contract faster. They can get NEPA [National Environmental Policy Act reviews] done faster, they can get categorical exclusions approved more quickly. So there\u2019s going to be an increased reliance on established partners that have proven to be bipartisan, that have been willing to work with the past Trump administration, and that have a track record of delivering conservation benefits.\u201d<\/p>\n In other words, we may be approaching a golden age for non-governmental conservation groups, so long as they play by the administration\u2019s rules. Conservation delivery may shift from the public sector to the private sector under Trump\u2019s watch.<\/p>\n Will that work bolster or erode the conservation infrastructure that\u2019s been carefully built and maintained over the past century?<\/p>\n \u201cI\u2019d ask the average hunter and angler that question that you hear every presidential election cycle: Are you better off than you were four years ago?\u201d says Williams. \u201cIt may be too early to tell, and some of these changes may take a year or so to show up. But I\u2019m a hunter and a fisherman, and you can bet I\u2019ll be watching. If things go to hell, I know who I\u2019m going to blame.\u201d<\/p>\n This article<\/a> by Andrew McKean was first published by Outdoor Life on 12 March 2025. Lead Image: A USFWS employee in an NWR. Photo by Alexis Bonogofsky \/ USFWS. Wildlife continues to face threats from overexploitation in the form of poaching and illegal trade in animal products, as well as a rapidly changing climate.<\/p>\n Due to growing threats, 70% of all animal and plant species are at risk of extinction by 2050.<\/p>\n With your donation, our conservation partners<\/a> can continue to motivate millions of people worldwide to take action that protects and preserves wildlife at risk.<\/p>\nConservation Funding on Hold<\/h2>\n
Funding Cuts<\/h2>\n
Executive Order Implications<\/h2>\n
Transactional Politics<\/h2>\n
\n<\/i><\/p>\nWhat you can do<\/h2>\n