Wildlife Confiscations Network Act of 2025

Bill Number: H.R. 3538
Origin Chamber: House
Congress: 119th Congress, Session 1
Policy Area: Public Lands and Natural Resources
Status: Introduced
Latest Action: 2025-06-24: Subcommittee Hearings Held
Last Updated: 2026-07-01T08:09:08Z

AI-Generated Summary

Purpose of the Legislation

The Wildlife Confiscations Network Act of 2025 aims to combat illegal wildlife trafficking by establishing a nationwide network to coordinate the care, placement, and welfare of animals seized at U.S. borders or ports. It builds on a successful pilot program in southern California to relieve federal agencies of logistical burdens, allowing them to focus on enforcement while ensuring proper handling of confiscated animals.

Key Provisions

Findings Section: Outlines the threats posed by wildlife trafficking to national security, economic development, and U.S. laws; references existing laws like the Lacey Act (which bans illegal trade in fish, wildlife, and plants) and a 2017 executive order on transnational crime; highlights the high volume of seizures (e.g., nearly 30 animals per day from 2015–2019) and the success of a 2023 pilot network that placed over 4,100 animals in care.
Definitions: Defines key terms, including:
CITES species: Animals listed under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (an international treaty regulating trade in endangered species).
Confiscated animal: Individuals of CITES or threatened/endangered species (as listed under the Endangered Species Act of 1973) seized at borders and placed in care facilities.
Qualified animal care facility: Accredited zoos, aquariums, sanctuaries, rescue organizations, universities, or NGOs with experience in caring for such animals.
Secretary: The Secretary of the Interior, acting through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Director.
Establishment of the Network (Section 4): Directs the Secretary to create a voluntary, cooperative program called the Wildlife Confiscations Network, partnered with a professional accrediting zoological association (e.g., Association of Zoos and Aquariums). The Network's functions include:
Developing protocols for animal care and welfare.
Maintaining a database of qualified facilities for triage (immediate care) and long-term housing.
Forming a committee to review and approve facility applications.
Serving as a single contact point for federal law enforcement to place animals while preserving evidence chain of custody (legal documentation ensuring evidence integrity).
Membership and Committee Structure:
Eligible entities (e.g., sanctuaries, zoos, universities, NGOs) can apply, providing proof of permits, licenses, and expertise.
The Committee (with 7 members from USFWS, zoological groups, and care facilities) reviews applications; initial members are appointed by the Secretary, with subsequent elections; terms range from 1–3 years.
Funding: Authorizes $5 million annually for fiscal years 2026–2030 to implement the Network.

Significant Changes to Existing Law

This bill introduces a new nationwide framework for handling confiscated wildlife, expanding a regional pilot into a coordinated federal program. It does not amend core laws like the Lacey Act or Endangered Species Act but supplements them by shifting non-enforcement tasks (e.g., animal care) to private partners, aligning with federal guidelines like OMB Circular A-76 (which encourages outsourcing non-core government functions). No direct repeals or overrides of existing statutes are specified.

Potential Impacts

On Government Agencies: Eases burdens on USFWS, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, and other border enforcement teams by providing specialized care options, reducing holding capacity issues at ports (e.g., in Los Angeles, Miami, and southern borders), and allowing focus on investigations and prosecutions. Could improve efficiency in handling quarantines and evidence preservation.
On Citizens: Indirectly benefits the public by strengthening efforts against wildlife trafficking, which threatens biodiversity and supports organized crime; enhances animal welfare standards for seized species, potentially reducing risks to domestic livestock and ecosystems.
On International Relations: Bolsters U.S. compliance with treaties like CITES, improving coordination on global trafficking issues and signaling commitment to anti-trafficking efforts, which could aid diplomatic relations with countries combating transnational crime.

Main Stakeholders Affected

Federal Agencies: USFWS (leads implementation), border enforcement (e.g., Customs officers benefit from streamlined processes).
Animal Care Providers: Zoos, aquariums, sanctuaries, rescue organizations, universities, and NGOs (gain opportunities to participate and receive funding support).
Law Enforcement and Prosecutors: Benefit from better evidence handling and faster placements, aiding wildlife crime cases.
International Partners: Countries involved in CITES and anti-trafficking efforts, through enhanced U.S. border controls and repatriation options.
Broader Public: Conservationists, animal welfare advocates, and communities near ports (affected by trafficking volumes).

Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications

Legal: Reinforces enforcement of existing statutes like the Lacey Act without creating new penalties; emphasizes maintaining evidentiary integrity to support prosecutions. The voluntary network structure avoids mandating private entity participation, reducing potential liability issues.
Constitutional: No apparent conflicts; supports federal authority over interstate and international commerce (under the Commerce Clause) and animal welfare in enforcement contexts. Outsourcing aligns with established practices for governmental functions.
Political: Bipartisan introduction (by Reps. Garbarino and Quigley) reflects broad congressional commitment to national security and conservation; references a prior executive order (from 2017) but focuses on non-partisan goals like crime prevention and animal care. Expansion nationwide could influence future appropriations debates on environmental enforcement.

This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.

Sponsor

Rep. Garbarino, Andrew R. [R-NY-2]

Cosponsors (21)

Rep. Quigley, Mike [D-IL-5], Rep. Costa, Jim [D-CA-21], Rep. Krishnamoorthi, Raja [D-IL-8], Rep. Elfreth, Sarah [D-MD-3], Rep. Carbajal, Salud O. [D-CA-24], Rep. Brownley, Julia [D-CA-26], Rep. Correa, J. Luis [D-CA-46], Rep. Smith, Adam [D-WA-9], Rep. Carter, Earl L. "Buddy" [R-GA-1], Rep. Ruiz, Raul [D-CA-25], Rep. Kim, Young [R-CA-40], Rep. Kiggans, Jennifer A. [R-VA-2], Rep. Gimenez, Carlos A. [R-FL-28], Rep. Torres, Ritchie [D-NY-15], Rep. Landsman, Greg [D-OH-1], Rep. Lawler, Michael [R-NY-17], Rep. Garcia, Sylvia R. [D-TX-29], Rep. Foushee, Valerie P. [D-NC-4], Rep. Carson, André [D-IN-7], Rep. Castro, Joaquin [D-TX-20], Rep. Mrvan, Frank J. [D-IN-1]

Recent Actions

2025-06-24: Subcommittee Hearings Held
2025-06-23: Referred to the Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries.
2025-05-21: Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
2025-05-21: Introduced in House
2025-05-21: Introduced in House

Bill Versions

Wildlife Confiscations Network Act of 2025 — issued 2025-05-21 — PDF (11 pages)