The federal government unveiled a proposal Tuesday to shift day-to-day management authority over grizzly bears in the contiguous United States toward state and tribal wildlife agencies, marking a significant policy shift under the Trump administration. The announcement was made at a field south of Bozeman, Montana, with the governors of Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming on hand alongside Interior Secretary Doug Burgum.

What the Proposed Rule Does — and Doesn’t Do

The proposal, issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, does not remove the grizzly bear from the federal Endangered Species List, nor does it alter the geographic boundaries of existing management plans. Instead, it targets so-called “4(d)” protective regulations under the Endangered Species Act — the provisions that govern what actions are permissible when a species carries a “threatened” designation.

Under the proposed rule, designated state and tribal wildlife managers would have expanded authority to authorize the lethal removal of bears in certain circumstances. Montana Gov. Greg Gianforte, who joined Burgum and Idaho Gov. Brad Little at the announcement, was clear that the rule stops short of opening a hunting season on grizzlies.

The rule is set to be published in the Federal Register on July 17, triggering a 30-day public comment window.

A Population That Has Recovered

When grizzly bears were first listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act in 1975, the wild population in the lower 48 states was estimated between 300 and 400 animals. Today, the population along the Continental Divide exceeds 2,000 — a recovery proponents cite as justification for returning greater management responsibility to the states.

Idaho Gov. Brad Little framed the proposal as a recognition of what states have already demonstrated they can do. “Idaho has proven we can successfully conserve grizzly bears while responsibly managing wildlife and protecting our communities,” Little said.

U.S. Sen. Jim Risch added that moving authority closer to state wildlife agencies makes practical sense. “Increasing state authority to manage grizzly bears ensures our own local wildlife agencies, who understand Idaho’s environment best, can follow the science and make commonsense conservation decisions without bureaucratic inefficiencies,” Risch said.

A Shift from Prior Administration’s Approach

The Trump administration’s direction stands in contrast to where federal policy was heading under the Biden administration. In January 2025, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service rejected petitions from Montana and Wyoming seeking to remove the grizzly’s “threatened” designation entirely. That same month, the Biden administration proposed managing grizzlies as a single interconnected population spanning Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, and Washington — a proposal that drew more than 200,000 public comments before the Trump administration took office and began revising federal wildlife priorities.

The Trump administration also pushed back a separate deadline on whether Yellowstone-area grizzlies should retain full ESA protections, signaling a broader reconsideration of how the federal government handles recovered species.

This proposed rule represents the administration’s first concrete regulatory step in that direction — creating a framework that increases state management authority without formally delisting the species.

Environmental Groups Push Back

Conservation organizations criticized the proposal, arguing it poses risks to a species still under federal protection. Critics contend that expanded lethal removal authority, even when channeled through state agencies, could undermine the population gains of the past five decades. The 30-day comment period will give the public and advocacy groups an opportunity to formally weigh in before any rule is finalized.

What Comes Next

The comment period closing in mid-August will be a key milestone. Federal agencies are required to review and respond to substantive comments before finalizing any rule change, a process that typically takes months. The broader question of whether to formally delist Yellowstone-area grizzlies remains unresolved, with the administration having already extended at least one deadline tied to that determination.

For Idaho, the proposal fits into a longer debate over how much influence the state should have over wildlife and land decisions within its borders — a conversation Idaho’s congressional delegation has also been pressing on federal land access and management questions in recent months. State wildlife officials would gain a more direct role if the rule is finalized, though full management authority would require a separate and more complex delisting process.