Interior to Spend Holidays Studying Refuges for Possible Closure

Congress will have to approve any Interior Department plans to abolish national wildlife refuges as staff members spend the next few weeks completing a review the US Fish and Wildlife Service has ordered, environmental lawyers say.

The US Fish and Wildlife Service will spend the holidays reviewing all 573 national wildlife refuges, five marine national monuments, and 71 national fish hatcheries to “look for refuges and hatcheries established for a purpose that no longer aligns with the mission” of the National Wildlife Refuge System, according to an order signed by FWS Director Brian Nesvik posted online Dec. 19.

The Trump administration can’t get rid of national wildlife refuges on its own—only Congress can do that under federal law, said Robert Fischman, an environmental law professor at Indiana University Bloomington Maurer School of Law whose work has focused on laws governing the National Wildlife Refuge System.

Most wildlife refuges were established administratively, but about 70 were established by Congress.

A summary of recommendations is due to Nesvik by Jan. 5, and recommendations for implementing them are due Feb. 15. FWS will seek input from staff and feedback from state and tribal wildlife agencies in that time, according to the order.

FWS is committed to ensuring that national wildlife refuge better serve the American people and “align with Trump administration priorities,” a FWS spokesperson said in an email. “The review process will examine the organizational structures and current conditions of the agency’s hatcheries and refuges and identify opportunities for innovation and increased efficiency.”

National wildlife refuges protect 96 million acres for conservation in every state, including Georgia’s biologically diverse Okefenokee Swamp, Virginia’s Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge, known for its wild horses, and Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, a vast wildland targeted for oil drilling. The five monuments protect 760 million acres of federally-controlled waters.

The review fits within Interior Secretary Doug Burgum’s plans to promote fossil fuels by reversing Biden administration conservation measures and climate policies. He pledged to cut agency funding, consider abolishing some parts of the national park system, and sell federal lands for housing.

Those priorities were reflected in Interior’s Fiscal 2026 budget request, which included a 21% decrease in funding for the National Wildlife Refuge System compared to 2024 levels. Congress so far has not granted such a refuge spending cut.

But Burgum, whose home state of North Dakota has more national wildlife refuges than any other, has touted national wildlife refuges as places to hunt and fish.

“These national wildlife refuges and many others across the United States show our ongoing commitment to improving public access to recreational activities for American traditions, such as hunting, fishing and birdwatching,” Burgum said in a September statement announcing $54 million in waterfowl habitat conservation funding for 21,737 acres within national wildlife refuges.

Once new areas are brought into the refuge system, “the executive branch cannot reverse the move,” unless the land was donated to FWS, in which case the agency would need approval from the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission, Fischman said.

The refuge system’s mission is to promote conservation and restoration of fish, wildlife, and plant habitat, said Chris Winter, an environmental law professor and executive director of the Getches-Wilkinson Center for Natural Resources, Energy and the Environment at the University of Colorado School of Law.

“I am not aware of any national wildlife refuges that do not serve this mission for the American people,” he said.

Downgrades Possible

Nesvik has the authority to review the refuge system and doing so raises no direct legal questions, but conservationists worry the review will be used as a pretext to close refuges as the first Trump administration did with two Utah national monuments, Fischman said.

The review could potentially benefit refuges, but the Trump administration’s track record suggests it wants to “shake off” its conservation mission, he said.

“If the Director is eager to bring new resources to bear on the need for a national conservation network of lands and water, this review would be a great brief for him to use in advocating before Congress for more appropriations and personnel,” Fischman said. But there is a “roaringly loud dissonance between budget requests” and aligning refuges with the system’s mission.

The biggest threat to refuges from the review is the possibility FWS could outsource them to states as “coordination areas” while keeping them within the refuge system, Fischman said.

“Coordination areas may not be subject to the strict management mandates of the rest of the refuge system and generally receive little scrutiny,” he said. Those areas make up about about 8% of the refuge system.

Holiday Deadline

The review’s short deadline at the end of the holidays is “weird,” Fischman said. It “might raise an eyebrow of worry that the Administration already knows what it wants the review to conclude: the refuge system should be smaller.”

The Interior Department during the Trump administration has reduced public involvement in project approvals under the National Environmental Policy Act, shrinking comment periods from several months to one or two weeks. The refuge review includes opportunities for nonprofits and states to provide input over the holidays, but no other public involvement.

Andrew Mergen, an environmental law professor at Harvard Law School, says the deadline “is a joke.”

“For both the refuges and the hatcheries Tribal consultation is critical, but how can it be meaningfully accomplished on these time frames,” he said. “This is simply not enough time for a serious look.”