The monarch butterfly would become listed as a threatened species under a proposed U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service rule. If finalized, the rule would designate land for habitat restoration under the amended Endangered Species Act.
The act, known as the ESA, provides the secretary of the interior with broad authority to protect domestic and international species and habitats by authorizing the listing of species as endangered or threatened under section 4(d). Section 4(d) directs the secretary to issue regulations deemed “necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of threatened species.” The ESA also requires federal agencies to consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service to ensure their actions won’t harm these species.
Listing the monarch butterfly is intended to both stabilize and increase the insect’s population. The proposed rule would designate about 4,395 acres of land as critical habitat. Unlike other critical habitat ESA listings, this proposal does not prohibit the removal of milkweed, an important food source of monarchs. The Fish and Wildlife Service has indicated that prohibiting the removal of this plant would likely not result in significant enough habitat restoration to support a sustainable increase in monarch populations, because much of the habitat has been converted to other land uses. The agency has found that restricting milkweed management could incentivize landowners to remove milkweed to avoid land use restrictions. The proposed rule aims to incentivize voluntary conservation efforts.
Prohibitions in the proposed rule are consistent with those outlined under the ESA, including restrictions on importing/exporting, possession of unlawfully obtained specimens, and commercial activities involving transport or sale of the species. It requires permits for importing, interstate movement or environmental release of monarchs, and prohibits moving monarchs into Hawaii, Alaska and U.S. territories. Notably, the proposed rule does exempt small-scale collection, possession, captive-rearing and release of monarchs; scientific research; educational activities; possession of dead monarchs; and the sale of captively reared monarchs. Exceptions for “take” of monarchs in the breeding and migratory areas include “actions that affect milkweed or nectar plants, as long as activities do not result in conversion of native or naturalized habitat.” This stipulation is to encourage widespread maintenance of milkweed and voluntary milkweed restoration efforts.
To balance conservation efforts with the economic needs of the agriculture industry, the proposed rule does not impose sweeping restrictions on pesticides. It reduces legal risks for farmers by allowing for continued pesticide use in accordance with pesticide labeling. During the public comment period, the Fish and Wildlife Service is seeking feedback on whether to except certain pesticides and pesticide uses in the final 4(d) rule and whether such exceptions should include additional provisions to mitigate impact on monarchs.
The public comment period closed but was reopened on March 19, 2025, and will remain open until May 19. Comments already submitted will be considered and do not need to be resubmitted.
State Responses
Several states have already enacted legislation to support pollinator health and agriculture through changes to land management, pesticide regulation and conservation programs. In New York, legislation (SB 2044; 2020) directs the Department of Agriculture and Markets to make available guidelines for vegetation management plans that are pollinator friendly. Vermont enacted legislation (HB 205; 2020) regulating the sale and application of certain neonicotinoid pesticides, requiring specific outdoor-use products to be registered as restricted-use and providing for exemptions. Utah passed legislation (HB 224; 2021) establishing a pollinator pilot program in the Department of Agriculture and Food to explore strategies that support pollinator populations.
California enacted legislation (AB 614; 2022) revising an existing habitat incentive program to authorize direct payments and other inducements for landowners who voluntarily cultivate or maintain pollinator plants, cover crops and similar vegetation. Together, these state-level efforts demonstrate how legislatures are incorporating pollinator conservation into broader agricultural and land use policy frameworks.
As monarch populations face ongoing ecological stress, state policymakers are exploring a mix of regulatory and voluntary strategies such as conservation incentives, habitat planning and flexible tools to support long-term habitat restoration.
Tom Klein is a policy associate in NCSL’s State Policy Research Division, and Ethan Pinkey is an intern in NCSL’s State-Federal Affairs Division.