Tribal Self-Determination and Co-Management in Forestry Act of 2025

Download PDF
Bill ID: 119/hr/3444
Last Updated: August 11, 2026

Sponsored by

Rep. Huffman, Jared [D-CA-2]

ID: H001068

Follow the money

The bill

Tribal Self-Determination and Co-Management in Forestry Act of 2025

HR. 3444, 119th Congress — read as touching Construction & Engineering.

The sponsor

Rep. Huffman, Jared [D-CA-2]

Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.

The money

$88,600 raised

30 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.

The alignment

70% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of Agriculture" section, p. 341-343 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Subcommittee Hearings Held

June 9, 2025

Introduced

Committee Review

📍 Current Status

Next: The bill moves to the floor for full chamber debate and voting.

🗳️

Floor Action

✅

Passed House

🏛️

Senate Review

🎉

Passed Congress

🖊️

Presidential Action

⚖️

Became Law

📚 How does a bill become a law?

1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.

2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.

3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.

4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.

5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.

6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.

7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!

Bill Summary

Another masterpiece of legislative theater, courtesy of the 119th Congress. Let's dissect this farce and expose its true nature.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The Tribal Self-Determination and Co-Management in Forestry Act of 2025 is a bill that claims to empower Native American tribes by allowing them to co-manage federal lands with the Department of the Interior. How noble. In reality, this bill is a thinly veiled attempt to appease tribal interests while maintaining the status quo.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill requires federal land management agencies to develop Tribal Co-Management Plans, which will supposedly give tribes more control over lands that are "historically, culturally, or geographically related" to them. Oh, please. This is just a euphemism for "we'll let you have some token input while we continue to do what we want." The bill also authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to enter into agreements with tribes and tribal organizations to perform certain Forest Service activities. Because nothing says "self-determination" like having to beg the federal government for permission.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects are involved: Native American tribes, the Department of the Interior, the Forest Service, and various congressional committees. But let's not forget the real stakeholders – the logging companies, mining interests, and other corporate entities that will continue to exploit these lands under the guise of "co-management."

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a classic case of "too little, too late." It's a Band-Aid on a bullet wound. The real issue is not lack of tribal input but rather the systemic exploitation and marginalization of Native American communities. By pretending to address these issues through token legislation, Congress can claim it's doing something while actually maintaining the status quo.

In reality, this bill will likely lead to more bureaucratic red tape, increased costs for tribes, and continued environmental degradation. The "co-management" plans will be watered down by federal agencies, and tribal interests will be ignored or co-opted. Meanwhile, corporate interests will continue to reap the benefits of exploiting these lands.

In short, this bill is a farce, a cynical attempt to placate Native American communities while maintaining the status quo of exploitation and marginalization. It's a legislative placebo, designed to make Congress feel good about itself while doing nothing meaningful to address the real issues at hand.

Related Topics

Public Lands & Natural ResourcesState & Local Government Affairs
Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Huffman, Jared [D-CA-2]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions
$88,600
23 donors
PACs
$0
Organizations
$88,600
Committees
$0
Individuals
$0

No PAC contributions found

1
SANTA ROSA RANCHERIA
1 transaction
$6,600
2
SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
2 transactions
$6,600
3
SHINGLE SPRINGS BAND MIWOK INDIANS
2 transactions
$6,600
4
SAN PABLO LYTTON CASINO
2 transactions
$6,600
5
FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA
2 transactions
$6,600
6
POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS
2 transactions
$6,600
7
UNITED AUBURN INDIAN COMMUNITY OF THE AUBURN RANCHERIA
2 transactions
$5,800
8
CHEROKEE NATION
2 transactions
$4,300
9
MOHEGAN TRIBE OF INDIANS OF CONNECTICUT
1 transaction
$3,300
10
MOORETOWN RANCHERIA
1 transaction
$3,300
11
PECHANGA BAND OF INDIANS
1 transaction
$3,300
12
MUSCOGEE CREEK NATION
1 transaction
$3,300
13
AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS
1 transaction
$3,300
14
SYCUAN BAND OF THE KUMEYAAY NATION
1 transaction
$3,300
15
YOCHA DEHE WINTUN NATION
1 transaction
$3,300
16
TOLOWA DEE-NI' NATION
1 transaction
$3,300
17
THE CHICKASAW NATION
1 transaction
$2,500
18
MATCH-E-BE-NASH-SHE-WISH BAND OF POTTAWATOMI INDIANS
1 transaction
$2,500
19
PUEBLO OF LAGUNA
1 transaction
$2,000
20
CHER-AE HEIGHTS INDIAN COMMUNITY
1 transaction
$2,000
21
CATAWBA INDIAN NATION
1 transaction
$1,500
22
ONEIDA NATION OF WISCONSIN
1 transaction
$1,000
23
COLORADO RIVER INDIAN TRIBES
1 transaction
$1,000

No committee contributions found

No individual contributions found

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 6 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Rep. Leger Fernandez, Teresa [D-NM-3]

ID: L000273

Top Contributors

70

1
CHOCTAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA
OrganizationDURANT, OK
$5,000
Jul 25, 2024
2
AK-CHIN INDIAN COMMUNITY
OrganizationMARICOPA, AZ
$3,300
Dec 30, 2023
3
CHEROKEE NATION
OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK
$3,300
Dec 18, 2023
4
CHEROKEE NATION
OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK
$3,300
Dec 18, 2023
5
MASHANTUCKET PEQUOT TRIBAL NATION
OrganizationMASHANTUCKET, CT
$3,300
Dec 19, 2023
6
OHKAY OWINGEH
OrganizationOHKAY OWINGEH, NM
$3,300
Dec 20, 2023
7
PUEBLO OF SANTO DOMINGO
OrganizationSANTO DOMINGO PUEBLO, NM
$3,300
Dec 18, 2023
8
SHINGLE SPRINGS BAND MIWOK INDIANS
OrganizationSHINGLE SPRINGS, CA
$3,300
Oct 12, 2023
9
SNOQUAIMIE TRIBE
OrganizationSNOQUALMIE, WA
$3,300
Oct 30, 2023
10
POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS
OrganizationATMORE, AL
$3,300
Mar 30, 2023

Rep. Neguse, Joe [D-CO-2]

ID: N000191

Top Contributors

24

1
AK-CHIN INDIAN COMMUNITY
OrganizationMARICOPA, AZ
$3,300
Mar 31, 2023
2
AK-CHIN INDIAN COMMUNITY
OrganizationMARICOPA, AZ
$2,500
Oct 13, 2024
3
YUROK TRIBE
OrganizationKLAMATH, CA
$1,000
Feb 1, 2023
4
SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationLOS ANGELES, CA
$1,000
Jun 9, 2024
5
EKLUND, PAUL
IndividualBOULDER, CO
$6,400
Oct 3, 2023
6
EKLUND, PAUL
P.N. EKLUND INTERESTS INC. • REAL ESTATE
IndividualBOULDER, CO
$6,400
Sep 30, 2023
7
KLARMAN, SETH
THE BAUPOST GROUP • CEO
IndividualBOSTON, MA
$3,300
Oct 18, 2024
8
GROSS, DAVID
UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO • INSTRUCTOR
IndividualBOULDER, CO
$3,300
Oct 31, 2024
9
WEAVER, LINDSAY
SELF • ENGINEER
IndividualPAGOSA SPRINGS, CO
$3,300
Oct 22, 2024
10
BLOOM, BRADLEY
BERKSHIRE PARTNERS LLC • INVESTMENTS
IndividualWELLESLEY, MA
$3,300
Oct 21, 2024

Rep. Hoyle, Val T. [D-OR-4]

ID: H001094

Top Contributors

44

1
COQUILLE INDIAN TRIBE
OrganizationNORTH BEND, OR
$3,300
Mar 26, 2024
2
COW CREEK BAND OF UMPQUA TRIBE OF INDIANS
OrganizationROSEBURG, OR
$3,300
Mar 26, 2024
3
TOLOWA DEE-NI NATION
OrganizationSMITH RIVER, CA
$3,300
Mar 31, 2024
4
FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA
OrganizationROHNERT PARK, CA
$3,300
May 25, 2023
5
FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA
OrganizationROHNERT PARK, CA
$3,300
May 25, 2023
6
TOLOWA DEE-NI NATION
OrganizationSMITH RIVER, CA
$3,300
May 17, 2023
7
CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF SILETZ INDIANS
OrganizationSILETZ, OR
$3,300
Aug 22, 2023
8
CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF SILETZ INDIANS
OrganizationSILETZ, OR
$3,300
Aug 22, 2023
9
COQUILLE INDIAN TRIBE
OrganizationNORTH BEND, OR
$3,000
Dec 31, 2023
10
CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF GRAND RONDE
OrganizationGRAND RONDE, OR
$2,000
Mar 23, 2023

Rep. Ansari, Yassamin [D-AZ-3]

ID: A000381

Top Contributors

23

1
GILA RIVER INDIAN COMMUNITY
OrganizationSACATON, AZ
$3,300
Oct 16, 2024
2
ADIBA JURAYEVA LLC
OrganizationPHOENIX, AZ
$1,000
Jan 17, 2024
3
SALT RIVER PIMA-MARICOPA INDIAN COMMUNITY
OrganizationSCOTTSDALE, AZ
$1,000
Oct 8, 2024
4
JACOBS, IRWIN
NOT EMPLOYED • RETIRED
IndividualLA JOLLA, CA
$3,300
Dec 5, 2024
5
ABBASPOUR, SHAHIN
VITESSE WORLDWIDE • PRESIDENT & CEO
IndividualSCOTTSDALE, AZ
$3,300
Nov 13, 2023
6
ALEREZA, TAGHI
ADM ASSOCIATES • CEO
IndividualEL DORADO HILLS, CA
$3,300
Dec 14, 2023
7
ALEREZA, TAGHI
ADM ASSOCIATES • CEO
IndividualEL DORADO HILLS, CA
$3,300
Dec 14, 2023
8
AMERI, GOLI
STARTITUP • CEO
IndividualLOS ANGELES, CA
$3,300
Dec 14, 2023
9
BAKHTIARY, NIMA
ARGANO • ENGINEERING
IndividualLAGUNA BEACH, CA
$3,300
Dec 10, 2023
10
BAKHTIARY, NIMA
ARGANO • ENGINEERING
IndividualLAGUNA BEACH, CA
$3,300
Dec 10, 2023

Rep. Dexter, Maxine [D-OR-3]

ID: D000635

Top Contributors

21

1
COW CREEK BAND OF UMPQUA TRIBE OF INDIANS
OrganizationROSEBURG, OR
$3,300
Nov 4, 2024
2
KARDON, JOSHUA
THREE ARCH STRATEGIES / CAPITOL COUNSE • CONSULTANT / LOBBYIST
IndividualWASHOUGAL, WA
$3,300
Oct 26, 2024
3
JACOBS, IRWIN M.
IndividualLA JOLLA, CA
$3,300
Dec 5, 2024
4
DEXTER, ANGELIKE
SELF • MEDITATION TEACHER
IndividualLOS ANGELES, CA
$3,300
Dec 5, 2023
5
GALLO, ERNEST
GALLO • MANAGER
IndividualMODESTO, CA
$3,300
Dec 5, 2023
6
GOLDBLATT, BRETT
MILBANK • ATTORNEY
IndividualLOS ANGELES, CA
$3,300
Dec 5, 2023
7
MCCALL, NED
MCCALL COMPANIES • BUSINESS
IndividualPORTLAND, OR
$3,300
Dec 5, 2023
8
METZ, SAMUEL
OREGON ANESTHESIOLOGY GROUP • PHYSICIAN
IndividualPORTLAND, OR
$3,300
Dec 5, 2023
9
ACKERMAN, ARI
MIAMI MARLINS • PARTNER
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$3,300
Apr 25, 2024
10
ALTMAN, ALISA
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualSAINT JAMES, NY
$3,300
Apr 29, 2024

Rep. Elfreth, Sarah [D-MD-3]

ID: E000301

Top Contributors

24

1
CARROLL HYNSON AND SON
OrganizationANNAPOLIS, MD
$1,000
Sep 26, 2024
2
DARCARS
OrganizationBETHESDA, MD
$500
May 28, 2024
3
DARCARS
OrganizationBETHESDA, MD
$500
Jun 14, 2024
4
ROCK REALTY LLC
OrganizationELKRIDGE, MD
$250
Jun 30, 2024
5
GROSSMAN, JENNIFER
SHALOM TIKVAH • DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS
IndividualBALTIMORE, MD
$6,600
Mar 28, 2024
6
GROSSMAN, JENNIFER
IndividualBALTIMORE, MD
$6,600
Mar 28, 2024
7
BARTLETT, BRANDON
RISE UP COFFEE • OWNER
IndividualANNAPOLIS, MD
$3,300
Oct 22, 2024
8
DALTON, NANCY
ANNAPOLIS MICRO SYSTEMS INC. • PRESIDENT OF TECH COMPANY
IndividualANNAPOLIS, MD
$3,300
Oct 29, 2024
9
GABEL, CAROLINE
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualCHESTERTOWN, MD
$3,300
Oct 25, 2024
10
SAPPERSTEIN, MARK
28 WALKER DEVELOPMENT • REAL ESTATE
IndividualBALTIMORE, MD
$3,300
Oct 28, 2024

Donor Network - Rep. Huffman, Jared [D-CA-2]

PACs
Organizations
Individuals
Politicians

Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.

Loading...

Showing 71 nodes and 87 connections

Total contributions: $87

Top Donors - Rep. Huffman, Jared [D-CA-2]

Showing top 23 donors by contribution amount

23 Orgs

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 2 helped.

  • Section 4 authorizes agreements with Indian Tribes for Forest Service activities including forest and grassland planning, management, restoration, and recreational services, which could involve construction and engineering work on National Forest System lands.

  • +Labor Unionsconfidence 0.70

    The bill enables Tribal organizations to carry out Forest Service activities through agreements, which could create employment opportunities for Tribal members and potentially involve unionized labor in construction, restoration, and forest management activities.

Project 2025 Policy Matches

This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.AI-enhanced analysis provides detailed alignment ratings.

Department of Agriculture

Moderate
Vector: 67%
Pages: 341-343AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill promotes tribal co-management in forestry, which aligns with Project 2025's goal of active forest management to reduce wildfire risks, though it does not explicitly address fuel reduction, timber sales, or regulatory reform as emphasized in the policy."

Key themes:forest managementactive managementwildfire preventiontribal collaborationland stewardship

— 308 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Reform Forest Service Wildfire Management. The United States Forest Service is one of four federal government land management agencies that admin- ister 606 million acres, or 95 percent of the 640 million acres of surface land area managed by the federal government.115 Located within the USDA, the Forest Service manages the National Forest System, which is comprised of 193 million acres.116 As explained by the USDA, “The USDA Forest Service’s mission is to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the nation’s forests and grasslands to meet the needs of present and future generations.”117 The Forest Service should focus on proactive management of the forests and grasslands that does not depend heavily on burning. There should be resilient forests and grasslands in the wake of management actions. Wildfires have become a primary vegetation management regime for national forests and grasslands.118 Recognizing the need for vegetation management, the Forest Service has adopted “pyro-silviculture” using “unplanned” fire,119 such as unplanned human-caused fires, to otherwise accomplish vegetation management.120 The Forest Service should instead be focusing on addressing the precipitous annual amassing of biomass in the national forests that drive the behavior of wildfires. By thinning trees, removing live fuels and deadwood, and taking other preventive steps, the Forest Service can help to minimize the consequences of wildfires. Increasing timber sales could also play an important role in the effort to change the behavior of wildfire because there would be less biomass. Timber sales and timber harvested in public forests dropped precipitously in the early 1990s and still remain very low. For example, in 1988, the volume of timber sold and harvested by volume was about 11 billion and 12.6 billion board feet (BBF), respectively.121 In 2021, timber sold was 2.8 BBF and timber harvested was 2.4 BBF. In 2018, President Donald Trump issued Executive Order 13855 to, among other things, promote active management of forests and reduce wildfire risks.122 The executive order stated, “Active management of vegetation is needed to treat these dangerous conditions on Federal lands but is often delayed due to challenges associated with regulatory analysis and current consultation requirements.”123 It further explained the need to reduce regulatory obstacles to fuel reduction in forests created by the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act.124 The next Administration should: l Champion executive action, consistent with law, and proactive legislation to reduce wildfires. This would involve embracing Executive Order 13855, building upon it, and working with lawmakers to promote active management of vegetation, reduce regulatory obstacles to reducing fuel buildup, and increase timber sales. — 309 — Department of Agriculture Eliminate or Reform the Dietary Guidelines. The USDA, in collaboration with HHS, publishes the Dietary Guidelines every five years.125 For more than 40 years, the federal government has been releasing Dietary Guidelines,126 and during this time, there has been constant controversy due to questionable recommenda- tions and claims regarding the politicization of the process. In the 2015 Dietary Guidelines process, the influential Dietary Guidelines Advi- sory Committee veered off mission and attempted to persuade the USDA and HHS to adopt nutritional advice that focused not just on human health, but the health of the planet.127 Issues such as climate change and sustainability infiltrated the process. Fortunately, the 2020 process did not get diverted in this manner. How- ever, the Dietary Guidelines remain a potential tool to influence dietary choices to achieve objectives unrelated to the nutritional and dietary well-being of Americans. There is no shortage of private sector dietary advice for the public, and nutrition and dietary choices are best left to individuals to address their personal needs. This includes working with their own health professionals. As it is, there is constantly changing advice provided by the government, with insufficient qualifications on the advice, oversimplification to the point of miscommunicating important points, questionable use of science, and potential political influence. The Dietary Guidelines have a major impact because they not only can influence how private health providers offer nutritional advice, but they also inform federal programs. School meals are required to be consistent with the guidelines.128 The next Administration should: l Work with lawmakers to repeal the Dietary Guidelines. The USDA should help lead an effort to repeal the Dietary Guidelines. l Minimally, the next Administration should reform the Dietary Guidelines. The USDA, with HHS, should develop a more transparent process that properly considers the underlying science and does not overstate its findings. It should also ensure that the Dietary Guidelines focus on nutritional issues and do not veer off-mission by focusing on unrelated issues, such as the environment, that have nothing to do with nutritional advice. In fact, if environmental concerns supersede or water down recommendations for human nutritional advice, the public would be receiving misleading health information. The USDA, working with lawmakers, should codify these reforms into law. ORGANIZATIONAL ISSUES Based on the recommended reforms identified as ideal solutions, the USDA would look different in many respects. One of the biggest changes would be a USDA that is not focused on welfare, given that means-tested welfare programs would

Department of Agriculture

Moderate
Vector: 66%
Pages: 341-343AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill promotes tribal co-management in forestry and authorizes agreements for Forest Service activities, which can include proactive fuel reduction and timber harvesting—key elements of Project 2025’s wildfire reform agenda. While the bill’s primary focus is tribal self-determination, its mechanisms align with the policy’s goal of active, collaborative forest management to reduce wildfire risk."

Key themes:forest managementactive managementtimber salestribal collaborationwildfire risk reduction

— 308 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Reform Forest Service Wildfire Management. The United States Forest Service is one of four federal government land management agencies that admin- ister 606 million acres, or 95 percent of the 640 million acres of surface land area managed by the federal government.115 Located within the USDA, the Forest Service manages the National Forest System, which is comprised of 193 million acres.116 As explained by the USDA, “The USDA Forest Service’s mission is to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the nation’s forests and grasslands to meet the needs of present and future generations.”117 The Forest Service should focus on proactive management of the forests and grasslands that does not depend heavily on burning. There should be resilient forests and grasslands in the wake of management actions. Wildfires have become a primary vegetation management regime for national forests and grasslands.118 Recognizing the need for vegetation management, the Forest Service has adopted “pyro-silviculture” using “unplanned” fire,119 such as unplanned human-caused fires, to otherwise accomplish vegetation management.120 The Forest Service should instead be focusing on addressing the precipitous annual amassing of biomass in the national forests that drive the behavior of wildfires. By thinning trees, removing live fuels and deadwood, and taking other preventive steps, the Forest Service can help to minimize the consequences of wildfires. Increasing timber sales could also play an important role in the effort to change the behavior of wildfire because there would be less biomass. Timber sales and timber harvested in public forests dropped precipitously in the early 1990s and still remain very low. For example, in 1988, the volume of timber sold and harvested by volume was about 11 billion and 12.6 billion board feet (BBF), respectively.121 In 2021, timber sold was 2.8 BBF and timber harvested was 2.4 BBF. In 2018, President Donald Trump issued Executive Order 13855 to, among other things, promote active management of forests and reduce wildfire risks.122 The executive order stated, “Active management of vegetation is needed to treat these dangerous conditions on Federal lands but is often delayed due to challenges associated with regulatory analysis and current consultation requirements.”123 It further explained the need to reduce regulatory obstacles to fuel reduction in forests created by the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act.124 The next Administration should: l Champion executive action, consistent with law, and proactive legislation to reduce wildfires. This would involve embracing Executive Order 13855, building upon it, and working with lawmakers to promote active management of vegetation, reduce regulatory obstacles to reducing fuel buildup, and increase timber sales.

Department of the Interior

Weak
Vector: 66%
Pages: 572-574AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on tribal co-management and forestry stewardship, while the Project 2025 DOI policy emphasizes expediting oil and gas leasing, streamlining NEPA reviews, and prioritizing energy development; there is only a tangential connection through general DOI land management responsibilities."

Key themes:Department of the Interiorland managementtribal engagement

— 540 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 24. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3354: Supporting and Improving the Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Program and Federal Solid Mineral Leasing Program, July 6, 2017, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/ files/uploads/so_-_3354_signed.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 25. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3355: Streamlining National Environmental Policy Reviews and Implementation of Executive Order 13807, “Establishing Discipline and Accountability in the Environmental Review and Permitting Process for Infrastructure Projects,” August 31, 2017, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/ files/elips/documents/3355_-_streamlining_national_environmental_policy_reviews_and_implementation_ of_executive_order_13807_establishing_discipline_and_accountability_in_the_environmental_review_ and_permitting_process_for.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 26. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3358: Executive Committee for Expedited Permitting,” October 25, 2017, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/elips/documents/so_3358_executive_committee_for_ expedited_permitting_0.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 27. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3360: Rescinding Authorities Inconsistent with Secretary’s Order 3349, “American Energy Independence,” December 22, 2017, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/elips/ documents/3360_-_rescinding_authorities_inconsistent_with_secretarys_order_3349_american_energy_ independence.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 28. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3380: Public Notice of the Costs Associated with Developing Department of the Interior Publications and Similar Documents,” March 10, 2020, https://www.doi.gov/sites/ doi.gov/files/elips/documents/so-3398-508_0.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 29. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3385: Enforcement Priorities,” September 14, 2020, https:// www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/elips/documents/signed-so-3385-enforcement-priorities.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 30. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order 3389: Coordinating and Clarifying National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 Reviews,” September 14, 2020, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/elips/documents/signed- so-3385-enforcement-priorities.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 31. Bureau of Land Management, “Updating Oil and Gas Leasing Reform: Land Use Planning and Lease Parcel Reviews,” IM 2018–034, January 31, 2018, https://www.blm.gov/policy/im-2018-034 (accessed March 16, 2023). 32. Lease Now Act, S. 4228, 117th Cong., 2nd Sess. (2022). 33. ONSHORE Act, S. 218, 116th Cong., 2nd Sess. (2019). https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate- bill/218/text (accessed March 18, 2023). 34. Federal Register, Vol. 87, No. 130 (July 8, 2022), pp. 40859–40863. 35. The Biden Administration’s 2023–2028 proposed program is fatally flawed. Katie Tubb, “Comment for the 2023–2028 National OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Proposed Program,” BOEM–2022–0031, October 6, 2022, http:// thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/2022/Regulatory_Comments/BOEM%202023-2028%20lease%20plan%20 comment%20KTubb.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 36. See Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, Public Law No. 117–169, §§ 50261–50263. 37. Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, Public Law No. 115–97, § 20001, and U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3401: Comprehensive Analysis and Temporary Halt on All Activities in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Relating to the Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program,” June 1, 2021, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/elips/ documents/so-3401-comprehensive-analysis-and-temporary-halt-on-all-activitives-in-the-arctic-national- wildlife-refuge-relating-to-the-coastal-plain-oil-and-gas-leasing-program.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 38. In 2016, Interior Secretary Sally Jewell instituted a moratorium on new coal leases while conducting a programmatic environmental impact statement under NEPA to address concerns about competition and inconsistency with the Obama Administration’s climate policy. In 2017, Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke lifted the moratorium and ended development of a programmatic environmental impact statement. In April 2021, Interior Secretary Debra Haaland rescinded Zinke’s order and initiated a new review of the coal-leasing program. See U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3338: Discretionary Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement to Modernize the Federal Coal Program,” January 15, 2016, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi. gov/files/elips/documents/archived-3338_-discretionary_programmatic_environmental_impact_statement_ to_modernize_the_federal_coal_program.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023); U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3348”; U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3398”; and Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 159 (August 20, 2021), pp. 46873–46877. — 541 — Department of the Interior 39. Katie Tubb, “No More Standoffs: Protecting Federal Employees and Ending the Culture of Anti-Government Attacks and Abuse,” testimony before the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands, Committee on Natural Resources, U.S. House of Representatives, pp. 2–4, October 22, 2019, https://congress. gov/116/meeting/house/110104/witnesses/HHRG-116-II10-Wstate-TubbK-20191022.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 40. News release, “Secretary Haaland Announces Steps to Establish Protections for Culturally Significant Chaco Canyon Landscape,” U.S. Department of the Interior, November 15, 2021, https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/ secretary-haaland-announces-steps-establish-protections-culturally-significant-chaco (accessed March 16, 2023); News release, “Biden–Harris Administration Proposes Protections for Thompson Divide,” U.S. Department of the Interior, October 12, 2022, https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/biden-harris-administration- proposes-protections-thompson-divide (accessed March 16, 2023); News release, “Biden Administration Takes Action to Complete Study of Boundary Waters Area Watershed,” U.S. Department of the Interior, October 20, 2021, https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/biden-administration-takes-action-complete-study-boundary- waters-area-watershed (accessed March 16, 2023); and News release, “Interior Department Takes Action on Mineral Leases Improperly Renewed in the Watershed of the Boundary Waters Wilderness,” U.S. Department of the Interior, January 26, 2022, https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/interior-department-takes-action- mineral-leases-improperly-renewed-watershed-boundary (accessed March 16, 2023). 41. Endangered Species Act, Public Law 91–135, § 4(b)(2), and Federal Register, Vol. 85, No. 244 (December 18, 2020), pp. 82376–82389. 42. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, “Governing the Take of Migratory Birds Under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.” https://www.fws.gov/regulations/mbta (accessed March 16, 2023). 43. Dino Grandoni and Anna Phillips, “Biden Restores Climate Safeguards in Key Environmental Law, Reversing Trump,” Washington Post, April 19, 2022, https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate- environment/2022/04/19/biden-nepa-climate-trump/ (accessed March 16, 2023). 44. Donald Trump, “Executive Order on Creating Schedule F in the Accepted Service,” Executive Order 13957, October 21, 2020, https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-creating- schedule-f-excepted-service/ (accessed March 16, 2023). 45. Kathleen Masterson, “Nevada Wild Horse Population Skyrockets To New High,” KUNR Public Radio, July 22, 2019, https://www.kunr.org/energy-and-environment/2019-07-22/nevada-wild-horse-population-skyrockets- to-new-high (accessed March 20, 2023). 46. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, “Report to Congress: An Analysis of Achieving a Sustainable Horse and Burro Program,” Fact sheet, May 8, 2020, https://www.blm.gov/sites/blm.gov/files/ Final%20Fact%20Sheet%20WHB%20Report%20To%20Congress.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 47. Pendley, Sagebrush Rebel, pp. 45–47. 48. James D. Linxwiler, The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act At 35: Delivering on the Promise, Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Institute, Vol. 53, Chap. 12 (2007), § 12.03(1)(a)(iv), https://www.guessrudd.com/wp-content/ uploads/sites/1600422/2020/05/The-Alaska-Native-Claims-Settlement-Act-at-35.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 49. Ibid., § 12.03(1)(a)(vii). See generally Richard S. Jones, Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 (Public Law 92–203): History And Analysis Together With Subsequent Amendments, Report No. 81–127 GOV, June 1, 1981, http://www.alaskool.org/PROJECTS/ANCSA/reports/rsjones1981/ANCSA_History71.htm (accessed March 16, 2023). 50. 43 U.S. Code, Ch. 33. ANCSA also created 12 Native-owned regional corporations and authorized $962 million in “seed money.” Linxwiler, The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act At 35, § 12.03(2)(e). 51. ANCSA provided that the withdrawal of the lands would expire in 1978 if Congress had not designated the lands as federal enclaves. John K. Norman Cole and Steven W. Silver, Alaska’s D-2 Lands, Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Institute, Vol. 6B, Ch. 5, September 1978, and Raymond A. Peck, Jr., And Then There Were None: Evolving Federal Restraints on the Availability of Public Lands for Mineral Development, Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Institute, Vol. 25, Ch. 3, 1979. 52. Andrus used purported authority under the FLPMA to withdraw 40 million acres, and Carter used purported authority under the Antiquities Act of to withdraw 56 million acres. James D. Linxwiler, The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act: The First Twenty Years, Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Institute, Vol. 38 Ch. 2, 1992 at 2.04(8)(c), https://ancsa.lbblawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/ANCSA-Paper-with-Table-of-Contents-1992.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023).

Showing 3 of 5 policy matches

About These Correlations

Policy matches are calculated using a hybrid approach: initial candidates are found using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text, then an AI model (Llama 3.1 70B) provides detailed alignment ratings and analysis. Ratings range from 1 (minimal alignment) to 5 (very strong alignment). This analysis does not imply direct causation or intent.

Full Policy Text

Related Bills