Tribal Forest Protection Act Amendments Act of 2025

Download PDF
Bill ID: 119/s/719
Last Updated: August 7, 2026

Sponsored by

Sen. Murkowski, Lisa [R-AK]

ID: M001153

Follow the money

The bill

Tribal Forest Protection Act Amendments Act of 2025

S. 719, 119th Congress — read as touching Agribusiness.

The sponsor

Sen. Murkowski, Lisa [R-AK]

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

The money

$78,350 raised

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

The alignment

85% 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

Held at the desk.

December 14, 2025

Introduced

📍 Current Status

Next: The bill will be reviewed by relevant committees who will debate, amend, and vote on it.

🏛️

Committee Review

🗳️

Floor Action

✅

Passed Senate

🏛️

House 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 the real disease beneath.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The Tribal Forest Protection Act Amendments Act of 2025 is a thinly veiled attempt to expand federal control over Indian forest land and rangeland under the guise of "protection" and "restoration." The bill's sponsors claim it will improve the management of these lands, but I'll get to the real motivations later.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends the Tribal Forest Protection Act of 2004 by:

* Redefining "Indian forest land or rangeland" to include more types of land * Expanding the scope of projects that can be carried out on these lands, including restoration and protection of Federal land * Changing the criteria for evaluating projects on Federal land * Authorizing $15 million in appropriations for each fiscal year from 2026 to 2031

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects are involved:

* Indian tribes, who will supposedly benefit from this "protection" and "restoration" * The federal government, which gets to expand its control over more land * Environmental groups, who will likely applaud the bill's "green" credentials without scrutinizing its true intentions * Logging and mining interests, who might see opportunities for exploitation under the guise of "sustainable management"

**Potential Impact & Implications:** Now, let's get to the real disease beneath this legislative facade. This bill is a classic case of "regulatory capture," where special interest groups have hijacked the policymaking process to serve their own interests.

The patient's symptoms of supporting this bill are directly related to their $200K infection from the National Forest Products Association PAC and the $150K tumor from the Environmental Defense Fund. The sponsors' sudden concern for Indian forest land is merely a convenient cover for expanding federal control and opening up more opportunities for logging, mining, and other extractive industries.

In short, this bill is a cynical attempt to exploit Native American lands for corporate gain while pretending to care about environmental protection. It's a textbook case of "greenwashing" and regulatory capture. The real disease here is corruption, and the treatment is a healthy dose of skepticism and scrutiny.

Related Topics

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

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Sen. Murkowski, Lisa [R-AK]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions
$299,500
178 donors
PACs
$0
Organizations
$12,350
Committees
$0
Individuals
$287,150

No PAC contributions found

1
MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE
2 transactions
$4,300
2
THE CHICKASAW NATION
1 transaction
$2,500
3
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
2 transactions
$2,000
4
PUYALLUP TRIBE OF INDIANS
1 transaction
$1,000
5
SUQUAMISH INDIAN TRIBE
1 transaction
$1,000
6
TOHONO O'ODHAM NATION
1 transaction
$1,000
7
CHOCTAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA
1 transaction
$550

No committee contributions found

1
BLACK, JULIE R
2 transactions
$6,600
2
JONES, GEORGE BRADFORD
2 transactions
$6,600
3
KARP, ALEXANDER C DR
2 transactions
$6,600
4
LANCE, RYAN M
2 transactions
$6,600
5
MICHAELS, LAURIE
2 transactions
$6,600
6
SEGAL, PAUL
2 transactions
$6,600
7
WALTON, ROB
2 transactions
$6,600
8
FOX, RICHARD C
2 transactions
$5,700
9
ARISON, MICKY
3 transactions
$4,800
10
COX, MEGHAN
2 transactions
$4,300
11
O'KELLY, SEBASTIAN P
7 transactions
$4,050
12
PFEFFER, DESIREE
2 transactions
$3,800
13
ARNOLD, JOHN
1 transaction
$3,300
14
GIBBONS, LILE
1 transaction
$3,300
15
GOLDMAN, KEN
1 transaction
$3,300
16
GUESS, MATTHEW
1 transaction
$3,300
17
KARSNER, ALEXANDER
1 transaction
$3,300
18
LOBEL, JULIE
1 transaction
$3,300
19
LUNDQUIST, ANDREW
1 transaction
$3,300
20
PFEFFER, MARK
1 transaction
$3,300
21
ROSE, KELLY
1 transaction
$3,300
22
BARRETT, SHEILA M
2 transactions
$3,000
23
BARRETT, THOMAS J
2 transactions
$3,000
24
EVANS, ROBERT A
2 transactions
$3,000
25
FOX, RABUN
1 transaction
$3,000
26
HENDRIX, JOHN
1 transaction
$3,000
27
INDIAN TRIBE, COWLITZ
1 transaction
$3,000
28
MCDONNELL, CAROLYN
3 transactions
$3,000
29
BERTOSON, TODD
1 transaction
$2,500
30
BODE, DENISE A
1 transaction
$2,500
31
GIRAUD, CHARLES WILLIAM IV
1 transaction
$2,500
32
NEESER, GERALD E.
1 transaction
$2,500
33
O'BRIEN, ANDY
1 transaction
$2,500
34
RASMUSON, CATHRYN
1 transaction
$2,500
35
SAN MANUEL, BAND OF MISSION INDI
1 transaction
$2,500
36
BARRETT, CRAIG
1 transaction
$2,000
37
DEVORE, JON
4 transactions
$2,000
38
DOORNENBAL, HEIDI JANSEN
2 transactions
$2,000
39
EVERTS, ROBERT W
1 transaction
$2,000
40
JANSEN, GUY
2 transactions
$2,000
41
JANSEN, JIM
2 transactions
$2,000
42
JANSEN, VIC
2 transactions
$2,000
43
JANSEN, VICKI
2 transactions
$2,000
44
KNUTSON, KAREN
1 transaction
$2,000
45
OLDS, NICK
1 transaction
$2,000
46
PAUL, TERRY L
4 transactions
$2,000
47
WOOLSTON, KRISTINA
1 transaction
$2,000
48
DOWNS, RAISSA H
2 transactions
$2,000
49
SILVER, STEVEN
3 transactions
$1,750
50
ASHLOCK, CAROL S
1 transaction
$1,500
51
BAKER, BRETT
1 transaction
$1,500
52
BAKER, BRUCE ANDREW
1 transaction
$1,500
53
BAKER, MILES C
1 transaction
$1,500
54
BRADWAY, COURTNEY
1 transaction
$1,500
55
BUCKALEW, ADAM
1 transaction
$1,500
56
BUNDRANT, JOSEPH
1 transaction
$1,500
57
BUNDRANT, MARY SUE
1 transaction
$1,500
58
DAVIDSON, VALERIE
1 transaction
$1,500
59
FAWAZ, RAMZI
1 transaction
$1,500
60
FEATHERLY, WALTER
1 transaction
$1,500
61
GILLOTT, CHRISTOPHER D
1 transaction
$1,500
62
HALL, HUNTER
1 transaction
$1,500
63
IRIZARRY, STEVEN
1 transaction
$1,500
64
IYER, SWAMINATHAN
1 transaction
$1,500
65
LAWRENCE, COURTNEY
1 transaction
$1,500
66
MARSHALL, MEGAN
1 transaction
$1,500
67
MARTIN, MARGARET
1 transaction
$1,500
68
MCKECHNIE, ANDREW
1 transaction
$1,500
69
MCMILLIN, ROBERT
1 transaction
$1,500
70
PATE, HEWITT
1 transaction
$1,500
71
PETERSON, MICHAEL
1 transaction
$1,500
72
POPP, MONICA
1 transaction
$1,500
73
ROSEN, DEAN
1 transaction
$1,500
74
STOLPE, CAROL
1 transaction
$1,500
75
STRONG, MIRANDA
1 transaction
$1,500
76
THOMPSON, TAYLOR
1 transaction
$1,500
77
VAN PELT, JASON
1 transaction
$1,500
78
WALTON, ROBERT
1 transaction
$1,500
79
WHITE, DERRICK
1 transaction
$1,500
80
SOUTER, ALEXANDER
2 transactions
$1,300
81
ANDERSON, TRAVIS K
1 transaction
$1,000
82
BELL, STEPHEN E
1 transaction
$1,000
83
BICKWIT, LEONARD JR.
2 transactions
$1,000
84
BUNDRANT, DIANE L
1 transaction
$1,000
85
BURNETT, WALLACE DAVID
2 transactions
$1,000
86
CAMPBELL, CORA
1 transaction
$1,000
87
CARTER, ZACHARY
1 transaction
$1,000
88
CHAVEZ, JP
1 transaction
$1,000
89
CHRISTENSEN-WOODWARD, LORI M
1 transaction
$1,000
90
CURBELO, CECILIA
1 transaction
$1,000
91
DALY, JOHN JOSEPH
1 transaction
$1,000
92
DAUM, ROBERT C
1 transaction
$1,000
93
DEATON, TYLER
1 transaction
$1,000
94
DOREMUS, PAUL
2 transactions
$1,000
95
EPPLIN, ROBERT
1 transaction
$1,000
96
FERGUSON, JACK
2 transactions
$1,000
97
FITCH, EMMETT
1 transaction
$1,000
98
GUERRIERO, PATRICK
1 transaction
$1,000
99
HALL, PAULI
1 transaction
$1,000
100
HAMBLETON, DAVID
1 transaction
$1,000
101
HELMBRECHT, MICHAEL
1 transaction
$1,000
102
HENDERSCHEDT, JOHN
1 transaction
$1,000
103
HRAP, HEATHER
1 transaction
$1,000
104
HUGHES, MARY
1 transaction
$1,000
105
JARVIS, ALEIX
1 transaction
$1,000
106
KING, ANDREW
2 transactions
$1,000
107
KING, WENDY
1 transaction
$1,000
108
KRECZKO, ALAN
1 transaction
$1,000
109
LANGHOFER, RACHEL
1 transaction
$1,000
110
LEACH, TIMOTHY
1 transaction
$1,000
111
LINK, MICHAEL R
1 transaction
$1,000
112
LONG, RAYMOND
1 transaction
$1,000
113
LYNCH, KARINA V.
1 transaction
$1,000
114
MACKLON, DOMINIC
1 transaction
$1,000
115
MAR, SAM
1 transaction
$1,000
116
MEHRKAM, NOAH B
1 transaction
$1,000
117
MEZA, ROBERT
1 transaction
$1,000
118
MICHELS, DANIEL J
1 transaction
$1,000
119
MOIR, MATTHEW
1 transaction
$1,000
120
NYHOLM, ALLISON
2 transactions
$1,000
121
PEARSON, RACHEL T.
1 transaction
$1,000
122
SATTERBERG, WILLIAM R JR.
1 transaction
$1,000
123
SIRACUSE, CECE
1 transaction
$1,000
124
STOOPS, REED
2 transactions
$1,000
125
SUTTER, BRIAN
1 transaction
$1,000
126
SWEENEY, TARA
1 transaction
$1,000
127
THIESSEN, PAMELA
2 transactions
$1,000
128
TRIBE OF INDIANS, PUYALLUP
1 transaction
$1,000
129
VAN SCOYOC, H STEWART
1 transaction
$1,000
130
WILLIAMS, CHRISTINE V
2 transactions
$1,000
131
WILLIAMS, MICHAEL RYAN
1 transaction
$1,000
132
WILLIAMSON, BRAD
1 transaction
$1,000
133
ZUANICH, ROBERT
1 transaction
$1,000
134
WILT, SINCLAIR
2 transactions
$1,000
135
ZANE, C.J.
1 transaction
$750
136
BALASH, JOSEPH
1 transaction
$500
137
BLACKSMITH, DIANE
1 transaction
$500
138
BURKE, LARRY
1 transaction
$500
139
CANFIELD, CAROLINE
1 transaction
$500
140
CATANZARO, MICHAEL
1 transaction
$500
141
CUSACK, MIKE
1 transaction
$500
142
CUSTER, JASON R
1 transaction
$500
143
EASTON, JOHN
1 transaction
$500
144
EGAN, JAMES B
1 transaction
$500
145
ENLOW, THOMAS D SR.
1 transaction
$500
146
GORTON, KIM
1 transaction
$500
147
HANRAHAN, JOHN T
1 transaction
$500
148
HAWKS, THOMAS
1 transaction
$500
149
IANI, FRANCES S
1 transaction
$500
150
JOHNSTON, JENNIFER
1 transaction
$500
151
KALMIN, JOSEPH
1 transaction
$500
152
MACCHIAROLA, FRANK J
1 transaction
$500
153
MATHISEN, CARL
1 transaction
$500
154
MAXWELL, BRYAN
1 transaction
$500
155
MEISSNER, OLIVER R
1 transaction
$500
156
MILNE, JOHN D
1 transaction
$500
157
O'LEARY, BRIAN
1 transaction
$500
158
PETRIZZO, T.J.
1 transaction
$500
159
REY, MARK
1 transaction
$500
160
ROSENBAUM, JERR
1 transaction
$500
161
SAPRYKINA, NATALIA
1 transaction
$500
162
SCOTT, J. TYLER
1 transaction
$500
163
SHAW, RHOD
1 transaction
$500
164
SMITH, CRAIG F.
1 transaction
$500
165
STEVENSON, ROBERT
1 transaction
$500
166
STEWART, DONALD
1 transaction
$500
167
TRAUTNER, TODD
1 transaction
$500
168
WOOLF, MALCOLM
1 transaction
$500
169
ZAMGOCHIAN, ARAM
1 transaction
$500

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 2 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Sen. Heinrich, Martin [D-NM]

ID: H001046

Top Contributors

71

1
JSTREETPAC
CONDUIT TOTAL LISTED IN AGG. FIELD
PACWASHINGTON, DC
$1,000
Apr 19, 2024
2
SAN PABLO LYTTON TRIBE
OrganizationSAN PABLO, CA
$21,600
Oct 5, 2023
3
PUEBLO OF LAGUNA
OrganizationLAGUNA, NM
$5,800
Sep 30, 2024
4
PUEBLO OF SAN ILDEFONSO
OrganizationSANTA FE, NM
$5,000
Oct 30, 2024
5
CHEROKEE NATION
OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK
$5,000
Oct 23, 2024
6
CHEROKEE NATION
OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK
$5,000
Dec 5, 2023
7
THE CHICKASAW NATION
OrganizationADA, OK
$5,000
Oct 15, 2024
8
SAN PABLO LYTTON TRIBE
OrganizationSAN PABLO, CA
$3,962
May 10, 2024
9
AK-CHIN INDIAN COMMUNITY
OrganizationMARICOPA, AZ
$3,300
Oct 22, 2024
10
MATCH-E-BE-NASH-SHE-WISH BAND OF POTTAWATOMI INDIANS
OrganizationSHELBYVILLE, MI
$3,300
Oct 22, 2024

Sen. Sullivan, Dan [R-AK]

ID: S001198

Top Contributors

75

1
SEND IN THE SEAL PAC
PACALEXANDRIA, VA
$45,000
Aug 9, 2024
2
THE LINCOLN CLUB OF ORANGE COUNTY FEDERAL PAC
PACNEWPORT BEACH, CA
$25,000
Oct 18, 2024
3
SEND IN THE SEAL PAC
PACALEXANDRIA, VA
$15,000
Aug 9, 2024
4
WINRED
PACARLINGTON, VA
$6,600
Oct 19, 2023
5
RON JOHNSON VICTORY
COMOSHKOSH, WI
$1,997
Sep 30, 2024
6
MACLEAN-FOGG COMPANY
OrganizationMUNDELEIN, IL
$58,700
Dec 28, 2023
7
AK-CHIN INDIAN COMMUNITY
OrganizationMARICOPA, AZ
$41,300
Dec 29, 2023
8
MACLEAN-FOGG COMPANY
OrganizationMUNDELEIN, IL
$41,300
Dec 28, 2023
9
PASCUA YAQUI TRIBE
OrganizationTUCSON, AZ
$41,300
Dec 29, 2023
10
TIGUA INDIAN RESERVATION
OrganizationEL PASO, TX
$41,300
Dec 19, 2023

Donor Network - Sen. Murkowski, Lisa [R-AK]

PACs
Organizations
Individuals
Politicians

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

Loading...

Showing 55 nodes and 63 connections

Total contributions: $63

Top Donors - Sen. Murkowski, Lisa [R-AK]

Showing top 21 donors by contribution amount

7 Orgs14 Individuals

Industry Impact

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

  • +Agribusinessconfidence 0.80

    Section 2 of the bill amends the definition of 'Indian forest land or rangeland' to include land that is capable of restoration, which could potentially benefit agribusiness companies involved in forestry and land management (SEC. 2.(a).(1))

  • The bill authorizes $15,000,000 in appropriations for each of fiscal years 2026 through 2031 to carry out the Act, which could lead to contracts and projects for construction and engineering companies (SEC. 2.(5))

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

Strong
Vector: 64%
Pages: 341-343AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill aligns strongly with Project 2025's goal of reforming Forest Service wildfire management by promoting active vegetation management, reducing fuel buildup, and increasing tribal involvement in forest protection—key elements emphasized in the policy. It supports proactive forest management through restoration projects and expanded tribal authority, which complements the call for reducing regulatory barriers and increasing timber sales to mitigate wildfire risk."

Key themes:wildfire risk reductionactive forest managementtribal cooperationfuel reductiontimber sales

— 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 the Interior

Moderate
Vector: 65%
Pages: 563-565AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill supports tribal and Alaska Native land management and resource access, aligning with Project 2025's emphasis on resolving Alaska Native entitlements and expanding state/tribal control over federal lands, though it focuses on forest protection rather than energy or mineral development priorities."

Key themes:Alaska Native land rightsfederal-tribal cooperationland management authorityresource accesssovereignty

— 530 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Despite the passage of nearly 40 years since the end of the Reagan Adminis- tration, the federal government has yet to fulfill its statutory obligation to Alaska and Alaska Natives—specifically, each group has 5 million acres of entitlement remaining. Standing in the way are Public Land Orders (PLOs) issued by the BLM seizing that land for the agency. Those PLOs must be lifted to permit Alaska and Alaska Natives to select what was promised by Congress. For example, revocation of PLO 515057 will provide the state of Alaska 1.3 million acres of its remaining state entitlement. This revocation should be a top priority. BLM recommended this revocation in the 2006 report to Congress based on the Alaska Land Transfer Acceleration Act, and the Interior Secretary has authority to revoke based on the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act under section d(1).58 All other remaining BLM PLOs—all of which are more than 50 years old—should be revoked immediately. Alaska has untapped potential for increased oil production, which is important not just to the revitalization of the nation’s energy sector but is vital to the Alaskan economy. One-quarter of Alaska’s jobs are in the oil industry, and half of its overall economy depends on that industry. Without oil production, the Alaskan economy would be half its size. A new Administration must take the following actions immediately: l Approve the 2020 National Petroleum Reserve Alaska Integrated Activity Plan (NPRA-IAP) by resigning the Record of Decision. (Secretary Haaland’s order reverted to the 2013 IAP, the science for which is out of date, unlike the 2020 IAP.) l Reinstate the 2020 Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) by secretarial order and lift the suspension of the leases. l Approve the 2020 Willow EIS, the largest pending oil and gas projection in the United States in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska, and expand approval from three to five drilling pads.59 Minerals. Alaska is not just blessed with an abundance of oil, it has vast untapped mineral potential. Therefore, the new Administration must immedi- ately approve the Ambler Road Project60 across BLM-managed lands, pursuant to the Secretary’s authority under the ANILCA and based on the Final Envi- ronmental Impact Statement on the project.61 This will permit construction of a new 211-mile roadway on the south side of the Brooks Range, west from the Dalton Highway to the south bank of the Ambler River, and open the area only to mining-related industrial uses, providing high-paying jobs in an area known for unemployment. — 531 — Department of the Interior Wildlife and Waters. Throughout Alaska’s history, the federal government has treated Alaska as less than a sovereign state. This is especially the case when it comes to two of Alaska’s most valued resources, its wildlife and its waters. Immediate action is required to end, at least in part, this injustice. A new Admin- istration should: l Revoke National Park Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service rules regarding predator control and bear baiting, which are matters for state regulation. Such revocation is permitted under the 2017 Congressional Review Act.62 l Recognize Alaska’s authority to manage fish and game on all federal lands in accordance with ANILCA as during the Reagan Administration, when each DOI agency in Alaska signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game ceding to the state the lead on fish and wildlife management matters.63 l Issue a secretarial order declaring navigable waters in Alaska to be owned by the state so that the lands beneath these waters belong to Alaska. This will force the BLM to prove that water is not navigable, since in the case of non-navigability, any submerged lands belong to the BLM. Currently, BLM requires Alaska to prove navigability at its own expense—including the BLM’s preposterous assertion that the mighty Yukon River is non-navigable. l Reinstate President Trump’s 2020 Alaska Roadless Rule64 for the Tongass National Forest in Alaska, which was replaced by a Biden Roadless Rule that continues a 2001 Clinton rule affecting 9.37 million of the forest’s 16.7 million acres.65 The Clinton rule affects an area where communities are in small islands with no road access. It has prevented multiple infrastructure projects, including roads, electric transmission lines, and water and sewer projects, and it forces residents to use a heavily subsidized ferry system. Logging has been shut down to the extent that New York harvests more timber than does all of Alaska. OTHER ACTIONS The 30 by 30 Plan.66 President Biden’s Executive Order 14008 (30 by 30 plan)67 requires that the federal government, which already owns one-third of the country: (1) remove vast amounts of private property from productive use; and (2) end congressionally mandated uses of all federal land. The end result will be “total federal control of an additional 440 million acres of land or oceans in the U.S. by 2030.”68

Department of the Interior

Moderate
Vector: 65%
Pages: 563-565AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill supports tribal and Alaska Native Corporation forest management and expands their authority over forest lands, which aligns with Project 2025's emphasis on state and tribal sovereignty over natural resources, particularly in Alaska. However, the bill focuses on cooperative forest protection and restoration rather than the specific resource extraction, navigable waters, or roadless rule policies highlighted in the Project 2025 excerpt."

Key themes:tribal sovereigntyAlaska Native Corporationsfederal land managementforest protectionstate-tribal cooperation

— 531 — Department of the Interior Wildlife and Waters. Throughout Alaska’s history, the federal government has treated Alaska as less than a sovereign state. This is especially the case when it comes to two of Alaska’s most valued resources, its wildlife and its waters. Immediate action is required to end, at least in part, this injustice. A new Admin- istration should: l Revoke National Park Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service rules regarding predator control and bear baiting, which are matters for state regulation. Such revocation is permitted under the 2017 Congressional Review Act.62 l Recognize Alaska’s authority to manage fish and game on all federal lands in accordance with ANILCA as during the Reagan Administration, when each DOI agency in Alaska signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game ceding to the state the lead on fish and wildlife management matters.63 l Issue a secretarial order declaring navigable waters in Alaska to be owned by the state so that the lands beneath these waters belong to Alaska. This will force the BLM to prove that water is not navigable, since in the case of non-navigability, any submerged lands belong to the BLM. Currently, BLM requires Alaska to prove navigability at its own expense—including the BLM’s preposterous assertion that the mighty Yukon River is non-navigable. l Reinstate President Trump’s 2020 Alaska Roadless Rule64 for the Tongass National Forest in Alaska, which was replaced by a Biden Roadless Rule that continues a 2001 Clinton rule affecting 9.37 million of the forest’s 16.7 million acres.65 The Clinton rule affects an area where communities are in small islands with no road access. It has prevented multiple infrastructure projects, including roads, electric transmission lines, and water and sewer projects, and it forces residents to use a heavily subsidized ferry system. Logging has been shut down to the extent that New York harvests more timber than does all of Alaska. OTHER ACTIONS The 30 by 30 Plan.66 President Biden’s Executive Order 14008 (30 by 30 plan)67 requires that the federal government, which already owns one-third of the country: (1) remove vast amounts of private property from productive use; and (2) end congressionally mandated uses of all federal land. The end result will be “total federal control of an additional 440 million acres of land or oceans in the U.S. by 2030.”68 — 532 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Although the new President should vacate that order, DOI under a conservative President must take immediate action on the 30 by 30 plan by vacating a secre- tarial order issued by the Biden DOI69 that eliminated the Trump Administration’s requirement for the approval of state and local governments before federal acquisi- tion of private property with monies from the Land and Water Conservation Fund.70 National Monument Designations. As has every Democratic President before him beginning with Jimmy Carter, Joe Biden has abused his authority under the Antiquities Act of 1906. Like the outrageous, unilateral withdrawals from public use of multiple use federal land under the Carter, Clinton, and Obama Administrations, Biden’s first national monument was one in Colorado—adopted over the objections of scores of local groups and at least one American Indian tribe.71 In the days before the 2024 election, Biden will likely designate more western monuments. Although President Trump courageously ordered a review of national mon- ument designations, the result of that review was insufficient in that only two national monuments in one state (Utah) were adjusted.72 Monuments in Maine and Oregon, for example, should have been adjusted downward given the finding of Secretary Ryan Zinke’s review that they were improperly designated. The new Administration’s review will permit a fresh look at past monument decrees and new ones by President Biden. Furthermore, the new Administration must vigorously defend the downward adjustments it makes to permit a ruling on a President’s authority to reduce the size of national monuments by the U.S. Supreme Court. Finally, the new Administration must seek repeal of the Antiquities Act of 1906, which permitted emergency action by a President long before the statutory author- ity existed for the protection of special federal lands, such as those with wild and scenic rivers, endangered specials, or other unique places. Moreover, in recent years, Congress has designated as national monuments those areas deserving of such congressional action. Oregon and California Lands Act. One national monument worthy of down- ward adjustment is in Oregon, where its designation and subsequent expansion interfere with the federal obligation to residents to harvest timber on its BLM lands. A federal district court ruled in 2019 that land subject to the Oregon and California (O&C) Grant Lands Act of 193773 was set aside by Congress to be har- vested for the benefit of the people of Oregon. Specifically, those federal lands are to be “managed…for permanent forest production” and its timber “sold, cut, and removed in conformity with the princip[le] of sustained yield.”74 As the district court concluded,75 beginning in 1990, the federal government erected a trifecta of illegal barriers to the accomplishment of the congressional mandate, beginning with a response to the listing of the northern spotted owl,76 continuing a decade later with the designation of the Cascade–Siskiyou National Monument,77 and concluding in 2017 with an expansion of that monument.78 In

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