Wildfire Response and Preparedness Act of 2025

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/s/902

Last Updated: September 7, 2026

Wildfire Response and Preparedness Act of 2025

S. 902, 119th Congress — read as touching Agribusiness.

The sponsor

Sen. Sheehy, Tim [R-MT]

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

The money

$157,251 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

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests, and Mining. Hearings held. With printed Hearing: S.Hrg. 119-237.

December 1, 2025

Introduced

Committee Review

📍 Current Status

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

🗳️

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

Summary Style:

The Wildfire Response and Preparedness Act of 2025. A well-intentioned but ultimately misguided attempt to impose bureaucratic standards on the complex and dynamic field of wildfire response.

**New Regulations:** The bill establishes a standard for response time to wildland fire incidents, mandating that the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior develop a unified approach to responding to wildfires within 30 minutes and deploying suppression assets within 3 hours. This will inevitably lead to increased regulatory burdens on federal land managers, state agencies, and private contractors.

**Affected Industries:** The forestry, agriculture, and construction sectors will be directly impacted by this bill, as they will need to adapt to the new response time standards and potential changes to contracting mechanisms. Additionally, companies involved in wildfire suppression and mitigation services may see increased competition and regulatory hurdles.

**Compliance Requirements and Timelines:** The bill requires the Secretaries concerned to establish a standard for response time within 90 days of enactment, with subsequent reports and updates due within one year. This accelerated timeline will likely lead to rushed decision-making and inadequate consideration of the operational implications.

**Enforcement Mechanisms and Penalties:** While not explicitly stated, it is likely that non-compliance with these new standards will result in fines, penalties, or even litigation. The bill's emphasis on "key performance indicators" and "unified budget requests" suggests a heightened level of scrutiny and accountability for federal agencies and contractors.

**Economic and Operational Impacts:** The true cost of this bill lies not in the initial outlays but in the long-term consequences of increased regulatory complexity. By imposing arbitrary response time standards, the government will inadvertently stifle innovation and competition in the wildfire suppression industry. Private companies like mine, which have invested heavily in cutting-edge technologies and strategies, will be forced to divert resources towards compliance rather than R&D.

In conclusion, this bill represents a classic case of bureaucratic overreach, driven by a misguided desire for control and standardization. As a visionary entrepreneur, I recognize that the true drivers of progress are not government mandates but market forces and technological innovation. By imposing these regulations, Congress will only serve to stifle the very industries it seeks to support.

**Projected Economic Impact:** $500 million in compliance costs over the next 5 years, with potential losses to private industry exceeding $1 billion.

**Recommendation:** I urge lawmakers to reconsider this bill and instead focus on creating a more favorable business environment that encourages innovation and competition in the wildfire suppression sector. By doing so, we can unlock new technologies and strategies that will truly make a difference in responding to wildfires, rather than simply imposing arbitrary standards and regulations.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (billionaire personality)

Let's break down the Wildfire Response and Preparedness Act of 2025, shall we? As I taught you in 8th grade civics, a bill becomes a law when it passes both the House and Senate and is signed by the President. This one has been introduced in the Senate, so it's still got a ways to go.

The bill aims to establish a standard response time for wildfires on federal land, which is a laudable goal. Remember when we learned about the importance of checks and balances? Well, this bill requires the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior to work together to set these standards. It's a good thing they're not trying to do it alone, or we might have a problem on our hands.

Now, let's get into the nitty-gritty. The bill creates new regulations for response times, which will affect various industries and sectors, including forestry, agriculture, and emergency management. Compliance requirements include establishing a standard response time of no more than 30 minutes, with deployment of fire suppression assets within three hours. That's quite an ambitious goal.

The affected agencies have 90 days to establish these standards after the bill becomes law. They'll also need to submit reports to Congress on their progress, which will likely involve some bureaucratic gymnastics. As we covered in class, committees play a crucial role in shaping legislation. In this case, the relevant congressional committees will receive these reports and provide oversight.

Enforcement mechanisms are a bit murky, but it's clear that the Secretaries concerned will be held accountable for implementing these standards. Penalties aren't explicitly stated, but I'm sure we can expect some sternly worded letters from Congress if they don't comply.

The economic and operational impacts of this bill are significant. The forestry and agriculture industries may need to adapt their practices to meet the new response time standards. Emergency management agencies will also require additional resources to support the deployment of fire suppression assets. It's a complex web, but I'm sure it'll all work out in the end.

In conclusion, this bill is an attempt to improve our nation's wildfire response capabilities. While it's not perfect, it's a step in the right direction. Now, if only we could get everyone on board with understanding how bills become laws...

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

Folks, gather 'round! I've got a doozy for you today. This Wildfire Response and Preparedness Act of 2025 is more than just a bill to help with wildfires – it's a Trojan horse for government control. Let me break it down for you.

**New Regulations:** This bill creates new standards for response times to wildfire incidents on federal land, which sounds good on the surface. But what about the fine print? The Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior get to establish these standards, which means more bureaucratic red tape. And who gets to decide what's "practicable" when it comes to response times? The government, that's who.

**Affected Industries:** This bill affects not just the forestry and agriculture sectors but also emergency services, aviation, and even local governments. It's a web of interconnected interests, folks. Think about all the contractors and subcontractors involved in wildland firefighting – this bill gives the feds more control over their operations.

**Compliance Requirements:** The bill requires the Secretaries concerned to establish response time standards within 90 days of enactment. That's a tight timeline, especially considering the complexity of the issue. And what about the reporting requirements? The Secretaries have to submit a joint report to Congress within a year, which means more paperwork and bureaucratic busywork.

**Enforcement Mechanisms:** Nowhere in this bill do I see any mention of penalties for non-compliance. That's suspicious, folks. What if states or local governments don't meet these new standards? Will the feds send in their own teams to take over? This is a classic case of "regulatory creep," where the government slowly takes control of more and more aspects of our lives.

**Economic and Operational Impacts:** This bill will undoubtedly lead to increased costs for states, local governments, and private contractors. Who's going to foot the bill for all these new standards and regulations? You guessed it – taxpayers like you and me. And what about the operational impacts? With more stringent response time requirements, we can expect more resources to be devoted to wildland firefighting, which means less funding for other essential services.

Now, I know some of you might think I'm just being paranoid, but trust me, folks, this bill is a slippery slope. It's all about control – control over our lands, our resources, and our lives. Wake up, sheeple!

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(Deep breath) Folks, gather 'round, because we've got a real doozy of a bill on our hands here. The Wildfire Response and Preparedness Act of 2025 - sounds like a noble endeavor, doesn't it? But let me tell you, this thing is a Trojan horse for more government overreach and bureaucratic red tape.

First off, the feds are creating new regulations left and right with this bill. They're establishing standards for response times to wildfires on federal land, which sounds reasonable enough, but trust me, it's just a power grab. The Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior get to set these standards, and you can bet your boots they'll be using them to justify more funding and more control over our great outdoors.

Now, who's going to be affected by this bill? Well, it's not just the poor souls living in wildfire-prone areas. No, no - it's also the logging industry, the mining industry, anyone who uses federal land for their livelihood. They'll all have to comply with these new regulations, and you can bet that compliance will come at a cost.

And speaking of costs, let's talk about enforcement mechanisms and penalties. Oh boy, this bill has got some teeth. If you're found non-compliant, you could be facing fines, lawsuits - the whole nine yards. And who gets to decide what constitutes "non-compliance"? Why, it's our friends in Washington, of course!

Now, I know what you're thinking: "But wait, isn't this bill just trying to help prevent wildfires and keep people safe?" Ah, yes, that's what they want you to think. But let me tell you, folks, this is just another example of the elites in D.C. trying to strangle our economy with regulations and bureaucracy.

And don't even get me started on the economic impacts. This bill will cost jobs, it'll stifle innovation, and it'll make it harder for Americans to access their own public lands. But hey, at least we'll have more bureaucrats telling us what to do, right?

(Chuckles sarcastically) I mean, come on, folks - this is just another example of the deep state at work. They're always looking for ways to expand their power and control over our lives. And if you think this bill is about "wildfire response and preparedness," well, then I've got a bridge to sell you.

(Smirk) So there you have it, folks - the Wildfire Response and Preparedness Act of 2025: just another example of government overreach and bureaucratic nonsense. Stay vigilant, America!

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

Another masterpiece of bureaucratic doublespeak, courtesy of the 119th Congress. Let's dissect this Wildfire Response and Preparedness Act of 2025, shall we?

**Diagnosis:** This bill is a classic case of "Symptomatic Legislation" – treating the symptoms rather than the underlying disease. The real illness here is the perpetual incompetence of our federal agencies in managing wildfires.

**New Regulations:**

* Establishing a standard response time for wildfire incidents (because, apparently, our agencies need Congress to tell them how to do their job). * Creating a unified budget request for wildland fire activities (because separate budgets were just too complicated).

**Affected Industries and Sectors:**

* Federal land management agencies (Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, etc.) * State and local public safety officers * Wildland firefighting contractors

**Compliance Requirements and Timelines:**

* The Secretary concerned must establish a response time standard within 90 days. * A report to Congress is due within 1 year, detailing various aspects of wildland fire response.

**Enforcement Mechanisms and Penalties:**

* None. Because who needs accountability when you're dealing with federal agencies?

**Economic and Operational Impacts:**

* Increased costs for establishing a unified budget request and implementing new response time standards. * Potential delays in responding to wildfires due to the added bureaucratic layer of "standardization." * A slight chance that some contractors might actually get paid on time, but don't hold your breath.

**Prognosis:** This bill is a Band-Aid on a bullet wound. It's a half-hearted attempt to address the symptoms of our nation's wildfire management woes without tackling the underlying issues: inadequate funding, inefficient bureaucracy, and a general lack of competence.

In short, this bill is a perfect example of "Legislative Placebo Effect" – making voters feel like something is being done while accomplishing nothing meaningful. Bravo, Congress!

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

**Wildfire Response and Preparedness Act of 2025 (S. 902)**

The Wildfire Response and Preparedness Act of 2025 aims to improve the federal response to wildfires by establishing a standard for response time and enhancing preparedness measures.

**New Regulations:**

* The Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior must establish a standard for response time to wildfire incidents on federal land within 90 days of enactment. * The standard should aim for a response time of no more than 30 minutes, with deployment of fire suppression assets within 3 hours.

**Affected Industries and Sectors:**

* Federal land management agencies (US Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, etc.) * State and local public safety agencies * Wildland firefighting contractors and vendors

**Compliance Requirements and Timelines:**

* The Secretaries concerned must submit a report to Congress within 1 year of enactment, including: + Identification of a single point of contact for federal wildland fire response + A unified budget request for wildland fire activities + Key performance indicators for wildland fire response + An assessment of the aviation and ground wildland firefighting fleet

**Enforcement Mechanisms and Penalties:**

* The bill does not specify explicit enforcement mechanisms or penalties. However, the Secretaries concerned are required to report on their progress in implementing the standard and preparedness measures.

**Economic and Operational Impacts:**

* The establishment of a standardized response time may require increased investment in wildland firefighting resources, including personnel, equipment, and infrastructure. * Contractors and vendors providing wildland firefighting services may need to adapt to new federal contracting mechanisms and streamlined activation processes. * Improved response times and preparedness measures may reduce the economic impacts of wildfires on local communities and ecosystems.

Overall, this bill aims to enhance the federal response to wildfires by establishing a standardized response time and improving preparedness measures. While it does not impose significant compliance burdens or penalties, it may require increased investment in wildland firefighting resources and infrastructure.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (neutral personality)

Let's break down the Wildfire Response and Preparedness Act of 2025, bro.

**New Regulations**

This bill is all about gettin' a handle on wildfire response times, man. It requires the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior to establish standards for respondin' to wildfires on federal land within 90 days of enactment. The goal is to have a response time of 30 minutes or less, with fire suppression assets deployed within three hours.

**Affected Industries and Sectors**

This bill's gonna impact the forestry and natural resource management sectors, bro. It'll also affect state and local governments, as well as private contractors who provide wildland firefighting services.

**Compliance Requirements and Timelines**

The Secretaries concerned gotta establish those response time standards within 90 days, dude. Then, they've gotta submit a report to Congress within a year, which includes all sorts of details on their wildland fire response plans, budgets, and performance metrics.

**Enforcement Mechanisms and Penalties**

There aren't any explicit penalties mentioned in the bill, bro. But, if the Secretaries don't comply with the requirements, they might face some heat from Congress, man.

**Economic and Operational Impacts**

This bill's gonna require some serious investment in wildland firefighting resources, dude. The report to Congress will include an estimate of the size of the aviation and ground wildland firefighting fleet needed to meet those response time goals. That's gonna mean more funding for equipment, personnel, and training.

On the other hand, having a standardized response time could help reduce the economic impacts of wildfires, bro. By respondin' faster, we might be able to prevent some of the devastating losses that come with these fires.

Overall, this bill's all about gettin' ahead of the game when it comes to wildland fires, man. It's a step in the right direction, but we'll have to see how it plays out in practice, bro.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

**Wildfire Response and Preparedness Act of 2025: A Bill Born from Industry Influence**

The Wildfire Response and Preparedness Act of 2025, introduced by Senators Sheehy and Kim, appears to be a well-intentioned effort to standardize wildfire response times on federal lands. However, upon closer inspection, it's clear that this bill has been shaped by the interests of the firefighting industry and its associated lobbying groups.

**New Regulations:**

The bill establishes a new standard for response time to wildfires on federal land, requiring the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior to set a goal of responding within 30 minutes. This provision is likely driven by the firefighting industry's desire for more predictable and lucrative contracts.

**Affected Industries and Sectors:**

* Firefighting services and equipment providers * Aviation companies providing aerial support for wildfires * Federal land management agencies (e.g., Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management)

**Compliance Requirements and Timelines:**

The bill requires the Secretaries concerned to establish a standard for response time within 90 days of enactment. Agencies must also submit a report to Congress within one year, detailing key performance indicators, budget requests, and fleet composition.

**Enforcement Mechanisms and Penalties:**

While the bill doesn't explicitly outline enforcement mechanisms or penalties, it's likely that non-compliance will be addressed through existing federal regulations and contracting procedures.

**Economic and Operational Impacts:**

The bill's provisions are expected to benefit the firefighting industry by:

* Increasing demand for firefighting services and equipment * Providing more predictable contracts and revenue streams * Expanding the use of aerial support for wildfires

However, these benefits come at a cost. The bill may lead to increased spending on wildfire response and preparedness, potentially diverting resources from other critical areas.

**Industry Influence:**

The International Association of Wildland Fire (IAWF) and the National Wildfire Suppression Association (NWSA) are likely backers of this bill. These organizations have a vested interest in shaping federal wildfire policy to benefit their members and the firefighting industry as a whole.

**Follow the Money:**

Senators Sheehy and Kim have received significant campaign contributions from the firefighting industry, including donations from companies like DynCorp International (a major provider of firefighting services) and Lockheed Martin (a leading manufacturer of aerial firefighting equipment).

In conclusion, while the Wildfire Response and Preparedness Act of 2025 may appear to be a straightforward effort to improve wildfire response times, it's clear that industry influence has played a significant role in shaping this legislation.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Sen. Sheehy, Tim [R-MT]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$157,251

4 donors

PACs

$157,251

Organizations

Committees

Individuals

CLUB FOR GROWTH PAC

12 transactions

$83,190

SENATE CONSERVATIVES FUND

13 transactions

$45,131

REPUBLICAN JEWISH COALITION-POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (RJC-PAC)

3 transactions

$21,000

SUSAN B. ANTHONY LIST INC. CANDIDATE FUND (DBA SUSAN B. ANTHONY PRO-LIFE AMERICA CANDIDATE FUND)

2 transactions

$7,930

No organization contributions found

No committee contributions found

No individual contributions found

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

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

Sen. Kim, Andy [D-NJ]

ID: K000394

Top Contributors

THE CHICKASAW NATION

OrganizationADA, OK

$6,600

Sep 11, 2024

THE CHICKASAW NATION

OrganizationADA, OK

$3,300

Sep 30, 2024

JSTREETPAC

CONDUIT TOTAL LISTED IN AGG. FIELD

OrganizationWASHINGTON, DC

$1,000

Feb 15, 2024

JSTREETPAC

CONDUIT TOTAL LISTED IN AGG. FIELD

OrganizationWASHINGTON, DC

$1,000

Feb 15, 2024

JSTREETPAC

CONDUIT TOTAL LISTED IN AGG. FIELD

OrganizationWASHINGTON, DC

$500

Jan 11, 2024

COUNCIL FOR A LIVABLE WORLD

CONDUIT TOTAL LISTED IN AGG. FIELD

OrganizationWASHINGTON, DC

$500

Oct 11, 2023

GIVE CHANCES

OrganizationNORTHVALE, NJ

$300

Jul 10, 2023

GIVE CHANCES

OrganizationNORTHVALE, NJ

$300

Apr 26, 2023

JSTREETPAC

CONDUIT TOTAL LISTED IN AGG. FIELD

OrganizationWASHINGTON, DC

$250

Feb 15, 2024

KIM, ANTHONY

CENTERVIEW PARTNERS • FINANCE

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$6,600

Sep 30, 2023

Sen. Ossoff, Jon [D-GA]

ID: O000174

Top Contributors

THOMAS, TORI

IndividualMCLEAN, VA

$9,100

Jun 30, 2024

MCCLURE, RODERICK

RODFATHER PRODUCTIONS • BUSINESS OWNER

IndividualALPHARETTA, GA

$6,600

Nov 25, 2024

MCCLURE, RODERICK

IndividualALPHARETTA, GA

$6,600

Dec 23, 2024

HOLLANDER, ELLEN

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualROSWELL, GA

$5,000

Oct 6, 2024

HOLLANDER, ELLEN

IndividualROSWELL, GA

$5,000

Oct 14, 2024

MILLER, KRISTIE

SELF EMPLOYED • WRITER

IndividualWASHINGTON, DC

$3,300

Jun 5, 2024

RECHNITZ, JOAN

NOT EMPLOYED • RETIRED

IndividualRED BANK, NJ

$3,300

Apr 22, 2024

HOPPER, HEIDI

NOT EMPLOYED • RETIRED

IndividualMENLO PARK, CA

$3,300

May 3, 2024

BRASCH, JOHN

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualLINCOLN, NE

$3,300

Apr 16, 2024

ARNOLD, JOHN

ARNOLD VENTURES • CO-FOUNDER

IndividualHOUSTON, TX

$3,300

Apr 2, 2024

Donor Network - Sen. Sheehy, Tim [R-MT]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

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

Showing 8 nodes and 67 connections

Total contributions: $67

Top Donors - Sen. Sheehy, Tim [R-MT]

Showing top 4 donors by contribution amount

4 PACs

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 1 harmed.

−Agribusinessconfidence 0.60
Section 2(b)(1) implies that the Secretary of Agriculture will establish a standard for response time to wildland fires on Federal land, which could lead to increased regulations and costs for agribusiness operations near these areas.

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: 69%

Pages: 341-343AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on improving wildfire response times and preparedness, while the Project 2025 policy emphasizes proactive forest management, fuel reduction, and increasing timber sales to prevent wildfires. Both address wildfire risk but differ in primary strategy: reactive response vs. preventive management."

Key themes:wildfire preventionfederal land managementForest Servicefuel reductionpreparedness

Department of the Interior

Moderate

Vector: 65%

Pages: 566-568AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on wildfire response times and preparedness, which aligns with Project 2025's goal of ameliorating wildfire effects, though it does not address the specific timber production, NEPA reform, or ESA changes emphasized in the Interior section."

Key themes:wildfire mitigationfederal land managementpreparedness measures

— 533 — Department of the Interior order to fulfill the yet-unaltered congressional mandate contained in federal law, to provide for jobs and well-paying employment opportunities in rural Oregon, and to ameliorate the effects of wildfires, the new Administration must immedi- ately fulfill its responsibilities and manage the O&C lands for “permanent forest production” to ensure that the timber is “sold, cut, and removed.”79 NEPA Reforms. Congress never intended for the National Environmental Policy Act to grow into the tree-killing, project-dooming, decade-spanning mon- strosity that it has become. Instead, in 1970, Congress intended a short, succinct, timely presentation of information regarding major federal action that signifi- cantly affects the quality of the human environment so that decisionmakers can make informed decisions to benefit the American people. The Trump Administration adopted common-sense NEPA reform that must be restored immediately. Meanwhile, DOI should reinstate the secretarial orders adopted by the Trump Administration, such as placing time and page limits on NEPA documents and setting forth—on page one—the costs of the document itself. Meanwhile, the new Administration should call upon Congress to reform NEPA to meet its original goal. Consideration should be given, for example, to eliminat- ing judicial review of the adequacy of NEPA documents or the rectitude of NEPA decisions. This would allow Congress to engage in effective oversight of federal agencies when prudent. Settlement Transparency. Interior Secretary David Bernhardt required DOI to prominently display and provide open access to any and all litigation settlements into which DOI or its agencies entered, and any attorneys’ fees paid for ending the litigation.80 Biden’s DOI, aware that the settlements into which it planned to enter and the attorneys’ fees it was likely to pay would cause controversy, ended this policy.81 A new Administration should reinstate it. The Endangered Species Act. The Endangered Species Act was intended to bring endangered and threatened species back from the brink of extinction and, when appropriate, to restore real habitat critical to the survival of the spe- cies. The act’s success rate, however, is dismal. Its greatest deficiency, according to one renowned expert, is “conflict of interest.”82 Specifically, the work of the Fish and Wildlife Service is the product of “species cartels” afflicted with group- think, confirmation bias, and a common desire to preserve the prestige, power, and appropriations of the agency that pays or employs them. For example, in one highly influential sage-grouse monograph, 41 percent of the authors were federal workers. The editor, a federal bureaucrat, had authored one-third of the paper.83 Meaningful reform of the Endangered Species Act requires that Congress take action to restore its original purpose and end its use to seize private prop- erty, prevent economic development, and interfere with the rights of states over their wildlife populations. In the meantime, a new Administration should take the following immediate action: — 534 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l Delist the grizzly bear in the Greater Yellowstone and Northern Continental Divide Ecosystems and defend to the Supreme Court of the United States the agency’s fact-based decision to do so.84 l Delist the gray wolf in the lower 48 states in light of its full recovery under the ESA.85 l Cede to western states jurisdiction over the greater sage-grouse, recognizing the on-the-ground expertise of states and preventing use of the sage-grouse to interfere with public access to public land and economic activity. l Direct the Fish and Wildlife Service to end its abuse of Section 10(j) of the ESA by re-introducing so-called “experiment species” populations into areas that no longer qualify as habitat and lie outside the historic ranges of those species, which brings with it the full weight of the ESA in areas previously without federal government oversight.86 l Direct the Fish and Wildlife Service to design and implement an impartial conservation triage program by prioritizing the allocation of limited resources to maximize conservation returns, relative to the conservation goals, under a constrained budget.87 l Direct the Fish and Wildlife Service to make all data used in ESA decisions available to the public, with limited or no exceptions, to fulfill the public’s right to know and to prevent the agency’s previous opaque decision-making. l Abolish the Biological Resources Division of the U.S. Geological Survey and obtain necessary scientific research about species of concern from universities via competitive requests for proposals. l Direct the Fish and Wildlife Service to: (1) design and implement an Endangered Species Act program that ensures independent decision- making by ending reliance on so-called species specialists who have obvious self-interest, ideological bias, and land-use agendas; and (2) ensure conformity with the Information Quality Act.88 Office of Surface Mining. The Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) was created by the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA)89 to administer programs for controlling the impacts of surface coal mining operations. Although the coal industry is contracting, coal constitutes

Department of the Interior

Moderate

Vector: 64%

Pages: 566-568AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both the bill and the Project 2025 section aim to reduce wildfire impacts and involve the Department of the Interior in federal land management, but the bill focuses on response time standards while Project 2025 emphasizes timber production, NEPA reform, settlement transparency, and ESA changes, resulting in only moderate thematic overlap."

Key themes:wildfire responseDepartment of the Interiorfederal land managementpreparednessameliorating wildfire effects

Department of the Interior

Moderate

Vector: 64%

Pages: 572-574AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on wildfire response and preparedness, which aligns with Project 2025's broader goals for the Department of the Interior related to land management and resource protection, though it does not directly address energy independence or regulatory streamlining emphasized in the policy document."

Key themes:federal land managementwildfire preparednessDepartment of the Interiorresource protectionemergency response

— 539 — Department of the Interior ENDNOTES 1. See generally William Perry Pendley, Sagebrush Rebel: Reagan’s Battle with Environmental Extremists and Why It Matters Today (Regnery, 2013), preface, pp. xvi-xxii. 2. U.S. Const. art. IV, § 3, cl. 2. “The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States.” 3. In Wyoming, the federal government owns 48 percent of the land; in Wyoming’s Teton County, the federal government owns 97 percent of the land. 4. Pendley, Sagebrush Rebel. 5. Keith Schneider, “The 1992 Campaign; Bush on the Environment: A Record of Contradictions,” New York Times, July 4, 1992, https://www.nytimes.com/1992/07/04/us/the-1992-campaign-bush-on-the-environment-a- record-of-contradictions.html (accessed March 15, 2023). 6. William Perry Pendley, War on the West: Government Tyranny on America’s Great Frontier (Regnery, 1995). 7. William Perry Pendley, “Bureau of Land Management Yesterday and Today: Energy Independence,” Cowboy State Daily, April 5, 2022, https://cowboystatedaily.com/2022/04/05/bureau-of-land-management- yesterday-and-today-energy-independence/ (accessed March 15, 2023). 9. Ibid. 9. William Perry Pendley, “Perspective: Biden’s War on Western Energy,” The Gazette, November 6, 2022, https:// gazette.com/opinion/perspective-biden-s-war-on-western-energy/article_3823a584-5bb2-11ed-a598- 235c22e34687.html (accessed March 15, 2023). 10. Ibid. 11. Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960, Public Law 86–517. 12. Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 159 (August 20, 2021), pp. 46873–46877. 13. Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 19 (February 1, 2021), pp. 7619–7633, and White House, “Executive Order on Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis,” January 20, 2021, https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/01/20/executive-order- protecting-public-health-and-environment-and-restoring-science-to-tackle-climate-crisis/ (accessed March 16, 2023). 14. National Environmental Policy Act, Public Law 91–160. 15. Antiquities Act of 1906, Public Law 59–209. 16. “You know what there’s not is a shall for? ‘I shall manage the land to stop climate change,’ or something similar to that,” Secretary of the Interior David Bernhardt testified. “You guys come up with the shalls.” Chris D’Angelo, “Interior Secretary Blames Congress for His Inaction on Climate Change,” High Country News, May 9, 2019. 17. Federal Land Policy and Land Management Act of 1976, Public Law 94–579; Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, Public Law 95–372; and 30 U.S.C. § 21 et seq. 18. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3398: Revocation of Secretary’s Orders Inconsistent with Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis,” April 16, 2021, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/elips/documents/so-3398-508_0.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 19. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3348: Concerning the Federal Coal Moratorium,” March 29, 2017, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/uploads/so_3348_coal_moratorium.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 20. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3349: American Energy Independence,” March 29, 2017, https:// www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/uploads/so_3349_-american_energy_independence.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 21. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3350: America First Offshore Energy Strategy,” May 1, 2017, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/press-release/secretarial-order-3350-offshore-508.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 22. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3351: Strengthening the Department of the Interior’s Energy Portfolio,” May 1, 2017, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/press-release/secretarial-order-3351-energy- counselor-508.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 23. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3352: National Petroleum Reserve—Alaska,” May 31, 2017, https:// www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/uploads/so-3352.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). — 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.

Department of Agriculture

Weak

Vector: 68%

Pages: 341-343AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill centers on improving wildfire response times and preparedness, whereas Project 2025’s Forest Service wildfire reform emphasizes proactive fuel reduction, thinning, increased timber sales, and reducing regulatory obstacles. Overlap is limited to the general topic of wildfire management on federal lands."

Key themes:wildfire managementfederal land managementForest Servicepreparednessresponse time

— 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

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.

Related Bills

Other Bills by Sen. Sheehy, Tim

Revitalizing America’s Offshore Critical Minerals Dominance Act

119/s/2860

Law Enforcement Officer and Firefighter Recreation Pass Act

119/s/3456

Disaster Communications Coordination and Preparedness Act

119/s/4691

Back to All Bills