Pit River Land Transfer Act of 2025

Download PDF
Bill ID: 119/hr/2400
Last Updated: August 5, 2026

Sponsored by

Rep. LaMalfa, Doug [R-CA-1]

ID: L000578

Follow the money

The bill

Pit River Land Transfer Act of 2025

HR. 2400, 119th Congress — read as touching Gambling & Sports Betting.

The sponsor

Rep. LaMalfa, Doug [R-CA-1]

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

The money

$82,100 raised

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

The alignment

85% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of the Interior" section, p. 575-577 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 Indian Affairs. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.

August 4, 2026

Introduced

Committee Review

Floor Action

📍 Current Status

Next: The full House will vote on whether to pass the bill.

✅

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

Joy. Another legislative masterpiece from the geniuses in Congress. Let's dissect this mess, shall we?

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The Pit River Land Transfer Act of 2025 is a bill that claims to benefit the Pit River Tribe by transferring approximately 583.79 acres of federal land into trust for their use. How noble. But don't be fooled; this is just a symptom of a larger disease – the perpetual need for politicians to appear benevolent while lining their own pockets.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill takes the Four Corners Federal land, currently managed by the Forest Service, and transfers it into trust for the Pit River Tribe. The Secretary of Agriculture will conduct a survey within 180 days, because who needs due diligence when you're giving away public land? The transferred land will be considered part of the Pit River Tribe Reservation and administered by the Secretary in accordance with existing laws and regulations. Oh, and there's a lovely little clause that prohibits gaming on the transferred land – because we wouldn't want any actual economic development or self-sufficiency for the tribe.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The obvious beneficiaries are the Pit River Tribe, who will receive the land transfer. But let's not forget the real stakeholders here: the politicians and their cronies who will reap the benefits of this "generous" act through campaign donations, lobbying fees, or other forms of quid pro quo. The Forest Service, which currently manages the land, will likely see a reduction in its responsibilities – and perhaps some employees will find themselves "reorganized" out of a job.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The impact on the Pit River Tribe is uncertain, but it's unlikely to be as rosy as promised. The tribe may face increased administrative burdens, potential environmental liabilities, or even conflicts with neighboring landowners. Meanwhile, the federal government will be relieved of its management responsibilities, freeing up resources for more pressing matters – like funding politicians' pet projects.

In conclusion, this bill is a textbook example of legislative theater: a feel-good measure designed to garner votes and campaign contributions while masking the true motivations of those involved. It's a cynical ploy to buy off Native American interests with token land transfers, all while maintaining the status quo of bureaucratic inefficiency and cronyism.

Diagnosis: Acute case of Legislative Hypocrisy Syndrome (LHS), characterized by symptoms of self-serving grandstanding, lack of transparency, and an utter disregard for the long-term consequences of one's actions. Treatment: a healthy dose of skepticism, a strong stomach, and a willingness to call out the perpetrators of this farce.

Related Topics

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

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. LaMalfa, Doug [R-CA-1]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions
$82,100
24 donors
PACs
$0
Organizations
$11,100
Committees
$0
Individuals
$71,000

No PAC contributions found

1
CHEROKEE NATION
1 transaction
$3,300
2
AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS
1 transaction
$3,300
3
LEECH LAKE BAND OF OJIBWE
1 transaction
$2,000
4
VANN BROTHERS
1 transaction
$1,500
5
ONEIDA NATION
1 transaction
$1,000

No committee contributions found

1
SANTA ROSA RANCHERIA, .
1 transaction
$6,600
2
BURRESON, MARY JO
2 transactions
$6,600
3
NECHAY, JULIA
1 transaction
$5,000
4
OSAGE NATION, .
1 transaction
$3,300
5
MCLAUGHLIN, RANDY
1 transaction
$3,300
6
CHOCTAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA, .
1 transaction
$3,300
7
BURRESON, DENNIS
1 transaction
$3,300
8
ETCHEPARE, ALLEN
1 transaction
$3,300
9
FENN, JOMARIE
1 transaction
$3,300
10
KISLYANKA, VIKTORIYA
1 transaction
$3,300
11
KISLYANKA, VLADIMIR
1 transaction
$3,300
12
KOEHNEN, KALIN
1 transaction
$3,300
13
LAGRANDE, JULIE
1 transaction
$3,300
14
LAGRANDE, KM
1 transaction
$3,300
15
MONTNA, ALFRED
1 transaction
$3,300
16
RUE, MICHAEL
1 transaction
$3,300
17
WILBUR, RICHARD
1 transaction
$3,300
18
SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION IND, .
1 transaction
$3,300
19
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COM, .
1 transaction
$3,300

Donor Network - Rep. LaMalfa, Doug [R-CA-1]

PACs
Organizations
Individuals
Politicians

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

Loading...

Showing 45 nodes and 42 connections

Total contributions: $42

Top Donors - Rep. LaMalfa, Doug [R-CA-1]

Showing top 24 donors by contribution amount

5 Orgs19 Individuals

Industry Impact

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

  • Section 2(c) explicitly prohibits the use of land taken into trust for class II or class III gaming under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.

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 the Interior

Strong
Vector: 60%
Pages: 575-577AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 2400 aligns with Project 2025's emphasis on tribal land management and the Land Buy-Back Program for Tribal Nations by transferring federal land into trust for the Pit River Tribe, supporting tribal self-governance and economic development on ancestral lands."

Key themes:tribal land trustLand Buy-Back Programtribal self-governanceDepartment of the Interioreconomic development

— 543 — Department of the Interior 68. Karen Budd Falen, “Biden’s ‘30 By 30 Plan’: A Slap at American Private Property Rights,” Cowboy State Daily, April 15, 2021, https://cowboystatedaily.com/2021/04/15/bidens-30-by-30-plan-a-slap-at-american-private- property-rights/ (accessed March 16, 2023). 69. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3396: Rescission of Secretary’s Order 3388, ‘Land and Water Conservation Fund Implementation by the U.S. Department of the Interior,’” February 11, 2021, https://www. doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/elips/documents/so-3396-signed-2-11-21-final.pdf (accessed March 17, 2021). 70. Ibid. 71. Associated Press, “Ute Indian Tribe Criticizes Biden’s Camp Hale Monument Designation,” KUER 90.1, October 13, 2022. 72. William Perry Pendley, “Trump Wants to Free Up Federal Lands, His Interior Secretary Fails Him,” National Review Online, September 25, 2017, https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/09/secretary-interior-ryan-zinke- monuments-review-trump-executive-order-antiquities-act-environmentalists/ (accessed March 16, 2023). 73. The Oregon and California Revested Lands Sustained Yield Management Act of 1937, Public Law 75-405, 43 U.S. Code § 2601. 74. Ibid., and American Forest Resource Council v. Hammond, 422 F. Supp. 3d 184, 187 (D.D.C. 2019). 75. American Forest Resource Council v. Hammond, 422 F. Supp. 3d, pp. 187–188. 76. Federal Register, Vol. 55, No. 26 (June 26, 1990), p. 26114–26194. 77. Federal Register, Vol. 65, No. 114 (June 13, 2000), pp. 37249–37252. 78. Federal Register, Vol. 82, No. 11 (January 18, 2017), pp. 6145–6150. 79. American Forest Resource Council v. Hammond, 422 F. Supp. 3d 184 (D.D.C. 2019). 80. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Final Consent Decrees/Settlement Agreements,” https://www.doi.gov/ solicitor/transparency/final (accessed March 16, 2023). 81. Michael Doyle, “Interior Order Erases Litigation Website,” E&E News, June 17, 2022, https://www.eenews.net/ articles/interior-order-erases-litigation-website/ (accessed March 16, 2023). 82. Rob Roy Ramey, On the Origin of Specious Species (Lexington Books 2012), pp. 77–97. 83. William Perry Pendley, “Killing Jobs to Save the Sage Grouse: Junk Science, Weird Science, and Plain Nonsense,” Washington Times, May 31, 2012, https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/may/31/killing- jobs-to-save-the-sage-grouse/ (accessed March 16, 2023). 84. Michael Lee, “Wyoming’s Push to Delist Grizzly Bears from Endangered Species List Faces Opposition from Anti-Hunting Group,” Fox News, January 21, 2022, https://www.foxnews.com/politics/wyoming-delist-grizzly- endangered-species-list-opposition-anti-hunting-group (accessed March 18, 2023). 85. News release, “Trump Administration Returns Management and Protection of Gray Wolves to States and Tribes Following Successful Recovery Efforts,” October 29, 2020, https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/trump- administration-returns-management-and-protection-gray-wolves-states-and-tribes (accessed March 18, 2023). 86. 50 Code of Federal Regulations §17, and Sean Paige, “‘Rewilding’ Will Backfire on Colorado,” The Gazette, June 19, 2022, https://gazette.com/opinion/guest-column-rewilding-will-backfire-on-colorado/article_ d0016672-ed79-11ec-b027-abe62ba840a1.html (accessed March 18, 2023). 87. Madeleine C. Bottrill et al., “Is Conservation Triage Just Smart Decision Making?” Trends in Ecology & Evolution, Vol. 23, No. 12 (December 2008), pp. 649–654, https://karkgroup.org/wp-content/uploads/Bottrill-et-al-2008. pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 88. Rob Roy Ramey II, testimony before the Committee on Resources, U.S. House of Representatives, April 8, 2014, https://naturalresources.house.gov/uploadedfiles/rameytestimony4_8.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 89. Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, Public Law 95–87. 90. Pennsylvania is the nation’s third-largest coal producer, and its state program was the model for SMCRA. 91. Federal Register, Vol. 85, No. 207 (October 26, 2020), pp. 67631–67635. 92. U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, “Approximate Original Contour,” INE–26, June 23, 2020, https://www.osmre.gov/sites/default/files/pdfs/directive1003.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). 93. Tim Gallaudet and Timothy R. Petty, “Federal Action Plan for Improving Forecasts of Water Availability,” National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, October 2019, https://www.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/ legacy/document/2019/Oct/Federal%20Action%20Plan%20for%20Improving%20Forecasts%20of%20 Water%20Availability.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). — 544 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 94. 32 U.S. Code, ch. 52. 95. Donald J. Trump, “Presidential Memorandum on Promoting the Reliable Supply and Delivery of Water in the West,” October 19, 2018, https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/presidential-actions/presidential- memorandum-promoting-reliable-supply-delivery-water-west/ (accessed March 17, 2023). 96. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Land Buy-Back Program for Tribal Nations,” https://www.doi.gov/ buybackprogram (accessed March 18, 2023). 97. Great American Outdoors Act, Public Law 116–152.

Department of the Interior

Moderate
Vector: 60%
Pages: 569-571AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 2400 supports tribal self-governance by transferring land into trust for the Pit River Tribe, aligning with Project 2025's goal of restoring tribal authority over land and environmental regulation. However, the bill does not address critical mineral development, border security, or fossil fuel promotion—key elements of the Project 2025 DOI section—limiting alignment to shared themes of tribal empowerment and land management."

Key themes:tribal self-governanceland into trusttribal land managementenvironmental regulation authority

— 537 — Department of the Interior l A significant percentage of critical minerals needed by the United States is on Indian lands, but the Biden Administration has actively discouraged development of critical mineral mining projects on Indian lands rather than assisting in their advancement. l Despite Indian nations having primary responsibility for their lands and environment and responsibility for the safety of their communities, the Biden Administration is reversing efforts to put Indian nations in charge of environmental regulation on their own lands. Moreover, Biden Administration policies, including those of the DOI, have dis- proportionately impacted American Indians and Indian nations. l By its failure to secure the border, the Biden Administration has robbed Indian nations on or near the Mexican border of safe and secure communities while permitting them to be swamped by a tide of illegal drugs, particularly fentanyl. l When ending COVID protocols at Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) schools, Biden’s DOI failed to ensure an accurate accounting of students returning from school shutdowns, which presents a significant danger to the families that trust their children to that federal agency. l The BIE is not reporting student academic assessment data to ensure parents and the larger tribal communities know their children are learning and are receiving a quality education. The new Administration must take the following actions to fulfill the nation’s trust responsibilities to American Indians and Indian nations: l End the war on fossil fuels and domestically available minerals and facilitate their development on lands owned by Indians and Indian nations. l End federal mandates and subsidies of electric vehicles. l Restore the right of tribal governments to enforce environmental regulation on their lands. l Secure the nation’s border to protect the sovereignty and safety of tribal lands. — 538 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l Overhaul BIE schools to put parents and their children first. Finally, the new Administration should seek congressional reauthorization of the Land Buy-Back Program for Tribal Nations,96 which provided a $1.9 bil- lion Trust Land Consolidation Fund to purchase fractional interests in trust or restricted land from willing sellers at fair market value, but which sunsets Novem- ber 24, 2022. New funds should come from the Great American Outdoors Act.97 AUTHOR’S NOTE: The preparation of this chapter was a collective enterprise of individuals involved in the 2025 Presidential Transition Project. All contributors to this chapter are listed at the front of this volume, but some deserve special mention. Kathleen Sgamma, Dan Kish, and Katie Tubb wrote the section on energy in its entirety. I received thoughtful, knowledgeable, and swift assistance from Aubrey Bettencourt, Mark Cruz, Lanny Erdos, Aurelia S. Giacometto, Casey Hammond, Jim Magagna, Chad Padgett, Jim Pond, Rob Roy Ramey II, Kyle E. Scherer, Tara Sweeney, John Tahsuda, Rob Wallace, and Gregory Zerzan. The author alone assumes responsibility for the content of this chapter; no views expressed herein should be attributed to any other individual.

Department of the Interior

Weak
Vector: 63%
Pages: 563-565AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 2400 focuses on transferring federal land into trust for a California tribe to support tribal self-governance and economic development, while the Project 2025 policy excerpt centers on reversing federal land and wildlife management policies in Alaska, asserting state control over resources, and opposing federal conservation initiatives like the 30x30 plan and national monument expansions. There is minimal thematic overlap, as the bill does not address Alaska, wildlife/water rights, or the spe"

Key themes:federal land managementtribal sovereigntyland use authority

— 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