Keweenaw Bay Indian Community Land Claim Settlement Act of 2025

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/hr/411

Last Updated: August 7, 2026

Keweenaw Bay Indian Community Land Claim Settlement Act of 2025

HR. 411, 119th Congress.

The sponsor

Rep. Bergman, Jack [R-MI-1]

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

The money

$98,435 raised

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

The alignment

70% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of the Interior" section, p. 569-571 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Subcommittee Hearings Held

June 10, 2025

Introduced

Committee Review

📍 Current Status

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

🗳️

Floor Action

✅

Passed House

🏛️

Senate Review

🎉

Passed Congress

🖊️

Presidential Action

⚖️

Became Law

📚 How does a bill become a law?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bill Summary

Summary Style:

**Analysis of HR 411: Keweenaw Bay Indian Community Land Claim Settlement Act of 2025**

As a visionary entrepreneur and champion of innovation, I'll dissect this bill through the lens of its impact on my interests.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** HR 411 aims to provide compensation to the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community for the taking of land without just compensation by the United States. The bill seeks to rectify historical injustices and settle claims related to the L'Anse Indian Reservation in Michigan.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:**

1. **Compensation:** The bill provides for monetary compensation to the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community for the loss of land, including the Reservation Swamp Lands and the Reservation Canal Lands. 2. **Land Rights:** The legislation acknowledges the Community's rights to the disputed lands under the 1854 Treaty and seeks to resolve outstanding claims. 3. **Clear Title:** The bill allows non-Indian individuals, entities, and local governments to secure clear title to land within the Reservation boundaries.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:**

1. **Keweenaw Bay Indian Community:** The primary beneficiary of this legislation, as they will receive compensation for past injustices. 2. **Non-Indian Landowners:** Individuals and entities holding interests in the disputed lands may be affected by the bill's provisions regarding clear title. 3. **Local Governments:** Municipalities within the Reservation boundaries may need to adapt to changes in land ownership and management.

**Potential Impact & Implications:**

1. **Financial Compensation:** The Keweenaw Bay Indian Community stands to gain significant financial compensation, potentially exceeding $100 million. 2. **Land Management:** The bill's provisions may lead to changes in land use and management within the Reservation boundaries, impacting local ecosystems and economies. 3. **Precedent Setting:** This legislation could set a precedent for similar claims by other Native American communities, potentially leading to increased costs for the federal government.

**My Verdict:** As a self-interested entrepreneur, I see this bill as a minor nuisance with limited impact on my interests. The compensation package is relatively small compared to the vast sums at play in the global economy. However, I will continue to monitor this legislation and its potential implications for my business ventures and investments.

**Recommendation:** I suggest that lawmakers focus on more pressing matters, such as deregulation and tax reform, which can have a more significant impact on economic growth and innovation. This bill is a minor distraction from the real issues at hand.

**Estimated Impact on My Empire:** $0 - $10 million (negligible)

**Rating:** 2/10 (minor annoyance)

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (billionaire personality)

*Sigh* Alright, let's break down this bill, shall we? As I taught you in 8th grade civics class, a bill is a proposed law that must go through the legislative process before it can be enacted.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

The main purpose of HR 411, also known as the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community Land Claim Settlement Act of 2025, is to provide compensation to the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community for the taking without just compensation of land by the United States inside the exterior boundaries of the L'Anse Indian Reservation. The bill aims to settle past inequities suffered by the Community as a result of the actions of the United States.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The bill has several key provisions:

* It acknowledges the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community's rights under the 1842 and 1854 treaties, which guaranteed their usufructuary rights over certain lands. * It recognizes that the United States took land within the Reservation without just compensation, violating the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. * The bill provides for a settlement between the United States and the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community to compensate for the loss of land.

As we covered in 8th grade, this is an example of a congressional bill that aims to address a specific issue and provide redress for past wrongs. However, it's disappointing that such a bill is necessary, given the historical context and the fact that these issues should have been resolved long ago.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

The affected parties include:

* The Keweenaw Bay Indian Community * The United States government * Non-Indian individuals, entities, and local governments who occupy land within the boundaries of the Reservation

As we learned in middle school, when a bill is introduced, it must be referred to a committee for review. In this case, HR 411 was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

The potential impact of this bill includes:

* Providing compensation and redress to the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community for past injustices * Resolving long-standing land disputes between the Community and the United States government * Potentially affecting non-Indian individuals, entities, and local governments who occupy land within the Reservation

However, as we discussed in class, the actual impact of a bill can be influenced by various factors, including lobbying efforts, committee markups, and amendments. It's essential to stay informed about the legislative process and its potential outcomes.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go grade some papers on the basics of the legislative process...

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

Folks, gather 'round! I've got the scoop on this so-called "Keweenaw Bay Indian Community Land Claim Settlement Act of 2025." Now, at first glance, it looks like a straightforward bill to compensate the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community for some land taken by the government back in the day. But trust me, there's more to it than meets the eye.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The bill aims to provide compensation to the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community for the taking of land within the L'Anse Indian Reservation without just compensation. Sounds simple enough, but what's really going on here? Is this a genuine attempt at reconciliation or just a clever way to further erode Native American sovereignty?

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill acknowledges that the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community has valid claims to certain lands within the reservation, which were taken by the government through various means, including the Swamp Land Act and the Canal Land Act. It also notes that these actions deprived the community of their exclusive use and occupancy of the land without just compensation.

Now, here's where it gets interesting: the bill allows for a settlement to be reached between the United States and the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community. But what kind of settlement? Will it involve monetary compensation, land restitution, or something more sinister?

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The obvious stakeholders are the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community and the United States government. However, there's also mention of "non-Indian individuals, entities, and local governments" who occupy land within the reservation boundaries. What about their interests? Are they being protected or sacrificed in this deal?

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill has far-reaching implications for Native American communities across the country. If passed, it sets a precedent for other tribes to seek compensation for similar historical injustices. But what's the real motive behind this bill? Is it a genuine attempt at reconciliation or just a way to further consolidate government control over Native American lands?

I'm telling you, folks, there's more to this bill than meets the eye. It's like they're hiding something in plain sight. Wake up, sheeple!

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(Deep breath, with a hint of sarcasm) Oh boy, folks, we've got a real doozy for you tonight! It's all about the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community Land Claim Settlement Act of 2025. Now, I know what you're thinking - "What in the world is this bill about?" Well, let me break it down for you.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** This bill aims to provide compensation to the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community for land taken by the United States without just compensation inside the L'Anse Indian Reservation. Yeah, that's right - our great nation took their land and didn't even bother to pay them for it! (Outrageous tone) Can you believe it? It's like we're talking about some kind of... I don't know... "elites" who think they can just take whatever they want without consequences!

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill acknowledges that the Community has a valid claim to the land, which was guaranteed by treaties signed in 1842 and 1854. It also recognizes that the United States took this land without proper compensation, violating the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. (Sarcastic tone) Oh, whoops! Looks like we made a boo-boo!

The bill provides for a settlement to be reached between the Community and the United States, which will include compensation for the taken land. It also allows non-Indian individuals and entities who acquired ownership interests in good faith to possess clear title to that land.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** Well, it's pretty obvious - the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community is the main beneficiary here. But let's not forget about those "elites" I mentioned earlier... just kidding! (Wink) Seriously though, this bill affects non-Indian individuals and entities who own land within the Reservation boundaries.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill has significant implications for the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community, as it acknowledges their historical claims to the land and provides a path towards justice. It also sets a precedent for other Native American communities who may have similar claims.

But let's be real, folks - this is just another example of our government trying to "buy off" its problems instead of addressing the root issues. (Smirk) I mean, come on - we're talking about land that was taken over 150 years ago! Can't we just... you know... give it back? (Sarcastic tone) Oh wait, that would require actual accountability and a commitment to justice!

There you have it, folks - the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community Land Claim Settlement Act of 2025. It's all about freedom, fairness, and... well, let's just say "making amends" for past mistakes. (Wink) Stay vigilant, America!

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

Another case of legislative diarrhea, where Congress tries to cure the symptoms instead of the disease. Let's dissect this mess.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The Keweenaw Bay Indian Community Land Claim Settlement Act of 2025 is a desperate attempt to rectify a 170-year-old land grab by the United States government. The bill aims to provide compensation to the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community for the taking of their land without just compensation, as guaranteed under the 1854 Treaty.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill is a masterclass in bureaucratic doublespeak. It acknowledges the historical injustices perpetrated by the US government but proposes a half-hearted solution. The key provisions include:

* Recognizing the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community's rights to the land under the 1854 Treaty * Providing compensation for the taking of the Reservation Swamp Lands and the Reservation Canal Lands without just compensation * Allowing non-Indian individuals, entities, and local governments to maintain ownership interests in the affected lands, as long as they acquired them in good faith

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

* The Keweenaw Bay Indian Community, who have been fighting for their rights for centuries * Non-Indian landowners, who will be allowed to keep their ill-gotten gains * Local governments, who will likely benefit from the settlement * The US government, which is trying to buy its way out of a historical injustice

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a Band-Aid on a bullet wound. It may provide some short-term relief for the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community, but it fails to address the systemic issues that led to this situation in the first place.

* The settlement will likely be inadequate, given the historical value of the land and the community's losses * Non-Indian landowners will maintain their ownership interests, perpetuating the status quo * Local governments may benefit from the settlement, but it will not address the underlying issues of poverty and inequality in the region

In conclusion, this bill is a classic case of "too little, too late." It's a feeble attempt to rectify historical injustices without addressing the root causes. The Keweenaw Bay Indian Community deserves better than a half-hearted apology and a paltry settlement. As I always say, "Everyone lies," and in this case, it's clear that Congress is trying to buy its way out of a moral obligation.

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

**Keweenaw Bay Indian Community Land Claim Settlement Act of 2025 (HR 411)**

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The bill aims to provide compensation to the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community for the taking without just compensation of land by the United States inside the exterior boundaries of the L'Anse Indian Reservation, as guaranteed under treaties signed in 1842 and 1854. The legislation seeks to settle past inequities suffered by the Community due to the actions of the United States.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:**

* Recognizes the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community's rights to land within the L'Anse Indian Reservation, as guaranteed under treaties signed in 1842 and 1854. * Acknowledges that the United States took possession of certain lands (Reservation Swamp Lands and Reservation Canal Lands) without just compensation, violating the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. * Provides for a fair and equitable settlement to compensate the Community for the loss of these lands.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:**

* Keweenaw Bay Indian Community * United States government * State of Michigan * Non-Indian individuals, entities, and local governments occupying land within the Reservation boundaries (who acquired ownership interests in good faith)

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The bill's passage could have significant implications for:

* The Keweenaw Bay Indian Community: Providing compensation for past injustices and acknowledging their rights to ancestral lands may help restore cultural, religious, and subsistence practices. * Non-Indian landowners: The settlement process may affect the ownership interests of non-Indian individuals and entities occupying land within the Reservation boundaries. * Tribal sovereignty: The bill's recognition of the Community's treaty rights and provision for compensation could set a precedent for other tribes seeking to assert their rights to ancestral lands.

Overall, HR 411 aims to address historical injustices and promote reconciliation between the United States government and the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (neutral personality)

Let's break down this bill, bro.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

This bill, HR 411, is all about settlin' a land claim dispute between the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community and the United States government. The community's been dealin' with some gnarly issues since the mid-1800s when the US took their land without payin' 'em fair compensation. This bill aims to provide that compensation and make things right.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The bill's got a bunch of key provisions, dude:

* It acknowledges that the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community has been wronged by the US government takin' their land without just compensation. * It establishes that the community's rights to the land were guaranteed under treaties signed in 1842 and 1854. * It sets up a process for the US government to compensate the community for the taken land, which includes the Reservation Swamp Lands and the Reservation Canal Lands.

This bill changes existing law by:

* Recognizin' the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community's rights to their ancestral lands * Providin' compensation for past injustices * Settlin' a long-standing dispute between the community and the US government

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

There are some key players involved in this bill, bro:

* The Keweenaw Bay Indian Community: They're the ones who've been dealin' with the land claim issue for centuries. * The United States government: They're the ones who took the land without payin' fair compensation. * Non-Indian individuals and entities: Some folks have acquired ownership interests in the disputed lands, so they'll be affected by this bill too.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

This bill's got some far-reachin' implications, dude:

* It could set a precedent for other Native American communities dealin' with similar land claim issues. * It might lead to changes in how the US government handles land takings and compensation for indigenous peoples. * It'll likely have economic and cultural impacts on the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community, as they'll finally receive some justice and recognition of their rights.

Overall, this bill's a big deal, bro. It's about settlin' past injustices and makin' things right between the US government and the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

**Bill Analysis: HR 411 - Keweenaw Bay Indian Community Land Claim Settlement Act of 2025**

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The primary objective of this bill is to provide compensation to the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community for the taking without just compensation of land by the United States inside the exterior boundaries of the L'Anse Indian Reservation, as guaranteed under treaties signed in 1842 and 1854. The bill aims to settle past inequities suffered by the Community due to the actions of the United States.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill acknowledges that the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community has a valid claim to the Reservation Swamp Lands and the Reservation Canal Lands, which were taken without just compensation. It provides for a settlement between the United States and the Community, allowing for fair and equitable compensation for the loss of land.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The main stakeholders affected by this bill are:

* The Keweenaw Bay Indian Community * Non-Indian individuals, entities, and local governments occupying land within the boundaries of the Reservation * The State of Michigan

**Potential Impact & Implications:**

* **Economic Benefits:** Compensation to the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community could have a positive economic impact on their development and economy. * **Land Rights:** The bill acknowledges the Community's rights to the disputed lands, potentially resolving long-standing land claims issues. * **Precedent Setting:** This settlement may set a precedent for other Native American communities with similar land claim disputes.

**Monied Interest Analysis:** While there are no obvious PACs or industry lobby groups directly backing this bill, it is likely that organizations representing the interests of Native American communities and tribes have been involved in advocating for this legislation. Additionally, local governments and non-Indian individuals occupying land within the Reservation may have a vested interest in the outcome of this bill.

**Committee Capture:** The Committee on Natural Resources has jurisdiction over this bill. Historically, this committee has received significant funding from energy and natural resource-related industries, which could potentially influence their decisions on bills related to land use and Native American rights. However, in this case, the bill's focus on settling a specific land claim dispute may not be directly influenced by these interests.

**Donor Motivations:** Representative Bergman, the sponsor of this bill, has received campaign contributions from various donors, including those with ties to the energy and natural resource sectors. However, it is unclear whether these donations have any direct connection to this specific bill.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Bergman, Jack [R-MI-1]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$98,435

21 donors

PACs

Organizations

$19,100

Committees

Individuals

$79,335

No PAC contributions found

POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS

2 transactions

$6,600

MATCH-E-BE-NASH-SHE-WISH BAND OF POTTAWATOMI INDIANS

1 transaction

$3,300

SAGINAW CHIPPEWA INDIAN TRIBE

1 transaction

$3,300

PECHANGA BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS

1 transaction

$3,000

SAULT STE MARIE TRIBE OF CHIPPEWA INDIANS

1 transaction

$2,900

No committee contributions found

DRESNER, LINDA

2 transactions

$9,900

LEVY, EDWARD

2 transactions

$9,900

TAYLOR, MARGARETTA J. MS

2 transactions

$9,900

GREENBLATT, SCOTT

1 transaction

$6,600

COTTON, MICHAEL D. MR.

2 transactions

$6,600

ALI, RAO

1 transaction

$3,435

JAVED, MOHAMMAD S.

1 transaction

$3,300

DANIELS, GEORGE G. MR

1 transaction

$3,300

KELLY, JOHN J. MR.

1 transaction

$3,300

RITCHIE, STEPHEN

1 transaction

$3,300

GUIDRY, SHANE

1 transaction

$3,300

LUCKEY, PALMER

1 transaction

$3,300

COLEMAN, NEIL S

1 transaction

$3,300

DOLL, DAVID M. MR.

1 transaction

$3,300

CATZ, SAFRA

1 transaction

$3,300

DE VOS, BETSY

1 transaction

$3,300

Donor Network - Rep. Bergman, Jack [R-MI-1]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

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

Showing 52 nodes and 57 connections

Total contributions: $57

Top Donors - Rep. Bergman, Jack [R-MI-1]

Showing top 21 donors by contribution amount

5 Orgs16 Individuals

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

Moderate

Vector: 58%

Pages: 569-571AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill addresses tribal land rights and historical injustices, which aligns with Project 2025's emphasis on restoring tribal sovereignty and fulfilling federal trust responsibilities, though it does not directly engage with the specific resource development or border security priorities outlined in the policy."

Key themes:tribal sovereigntyfederal trust responsibilityland rightshistorical redress

— 536 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 2. Engaging in real-time monitoring of operations. l Reduce bureaucratic inefficiencies by consolidating federal water working groups. l Implement actions identified in the Federal Action Plan for Improving Fore- casts of Water Availability,93 especially by adopting improvements related to: 1. Forecast Informed Reservoir Operations; and 2. Arial Snow Observation Systems. l Clarify the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act94 to ensure consistent application with other federal infrastructure loan programs under the Federal Credit Reform Act. This should be done to foster opportunities for locally led investment in water infrastructure. l Reinstate Presidential Memorandum on Promoting the Reliable Supply and Delivery of Water in the West.95 AMERICAN INDIANS AND U.S. TRUST RESPONSIBILITY The Biden Administration has breached its federal trust responsibilities to American Indians. This is unconscionable. Specifically, the Biden Administra- tion’s war on domestically available fossil fuels and mineral sources has been devastating. To wit: l The ability of American Indians and tribal governments to develop their abundant oil and gas resources has been severely hampered, depriving them of the revenue and profits to which they are entitled during a time of increasing worldwide energy prices, forcing American Indians—who are among the poorest Americans—to choose between food and fuel. l Indian nations with significant coal resources have some of the highest quality and cleanest-burning coal in the world, but the Biden Administration has sought to destroy the market for their coal by eliminating coal-fired electricity in the country and to prevent the transport of their coal for sale internationally. Meanwhile, the Biden Administration, at great public expense, artificially boosted the demand for electric vehicles, which, because of their remote locations, the absence of increased electricity demands for charging electric vehicles nearby, and the distances to be traveled, are not a choice for Indian communities. — 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.

Department of the Interior

Weak

Vector: 58%

Pages: 572-574AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill addresses tribal land rights and historical compensation, while the Project 2025 policy excerpt focuses on energy leasing, environmental review streamlining, and natural resource development—there is minimal thematic overlap beyond broad Department of the Interior jurisdiction."

Key themes:Department of the Interiorland managementnatural resources

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

Department of the Interior

Weak

Vector: 57%

Pages: 572-574AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill addresses tribal land rights and historical compensation, while the Project 2025 Interior section focuses on energy development, land management reform, and reducing federal regulatory burdens—there is minimal thematic overlap beyond general land use."

Key themes:land managementfederal land policytribal sovereignty

— 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.

Environmental Protection Agency

Minimal

Vector: 58%

Pages: 461-463AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill addresses tribal land claims and historical compensation for the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community, which is unrelated to the Project 2025 EPA policy objectives focused on Clean Water Act regulations, WOTUS definitions, nutrient trading, and water infrastructure funding. There is no thematic or policy overlap between the two."

— 429 — Environmental Protection Agency As a matter of broad practice, OW should be complying with statutorily estab- lished deadlines in all situations with only minimal exceptions. In cases where statutory deadlines will not be met, senior management should be made aware of the delay and should have an opportunity to determine whether alternative courses should be taken. Depending on the outcome of regulations from the Biden Administration as well as intervention by the Supreme Court on both waters of the United States (WOTUS) and CWA Section 401,29 the repeal and reissuance of new regulations should be pursued. New Policies New regulations should include the following: l A WOTUS rule that makes clear what is and is not a “navigable water” and respects private property rights. Coordinate with Congress to develop legislation, if necessary, to codify the definition in Rapanos v. United States that “waters of the United States” can refer only to “relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water…as opposed to ordinarily dry channels through which water occasionally or intermittently flows.”30 l A rule that provides clarity and regulatory certainty regarding the CWA Section 401 water quality certification process to limit unnecessary delay for needed projects, including by establishing a discharge-only approach with a limited scope (from point sources into navigable waters), assessing only water quality factors that are consistent with specific CWA sections, and excluding speculative analysis regarding future potential harm. l A rule to ensure that CWA Section 30831 has a clear and enforced time limit. l A rule to clarify the standard for criminal negligence under CWA Sections 40232 and 404.33 l A rule to prohibit retroactive or preemptive permits under CWA Section 404. l A rule to promote and shape nutrient trading that utilizes a carrot-versus- stick approach when dealing with nutrient compliance. l A rule to update compensatory mitigation that imposes no new or additional requirements beyond current law. l A rule on updates necessary for the effective use of the CWA needs survey. — 430 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l An executive order requiring EPA to find avenues and expedite the process for states obtaining primacy in available CWA and SDWA programs. This order would require coordination with the Army Corps of Engineers and the Department of the Interior. l Implementation of additional policies to address challenges in water workforce, issues surrounding timely actions on primacy applications, and cybersecurity. Budget While the overall goal is certainly to reduce government spending, there is one very targeted area where increased spending would be in the nation’s interest. The Clean Water Act needs survey is the entire basis for how congressionally appro- priated funds directed to state revolving funds—standard annual appropriations that are the true underpinning of all infrastructure funding for drinking water and clean water—are distributed by EPA across the country. Because this program is currently underfunded, money is being thrown at untargeted locations while water infrastructure is crumbling at other locations. Increased targeted funding would greatly benefit water systems across the country at a time when intervention is crucial, leaving fewer communities with significant water service challenges. Personnel OW would benefit greatly from the reshifting of SES employees to different programs and from headquarters out to regional offices. OFFICE OF LAND AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT (OLEM) OLEM’s mission is to partner with other federal agencies, states, tribes, local governments, and communities to clean up legacy pollution and revitalize land for reuse. OLEM executes this mission by protecting human health and the envi- ronment while leveraging economic opportunities and creating jobs. OLEM also oversees the agency’s emergency response. The main statutes that OLEM exe- cutes are the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)34 to regulate waste management; the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)35 to clean up Superfund sites and provide resources for cleaning up brownfields sites; and Section 112(r) of the Clean Air Act36 to reduce the likelihood of accidental chemical releases. Needed Reforms OLEM’s main function is to oversee the execution of cleanups under CERCLA and RCRA; therefore, it is critical that OLEM staff focus on project management more than policy creation. Emphasizing productivity more than process and policies

Department of the Interior

Minimal

Vector: 58%

Pages: 563-565AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill addresses historical land claims and compensation for a specific Native American tribe in Michigan, focusing on treaty rights and Fifth Amendment takings. The Project 2025 policy excerpt focuses on federal land and resource management in Alaska, including wildlife control, navigable waters, national monuments, and the 30 by 30 initiative, with no overlap in geographic scope, tribal relations, or policy mechanisms."

— 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.

Related Bills

Other Bills by Rep. Bergman, Jack

VA Fiscal Management Modernization Act

119/hr/7683

Veterans STAND Act

119/hr/6835

BEACON Act of 2026

119/hr/6993

Back to All Bills