To amend the National Trails System Act to direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study on the feasibility of designating the Bay Area Ridge National Scenic Trail, and for other purposes.

Download PDF
Bill ID: 119/hr/7254
Last Updated: July 5, 2026

Sponsored by

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

ID: H001068

Follow the money

The bill

To amend the National Trails System Act to direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study on the feasibility of designating the Bay Area Ridge National Scenic Trail, and for other purposes.

HR. 7254, 119th Congress — read as touching Construction & Engineering.

The sponsor

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

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

The money

$88,600 raised

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

The alignment

70% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of 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

Subcommittee Hearings Held

June 30, 2026

Introduced

Committee Review

📍 Current Status

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

🗳️

Floor Action

✅

Passed House

🏛️

Senate Review

🎉

Passed Congress

🖊️

Presidential Action

⚖️

Became Law

📚 How does a bill become a law?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bill Summary

Another masterpiece of legislative theater, courtesy of the intellectually bankrupt members of Congress. Let's dissect this farce, shall we?

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main purpose of HR 7254 is to conduct a feasibility study on designating the Bay Area Ridge National Scenic Trail as a national scenic trail. Because, you know, what America really needs is another bureaucratic study to justify a predetermined outcome. The objective is to pander to environmental groups, outdoor enthusiasts, and local politicians who want to put "National Scenic Trail" on their resumes.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends the National Trails System Act to include the Bay Area Ridge National Scenic Trail in the list of potential national scenic trails. It also mandates a study within one year, because, apparently, the Secretary of the Interior has nothing better to do than conduct a feasibility study on a trail that's already been extensively developed and maintained by local organizations. The study will be conducted in consultation with interested parties, which is code for "we'll make sure to include all the right special interest groups to ensure the outcome we want."

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The affected parties include the Bay Area Ridge Trail Council, local park administrators, environmental groups, and outdoor enthusiasts who will no doubt be thrilled to have another national scenic trail to hike on. Oh, and let's not forget the politicians who will get to tout this as a "major accomplishment" in their next election campaign.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The potential impact of this bill is negligible, except for the fact that it will waste taxpayer money on a study that will inevitably conclude that designating the trail as national scenic is a great idea. The implications are clear: more bureaucratic red tape, more opportunities for pork-barrel spending, and more chances for politicians to grandstand about their commitment to the environment.

In medical terms, this bill is a classic case of " Legislative Hypertrophy," where the symptoms (environmental concerns, outdoor recreation) are treated with a placebo (a feasibility study) to appease the patient (voters), while the underlying disease (political opportunism, special interest group influence) remains untreated. The prognosis is poor, as this bill will only lead to more of the same: empty promises, wasted resources, and a further erosion of trust in our political system.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have better things to do than watch this farce unfold. Like watching paint dry. Or waiting for a politician to tell the truth.

Related Topics

Public Lands & Natural Resources
Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

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

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

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

No PAC contributions found

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

No committee contributions found

No individual contributions found

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 10 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Rep. Lofgren, Zoe [D-CA-18]

ID: L000397

Top Contributors

10

1
ACTBLUE
CONDUIT TOTAL LISTED IN AGG. FIELD
PACCAMBRIDGE, MA
$3,300
Sep 28, 2023
2
ACTBLUE
CONDUIT TOTAL LISTED IN AGG. FIELD
PACCAMBRIDGE, MA
$3,300
Sep 24, 2023
3
ACTBLUE
CONDUIT TOTAL LISTED IN AGG. FIELD
PACCAMBRIDGE, MA
$3,300
Sep 28, 2023
4
ACTBLUE
CONDUIT TOTAL LISTED IN AGG. FIELD
PACCAMBRIDGE, MA
$3,300
Sep 28, 2023
5
ACTBLUE
CONDUIT TOTAL LISTED IN AGG. FIELD
PACCAMBRIDGE, MA
$3,300
Aug 27, 2023
6
ACTBLUE
CONDUIT TOTAL LISTED IN AGG. FIELD
PACCAMBRIDGE, MA
$3,300
Aug 27, 2023
7
ACTBLUE
CONDUIT TOTAL LISTED IN AGG. FIELD
PACCAMBRIDGE, MA
$3,300
Sep 28, 2023
8
ACTBLUE
CONDUIT TOTAL LISTED IN AGG. FIELD
PACCAMBRIDGE, MA
$3,300
Sep 28, 2023
9
ACTBLUE
CONDUIT TOTAL LISTED IN AGG. FIELD
PACCAMBRIDGE, MA
$3,300
Sep 24, 2023
10
ACTBLUE
CONDUIT TOTAL LISTED IN AGG. FIELD
PACCAMBRIDGE, MA
$3,000
Jul 16, 2023

Rep. Pelosi, Nancy [D-CA-11]

ID: P000197

Top Contributors

10

1
PECHANGA BAND OF INDIANS
OrganizationTEMECULA, CA
$3,300
Feb 28, 2024
2
POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS
OrganizationATMORE, AL
$3,300
Jun 30, 2023
3
POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS
OrganizationATMORE, AL
$3,300
Jul 12, 2024
4
SISSETON-WAHPETON OYATE TRIBE
OrganizationAGENCY VILLAGE, SD
$2,000
Jun 21, 2024
5
MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationBANNING, CA
$325
Oct 24, 2023
6
VON FURSTENBERG, DIANE
SELF-EMPLOYED • FASHION DESIGNER
IndividualNEW MLFORDI, CT
$292,400
Nov 4, 2024
7
SILBERSTEIN, STEPHEN
N/A • RETIRED
IndividualBELVEDERE, CA
$50,000
Oct 6, 2023
8
CABRASER, ELIZABETH
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN LLP • PARTNER
IndividualSAN FRANCISCO, CA
$50,000
Sep 30, 2023
9
GLASSER, HARVEY
SELF-EMPLOYED • PHYSICIAN
IndividualSAN FRANCISCO, CA
$50,000
Sep 3, 2024
10
GLASSER, HARVEY
SELF-EMPLOYED • PHYSICIAN
IndividualSAN FRANCISCO, CA
$50,000
Oct 24, 2024

Rep. Garamendi, John [D-CA-8]

ID: G000559

Top Contributors

10

1
SAN PABLO LYTTON
OrganizationSAN PABLO, CA
$5,000
Aug 28, 2024
2
YOCHA DEHE WINTUN NATION
OrganizationBROOKS, CA
$3,300
Dec 18, 2023
3
YOCHA DEHE WINTUN NATION
OrganizationBROOKS, CA
$3,300
Dec 18, 2023
4
ONE LAKE HOLDING,LLC
OrganizationWALNUT CREEK, CA
$2,500
Nov 6, 2023
5
UNITED AUBURN INDIAN COMMUNITY OF AUBURN RANCHERIA
OrganizationSACRAMENTO, CA
$2,500
Oct 22, 2024
6
SAN PABLO LYTTON
OrganizationSAN PABLO, CA
$1,700
Aug 28, 2024
7
NAPA SOLANO BUILDING TRADES COUNCIL
OrganizationFAIRFIELD, CA
$1,500
May 13, 2024
8
BAINS FARMING LP
OrganizationYUBA CITY, CA
$1,000
May 15, 2024
9
GRUPE, GREENLAW JR.
THE GRUPE CO. • REAL ESTATE
IndividualLODI, CA
$5,800
Nov 7, 2023
10
HALL, CRAIG
HALL FINANCIAL GROUP • INVESTOR
IndividualFRISCO, TX
$3,683
Dec 5, 2023

Rep. Thompson, Mike [D-CA-4]

ID: T000460

Top Contributors

10

1
ACTBLUE
COMSOMERVILLE, MA
$500
Oct 27, 2024
2
ACTBLUE
COMSOMERVILLE, MA
$30
Nov 3, 2024
3
SHINGLE SPRINGS BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS
OrganizationSHINGLE SPRINGS, CA
$3,300
Sep 30, 2023
4
YOCHA DEHE WINTUN NATION
OrganizationBROOKS, CA
$3,300
Dec 22, 2023
5
YOCHA DEHE WINTUN NATION
OrganizationBROOKS, CA
$3,300
Dec 22, 2023
6
EASTERN BANK OF CHEROKEE INDIANS
OrganizationCHEROKEE, NC
$3,300
Feb 7, 2024
7
HABEMATOLEL POMO OF UPPER LAKE
OrganizationUPPER LAKE, CA
$3,300
Jun 23, 2024
8
FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA
OrganizationROHNERT PARK, CA
$3,300
May 23, 2023
9
FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA
OrganizationROHNERT PARK, CA
$3,300
May 23, 2023
10
MOORETOWN RANCHERIA
OrganizationOROVILLE, CA
$3,300
Sep 28, 2024

Rep. Mullin, Kevin [D-CA-15]

ID: M001225

Top Contributors

10

1
SANTA ROSA RANCHERIA
OrganizationLEMOORE, CA
$6,600
May 20, 2024
2
SANTA ROSA RANCHERIA
OrganizationLEMOORE, CA
$3,300
Jun 14, 2024
3
SHINGLE SPRINGS BAND MIWOK INDIANS
OrganizationSHINGLE SPRINGS, CA
$3,300
Sep 29, 2023
4
AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS
OrganizationPALM SPRINGS, CA
$3,300
Dec 22, 2023
5
SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationLOS ANGELES, CA
$2,300
Jun 22, 2023
6
BARONA BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationLAKESIDE, CA
$2,000
Jun 28, 2024
7
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$1,650
May 3, 2024
8
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$1,650
Oct 28, 2023
9
SHINGLE SPRINGS BAND MIWOK INDIANS
OrganizationSHINGLE SPRINGS, CA
$1,300
Oct 4, 2024
10
SYCUAN BAND OF THE KUMEYAAY NATION
OrganizationEL CAJON, CA
$1,000
Oct 15, 2024

Rep. Khanna, Ro [D-CA-17]

ID: K000389

Top Contributors

10

1
1850 WILLIAMS INVESTORS LLC
OrganizationALAMO, CA
$3,300
Mar 5, 2024
2
SIRHAN, MOTASIM
ELIXIR • EXECUTIVE
IndividualMILPITAS, CA
$13,200
Jan 3, 2024
3
PAPIER, SUSAN
WERBA RUBIN PAPIER WEALTH MANAGEMENT • EXECUTIVE
IndividualSAN JOSE, CA
$13,200
Mar 29, 2024
4
CLEMENS, NICOLE
PARAMOUNT GLOBAL • EXECUTIVE
IndividualPACIFIC PALISADES, CA
$13,200
Mar 30, 2024
5
PAPIER, JASON
WERBA RUBIN PAPIER WEALTH MANAGEMENT • EXECUTIVE
IndividualSAN JOSE, CA
$13,200
Mar 29, 2024
6
COGEN, JACK
NOT EMPLOYED • RETIRED
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$13,200
May 15, 2024
7
CLEMENS, NICOLE
IndividualPACIFIC PALISADES, CA
$12,200
Mar 31, 2024
8
YOUNIS, QASAR
APPLIED INTUITION • EXECUTIVE
IndividualLOS ALTOS, CA
$9,900
Mar 31, 2024
9
PAPIER, SUSAN
IndividualSAN JOSE, CA
$9,900
Mar 31, 2024
10
PAPIER, JASON
IndividualSAN JOSE, CA
$9,900
Mar 31, 2024

Rep. Simon, Lateefah [D-CA-12]

ID: S001231

Top Contributors

10

1
FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA
OrganizationROHNERT PARK, CA
$3,300
Aug 26, 2024
2
H RAHMAN MD FRCS INC
OrganizationSANTA ANA, CA
$500
Feb 20, 2024
3
SHAZAD MALIK, ESQ, P.A.
OrganizationCOWAN HEIGHTS, CA
$500
Feb 20, 2024
4
ELKE WURZBACH
OrganizationLONG BEACH, CA
$500
Sep 20, 2024
5
ELKE WURZBACH
OrganizationLONG BEACH, CA
$500
Oct 3, 2024
6
ARK, MANDEEP
SELF-EMPLOYED • ENTREPRENEUR
IndividualFRESNO, CA
$6,600
Dec 31, 2023
7
GOCHMAN, MOLLY
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualHOUSTON, TX
$6,600
Oct 4, 2023
8
RAYANT, GARRY
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualSAN FRANCISCO, CA
$6,600
Oct 1, 2023
9
SIGNH, JASPREET
LAW OFFICE OF JASPREET SINGH • LAWYER
IndividualELK GROVE, CA
$6,600
Dec 31, 2023
10
HEISING, CAITLIN
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualATHERTON, CA
$6,600
Mar 1, 2023

Rep. Liccardo, Sam T. [D-CA-16]

ID: L000607

Top Contributors

10

1
KENNETH RODRIGUES & PARTNERS, INC.
OrganizationMOUNTAIN VIEW, CA
$2,000
Jun 24, 2024
2
USAMPAC CORPORATION
OrganizationFREMONT, CA
$2,000
May 13, 2024
3
SYCUAN BAND OF THE KUMEYAAY NATION
OrganizationEL CAJON, CA
$1,000
Oct 15, 2024
4
POSITION2, INC.
OrganizationSANTA CLARA, CA
$1,000
Jul 29, 2024
5
CORDANO, MIKE
PRIME IMPACT CAPITAL • INVESTOR
IndividualPLEASANTON, CA
$6,600
Oct 14, 2024
6
LIU, GERRY
WNC • EXECUTIVE
IndividualSARATOGA, CA
$6,600
Sep 30, 2024
7
SHROFF, MOHAK
LINKEDIN • EXECUTIVE
IndividualATHERTON, CA
$6,600
Oct 22, 2024
8
HYNES, MARY
STANFORD UNIVERSITY • PROFESSOR
IndividualATHERTON, CA
$6,600
Sep 29, 2024
9
GLANVILLE, JACOB
CENTIVAX • CEO
IndividualSAN FRANCISCO, CA
$6,600
Oct 31, 2024
10
CORDANO, MIKE
PRIME IMPACT CAPITAL • INVESTOR
IndividualPLEASANTON, CA
$6,600
Oct 14, 2024

Rep. DeSaulnier, Mark [D-CA-10]

ID: D000623

Top Contributors

10

1
BARONA BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationLAKESIDE, CA
$2,000
Jun 26, 2024
2
BARONA BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationLAKESIDE, CA
$1,500
May 19, 2023
3
MCNAMEE, ROGER
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualCAMPBELL, CA
$3,300
Oct 25, 2024
4
WEINSTEIN, JEREMY
SELF-EMPLOYED • ATTORNEY
IndividualWALNUT CREEK, CA
$3,300
Nov 13, 2024
5
WALSH, PHIL
SELF-EMPLOYED • ATTORNEY
IndividualPORTLAND, OR
$3,300
Feb 12, 2024
6
GHIELMETTI, JAMES
SIGNATURE HOMES • CEO
IndividualPLEASANTON, CA
$3,300
Mar 5, 2024
7
GHIELMETTI, JAMES
SIGNATURE HOMES • CEO
IndividualPLEASANTON, CA
$3,300
Mar 15, 2023
8
TOWNSEND, CHRISTOPHER
TOWNSEND PUBLIC AFFAIRS • PRESIDENT
IndividualLAGUNA HILLS, CA
$3,300
Mar 16, 2023
9
FOSTER, JOHN
FOSTER INTERSTATE MEDIA INC. • ADVERTISING EXECUTIVE
IndividualPLEASANT HILL, CA
$3,300
Sep 6, 2023
10
TOWNSEND, CHRISTOPHER
TOWNSEND PUBLIC AFFAIRS • PRESIDENT
IndividualLAGUNA HILLS, CA
$3,300
Aug 24, 2023

Rep. Swalwell, Eric [D-CA-14]

ID: S001193

Top Contributors

10

1
HOLDING LLC, M13
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
OrganizationWEST HOLLYWOOD, CA
$1,650
Mar 31, 2023
2
SYCUAN BAND OF THE KUMEYAAY NATION
OrganizationEL CAJON, CA
$1,000
Oct 21, 2024
3
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION PAC
OrganizationWASHINGTON, DC
$1,000
Aug 9, 2024
4
JORDAN, WAYNE D.
JORDAN REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS • PRESIDENT/CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
IndividualOAKLAND, CA
$6,600
Jun 24, 2023
5
DURST, DOUGLAS
ROYAL REALTY • REAL ESTATE
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$6,000
Aug 23, 2023
6
FASS, DANIEL
IndividualPRINCETON, NJ
$5,300
Oct 16, 2024
7
ANDERSON, KIMBALL
WINSTON & STRAWN LLP • ATTORNEY
IndividualCHICAGO, IL
$4,200
Oct 24, 2023
8
KEHALY, WILLIAM
SNOW SUMMIT LLC • SKI PATROLLER
IndividualLAS VEGAS, NV
$4,200
Feb 21, 2023
9
KEHALY, WILLIAM
IndividualLAS VEGAS, NV
$4,200
Mar 2, 2023
10
ALPERT, HERB
SELF EMPLOYED • MUSICIAN
IndividualSANTA MONICA, CA
$3,700
Jan 30, 2024

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

PACs
Organizations
Individuals
Politicians

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

Loading...

Showing 80 nodes and 45 connections (87 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $137,030

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

Showing top 23 donors by contribution amount

23 Orgs

Industry Impact

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

  • Section 2 amends the National Trails System Act to include a feasibility study for designating the Bay Area Ridge National Scenic Trail, which could lead to increased construction and engineering projects for trail development and maintenance, citing Section 5(c) of the National Trails System Act (16 U.S.C. 1244(c))

  • +Real Estateconfidence 0.60

    The bill's focus on designating a national scenic trail could increase property values and lead to new development opportunities in the surrounding areas, as mentioned in Section 1, Findings (3) and (8)

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: 59%
Pages: 575-577AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 7254 aligns moderately with Project 2025's Department of the Interior section by supporting conservation and public access to federal lands through trail designation, which reflects shared goals of land stewardship and outdoor recreation, though it does not directly address the specific critiques of Biden-era policies like '30 by 30' or monument designations highlighted in the source material."

Key themes:land conservationpublic land accessoutdoor recreationfederal land managementtrail preservation

— 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.

Environmental Protection Agency

Weak
Vector: 59%
Pages: 458-460AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 7254 focuses on conducting a feasibility study for designating a scenic trail and enhancing recreation and conservation, while the Project 2025 EPA section centers on regulatory reforms, emissions reporting, air permitting, and greenhouse gas policies. The two share only a broad environmental stewardship theme but lack substantive policy overlap."

Key themes:environmental protectionconservationfederal land management

— 425 — Environmental Protection Agency are statutorily required, and remove any regulatory differences between attainment and maintenance that are not explicitly required by law. l Streamline the process for state and local governments to demonstrate that their federally funded highway projects will not interfere with NAAQS attainment. l Adopt policies to prevent abuse of EPA’s CAA “error correction” authority.20 EPA historically has used this to coerce states into adopting its favored policies on pain of imposition of a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP). l Limit EPA’s reliance on CAA § 30121 general rulemaking authority to ensure that it is not abused to issue regulations for which EPA lacks substantive authority elsewhere in the statute. l If possible, return the standard-setting role to Congress. Climate Change l Remove the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP) for any source category that is not currently being regulated. The overall reporting program imposes significant burdens on small businesses and companies that are not being regulated. This is either a pointless burden or a sword-of- Damocles threat of future regulation, neither of which is appropriate. l Establish a system, with an appropriate deadline, to update the 2009 endangerment finding. l Establish a significant emissions rate (SER) for greenhouse gasses (GHGs). Regulating Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) Under the American Innovation and Manufacturing (AIM) Act22 l Repeal Biden Administration implementing regulations for the AIM Act that are unnecessarily stringent and costly. l Refrain from granting petitions from opportunistic manufacturers to add new restrictions that further skew the market toward costlier refrigerants and equipment. — 426 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l Conduct realistic cost assessments that reflect actual consumer experiences instead of the current unrealistic ones claiming that the program is virtually cost-free. Mobile Source Regulation by the Office of Transportation and Air Quality l Establish GHG car standards under Department of Transportation (DOT) leadership that properly consider cost, choice, safety, and national security. l Review the existing “ramp rate” for car standards to ensure that it is actually achievable. l Include life cycle emissions of electric vehicles and consider all of their environmental impacts. l Restore the position that California’s waiver applies only to California- specific issues like ground-level ozone, not global climate issues. l Ensure that other states can adopt California’s standards only for traditional/criteria pollutants, not greenhouse gases. l Stop the use of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) to increase standards on airplanes. l Reconsider the Cleaner Trucks Initiative to balance the goal of driving down emissions without creating significant costs or complex burdens on the industry. Air Permitting Reforms for New Source Review (Pre-Construction Per- mits) and Title V (Operating Permits) l Develop reforms to ensure that when a facility improves efficiency within its production process, new permitting requirements are not triggered. l Restore the Trump EPA position on Once-In, Always-In (that major sources can convert to area sources when affiliated emissions standards are met). l Revisit permitting and enforcement assumptions that sources will operate 24 hours a day, 365 days a year; this artificially inflates a source’s potential to emit (PTE), which can result in more stringent permit terms.

Department of the Interior

Weak
Vector: 59%
Pages: 572-574AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 7254 focuses on conducting a feasibility study for designating a recreational trail as a national scenic trail, emphasizing conservation, recreation, and public access. The Project 2025 policy excerpts provided center on energy leasing, environmental review streamlining, and resource development priorities within the Department of the Interior, with no clear connection to trail designation or outdoor recreation initiatives."

Key themes:Department of the Interiorfederal land managementenvironmental review

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

Showing 3 of 5 policy matches

About These Correlations

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

Full Policy Text

Related Bills