Southcentral Foundation Land Transfer Act of 2025

Download PDF
Bill ID: 119/s/2098
Last Updated: September 9, 2026

Sponsored by

Sen. Murkowski, Lisa [R-AK]

ID: M001153

Follow the money

The bill

Southcentral Foundation Land Transfer Act of 2025

S. 2098, 119th Congress — read as touching Hospitals & Health Systems.

The sponsor

Sen. Murkowski, Lisa [R-AK]

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

The money

$78,350 raised

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

The alignment

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

Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 534.

August 2, 2026

Introduced

📍 Current Status

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

🏛️

Committee Review

🗳️

Floor Action

✅

Passed Senate

🏛️

House Review

🎉

Passed Congress

🖊️

Presidential Action

⚖️

Became Law

📚 How does a bill become a law?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bill Summary

**Summary of S. 2098: Southcentral Foundation Land Transfer Act of 2025**

**1. Main Purpose & Objectives** The bill’s stated purpose is to transfer approximately 3.372 acres of federal land in Anchorage, Alaska, to the Southcentral Foundation (SCF), a Native Alaskan nonprofit health organization, for use in health and social services programs. Ostensibly, this aims to support Indigenous healthcare delivery by giving SCF permanent control over land it likely already occupies. In reality, this is less about altruism and more about the federal government offloading liability and administrative burden onto a favored nonprofit while pretending to honor tribal sovereignty—a performative gesture that costs Congress nothing but lets them claim they’re “doing something” for Alaska Natives.

**2. Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The bill mandates that the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) convey the property to SCF via warranty deed within two years of enactment, with **no consideration required** (i.e., it’s a free gift). Crucially, it imposes **no obligations or conditions** on SCF regarding use, prohibits any reversionary interest by the U.S., and voids any prior quitclaim deeds. Most significantly, **Section 5 grants SCF blanket immunity from liability for pre-existing environmental contamination** (oil, hazardous waste, etc.) on the land, shifting that burden entirely to the federal government—unless contamination occurs after SCF takes control. The Secretary must comply with CERCLA §120(h) notice requirements, but the exemption effectively lets SCF off the hook for historical toxins, a sweetheart deal buried in bureaucratic language.

**3. Affected Parties & Stakeholders** - **Southcentral Foundation**: Wins big—free land, no strings attached, and immunity from legacy environmental liability. Likely already using the site; this just formalizes control while eliminating future risk. - **Federal Government (HHS)**: Appears to be giving away an asset, but in truth, it’s likely shedding a liability-laden parcel it didn’t want to clean up or manage. - **Taxpayers**: On the hook for any pre-existing cleanup costs SCF avoids, thanks to the liability shield. - **Alaska Natives**: May benefit if SCF expands services, but the bill does nothing to address systemic underfunding of Indigenous healthcare—it’s a land transfer, not a funding increase. - **State/Local Authorities**: Lose potential tax or regulatory control over the land; now it’s federally conveyed to a private entity with minimal oversight.

**4. Potential Impact & Implications** This is a classic case of **congressional theater masquerading as benevolence**. The transfer likely codifies a status quo SCF already enjoys, but the environmental liability waiver is the real kicker—it’s a backdoor bailout for potential historical contamination, letting a nonprofit avoid cleanup costs that would otherwise fall to the responsible party (possibly the federal government itself, via prior agencies). By forbidding reversionary interests and conditions, Congress ensures SCF can do nearly anything with the land (within health services bounds), raising questions about mission creep or future monetization. The bill does nothing to increase healthcare access or funding—it just real estate shuffles while letting politicians claim they “supported Alaska Natives.” In short: a low-cost, high-privilege gift to a connected nonprofit, dressed up as progress. The real diagnosis? **Congressional constipation—lots of straining, little actual relief for the patient.**

Related Topics

State & Local Government AffairsPublic Lands & Natural Resources
Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Sen. Murkowski, Lisa [R-AK]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

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

No PAC contributions found

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

No committee contributions found

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

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 1 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Sen. Sullivan, Dan [R-AK]

ID: S001198

Top Contributors

75

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

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

PACs
Organizations
Individuals
Politicians

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

Loading...

Showing 55 nodes and 63 connections

Total contributions: $63

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

Showing top 21 donors by contribution amount

7 Orgs14 Individuals

Industry Impact

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

  • Section 3(a) conveys property to Southcentral Foundation (SCF) for use in connection with health and social services programs, directly benefiting a health system operator.

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: 61%
Pages: 575-577AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill supports land transfer to an Alaska Native organization, aligning with Project 2025's emphasis on expanding federal land conveyances to states and Native entities, as seen in the Reagan-era land transfers referenced in the text. However, the bill focuses on healthcare infrastructure via HHS, not resource development or direct DOI land management priorities highlighted in Project 2025."

Key themes:Alaska Native land transfersfederal land conveyancetribal self-determinationDepartment of the Interior land policy

— 542 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 53. Alaska’s request for an injunction was denied. State of Alaska v. Carter, 462 F. Supp. 1155, 1156 (D. Alaska 1978) (NEPA does not apply to presidential proclamations under the Antiquities Act). Alaska’s lawsuit was similar to one filed by Wyoming challenging use of the Antiquities Act to designate the Grand Teton National Monument. Wyoming v. Franke, 58 F. Supp. 890 (D. Wyo. 1945). See generally Carol Hardy Vincent and Kristina Alexander, “National Monuments and the Antiquities Act,” Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, R41330, July 20, 2010, https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc813640/m2/1/high_res_d/ R41330_2011Aug22.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). In December 1980, President Carter signed the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservations Act; subsequently, during the Reagan Administration, Alaska dropped its lawsuit. 54. Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, Public Law 96–487 (codified as amended in scattered sections of 16 U.S.C., 43 U.S.C., 48 U.S.C.), and Joseph J. Perkins, Jr., The Great Land Divided But Not Conquered: The Effects of Statehood, ANCSA, and ANILCA on Alaska, Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Institute, Vol. 34, Ch. 6, 1988, § 6.02. 55. U.S. Department of the Interior, 1983: A Year Of Enrichment: Improving The Quality Of Life For All Americans, October 1983, p. 25, https://www.reaganlibrary.gov/public/digitallibrary/smof/publicliaison/blackwell/box- 006/40_047_7006969_006_022_2017.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 56. Ibid. The conveyances by the Reagan Administration to Alaska and Native Alaskans greatly exceeded the amount of land transferred to each during the Carter Administration. See U.S. Department of the Interior, 1983: A Year Of Enrichment, pp. 86–87. 57. Federal Register, Vol. 36, No. 252 (December 31, 1971), pp. 25410–25412. “On December 28, 1971, ten days after enactment of ANCSA, the Secretary of Interior through his Assistant Secretary issued Public Land Order (PLO) 5150 which withdrew and reserved various federal public lands, subject to valid existing rights, as a utility and transportation corridor for the Alaska oil pipeline. 36 Fed. Reg. 25410 (December 31, 1971). The land order was issued ‘by virtue of the authority vested in the President and pursuant to Executive Order 10355 of May 26, 1952 (17 Fed. Reg. 4831)….PLO 5150 established a corridor extending from the North Slope of Alaska (Prudhoe Bay) south to Valdez on Prince William Sound.’” Wisenak, Inc. v. Andrus, 471 F. Supp. 1004, 1006 (D. Alaska 1979). 58. Alaska Land Transfer Acceleration Act, Public Law 108–452. 59. Philip Elliott, “Biden May Be About to Sign Off on a Huge Alaska Oil Drilling Project,” Time, December 13, 2022, https://time.com/6240733/biden-alaska-oil-drilling-willow-project/ (accessed March 16, 2023). A Biden approval of the bare minimum three pads for ConocoPhillips disincentivized the ability of any other oil and gas company to make the huge investment necessary to operate in NPRA. 60. Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Mining, Land and Water, “Ambler Road Project,” https:// dnr.alaska.gov/mlw/ambler-road/ (accessed March 17, 2023). 61. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Ambler Road: Environmental Impact Statement: Vol. 1, March 2020, https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/nepa/57323/20015364/250020506/Ambler_ FEIS_Volume_1-_Chp_1-3_&__Appendices_A-F_.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). 62. 5 U.S. Code § 801(a)(1)(A). 63. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Master Memorandum of Understanding Between the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau, Alaska and the U.S. National Park Service,” October 14, 1982; U.S. Department of the Interior, “Master Memorandum of Understanding Between the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau, Alaska and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Survey,” March 13, 1982; and U.S. Department of the Interior, “Master Memorandum of Understanding Between the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau, Alaska and the Bureau of Land Management,” August 3, 1983, https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/ lup/66967/84127/100727/Memorandum_of_Understanding_BLM_and_ADFG.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 64. Federal Register, Vol. 85, No. 210 (October 29, 2020), pp. 68668–68703. 65. Federal Register, Vol. 88, No. 18 (January 27, 2023), pp. 5252–5272. 66. E. Dinerstein et al., “A Global Deal For Nature: Guiding Principles, Milestones, and Targets,” Science Advances, Vol. 5, No. 4 (April 19, 2019), https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aaw2869 (accessed March 18, 2023). 67. Joseph R. Biden, “Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad,” Executive Order 14008, https://www. whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/01/27/executive-order-on-tackling-the-climate- crisis-at-home-and-abroad/ (accessed March 17, 2023). — 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).

Department of the Interior

Weak
Vector: 62%
Pages: 563-565AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill shares a focus on Alaska Native beneficiaries and federal land conveyance, but it does not address the Project 2025 priorities of revoking Public Land Orders, expanding oil/mineral development, altering wildlife/water management, or opposing the 30x30 plan."

Key themes:Alaska Nativeland transferfederal liability release

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

Department of the Interior

Weak
Vector: 60%
Pages: 563-565AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on transferring federal land to a Native health nonprofit in Alaska, which tangentially relates to Project 2025's broader theme of reducing federal land control and empowering state/local entities, but does not address specific DOI objectives like wildlife management, navigable waters, or the 30x30 plan."

Key themes:federal land transferAlaska Native interestsreduced federal liability

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

Showing 3 of 5 policy matches

About These Correlations

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

Full Policy Text

Related Bills