Crow Revenue Act

Download PDF
Bill ID: 119/s/239
Last Updated: August 5, 2026

Sponsored by

Sen. Daines, Steve [R-MT]

ID: D000618

Follow the money

The bill

Crow Revenue Act

S. 239, 119th Congress — read as touching Oil & Gas.

The sponsor

Sen. Daines, Steve [R-MT]

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

The money

$768,365 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. 560-562 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Committee on Indian Affairs. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.

August 4, 2026

Introduced

Committee Review

Floor Action

📍 Current Status

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

✅

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. 239: Crow Revenue Act**

**1. Main Purpose & Objectives** The Crow Revenue Act purports to resolve a tangled web of mineral rights in Montana by transferring certain subsurface and surface interests from federal and private hands into trust for the Crow Tribe of Montana. Ostensibly framed as a gesture of tribal sovereignty and economic empowerment, the bill’s real purpose is to untangle a bureaucratic and legal knot that has likely stalled resource development for years—while letting politicians claim they’re “doing something” for Native communities without actually addressing systemic inequities. The Crow Tribe gains nominal control over valuable mineral assets, but only after a convoluted swap that benefits a private trust and clears the way for future extraction—likely under terms favorable to corporations, not the Tribe.

**2. Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The bill mandates a three-part transaction within 60 days of enactment: - If the current lessee of the Bull Mountains Lease (a federal coal lease) offers to relinquish it, the Secretary of the Interior *must* accept—bypassing standard regulatory hurdles under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and mineral leasing laws. - The Hope Family Trust (a private entity) must convey its mineral interests in the Hope Family Tracts (located *within* the Crow Reservation) to the Tribe. - In return, the U.S. government transfers its mineral and surface interests in the Bull Mountains Tracts (outside the reservation) to the Hope Family Trust. The Tribe’s newly acquired minerals are to be held in federal trust (tax-exempt), and the Tribe must pre-negotiate a revenue-sharing agreement with the Hope Family Trust for any future development of the Bull Mountains Tracts—effectively letting a private trust profit from federal land it now controls, while the Tribe gets a cut. State taxation is barred on tribal minerals—a minor concession, given the Tribe likely lacks the infrastructure to develop them independently.

**3. Affected Parties & Stakeholders** - **Crow Tribe of Montana**: Gains title to subsurface minerals under its reservation (a symbolic win), but remains dependent on federal trust status and a revenue-sharing deal with a private trust for real economic benefit. Likely to get the short end of any development deal. - **Hope Family Trust (Joe and Barbara Hope)**: The big winners. They relinquish reservation-based minerals (likely low-value or encumbered) in exchange for federal mineral rights in the Bull Mountains—potentially rich in coal, oil, or gas—positioning themselves to profit from extraction while avoiding tribal governance. - **Lessee of the Bull Mountains Lease**: Gets a clean exit from a federal lease, likely to avoid liability or costly compliance, with the government forced to accept relinquishment. - **Secretary of the Interior**: Reduced to a clerk in this transaction—no discretion, just a rubber stamp if the lessee plays ball. - **State of Montana**: Loses potential tax revenue from federal lands now transferred to private hands (though gains nothing from tribal trust lands anyway). - **Taxpayers**: Foot the bill for enabling a private trust to acquire federal mineral assets at no apparent cost, while the Tribe gets trust status without meaningful autonomy.

**4. Potential Impact & Implications** This is less a boon for the Crow Tribe and more a shell game that privatizes federal mineral wealth under the guise of tribal relief. The Tribe gets paper title to reservation minerals it likely couldn’t develop alone, while the Hope Family Trust acquires valuable federal acreage with a pre-negotiated revenue share—ensuring profits flow to private hands regardless of who does the digging. The bill undermines the federal trust responsibility by outsourcing tribal economic development to a private entity with no accountability to the Tribe or public. It also sets a dangerous precedent: use tribal sovereignty as a cover to transfer public assets to private interests, all while calling it “revenue sharing.” In reality, it’s a tax-efficient exit strategy for a private trust, a get-out-of-jail-free card for a coal lessee, and a photo-op for senators who want to look pro-tribe without challenging the extractive status quo. The Crow Tribe may get a seat at the table—but the menu

Related Topics

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

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Sen. Daines, Steve [R-MT]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions
$768,365
30 donors
PACs
$0
Organizations
$30,065
Committees
$0
Individuals
$738,300

No PAC contributions found

1
CONFEDERATED SALISH AND KOOTENAI TRIBES OF THE FLATHEAD NATI
1 transaction
$6,600
2
BARONA BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
1 transaction
$5,000
3
BLUECHIP FINANCIAL
1 transaction
$3,300
4
HPUL PROJECT OPERATION
1 transaction
$3,300
5
EASTERN BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIANS
1 transaction
$3,300
6
SUQUAMISH INDIAN TRIBE
1 transaction
$3,300
7
ALABAMA-COUSHATTA TRIBE
1 transaction
$2,500
8
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
1 transaction
$1,000
9
MUSCOGEE CREEK NATION
1 transaction
$1,000
10
CHOCTAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA
1 transaction
$765

No committee contributions found

1
GIANFORTE, SUSAN K.
1 transaction
$200,000
2
HOWERY, KENNETH
1 transaction
$100,000
3
SMITH, THOMAS W.
1 transaction
$100,000
4
MCGRAW, JAY PHILLIP
1 transaction
$100,000
5
GOLUB, LAWRENCE
1 transaction
$76,600
6
MARCUS, JOEL S.
1 transaction
$25,000
7
WELSH, ERIC
1 transaction
$15,000
8
PFAUTCH, ROY MR.
1 transaction
$11,600
9
ANDREESSEN, LAURA ARRILLAGA
1 transaction
$11,600
10
ANDREESSEN, MARC L. MR.
1 transaction
$11,600
11
DIXON, CHRISTOPHER
1 transaction
$11,600
12
HOROWITZ, BEN
1 transaction
$11,600
13
HOROWITZ, FELICIA
1 transaction
$11,600
14
SILENOK, ELENA
1 transaction
$11,600
15
WALKER, TODD
1 transaction
$7,500
16
SINGER, PAUL E. MR.
1 transaction
$6,600
17
FORD, WILLIAM E. MR.
1 transaction
$6,600
18
MANDELBLATT, DANIELLE
1 transaction
$6,600
19
MANDELBLATT, ERIC
1 transaction
$6,600
20
ROWAN, CAROLYN MRS.
1 transaction
$6,600

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

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

Sen. Sheehy, Tim [R-MT]

ID: S001232

Top Contributors

100

1
CLUB FOR GROWTH PAC
PACWASHINGTON, DC
$7,720
Jun 27, 2024
2
CLUB FOR GROWTH PAC
PACWASHINGTON, DC
$7,720
Jun 27, 2024
3
CLUB FOR GROWTH PAC
PACWASHINGTON, DC
$7,720
Jun 27, 2024
4
CLUB FOR GROWTH PAC
PACWASHINGTON, DC
$7,720
Jun 27, 2024
5
CLUB FOR GROWTH PAC
PACWASHINGTON, DC
$7,720
Jun 27, 2024
6
SENATE CONSERVATIVES FUND
PACWASHINGTON, DC
$7,609
Jun 21, 2024
7
SENATE CONSERVATIVES FUND
PACWASHINGTON, DC
$7,609
Jun 21, 2024
8
SENATE CONSERVATIVES FUND
PACWASHINGTON, DC
$7,609
Jun 21, 2024
9
REPUBLICAN JEWISH COALITION-POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (RJC-PAC)
PACWASHINGTON, DC
$7,000
Jun 25, 2024
10
REPUBLICAN JEWISH COALITION-POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (RJC-PAC)
PACWASHINGTON, DC
$7,000
Jun 25, 2024

Donor Network - Sen. Daines, Steve [R-MT]

PACs
Organizations
Individuals
Politicians

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

Loading...

Showing 81 nodes and 74 connections

Total contributions: $74

Top Donors - Sen. Daines, Steve [R-MT]

Showing top 25 donors by contribution amount

10 Orgs20 Individuals

Industry Impact

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

  • −Oil & Gasconfidence 0.80

    Section 3(e) withdraws tracts from mineral leasing laws, which could limit oil and gas development, and Section 3(a)(1) allows the Secretary to accept relinquishment of the Bull Mountains Lease, potentially reducing oil and gas activity.

  • Section 3(e) withdraws tracts from mineral leasing and geothermal leasing laws, which could impact energy infrastructure development, such as pipelines and storage facilities.

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: 62%
Pages: 560-562AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on resolving mineral ownership and enhancing tribal revenue through land transfers, which aligns with Project 2025's emphasis on Interior Department reform and resource management, though it does not directly address the wild horse and burro population control or Alaska land transfer priorities highlighted in the provided policy excerpt."

Key themes:Department of the Interiorland managementtribal interestsresource developmentfederal land policy

— 528 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise BLM’s LEOs must keep in touch, work closely, and coordinate with fellow fed- eral, state, and local law enforcement officers. In the Trump Administration, they joined state and local law enforcement in arresting dangerous suspects in Cortez, Colorado; responded to a request from a rural sheriff in Arizona to rescue a family stuck in freezing temperatures; and, teamed up in an all-hands-on-deck effort to locate a missing American Indian teenager in rural Montana. More important, western LEOs need the assurance that the BLM LEOs with whom they work are professionals who report through a professional chain of command. Wild Horses and Burros. In 1971, Congress ordered the BLM to manage wild horses and burros to ensure their iconic presence never disappeared from the western landscape. For decades, Congress watched as these herds overwhelmed the land’s ability to sustain them, crowded out indigenous plant and other animal species, threatened the survival of species listed under the Endangered Species Act, invaded private and permitted public land, disturbed private property rights, and turned the sod into concrete. BLM experts said in 2019 that some affected land will never recover from this unmitigated damage. There are 95,000 wild horses and burros roaming nearly 32 million acres in the West—triple what scientists and land management experts say the range can sup- port. These animals face starvation and death from lack of forage and water. The population has more than doubled in just the past 10 years and continues to grow at a rate of 10 to 15 percent annually. This number includes the more than 47,000 animals the BLM has already gathered from public lands, at a cost to the American taxpayer of nearly $50 million annually to care for them in off-range corrals. This is not a new issue—it is not just a western issue—it is an American issue. What is happening to these once-proud beasts of burden is neither compassionate nor humane, and what these animals are doing to federal lands and fragile ecosys- tems is unacceptable. In 2019, the American Association of Equine Practitioners and the American Veterinary Medication Association—two of the largest organi- zations of professional veterinarians in the world—issued a joint policy calling for further reducing overpopulation to protect the health and well-being of wild horses and burros on public lands. The National Wild Horse and Burro Advisory Board, a panel of nine experts and professionals convened to advise the BLM, endorsed the joint policy. Furthermore, animal welfare organizations such as the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the Humane Society of the United States recognize that the prosperity of wild horses and burros on public lands is threatened if herds continue to grow unabated. The BLM’s multi-pronged approach in its 2020 Report to Congress46 included expanded adoptions and sales of horses gathered from overpopulated herds; increased gathers and increased capacity for off-range holding facilities and pas- tures; more effective use of fertility control efforts; and improved research, in concert with the academic and veterinary communities, to identify more effective — 529 — Department of the Interior contraceptive techniques and strategies. All of that will not be enough to solve the problem, however. Congress must enact laws permitting the BLM to dispose humanely of these animals. IMMEDIATE ACTIONS REGARDING ALASKA Alaska is a special case and deserves immediate action.47 When Alaska was admitted to the Union in 1959, nearly its entire landmass was federally owned; therefore, Alaska was granted the right to select 104 million acres (out of 375 million acres) to manage for the benefit of its residents.48 In less than eight years, Alaska selected 26 million acres. Then-Interior Secretary Stewart Udall—who served during the Kennedy and Johnson Administrations—put a freeze on further land selections to protect any claims that might be asserted by Native Alaskans.49 Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. The discovery of oil at Prudhoe Bay in 1968 made resolution of the issue by Congress a matter of urgency. As a result, in 1971, Congress passed the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA), which allowed the Native community to select 44 million acres.50 Environmentalists, upset that too much of the land they coveted would be selected by the state and Native Alaskans for development, demanded the inclusion in the act of a provision—Section 17(d)(2)—that ordered the Interior Secretary to withdraw 80 million acres for future designation by Congress as parks, refuges, wild and scenic rivers, and national forests.51 The deadline for this congressional action was 1978, and as it neared, the Carter Administration, impatient and worried, decided to force Congress’s hand. The Administration unilaterally withdrew 100 million acres from any use by the state or Native Alaskans.52 Alaska promptly sued, charging that the Administration had failed to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act.53 In a lame duck session at the end of 1980, Congress passed (over the objec- tions of the Alaskan delegation) the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, which revoked all of the withdrawals of the Carter Administration and sub- stituted congressional designations that put 100 million acres permanently in federal enclaves, doubled the acreage of national parks and refuges, and tripled the amount of land declared to be wilderness.54 Through all of this, Alaska pressed for the DOI to convey the lands to which Alaska was entitled by federal law, but the department grudgingly transferred only portions of that land. By the time Ronald Reagan took office, Alaska had received less than half the lands to which it was entitled after its admission into the Union, and Native Alas- kans had received only one-third of the land due to them.55 From January of 1981 through 1983, however, under Reagan, Alaska received 30 million acres and a com- mitment of land transfers at the rate of 13 million acres annually. In the same period, Native Alaskans received 11 million acres, which constituted nearly 60 percent of their entitlement, and an additional 15 million acres were transferred by the end of 1988.56

Department of the Interior

Moderate
Vector: 61%
Pages: 572-574AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill aligns with Project 2025's focus on streamlining federal land and mineral management by facilitating a coordinated transfer of mineral interests to enhance tribal resource control and revenue potential, reflecting themes of efficient land use and resource development. However, it does not directly implement or reference specific Project 2025 Interior Department reforms like expedited permitting or leasing program overhauls, resulting in moderate rather than strong alignment."

Key themes:mineral leasingtribal resource developmentfederal land managementinterior department reformrevenue sharing

— 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

Moderate
Vector: 61%
Pages: 563-565AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill aligns with Project 2025's focus on resolving federal land and mineral entitlements and enhancing tribal resource control, though it addresses the Crow Tribe rather than Alaska Natives. Both emphasize correcting historical land injustices through administrative action to transfer mineral interests and support tribal economic development."

Key themes:land entitlement resolutionmineral resource accesstribal self-sufficiencyfederal trust responsibilityadministrative land action

— 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

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