The bill
Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2026
S. 2431, 119th Congress — read as touching Oil & Gas.
Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2026
Download PDFBill ID: 119/s/2431
Last Updated: July 11, 2026
Sponsored by
Sen. Murkowski, Lisa [R-AK]
ID: M001153
Follow the money
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
85% match to Project 2025
This bill's text tracks the "Department of the Interior" section, p. 572-574 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. 124.
July 23, 2025
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
Another masterpiece of legislative theater, courtesy of the 119th Congress. Let's dissect this appropriations bill like a cadaver in an anatomy class.
**Total Funding Amounts and Budget Allocations**
The grand total for this bill is $1,256,992,000, with various allocations to different agencies and programs within the Department of the Interior. Because, you know, throwing money at problems always solves them. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) gets a whopping 70% of the funds ($883,492,000), while other agencies like Oregon and California Grant Lands and Range Improvements get significantly less.
**Key Programs and Agencies Receiving Funds**
The BLM is the clear winner here, with funding for land management priorities, construction projects, and even a special $3 million allocation for Wildlife Habitat Management. Because who doesn't love a good wildlife habitat? Meanwhile, Oregon and California Grant Lands receive $115,521,000 for "management, protection, and development of resources" – code for "we're going to do some stuff with the land, but don't ask us what."
**Notable Increases or Decreases from Previous Years**
A quick glance at previous years' appropriations bills reveals that this one is a slight increase from 2025's allocation. But hey, who needs context when you can just throw more money at the problem?
**Riders and Policy Provisions Attached to Funding**
Oh boy, where do I even start? There are riders for "Congressionally Directed Spending Items" (read: pork barrel projects), a $3 million match-funding scheme with the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, and even a provision allowing the BLM to use fee account funds for "any bureau-related expenses associated with the processing of oil and gas applications." Because what could possibly go wrong with that?
**Fiscal Impact and Deficit Implications**
Let's just say this bill won't exactly help reduce our national debt. With an estimated final appropriation of $1,256,992,000, we're looking at a nice chunk of change being added to the deficit. But hey, who needs fiscal responsibility when you can have more government spending?
In conclusion, this appropriations bill is a masterclass in legislative sleight-of-hand. It's a jumbled mess of funding allocations, riders, and policy provisions that will only serve to further bloat our national debt. Bravo, 119th Congress! You've managed to create yet another example of government waste and inefficiency.
Diagnosis: Terminal case of bureaucratic bloating, with symptoms including reckless spending, lack of transparency, and a healthy dose of corruption. Prognosis: Poor, with a high likelihood of further legislative malpractice in the future.
Related Topics
Public Lands & Natural ResourcesState & Local Government Affairs
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
$4,300
2
THE CHICKASAW NATION
$2,500
3
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
$2,000
4
PUYALLUP TRIBE OF INDIANS
$1,000
5
SUQUAMISH INDIAN TRIBE
$1,000
6
TOHONO O'ODHAM NATION
$1,000
7
CHOCTAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA
$550
No committee contributions found
1
BLACK, JULIE R
$6,600
2
JONES, GEORGE BRADFORD
$6,600
3
KARP, ALEXANDER C DR
$6,600
4
LANCE, RYAN M
$6,600
5
MICHAELS, LAURIE
$6,600
6
SEGAL, PAUL
$6,600
7
WALTON, ROB
$6,600
8
FOX, RICHARD C
$5,700
9
ARISON, MICKY
$4,800
10
COX, MEGHAN
$4,300
11
O'KELLY, SEBASTIAN P
$4,050
12
PFEFFER, DESIREE
$3,800
13
ARNOLD, JOHN
$3,300
14
GIBBONS, LILE
$3,300
15
GOLDMAN, KEN
$3,300
16
GUESS, MATTHEW
$3,300
17
KARSNER, ALEXANDER
$3,300
18
LOBEL, JULIE
$3,300
19
LUNDQUIST, ANDREW
$3,300
20
PFEFFER, MARK
$3,300
21
ROSE, KELLY
$3,300
22
BARRETT, SHEILA M
$3,000
23
BARRETT, THOMAS J
$3,000
24
EVANS, ROBERT A
$3,000
25
FOX, RABUN
$3,000
26
HENDRIX, JOHN
$3,000
27
INDIAN TRIBE, COWLITZ
$3,000
28
MCDONNELL, CAROLYN
$3,000
29
BERTOSON, TODD
$2,500
30
BODE, DENISE A
$2,500
31
GIRAUD, CHARLES WILLIAM IV
$2,500
32
NEESER, GERALD E.
$2,500
33
O'BRIEN, ANDY
$2,500
34
RASMUSON, CATHRYN
$2,500
35
SAN MANUEL, BAND OF MISSION INDI
$2,500
36
BARRETT, CRAIG
$2,000
37
DEVORE, JON
$2,000
38
DOORNENBAL, HEIDI JANSEN
$2,000
39
EVERTS, ROBERT W
$2,000
40
JANSEN, GUY
$2,000
41
JANSEN, JIM
$2,000
42
JANSEN, VIC
$2,000
43
JANSEN, VICKI
$2,000
44
KNUTSON, KAREN
$2,000
45
OLDS, NICK
$2,000
46
PAUL, TERRY L
$2,000
47
WOOLSTON, KRISTINA
$2,000
48
DOWNS, RAISSA H
$2,000
49
SILVER, STEVEN
$1,750
50
ASHLOCK, CAROL S
$1,500
51
BAKER, BRETT
$1,500
52
BAKER, BRUCE ANDREW
$1,500
53
BAKER, MILES C
$1,500
54
BRADWAY, COURTNEY
$1,500
55
BUCKALEW, ADAM
$1,500
56
BUNDRANT, JOSEPH
$1,500
57
BUNDRANT, MARY SUE
$1,500
58
DAVIDSON, VALERIE
$1,500
59
FAWAZ, RAMZI
$1,500
60
FEATHERLY, WALTER
$1,500
61
GILLOTT, CHRISTOPHER D
$1,500
62
HALL, HUNTER
$1,500
63
IRIZARRY, STEVEN
$1,500
64
IYER, SWAMINATHAN
$1,500
65
LAWRENCE, COURTNEY
$1,500
66
MARSHALL, MEGAN
$1,500
67
MARTIN, MARGARET
$1,500
68
MCKECHNIE, ANDREW
$1,500
69
MCMILLIN, ROBERT
$1,500
70
PATE, HEWITT
$1,500
71
PETERSON, MICHAEL
$1,500
72
POPP, MONICA
$1,500
73
ROSEN, DEAN
$1,500
74
STOLPE, CAROL
$1,500
75
STRONG, MIRANDA
$1,500
76
THOMPSON, TAYLOR
$1,500
77
VAN PELT, JASON
$1,500
78
WALTON, ROBERT
$1,500
79
WHITE, DERRICK
$1,500
80
SOUTER, ALEXANDER
$1,300
81
ANDERSON, TRAVIS K
$1,000
82
BELL, STEPHEN E
$1,000
83
BICKWIT, LEONARD JR.
$1,000
84
BUNDRANT, DIANE L
$1,000
85
BURNETT, WALLACE DAVID
$1,000
86
CAMPBELL, CORA
$1,000
87
CARTER, ZACHARY
$1,000
88
CHAVEZ, JP
$1,000
89
CHRISTENSEN-WOODWARD, LORI M
$1,000
90
CURBELO, CECILIA
$1,000
91
DALY, JOHN JOSEPH
$1,000
92
DAUM, ROBERT C
$1,000
93
DEATON, TYLER
$1,000
94
DOREMUS, PAUL
$1,000
95
EPPLIN, ROBERT
$1,000
96
FERGUSON, JACK
$1,000
97
FITCH, EMMETT
$1,000
98
GUERRIERO, PATRICK
$1,000
99
HALL, PAULI
$1,000
100
HAMBLETON, DAVID
$1,000
101
HELMBRECHT, MICHAEL
$1,000
102
HENDERSCHEDT, JOHN
$1,000
103
HRAP, HEATHER
$1,000
104
HUGHES, MARY
$1,000
105
JARVIS, ALEIX
$1,000
106
KING, ANDREW
$1,000
107
KING, WENDY
$1,000
108
KRECZKO, ALAN
$1,000
109
LANGHOFER, RACHEL
$1,000
110
LEACH, TIMOTHY
$1,000
111
LINK, MICHAEL R
$1,000
112
LONG, RAYMOND
$1,000
113
LYNCH, KARINA V.
$1,000
114
MACKLON, DOMINIC
$1,000
115
MAR, SAM
$1,000
116
MEHRKAM, NOAH B
$1,000
117
MEZA, ROBERT
$1,000
118
MICHELS, DANIEL J
$1,000
119
MOIR, MATTHEW
$1,000
120
NYHOLM, ALLISON
$1,000
121
PEARSON, RACHEL T.
$1,000
122
SATTERBERG, WILLIAM R JR.
$1,000
123
SIRACUSE, CECE
$1,000
124
STOOPS, REED
$1,000
125
SUTTER, BRIAN
$1,000
126
SWEENEY, TARA
$1,000
127
THIESSEN, PAMELA
$1,000
128
TRIBE OF INDIANS, PUYALLUP
$1,000
129
VAN SCOYOC, H STEWART
$1,000
130
WILLIAMS, CHRISTINE V
$1,000
131
WILLIAMS, MICHAEL RYAN
$1,000
132
WILLIAMSON, BRAD
$1,000
133
ZUANICH, ROBERT
$1,000
134
WILT, SINCLAIR
$1,000
135
ZANE, C.J.
$750
136
BALASH, JOSEPH
$500
137
BLACKSMITH, DIANE
$500
138
BURKE, LARRY
$500
139
CANFIELD, CAROLINE
$500
140
CATANZARO, MICHAEL
$500
141
CUSACK, MIKE
$500
142
CUSTER, JASON R
$500
143
EASTON, JOHN
$500
144
EGAN, JAMES B
$500
145
ENLOW, THOMAS D SR.
$500
146
GORTON, KIM
$500
147
HANRAHAN, JOHN T
$500
148
HAWKS, THOMAS
$500
149
IANI, FRANCES S
$500
150
JOHNSTON, JENNIFER
$500
151
KALMIN, JOSEPH
$500
152
MACCHIAROLA, FRANK J
$500
153
MATHISEN, CARL
$500
154
MAXWELL, BRYAN
$500
155
MEISSNER, OLIVER R
$500
156
MILNE, JOHN D
$500
157
O'LEARY, BRIAN
$500
158
PETRIZZO, T.J.
$500
159
REY, MARK
$500
160
ROSENBAUM, JERR
$500
161
SAPRYKINA, NATALIA
$500
162
SCOTT, J. TYLER
$500
163
SHAW, RHOD
$500
164
SMITH, CRAIG F.
$500
165
STEVENSON, ROBERT
$500
166
STEWART, DONALD
$500
167
TRAUTNER, TODD
$500
168
WOOLF, MALCOLM
$500
169
ZAMGOCHIAN, ARAM
$500
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. 15 helped, 1 harmed.
- +Oil & Gasconfidence 0.90
Section 107 authorizes collection of nonrefundable inspection fees from offshore facilities, which supports regulatory oversight of oil and gas operations on the Outer Continental Shelf, benefiting the industry by ensuring continued operations under a fee-based system that funds safety and environmental enforcement.
- +Hospitals & Health Systemsconfidence 0.90
Section 2404 of Public Law 116-9 is referenced in the National Park Service section: 'In addition, for purposes described in section 2404 of Public Law 116-9, an amount equal to the amount deposited in this fiscal year into the National Park Medical Services Fund established pursuant to such section of such Act, to remain available until expended, shall be derived from such Fund.' This indicates funding for medical services within national parks, which benefits hospitals and health systems that
- +Real Estateconfidence 0.90
Multiple sections reference land acquisition and construction: Bureau of Indian Affairs construction section includes '$10,000,000 shall be derived from the Indian Irrigation Fund'; Indian Health Service facilities construction includes '$289,306,000, to remain available until expended, for Sanitation Facilities Construction and Health Care Facilities Construction'; and Section 429 details Land and Water Conservation Fund allocations for federal land acquisition. These provisions directly benefi
- +Pipelines & Energy Infrastructureconfidence 0.85
Section 107 establishes inspection fees for offshore facilities, including those with processing equipment, gathering lines, and wells, which directly supports midstream energy infrastructure operators by funding safety and environmental oversight that enables continued operations.
- +Health Insuranceconfidence 0.85
The Indian Health Service section includes provisions for health care services and references to titles XVIII and XIX of the Social Security Act (Medicare and Medicaid). Specifically: 'The amounts collected by the Secretary of Health and Human Services under the authority of title IV of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act (25 U.S.C. 1613) shall remain available until expended for the purpose of achieving compliance with the applicable conditions and requirements of titles XVIII and XIX of the
- +Cybersecurityconfidence 0.85
The Working Capital Fund section explicitly includes 'cybersecurity' as a funded activity: 'For the operation and maintenance of a departmental financial and business management system, data management, information technology improvements of general benefit to the Department, cybersecurity, and the consolidation of facilities and operations throughout the Department...' This directly benefits cybersecurity contractors and service providers.
+ 10 more industries not shown.
Who funds the sponsor on these industries
For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Sen. Murkowski, Lisa [R-AK])received from donors associated with that industry during the 2022–present cycles. Donations are not proof of intent — they are a record of who funds the people writing the law.
Industries this bill HELPS
- Oil & Gas$29,950from 16 contributions
- LANCE, RYAN M$6,600
- LUNDQUIST, ANDREW$3,300
- ROSE, KELLY$3,300
- GIRAUD, CHARLES WILLIAM IV$2,500
- O'BRIEN, ANDY$2,500
- Big-Box Retail$6,600from 2 contributions
- WALTON, ROB$6,600
- Health Insurance$1,500from 1 contribution
- LAWRENCE, COURTNEY$1,500
- Renewable Energy$1,250from 2 contributions
- LONG, RAYMOND$1,000
- BORGER, KARINA$250
- from 2 contributions
- TUCKNESS, BARBARA HUFF$500
- from 1 contribution
- STEWART, DONALD$500
Project 2025 Policy Matches
This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.AI-enhanced analysis provides detailed alignment ratings.
Department of the Interior
Strong
Vector: 65%Pages: 572-574AI Enhanced
AI Analysis:
"The bill supports Project 2025's emphasis on expanding domestic energy production by allowing fee account funds to be used for oil and gas application processing and maintaining current land management plans that facilitate leasing. It also aligns with streamlining permitting and reducing regulatory barriers for mineral development on federal lands."
Key themes:oil and gas leasingpermitting streamliningmineral developmentfee account utilizationland management for energy
— 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: 69%Pages: 560-562AI Enhanced
AI Analysis:
"The bill funds BLM's Wild Horse and Burro Management program and includes provisions for wildfire protection, which align with Project 2025's focus on managing overpopulated wild horses and preventing wildfires on BLM lands. However, it does not address the Project 2025 priority of placing BLM law enforcement officers in an exclusive law enforcement chain of command."
Key themes:wild horse managementwildfire preventionBLM land management funding
— 527 — Department of the Interior Bay in Alaska; to expand recreation across BLM’s vast, diverse, and unique land- scapes; or to manage timber and rangelands to prevent wildfires, would all journey to Grand Junction. Convention opportunities on Colorado’s western slope would abound for BLM’s disparate constituencies to congregate and meet with BLM leadership. The Western States Sheriffs’ Association, for example, whose annual gathering attracts hundreds of law enforcement officers from 17 western and plains states might have moved its event to Grand Junction. Law Enforcement Officers. In 2002, at the direction of the Secretary of the Interior in the days following the 9/11 attack, the Inspector General (IG) for DOI made a series of department-wide recommendations regarding law enforcement. Then-Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton ordered adoption of those recom- mendations, which drew strong bipartisan support from Congress. Over the years, most were implemented. One, however, remained undone: placing all BLM law enforcement officers (LEOs), that is, its 212 Law Enforcement Rangers and 76 Special Agents, in an exclusively law enforcement chain of command. This was not just the IG’s recommendation in 2002, but that of every IG who fol- lowed. It is also the strong recommendation of the department’s top LEO. Moreover, it has been the urgent recommendation of law enforcement professionals across the country, especially in the West, for decades, including the Western States Sher- iffs Association. Unfortunately, over time, BLM leadership stonewalled, adhering to a haphazard system in which LEOs reported to non-LEO superiors, including not only state directors, but also district and field managers with expertise in other fields—range management or petroleum engineering, for example—with only 24 hours of law enforcement study. Obviously, those managers lack a comprehensive understanding of law enforcement issues—constitutional, legal, and tactical. In addition, they do not uniformly apply or enforce rules of conduct or ethical stan- dards for LEOs and special agents, leading to weakened esprit de corps and morale. Worse yet, because of their duties as managers of the multiple-use lands under their jurisdiction, they are exposed to conflicts of interests and may intentionally or unintentionally prevent LEOs from investigating violations or applying the law. In the final days of the Trump Administration, Secretary David L. Bernhardt ordered, and Deputy Director William Perry Pendley implemented, the IG’s recom- mendation. Of course, leadership heads exploded; they were furious with their loss of authority, not to mention subordinates and budgets. Unfortunately, in the first days of the Biden Administration, BLM Deputy Director Mike Nedd suspended Pendley’s order. Nonetheless, LEOs, the BLM, and westerners want LEOs—who make life-and- death decisions—to be as well-trained and well-equipped as possible. They should report to a professional, expert, and knowledgeable chain of command. After all, they protect visitors to BLM lands and the natural and cultural resources of those lands, as well as the employees who manage those lands. — 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
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Moderate
Vector: 67%Pages: 551-553AI Enhanced
AI Analysis:
"The bill funds BLM operations including land and resource management, which aligns with Project 2025's emphasis on multiple-use mandates and energy development on federal lands, though it does not explicitly expand oil and gas leasing as advocated in the policy."
Key themes:Bureau of Land Managementmultiple use and sustained yieldfederal land managementenergy resource development
— 519 — Department of the Interior President Joe Biden’s DOI, as is well documented, abandoned all pretense of complying with federal law regarding federally owned oil and gas resources. Not since the Administration of President Harry S. Truman—prior to creation of the OCS oil and gas program—have fewer federal leases been issued.10 At DOI, not since the Reagan Administration was the radical environmen- tal agenda (first implemented by Carter, resumed by Clinton, and revitalized by Obama) rolled back as substantially as it was by President Trump. Trump’s DOI change affected not only oil and gas leasing, as noted above, but all statutory responsibilities of its various agencies, bureaus, and offices. Thus, whether the statutory mandate was to promote economic activity, to ensure and expand rec- reational opportunities, or to protect valuable natural resources, including, for example, parks, wilderness areas, national monuments, and wild and scenic areas, efforts were expended, barriers were removed, and career employees were aided in the accomplishment of those missions. Unfortunately, Biden’s DOI is at war with the department’s mission, not only when it comes to DOI’s obligation to develop the vast oil and gas and coal resources for which it is responsible, but also as to its statutory mandate, for example, to manage much of federal land overseen by the BLM pursuant to “multiple use” and “sustained yield” principles.11 Instead, Biden’s DOI believes most BLM land should be placed off-limits to all economic and most recreational uses. Worse yet, Biden’s DOI not only refuses to adhere to the statutes enacted by Congress as to how the lands under its jurisdiction are managed, but it also insists on implementing a vast regulatory regime (for which Congress has not granted authority) and overturning, by unilateral regulatory action, congressional acts that set forth the productive economic uses permitted on DOI-managed federal land. BUDGET STRUCTURE At $18.9 billion, DOI’s 2024 proposed budget is small relative to many other federal agencies. On the other side of the ledger, the DOI forecasts it will generate more than $19.6 billion in “offsetting receipts” from oil and gas royalties, timber and grazing fees, park user fees, and land sales, among other sources. Most of the proposed allocations are divided among nine bureaus. Bureau of Indian Affairs. Fulfills Indian trust responsibilities on behalf of 566 Indian tribes; supports natural resource education, law enforcement, and social service programs delivered by tribes; operates 182 elementary and secondary schools and dormitories and 29 tribally controlled community colleges, universi- ties, and post-secondary schools. Bureau of Land Management. Manages and conserves resources for 245 million acres of public land and 700 million acres of subsurface federal mineral estate, including energy and mineral development, forest management, timber and biomass production, and wild horse and burro management. — 520 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. Manages access to renewable and conventional energy resources of the Outer Continental Shelf, including more than 6,400 fluid mineral leases on approximately 35 million OCS acres; issues leases for 24 percent of domestic crude oil and 8 percent of domestic natural gas supply; oversees lease and grant issuance for offshore renewable energy projects. Bureau of Reclamation. Manages, develops, and protects water and related resources, including 476 dams and 337 reservoirs; delivers water to one in every five western farmers and more than 31 million people; is America’s second-largest producer of hydroelectric power. Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement. Regulates offshore oil and gas facilities on 1.7 billion acres of the Outer Continental Shelf; oversees oil spill response; supports research on technology for oil spill response. National Park Service. Maintains and manages 401 natural, cultural, and recreational sites, 26,000 historic structures, and more than 44 million acres of wilderness; provides outdoor recreation; provides technical assistance and support to state and local programs. Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement. Regulates coal mining and site reclamation; provides grants to states and tribes for mining over- sight; mitigates the effects of past mining. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Manages the 150-million-acre National Wild- life Refuge System; manages 70 fish hatcheries and other related facilities for endangered species recovery; protects migratory birds and some marine mammals. U.S. Geological Survey. Conducts scientific research in ecosystems, climate, and land-use change, mineral assessments, environmental health, and water resources; produces information about natural hazards (earthquakes, volcanoes, and landslides); leads climate change research for the department. RESTORING AMERICAN ENERGY DOMINANCE Given the dire adverse national impact of Biden’s war on fossil fuels, no other initiative is as important for the DOI under a conservative President than the restoration of the department’s historic role managing the nation’s vast store- house of hydrocarbons, much of which is yet to be discovered. The U.S. depends on reliable and cheap energy resources to ensure the economic well-being of its citizens, the vitality of its economy, and its geopolitical standing in an uncertain and dangerous world. Not only are valuable natural resources owned generally by the American people involved, so too are those owned separately by American Indian tribes and individual American Indians, both of which have been injured by Biden’s illegal actions. The federal government owns 61 percent of the onshore and offshore min- eral estate of the U.S., but only 22 percent of the nation’s oil and 12 percent of U.S. natural gas comes from those federal lands and waters—and even that amount is
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.