Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
This bill prohibits the Secretary of the Interior from implementing, administering, or enforcing the Rock Springs Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan issued by the Bureau of Land Management in December 2024. It is a narrow, statute-level bar on carrying out that specific RMP.
Progressives emphasize environmental and climate harms from blocking the RMP.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly targeted statutory prohibition that is explicit about the prohibited action and the responsible official, but it lacks practical detail on implementation, fiscal effects, interaction with existing law, edge-case handling, and accountability.
This bill prohibits the Secretary of the Interior from implementing, administering, or enforcing the Rock Springs Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan issued by the Bureau of Land Management in December 2024.
It is a narrow, statute-level bar on carrying out that specific RMP.
The bill does not describe replacement planning, funding, or alternative management actions.
Very narrow bill could pass House alone but faces substantial Senate obstacles and potential executive resistance; lacks compromise features.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly targeted statutory prohibition that is explicit about the prohibited action and the responsible official, but it lacks practical detail on implementation, fiscal effects, interaction with existing law, edge-case handling, and accountability.
Progressives emphasize environmental and climate harms from blocking the RMP.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives emphasize environmental and climate harms from blocking the RMP.
Likely opposed: this persona would view the bill as an effort to block a BLM land-use plan that may include conservation, public-lands protections, or climate-related restrictions.
They would worry the prohibition undermines environmental planning, public-process outcomes, and long-term stewardship of public lands.
Specific impacts are uncertain without the RMP text.
Mixed/conditional: this persona will weigh local economic impacts, legal process, and environmental consequences.
They see legitimate concerns about federal planning procedures and local stakeholder input, but also worry about creating legal uncertainty and delaying resource management.
Support depends on justification and a clear replacement or review process.
Likely supportive: this persona will view the bill as protecting local economic uses, limiting federal overreach, and preventing restrictive land-use measures from taking effect.
They see the prohibition as defending energy development, grazing, and jobs, and as asserting congressional oversight over BLM planning.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Very narrow bill could pass House alone but faces substantial Senate obstacles and potential executive resistance; lacks compromise features.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives emphasize environmental and climate harms from blocking the RMP.
Very narrow bill could pass House alone but faces substantial Senate obstacles and potential executive resistance; lacks compromise feature…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly targeted statutory prohibition that is explicit about the prohibited action and the responsible official, but it lacks practical detail on implementatio…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.