H.R. 2400 (119th)Bill Overview

Pit River Land Transfer Act of 2025

Native Americans|CaliforniaIndian lands and resources rights
Cosponsors
Support
Republican
Introduced
Mar 27, 2025
Discussions
Bill Text
Current stageCommittee

Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 245.

Introduced
Committee
Floor
President
Law
Congressional Activities
01 · The brief
Plain-English summaryWhat this bill actually does

This bill directs the Secretary of the Interior to take about 583.79 acres of Forest Service-managed land in California into trust for the Pit River Tribe, excluding roughly 20.03 acres of roads and rights-of-way. The Secretary of Agriculture must deliver a complete survey within 180 days.

Why people may split

Liberal emphasizes tribal restoration and stewardship benefits

Watch point

Narrow, technical, and locally focused; few controversial provisions and explicit gaming ban lower resistance.

This bill directs the Secretary of the Interior to take about 583.79 acres of Forest Service-managed land in California into trust for the Pit River Tribe, excluding roughly 20.03 acres of roads and rights-of-way.

The Secretary of Agriculture must deliver a complete survey within 180 days.

Once in trust, the land becomes part of the Pit River Tribe Reservation and will be administered under federal trust law.

Passage50/100

A narrow, non‑controversial conveyance with gaming prohibited has reasonable prospects, though Senate procedure and local objections could slow or block final enactment.

CredibilityPartial

How solid the drafting looks.

Contention55/100

Liberal emphasizes tribal restoration and stewardship benefits

02 · What it does

Who stands to gain, and who may push back.

Likely benefits vs burdens50% / 50%
Local governmentsFederal agencies · Local governments

These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.

Likely helped
  • Potential benefitIncreases the Tribe's trust land base and formalizes tribal land ownership.
  • Potential benefitEnables tribal management for cultural site protection and resource conservation.
  • Local governmentsMay facilitate tribal economic activities and limited local job creation from development.
Likely burdened
  • Federal agenciesReduces public access and recreational uses previously available on federal lands.
  • Local governmentsCould lower local government tax revenue because trust lands are generally tax-exempt.
  • Potential burdenTransfers management away from Forest Service multiple-use mandates, altering land use priorities.
03 · Why people split

Why the argument around this bill splits.

Liberal emphasizes tribal restoration and stewardship benefits
Progressive85%

Likely broadly supportive because the bill returns land to a federally recognized tribe and recognizes tribal reservation expansion.

Concern would exist that the statutory ban on class II and III gaming constrains tribal economic self-determination and may limit development options.

Leans supportive
Centrist75%

Generally favorable as a narrowly scoped, administrative land-to-trust conveyance with a clear survey deadline and an express gaming prohibition.

Would want clarity on existing rights, public access, and any local impacts before full support.

Leans supportive
Conservative35%

Skeptical because it takes Forest Service land into tribal trust, expanding federal trust holdings and reducing publicly managed land.

The explicit prohibition on class II and III gaming reduces a major conservative objection, but concerns about local control and precedent remain.

Likely resistant
04 · Can it pass?

The path through Congress.

Introduced

Reached or meaningfully advanced

Committee

Reached or meaningfully advanced

Floor

Still ahead

President

Still ahead

Law

Still ahead

Passage likelihood50/100

A narrow, non‑controversial conveyance with gaming prohibited has reasonable prospects, though Senate procedure and local objections could slow or block final enactment.

Scope and complexity
24%
Scopenarrow
24%
Complexitylow
Why this could stall
  • No cost estimate or Congressional Budget Office score included
  • Potential local government or stakeholder opposition unknown
05 · Recent votes

Recent votes on the bill.

No vote history yet

The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.

06 · Go deeper

Go deeper than the headline read.

Included on this page

Liberal emphasizes tribal restoration and stewardship benefits

A narrow, non‑controversial conveyance with gaming prohibited has reasonable prospects, though Senate procedure and local objections could…

Unlocked analysis

Pro readers get the full perspective split, passage barriers, legislative design review, stakeholder impact map, and lens-based policy tradeoff analysis for Pit River Land Transfer Act of 2025.

Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.

Perspective breakdownsPassage barriersLegislative design reviewStakeholder impact map
Open full analysis