Subcommittee Hearings Held
The bill requires Department of the Interior land management agencies to develop Tribal Co-Management Plans identifying activities on Federal lands related to Tribes within one year and adopt similar existing plans quickly.
It mandates DOI employee training on indigenous knowledge and Tribal history.
The Forest Service is authorized to enter into at least five agreements with Indian Tribes or Tribal organizations over four years to perform specified forest activities, with limitations, reporting, and a $50 million authorization for FY2026–2030.
Moderately likely given focused scope, modest authorization, and built-in safeguards; success depends on committee buy-in and appropriations.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a well-specified substantive policy measure that creates new authorities and procedural obligations for Federal land management agencies and the Forest Service to engage in Tribal co-management and to enter into agreements with Indian Tribes and Tribal organizations. It supplies many concrete definitions, timelines, limitations, reporting and review requirements, and a targeted appropriation for Forest Service activities.
Progressives emphasize Tribal sovereignty and restoration benefits
Progressives emphasize Tribal sovereignty and restoration benefits
Likely broadly supportive: the bill advances Tribal self-determination, integrates indigenous knowledge, and enables Tribal participation in restoration and management.
They would welcome training, data sovereignty protections, and formal co-management mechanisms, while pushing for stronger funding and implementation safeguards.
Generally favorable but pragmatic: supports Tribal co-management as a collaborative tool, while wanting clear metrics, fiscal discipline, and protections for existing rights and other stakeholders.
Sees value in pilots and periodic review to manage risks.
Skeptical: sees the bill as expanding federal-tribal management collaboration, raising concerns about federal spending, liability, and preferential treatment.
Worried about impacts on multiple-use mandates, private permits, and federal authority.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Moderately likely given focused scope, modest authorization, and built-in safeguards; success depends on committee buy-in and appropriations.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives emphasize Tribal sovereignty and restoration benefits
Moderately likely given focused scope, modest authorization, and built-in safeguards; success depends on committee buy-in and appropriation…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a well-specified substantive policy measure that creates new authorities and procedural obligations for Federal land management agencies and the Forest Service to…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.