Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
The bill amends how NEPA applies to certain federal energy and mineral actions on specified federal lands. It states that issuing, granting, or renewing Mineral Leasing Act leases, easements, or rights-of-way for oil, gas, or coal, and permitting under the Mining Law of 1872 for critical minerals on land open to mineral entry, shall not be considered a "major Federal action" under NEPA section 102(2)(C).
Progressives emphasize lost environmental review and public participation.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a targeted substantive policy change that clearly identifies specific categories of energy and mineral actions to be excluded from the statutory definition of 'major Federal action' under NEPA and does so by direct citation to governing statutes.
The bill amends how NEPA applies to certain federal energy and mineral actions on specified federal lands.
It states that issuing, granting, or renewing Mineral Leasing Act leases, easements, or rights-of-way for oil, gas, or coal, and permitting under the Mining Law of 1872 for critical minerals on land open to mineral entry, shall not be considered a "major Federal action" under NEPA section 102(2)(C).
In practice, those covered actions would not automatically trigger the NEPA major-action determination that commonly leads to environmental assessments or environmental impact statements.
Narrow but high-impact deregulatory carve-out with strong opposition potential; more likely to stall in Senate or be modified.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a targeted substantive policy change that clearly identifies specific categories of energy and mineral actions to be excluded from the statutory definition of 'major Federal action' under NEPA and does so by direct citation to governing statutes. The text is concise and legally focused but leaves several common drafting elements absent: it lacks an effective date or transition rules, fiscal acknowledgment, definitional precision at boundaries, and any oversight, reporting, or sunset provisions.
Progressives emphasize lost environmental review and public participation.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives emphasize lost environmental review and public participation.
Likely strongly opposed.
They will view the bill as removing key environmental review and public participation safeguards for fossil fuel and critical-mineral development on federal land.
They will see the policy as increasing environmental and climate risks while limiting community and tribal input.
Mixed and cautious.
They will appreciate streamlining permitting and clarifying federal action status, but worry about throwing out necessary environmental analysis and increasing litigation or reputational costs.
They will look for safeguards, narrow scope, or sunsets.
Likely supportive.
They will see the bill as a deregulatory measure that reduces administrative burden, promotes domestic resource development, and advances energy and mineral security.
They will frame it as correcting overreach by NEPA in blocking development.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Narrow but high-impact deregulatory carve-out with strong opposition potential; more likely to stall in Senate or be modified.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives emphasize lost environmental review and public participation.
Narrow but high-impact deregulatory carve-out with strong opposition potential; more likely to stall in Senate or be modified.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a targeted substantive policy change that clearly identifies specific categories of energy and mineral actions to be excluded from the statutory definition of 'maj…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.