Ordered to be Reported in the Nature of a Substitute by the Yeas and Nays: 27 - 16.
This bill directs a near-term exchange and conveyance of specified mineral and surface interests in Montana among the United States, the Hope Family Trust, and the Crow Tribe. It requires the Secretary of the Interior to accept a lessee relinquishment of a named BLM lease, directs the Hope Family Trust to convey mineral interests to the Tribe, and—subject to valid existing rights—conveys specified United States interests to the Hope Family Trust.
Left focuses on tribal sovereignty and revenue benefits.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly establishes a specific substantive change—conveyance and trust taking of defined mineral interests for the Crow Tribe—and provides concrete parcel-level and timing instructions.
This bill directs a near-term exchange and conveyance of specified mineral and surface interests in Montana among the United States, the Hope Family Trust, and the Crow Tribe.
It requires the Secretary of the Interior to accept a lessee relinquishment of a named BLM lease, directs the Hope Family Trust to convey mineral interests to the Tribe, and—subject to valid existing rights—conveys specified United States interests to the Hope Family Trust.
The Tribe may request that minerals conveyed to it be held in trust by the United States, those tribal mineral interests would be exempt from State taxation, and the bill requires a pre-conveyance revenue-sharing formula between the Tribe and the Hope Family Trust.
Bill is narrowly targeted and administratively specific, which favors passage, but state/local revenue concerns and dependence on third‑party relinquishment create obstacles.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly establishes a specific substantive change—conveyance and trust taking of defined mineral interests for the Crow Tribe—and provides concrete parcel-level and timing instructions. It integrates with existing regulatory regimes in several respects and anticipates some contingencies.
Left focuses on tribal sovereignty and revenue benefits.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Left focuses on tribal sovereignty and revenue benefits.
Likely supportive because the bill advances tribal self-determination and direct tribal control of mineral revenues.
Will seek safeguards on environmental review, community input, and that revenue-sharing fairly benefits the Tribe and workers.
Cautiously favorable to resolving title and creating economic opportunity for the Tribe, but wants clarity on precedent, fiscal impacts, and procedural safeguards.
Will weigh benefits against potential state revenue loss and legal risk.
Likely skeptical or opposed because the bill transfers public mineral interests and increases federal trust responsibilities, and it exempts tribal minerals from state taxation.
Concerned about federal favoritism and impacts on state authority.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Bill is narrowly targeted and administratively specific, which favors passage, but state/local revenue concerns and dependence on third‑party relinquishment create obstacles.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Left focuses on tribal sovereignty and revenue benefits.
Bill is narrowly targeted and administratively specific, which favors passage, but state/local revenue concerns and dependence on third‑par…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly establishes a specific substantive change—conveyance and trust taking of defined mineral interests for the Crow Tribe—and provides concrete parcel-level and t…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.