Congressional Rejection of North Dakota Land Management Plan
July 10, 2025
Track this bill to get notified when it advances a stage. One tap to stop, anytime.
Where This Stands
Current status: signed.
Version history
Only one version on file - nothing to compare yet. As later stages (committee substitute, engrossed, enrolled) are captured, the redline appears here.
View official text →The Frame
This resolution immediately invalidates the Bureau of Land Management's January 2025 resource management plan for North Dakota, effectively stopping the implementation of new federal land use policies in that region.
Potentially affected actors named in the source documents. Mention is not a position.
Bureau of Land Management
The agency is prohibited from implementing the specific resource management plan for the North Dakota Field Office.
North Dakota residents and land users
The land management policies governing federal lands in the North Dakota Field Office jurisdiction remain unchanged by the rejected rule.
Current stage: signed.
Next step not available in the current record.
Summary
Key Facts
- Congress formally disapproved the Bureau of Land Management's 'North Dakota Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan'.
- The rule is declared to have no force or effect as a result of this resolution.
- The original rule was issued by the Bureau of Land Management on January 14, 2025.
- The Government Accountability Office issued an opinion on June 25, 2025, classifying the plan as a 'rule' under the Congressional Review Act.
- The resolution was passed by the House on September 3, 2025.
- The resolution was passed by the Senate on October 8, 2025.
- The resolution was signed into law on December 11, 2025.
Frequently Asked Questions
What does it mean for a rule to have 'no force or effect'?
Why was this plan rejected?
Why It Matters
This resolution immediately invalidates the Bureau of Land Management's January 2025 resource management plan for North Dakota, effectively stopping the implementation of new federal land use policies in that region.
News Coverage
Lobbying Activity
60 Plus Association
2026
“Signed a coalition letter opposing any efforts to raise the corporate tax rate above the 21% level set in the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA). Signed a coalition in support of the Family Business Legacy Act, H.R. 6329. This legislation creates parity in the tax code between the estate and gift taxes by allowing an estate tax deduction for contributions to 501(c)(4), (c)(5), and (c)(6) organizations. Signed a coalition letter urging opposition to proposals that would raise taxes on carried interest investment income.The letter is urging Congress to reject the misnamed Carried Interest Fairness Act, legislation recently reintroduced by Senators Tammy Baldwin, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, and other progressive members of Congress. This legislation that would increase the tax rate on carried interest investment by 70%, from 23.8% to 40.8%. Signed a coalition letter in support of H.R.574 - ALIGN Act and highlight the 100% bonus depreciation provision's importance as the tax cut reauthorization efforts continue. Signed a coalition to support of repealing IRA's green new deal subsidies in reconciliation to pay for tax cuts. Signed a coalition letter regarding digital services taxes (DST) in an effort to stop Canadas imposition of a discriminatory digital services tax (DST) on U.S. firms and your efforts to include restrictions on the imposition of DSTs and other unfair digital policies in recently announced trade agreements-providing a model for future trade negotiations. Signed a coalition letter urging the President to index capital gains for inflation.”
ILLINOIS ASSOCIATION OF SCHOOL BOARDS
ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY CENTER
Voting Record
Total
95
Yes
50
No
45
Present
0
Not Voting
0
Abstain
0
How they voted (95)
John Curtis
R · yes
Andy Kim
D · no
Lisa Blunt Rochester
D · no
John Barrasso
R · yes
Tammy Baldwin
D · no
John Hoeven
R · yes
Susan Collins
R · yes
Richard Durbin
D · no
Jeff Merkley
D · no
John Fetterman
D · no
Ted Budd
R · yes
Ron Johnson
R · yes
Jerry Moran
R · yes
Gary Peters
D · no
Patty Murray
D · no
John Hickenlooper
D · no
Cindy Hyde-Smith
R · yes
Edward Markey
D · no
Jon Ossoff
D · no
Tim Scott
R · yes
Roger Marshall
R · yes
Todd Young
R · yes
Pete Ricketts
R · yes
Ashley Moody
R · yes
+ 71 more
Total
426
Yes
215
No
211
Present
0
Not Voting
0
Abstain
0
How they voted (426)
Stephen Lynch
D · no
David Valadao
R · yes
Thomas Tiffany
R · yes
Gregory Meeks
D · no
Bruce Westerman
R · yes
Nanette Barragán
D · no
Nancy Pelosi
D · no
Marlin Stutzman
R · yes
Eric Burlison
R · yes
John Moolenaar
R · yes
Randy Fine
R · yes
Andrew Ogles
R · yes
Seth Moulton
D · no
John Joyce
R · yes
Kweisi Mfume
D · no
Zoe Lofgren
D · no
Earl Carter
R · yes
Mary Miller
R · yes
Brendan Boyle
D · no
Wesley Bell
D · no
Nathaniel Moran
R · yes
Mike Quigley
D · no
Seth Magaziner
D · no
Marc Veasey
D · no
+ 402 more
Discoveries
Patterns POLISCOPE noticed across the record. These are observations to investigate, not conclusions.
Use of Congressional Review Act
The document highlights the use of the Congressional Review Act to invalidate a specific agency resource management plan, demonstrating a clear legislative check on agency rulemaking.
Connected Entities
Sources
www.congress.gov
Analysis Score
0–100- Significance85How much this matters to a regular citizen
- Controversy60Intensity of disagreement among stakeholders
- Entertainment20Compellingness for a non-policy-wonk reader
- Buzz30Current news / social attention level
Publisher tools