Sponsors
The bill clarifies BLM authority over certain federal lands and preserves some statutory protections, but that clarification could trigger boundary disputes and additional administrative or legal costs as agencies and governments realign management responsibilities.
State and local land managers (and related federal managers) gain clearer Bureau of Land Management (BLM) authority over certain federal lands by removing a limiting phrase in FLPMA §402(a), which simplifies jurisdictional rules for those lands.
Beneficiaries of existing statutes (national grasslands, BJFTA Title III, and PRIA §11) experience no change because the bill preserves those protections.
State and local governments and federal agencies may face uncertainty or disputes over management boundaries between the BLM and U.S. Forest Service for lands formerly described as within National Forests.
Federal agencies, state and local governments, and stakeholders (including rural communities) could incur increased administrative or legal costs to resolve jurisdiction, update management plans, and defend or litigate boundary and management decisions.
Based on analysis of 2 sections of legislative text.
Removes the phrase "lands within National Forests" from 43 U.S.C. §1752(a), narrowing that subsection's text while leaving related laws and other FLPMA provisions intact.
Introduced November 25, 2025 by Harriet Hageman · Last progress November 25, 2025
Deletes the words "lands within National Forests" from the text of 43 U.S.C. §1752(a) (a provision of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act), changing the statutory wording that previously referenced national forest lands in that provision. The change is narrowly drawn and explicitly states it does not alter the applicability of other FLPMA provisions to national grasslands, does not affect title III of the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act, and does not affect section 11 of the Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978. The amendment is a targeted textual revision, not a funding or new-program measure. Its practical effect depends on how land management agencies and courts interpret the revised language; it could clarify or limit the reach of that particular FLPMA provision regarding national forest lands, but it does not itself create new authorities, spending, or mandates.