Gates of the Arctic National Park in Fairbanks, Alaska<\/span>Marlena Sloss \/ The Washington Post via Getty via Grist<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n This story was originally published by<\/em>\u00a0Grist<\/a> and is reproduced here as part of the\u00a0<\/em>Climate Desk<\/a>\u00a0collaboration<\/em>.<\/p>\n In the spring<\/span> of 1996, lawmakers quietly buried a rider in a humdrum bill meant to make life easier for small businesses. That addition, the Congressional Review Act, granted Congress the power to kill new federal regulations with a simple majority vote. Thirty years later, Republican lawmakers are wielding it to quietly upend how the country manages public lands.\u00a0<\/p>\n One of the act\u2019s\u00a0sponsors<\/a>\u00a0was Ted Stevens, an irascible Republican from Alaska. Known on Capitol Hill for his temper and the\u00a0Incredible Hulk tie<\/a>\u00a0he sometimes wore, Stevens framed the measure, known as the CRA, as a way to reclaim legislative authority from an overreaching executive branch. Stevens soon collided with scandal: He and other Alaska politicians proudly\u00a0dubbed themselves<\/a>\u00a0the \u201cCorrupt Bastards Club,\u201d after a federal\u00a0investigation<\/a>\u00a0uncovered cash bribes<\/a>\u00a0and secret tapes of debauchery with oil executives. The saga exposed the sway that extractive industries hold over political decision-making\u2014a grip soon to tighten as lawmakers use Stevens\u2019 law to wipe out federal land-use plans nationwide.<\/p>\n The\u00a0Congressional Review Act<\/a>\u00a0allows Congress to overturn rules finalized in the previous\u00a060 legislative days<\/a>\u00a0with a simple majority. This prevents federal agencies from ever creating similar regulations. In its first two decades, the oversight law was\u00a0used just once<\/a>. But when Donald Trump took office in 2017, a Republican-led Congress swiftly used the CRA to repeal\u00a016 Obama-era regulations<\/a>, ranging from environmental protections to labor and financial rules. (Congress also used it\u00a0three times<\/a>\u00a0during President Joe Biden\u2019s first term.)<\/p>\n The new legal precedent \u201cshould be scary to oil and gas companies, to anybody who farms, grazes, or uses timber on public lands.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/figure>\n Now, conservatives want to use it to advance President Trump\u2019s extraction agenda in a way that tests the bounds of the law. In July, Alaska Representative Nick Begich\u00a0proposed a bill<\/a>\u00a0to overturn the federal management plan for 13 million acres\u2014an area four times the size of New York\u2014across his state\u2019s northwest flank. The region includes land near the proposed Ambler road, which would\u00a0cross<\/a>\u00a0211 miles and through Gates of the Arctic National Park to mineral deposits. The plan provides environmental protections for important salmon spawning grounds, where runs have\u00a0recently dwindled<\/a>, and critical caribou habitat.\u00a0<\/p>\n The move comes amid an ongoing campaign by the Trump administration to radically remake how the nation\u2019s resources are managed. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM), for example, just announced\u00a0plans<\/a>\u00a0to rescind a Biden-era rule that placed conservation on equal footing with other uses of federal land. It also follows nationwide outcry over a proposed\u00a0giveaway of public lands<\/a>; Representative Ryan Zinke, who opposed the transfer of Western lands this summer, nevertheless voted in favor of the Central Yukon\u2019s resource management plan. (Zinke did not respond to requests for comment.)<\/p>\n Begich made clear that he intends to streamline development of the region. \u201cIt is federal overreach that is ensuring that Alaska\u2019s wealth stays in the ground, unavailable to the people of one of America\u2019s most impoverished regions,\u201d he\u00a0said<\/a>\u00a0on the House floor.\u00a0<\/p>\n The BLM finalized Central Yukon\u2019s latest\u00a0resource management plan<\/a>\u00a0last year after more than a decade of extensive public engagement involving tribes, local communities, and state and federal agencies. It concluded that over 3 million acres should be considered areas of\u00a0critical environmental concern<\/a>, and protected. Contrary to Begich\u2019s claims, Alaskans\u00a0largely supported<\/a>\u00a0this decision. The process cost the federal government\u00a0$6.7 million.<\/a>\u00a0Ignoring it, said Mollie Busby, who lives in the affected area in the small town of Wiseman, ignores\u00a0the voices<\/a>\u00a0of those directly impacted by the plan. She worries that without the plan\u2019s protections, the natural resources her family and neighbors depend upon will disappear. \u201cThis plan should not be overturned on a whim by Congress,\u201d she said.\u00a0<\/p>\n Should the legislation\u2014which passed the House\u00a0on September 3<\/a>\u00a0and is now before the Senate\u2014become law, resource management plans nationwide could be\u00a0at risk<\/a>. Republican lawmakers have introduced bills to upend plans regulating fossil fuel and mining in the Powder River Basin in Montana, and swaths of North Dakota. \u201cWe are in uncharted territory here,\u201d Representative Sarah Elfreth, a Democrat from Maryland,\u00a0said<\/a>\u00a0during a House Rules Committee hearing in July. \u201cCongress has never used the Congressional Review Act to overturn a resource management plan, or any other similar land use plan in our history.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cWe\u2019re seeing the CRA being applied much, much more broadly than we ever have before.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/figure>\n Because the Department of the Interior has never considered these plans eligible for review under the CRA, it never submitted them to Congress. The CRA requires that before a \u201crule\u201d can take effect and the 60-day look-back period begins. After the Government Accountability Office, or GAO,\u00a0determined in June<\/a>\u00a0that the Central Yukon resource management plan qualifies as a \u201crule,\u201d Congress may now rescind it. <\/p>\n This precedent may unravel decades of land policy. \u201cHundreds of resource management plans that have been finalized since 1996 will never have technically taken effect,\u201d says Justin Meuse, government relations director for The Wilderness Society. That, he said, calls into question everything built on them\u2014\u201coil and gas leases, drilling permits, rights of way, timber allotments.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n The likely result, he argued, is a cascade of uncertainty for the industries Republicans champion. \u201cIt should be scary to oil and gas companies, to anybody who farms, grazes, or uses timber on public lands,\u201d Meuse said. A letter sent to Congress by 31 law professors\u00a0concludes<\/a>\u00a0the move \u201cthreatens to paralyze public land management nationwide.\u201d<\/p>\n This summer, the GAO also\u00a0determined<\/a>\u00a0that the Biden\u2019s administration\u2019s 2022\u00a0decision to close 11 million acres<\/a>\u00a0of Alaska\u2019s National Petroleum Reserve to oil leases was subject to the CRA, opening it up to repeal. By pushing the CRA beyond its customary look-back window, lawmakers could begin unraveling hard-won protections long after they were thought secure.<\/p>\n Meuse called these determinations a dangerous expansion of the Congressional Review Act\u2019s scope, one that may have sweeping implications beyond conservation. \u201cWe\u2019re seeing the CRA being applied much, much more broadly than we ever have before,\u201d he said. Other federal agencies\u2014such as the Environmental Protection Agency or the Department of Transportation\u2014could face challenges to long-standing regulations never previously treated as \u201crules,\u201d potentially sparking litigation and halting years of carefully planned programs.<\/p>\n As the House passed Begich\u2019s bill to repeal the Central Yukon plan in early September, Jack Reakoff watched in disbelief. A longtime Wiseman resident, he fears scuttling the plan will open the door to a transfer of federal land to the state.\u00a0<\/p>\n The lands at stake are not empty wilderness, as they are often portrayed, but a vibrant network of rivers, migration corridors, and food for residents. They are managed for a variety of uses under federal rules that prioritize rural food security, and give those communities a voice through the Federal Subsistence Board. The 2024 Central Yukon plan maintained federal oversight over millions of acres, including federal subsistence protections for residents like Reakoff that are not allowed under the state constitution.\u00a0<\/p>\n The use of the CRA is just one of many avenues\u00a0the state is pursuing<\/a>\u00a0to seize control of millions of acres of federal land to benefit extractive industries. Bruce Westerman, a forester and the chair of the House Committee on Natural Resources, explicitly cited the\u00a0Ambler Industrial Access road<\/a>\u00a0as a reason to overturn the management plan. The unpopular road, which the Biden administration scuttled, would threaten North America\u2019s largest protected region, disrupt caribou migration, and pollute waterways\u2014while using state funds to subsidize a road that would primarily benefit mining companies.<\/p>\n \u201cIt is not all about Ambler and the utility corridor, but the entire district,\u201d Reakoff says, adding that using the CRA \u201cthrows the baby out with the bathwater.\u201d Reakoff says the state doesn\u2019t have the resources to appropriately manage the lands it already controls, and he fears the state will open the area to ATVs that tear up fragile tundra and non-resident rifle hunting that could decimate wildlife already threatened by climate change. He\u2019s also concerned about additional industrial traffic, and whether the state will have the budget to maintain the road.\u00a0<\/p>\n The Busbys, meanwhile, say using the CRA ignores the voices of many small businesses that currently have federal permits to access Gates of The Arctic and surrounding BLM land, plunging their operations into limbo.<\/p>\n Legal experts remain uncertain about the broader implications of this unprecedented move. If the bill passes the Senate, where a vote is expected this week, it\u2019s still unclear what will replace the 2024 plan. It could potentially revert to resource management plans approved in 1986 and 1991, over the objections of six tribal councils. It\u2019s also uncertain what the CRA\u2019s restriction on issuing a \u201csubstantially similar\u201d plan may mean and could make crafting a modern replacement might never be possible.<\/p>\n This legal ambiguity carries serious consequences for communities across Alaska. Karma Ulvi, chief of the Native Village of Eagle, said the repeal threatens the ability of tribes to have a meaningful voice in managing the lands they rely on. \u201cIt\u2019s going to have an impact on our culture, our food sovereignty,\u201d she said. The central Yukon salmon populations have\u00a0already crashed<\/a>, she says, and mining or additional infrastructure could harm their chances of recovery. \u201cOur Congressmen need to consult with the tribes, and ask how this could impact us,\u201d she says. \u201cI\u2019m really afraid that the priorities now are just extraction and money.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n\n
![\"Caribou](\"https:\/\/www.motherjones.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/Alaska-Congressional-Review-Act-Republicans-public-land-use-caribou.webp\")
\n