Congressional Disapproval of the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska Integrated Activity Plan
September 18, 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
The resolution invalidates federal land management regulations for the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska, directly impacting how oil and gas development activities are permitted and managed in that region.
Potentially affected actors named in the source documents. Mention is not a position.
Bureau of Land Management
The agency must cease enforcement of the invalidated Integrated Activity Plan.
Energy companies operating in Alaska
These entities are subject to changes in regulatory requirements for land use and development within the National Petroleum Reserve.
Current stage: signed.
Next step not available in the current record.
Summary
Key Facts
- Congress has formally disapproved the Bureau of Land Management's 'National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska Integrated Activity Plan Record of Decision'.
- The rule in question is now null and void and has no legal force or effect.
- The disapproved rule was originally issued by the BLM on April 25, 2022.
- The Government Accountability Office issued an opinion on July 24, 2025, confirming the record of decision qualifies as a rule under the Congressional Review Act.
- The resolution was passed by the Senate on October 30, 2025.
- The resolution was passed by the House of Representatives on November 18, 2025.
- The resolution was signed into law on December 5, 2025.
Why It Matters
The resolution invalidates federal land management regulations for the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska, directly impacting how oil and gas development activities are permitted and managed in that region.
Frequently Asked Questions
What does it mean for a rule to have 'no force or effect'?
Why was this resolution passed?
News Coverage
Voting Record
Total
423
Yes
216
No
207
Present
0
Not Voting
0
Abstain
0
How they voted (423)
Teresa Leger Fernandez
D · no
Sam Graves
R · yes
Gary Palmer
R · yes
Randy Weber
R · yes
Maxine Dexter
D · no
Frank Pallone
D · no
Mark Takano
D · no
William Keating
D · no
Suzanne Bonamici
D · no
Maxwell Frost
D · no
Sean Casten
D · no
Robert Bresnahan
R · yes
Patrick Ryan
D · no
Derrick Van Orden
R · yes
Raja Krishnamoorthi
D · no
Mark Harris
R · yes
Kat Cammack
R · yes
Donald Beyer
D · no
Maxine Waters
D · no
Steve Scalise
R · yes
Pete Aguilar
D · no
Tim Moore
R · yes
Herbert Conaway
D · no
Nathaniel Moran
R · yes
+ 399 more
Total
97
Yes
52
No
45
Present
0
Not Voting
0
Abstain
0
How they voted (97)
Bill Cassidy
R · yes
Josh Hawley
R · yes
Jacky Rosen
D · no
Jon Husted
R · yes
Ben Lujan
D · no
Angus King
I · no
Mike Rounds
R · yes
Mark Warner
D · no
Jeanne Shaheen
D · no
Jon Ossoff
D · no
Ron Johnson
R · yes
Ashley Moody
R · yes
Mike Crapo
R · yes
Christopher Murphy
D · no
Tammy Baldwin
D · no
Tim Scott
R · yes
James Justice
R · yes
Lindsey Graham
R · yes
Steve Daines
R · yes
Amy Klobuchar
D · no
Charles Schumer
D · no
Roger Marshall
R · yes
Richard Blumenthal
D · no
Mazie Hirono
D · no
+ 73 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 retroactively invalidate a rule issued three years prior.
Connected Entities
Sources
www.congress.gov
Analysis Score
0–100- Significance85How much this matters to a regular citizen
- Controversy75Intensity of disagreement among stakeholders
- Entertainment20Compellingness for a non-policy-wonk reader
- Buzz40Current news / social attention level
Publisher tools