Congressional Rejection of Central Yukon Land Management Plan
July 14, 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 voids the Bureau of Land Management's Central Yukon and Approved Resource Management Plan, preventing the agency from implementing the land-use policies outlined in that document.
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 identified in the resolution.
Residents of the Central Yukon region
Land use policies and management strategies for the region will no longer be governed by the nullified 2024 plan.
Current stage: signed.
Next step not available in the current record.
Summary
Key Facts
- Congress formally disapproved the Bureau of Land Management's 'Central Yukon Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan'.
- The disapproved rule was originally issued by the BLM on November 12, 2024.
- The resolution mandates that the BLM rule shall have no force or effect.
- 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 9, 2025.
- The resolution was signed into law on December 11, 2025.
Why It Matters
This resolution immediately voids the Bureau of Land Management's Central Yukon and Approved Resource Management Plan, preventing the agency from implementing the land-use policies outlined in that document.
Frequently Asked Questions
What does it mean for a rule to have 'no force or effect'?
Why was the Congressional Review Act used here?
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
96
Yes
50
No
46
Present
0
Not Voting
0
Abstain
0
How they voted (96)
Peter Welch
D · no
Angus King
I · no
Jeanne Shaheen
D · no
John Reed
D · no
Tommy Tuberville
R · yes
Dan Sullivan
R · yes
Katie Britt
R · yes
Jerry Moran
R · yes
Mike Crapo
R · yes
Lindsey Graham
R · yes
Chuck Grassley
R · yes
Maggie Hassan
D · no
Bernie Sanders
I · no
Cynthia Lummis
R · yes
Jim Banks
R · yes
Rick Scott
R · yes
Ashley Moody
R · yes
Angela Alsobrooks
D · no
Gary Peters
D · no
Mike Rounds
R · yes
John Fetterman
D · no
Sheldon Whitehouse
D · no
John Barrasso
R · yes
Bill Hagerty
R · yes
+ 72 more
Total
425
Yes
215
No
210
Present
0
Not Voting
0
Abstain
0
How they voted (425)
Jerrold Nadler
D · no
Yassamin Ansari
D · no
Joaquin Castro
D · no
Morgan Luttrell
R · yes
Russell Fry
R · yes
Troy Downing
R · yes
Laura Gillen
D · no
Maggie Goodlander
D · no
Jennifer Kiggans
R · yes
Neal Dunn
R · yes
Nikema Williams
D · no
Melanie Stansbury
D · no
Sarah McBride
D · no
Byron Donalds
R · yes
Mark Messmer
R · yes
Vince Fong
R · yes
Lucy McBath
D · no
Elise Stefanik
R · yes
Deborah Ross
D · no
Austin Scott
R · yes
Sara Jacobs
D · no
John McGuire
R · yes
Randy Feenstra
R · yes
Randy Fine
R · yes
+ 401 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 land management plan nearly a year after its issuance.
Connected Entities
Sources
www.congress.gov
Analysis Score
0–100- Significance85How much this matters to a regular citizen
- Controversy60Intensity of disagreement among stakeholders
- Entertainment10Compellingness for a non-policy-wonk reader
- Buzz20Current news / social attention level
Publisher tools