What could be seen as victories in the short term, would make for lasting problems in the future

From balancing a variety of multiple uses and the growing demands on those uses, to invasive species and increased risk of wildfire, America’s 640 million acres of public lands face legitimate management challenges. Many stakeholders, including lawmakers, are understandably frustrated with the often-slow pace of management planning, and sometimes the ultimate outcome of a land-use plan is controversial.

However, instead of following established procedures to work through controversy, some federal lawmakers are turning to an obscure tool called the Congressional Review Act to revoke a few specific Bureau of Land Management land-use plans that were recently completed. This tactic would have far-reaching consequences for industry, land managers, and the millions of Americans who rely on these public lands by crippling the BLM’s ability to adjust future land management, ultimately adding to frustrations and limiting solutions to future management challenges. The good news is that Congress and the administration can address their concerns without resorting to such drastic measures.

 A Better Approach Already Exists

The BLM manages 245 million acres of public lands, located primarily in the West. Managing all these federal public lands for multiple uses is complex and often contentious. Thankfully, the BLM has clear legal authority to amend or revise Resource Management Plans through established administrative processes. These procedures are designed to address shortcomings in existing plans while accepting input from stakeholders, state and local governments, and the public.

Lawmakers can work with the administration to address their concerns through the BLM’s established revision process, which doesn’t trigger the harmful, long-lasting consequences that would accompany use of the CRA.

Application of the Congressional Review Act

Since its passage in 1996, the CRA has not been applied to federal land-use plans. That changed in June 2025 when the Government Accountability Office, responding to a request from Congress, issued a nonbinding report asserting that a few specific BLM RMPs qualified as rules under the CRA.

Our 21st century landscapes would be stuck with 20th century management, meaning everything from land sales and disposal lists to grazing and mineral permits would remain at their old quotas. This would leave energy and mineral industries, ranchers, and public land hunters and anglers in the lurch.

Following the report, resolutions of disapproval were introduced for the Central Yukon RMP (Alaska), Miles City RMP Amendment (Montana), and North Dakota Field Office RMP. The U.S. House of Representatives voted on September 3 to approve those resolutions, and the U.S. Senate now may choose to take action on them. Final passage of these resolutions would rescind the land-use plans.  

A Short-Term Win for Long-Term Losses

Using the CRA to rescind a controversial land-use plan might gain short-term benefits for some interests, but those will be outweighed by the negative long-term consequences to public lands and local communities.

For one, if a revised land-use plan is disapproved through the CRA, the BLM would return to managing lands under the previous plan. In many cases, these land-use plans are decades old and likely wouldn’t address today’s multiple use needs.

Our 21st century landscapes would be stuck with 20th century management, meaning everything from land sales and disposal lists to grazing and mineral permits would remain at their old quotas. This would leave energy and mineral industries, ranchers, and public land hunters and anglers in the lurch.

Another significant factor in the CRA is the “substantially the same” clause. Once a land-use plan is disapproved, the agency would need to show that any future revisions to that plan are not “substantially the same” as the plan that was disapproved.  If this bar cannot be met, revisions would need to be “specifically authorized by a law” through an act of Congress. It seems unlikely that members of Congress will spend time authorizing future updates to public land management plans, which would leave the BLM stuck with outdated plans.   

A Scalpel, Not a Hammer

Land-use plans often require a scalpel and not a hammer to work through conflict and controversy. Fortunately, the BLM already has the authority and processes in place to make specific changes.

The current administration has sufficient time to complete meaningful updates to controversial RMPs through their normal planning process; some of these have already been initiated.

TRCP encourages Congress to work with the administration to resolve controversy through established processes that also preserve the BLM’s ability to responsibly manage public lands for the future. The CRA is the wrong tool for this job.