Latest news with #PublicLandsRule
Yahoo
18-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Trump moves to rescind public lands conservation rule
In another action drawing harsh outcry from environmental groups, President Donald Trump's Department of Interior is moving to rescind the BLM's Public Lands Rule that set conservation on the same footing with other forms of use on federal public land. Others lauded the move. 'We are thrilled the Trump Administration has decided to reexamine the Biden-era Public Lands Rule. This rule could keep Utahns off public lands and would employ a museum-type management approach — you can look, but you can't touch," Utah Attorney General Derek Brown said in a statement. 'All Utahns should have access to Utah public lands under a policy that allows for multiple uses. The Trump administration has a better understanding of Utah's unique public lands challenges and we look forward to working with them to increase access to Utah's public lands.' The policy, implemented during the Biden administration, sought to put conservation and ecosystem restoration as part of multiple use on Bureau of Land management land like drilling and grazing. New leases would have been offered improving and recovering federal lands and offsetting development impacts. The action was swiftly condemned by Utah and other Western states. 'Utah has a long track record of successful conservation and restoration of its public lands in tandem with local BLM offices,' Utah Gov. Spencer Cox said in a statement after a draft of the rule was released in 2024. 'The added layers of red tape and federal bureaucracy embedded in the BLM's Public Lands Rule create new roadblocks to conservation work. The health of Utah's lands and wildlife will suffer as a result. This rule is contrary to the bedrock principle of 'multiple-use' in the BLM's governing law, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act. I look forward to working with Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes and his office to challenge this rule in federal court as soon as possible.' In the letter of concern before the rule's adoption, Cox and the other governors wrote: 'The proposed rule would then require the BLM to identify intact landscapes on public lands, and manage these lands to protect them 'from activities that would permanently or significantly disrupt, impair, or degrade the structure or functionality of intact landscapes.' While the specific activities that would harm these intact landscapes are not identified in the proposed rule, we are concerned that different forms of multiple use such as conifer removal projects, livestock grazing, renewable energy development, mining, oil and gas exploration, road improvements, dispersed camping, and many other activities could be deemed to 'disrupt, impair, or degrade' in different situations.' It went on to stress this: 'In fact, it is conceivable that almost all of the West's BLM land could qualify as 'intact landscapes' under the BLM's vague and overly broad definition.' Prior to his election to the U.S. Senate, then Utah Rep. John Curtis proposed legislation to nullify the rule and industry groups were readying for a legal battle. This year, Rep. Celeste Maloy, R-Utah, and Rep. Russ Fulcher, R-Idaho, reintroduced the Western Economic Security Today, or WEST, Act that would require the national director of the BLM to withdraw the rule. The White House Office of Management and Budget posted a rescission notice for the rule this week, following an executive order Trump issued directing federal agencies to determine and invoke regulations that undermine national interests. The Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance says the rescission of the rule flies in the face of public opinion, pointing out that 92% of the comments the Bureau of Land Management received during a public comment period on the rule were positive. '(Interior) Secretary Doug Burgum routinely trashes the very concept of conservation of public lands — likening them to a corporate balance sheet to be monetized, applauding as President Trump fired thousands of employees at BLM and the National Park Service, and now this: undoing the wildly popular Public Lands Rule. The Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance opposes these efforts and will work to keep the Public Lands Rule in place,' said Steve Bloch, legal director for the organization.
Yahoo
16-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
The BLM Public Lands Rule Has Been ‘Marked for Death'
Sources working closely with the Bureau of Land Management say a Biden-era rule that made conservation a legitimate use of BLM lands — putting it on par with grazing, mineral extraction, recreation, and other uses — has been put on the chopping block by the Trump administration. They say that by quietly filling an online rescission notice of the rule Tuesday the administration has signaled its intentions to kill the Conservation and Landscape Health Rule, also known as the Public Lands Rule, that was enacted in August under the Biden administration. A BLM source who was only authorized to speak on background says the rescission of the Public Lands Rule was not yet official Wednesday. They say the timing of that official decision is unknown. The same rescission notice mentions another Biden-era rule that established stronger protections against drilling in the Western Arctic. Neither of these moves is unexpected, but they are a blow to the conservation community. It is also unclear at this point whether the rule could be rescinded via executive order, or by the agency itself, even though the BLM is currently without a director or a deputy director and is still reeling from ongoing staff cuts. But conservation groups who've been closely following the administration's moves around public lands say — as one source at The Wilderness Society puts it — that the rule has effectively been 'marked for death' after Tuesday's notice. 'They are actively moving forward now with steps to revoke the rule,' says Michael Carroll, BLM campaign director at The Wilderness Society. 'The question now is whether they will go through a public process to make sure the American people can comment on it … Or do they just go around the process and get rid of it.' Read Next: Why Is the New BLM Rule So Controversial? That public process was followed precisely according to regulations when the Public Lands Rule was made public and being discussed, Carroll points out. He says of the roughly 200,000 comments received by the BLM during the public comment period, roughly 92 percent of them were in support of the rule. And although it faced an uphill battle in Congress, with many Republican lawmakers calling it another example of government overreach under Biden, the Public Lands Rule was celebrated by conservationists when it was implemented in August. By elevating conservation priorities alongside other traditional uses of BLM land, such as mining and grazing, and giving the BLM tools to better balance those uses, the rule represented a big step toward the agency's long-held goal of actually managing its lands for multiple uses. 'The challenge with all of this is that since the establishment of the BLM, they have not had the regulations, or the conservation framework, in place to effectively do what we would refer to as real multiple use management. So you've seen an agency that has had basically its entire management history focused on prioritizing extraction over other uses,' Carroll tells Outdoor Life. 'Having the Public Lands Rule in place gives all of those people who want to use these lands for hiking, fishing, hunting, camping, all of those things — it allows them to say, 'Hey, there are regulations that actually can govern this land that put those values on equal footing with extraction.'' Judging from recent executive orders, however, Carroll doubts that there will be much of an opportunity for public comment, if any, around the impending rescission of the Conservation and Landscape Health Rule. Read Next: New Executive Order Aims to Make Mining the Primary Use of Public Lands at 'As Many Sites As Possible' One such order, issued exactly a week ago on April 9, calls for the repeal of unlawful regulations, including the 'onerous regulations that impede' the administration's top priorities of economic growth and American innovation. The executive order directs agency heads to 'finalize rules without notice and comment' when necessary, and it allows federal agencies to 'dispense with notice-and-comment rulemaking when that process would be impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.' This would be a major shift from the precedents set over the past few decades, including the public process that has long guided how public lands are managed.
Yahoo
08-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Opinion: Beyond control — stewardship of Utah's public lands
Utah's public lands have been highly debated for over a decade with the state and federal governments playing tug-of-war over who should control them. Amid the noise of political posturing, we risk losing sight of what is important: No matter who governs these public lands, what truly matters is how they are cared for. The Utah Legislature has doubled down in recent years. In 2025, House Speaker Mike Schultz prioritized public lands, affirming against federal oversight. That message was followed by HCR12, a resolution introduced by state Rep. Steve Eliason, urging Congress to create a framework allowing states to assume operational responsibility for federal lands. Supporters cite efficiency; opponents fear weakened conservation. But the real concern isn't just about governance but stewardship. Utah is home to world-class recreation, vital mineral resources and vast open spaces. The federal government has shown they will protect these lands, as they have for decades. How would our public lands be managed under state control? In 2024, the governor's office launched the Stand for Our Land campaign, advocating for more state control over public lands. This intensified after the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Public Lands Rule prioritized conservation alongside commercial uses. Utah leaders opposed it, citing restrictions on rural economies, while conservation groups argued it protected ecosystems and balanced priorities. Earlier this year, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected Utah's petition to assume control over federal lands. Gov. Spencer Cox reaffirmed Utah's commitment to challenge constraining BLM politics by stating that it 'remains able and willing to challenge any BLM land management decisions that harm Utah.' Utah's federal delegation is also taking up the fight. On Feb. 11, Rep. Celeste Maloy introduced the Western Economic Security Today (WEST) Act in the U.S. House of Representatives, which seeks to repeal the BLM's Public Lands Rule. While this debate is framed as a struggle for authority between state and federal governments, the real concern is how the lands are managed. Utah leaders stress stewardship, but history reflects development over conservation. Utah already manages 3.3 million acres of land through the School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration (SITLA), which is designed to generate revenue for public schools, juvenile services and miners' hospitals (this amount is down from the original 7.4 million that was allocated at statehood). SITLA leases land for industries to fund education, which comes at the expense of conservation. This raises concerns about state control and how it prioritizes development over preservation. The federal government controls nearly 70% of all Utah land — and for good reason. Managing 22.8 million acres, which includes overseeing wildfire prevention, tourism, maintenance and other infrastructure, costs $247 million annually, per a 2014 report. The federal government has more resources to support those costs compared to the state budget. There are valid concerns about federal control. Bureaucracy slows even widely supported projects. An example is the Bonneville Shoreline Trail, an ambitious 280-mile trail planned to connect central Utah to the Idaho border, offering a way to engage with Utah's natural beauty. By crossing BLM land, forest and private land, the BST faced years of delays until 2022 legislation alleviated restrictions. The BST shows that states streamline projects, but large-scale control is another concern. While the BST's success highlights efficiency, it must not come at the cost of conservation. At the heart of the debate, this isn't about who should own the land. Utah's protected lands are more than a political play — they are recreational spaces, ecosystems and cultural landmarks iconic to Utah. Whether managed by federal or state government, what matters is a promised commitment to stewardship that prioritizes preservation, conservation and long-term responsibility. From Utah's red rock canyons to alpine forest, millions of visitors come near and far to visit our great state. If conservation is not prioritized, irreversible damage could come to pass under the banner of industry and growth. Stewardship isn't just about preserving the past; it's about curating a future where Utah's lands remain beautiful and public for generations to come, in the great state we call home.
Yahoo
31-01-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
D.C. Dispatch: Grassley, Ernst speak on Trump cabinet nominees
The U.S. Capitol on Nov. 26, 2024. (Photo by Shauneen Miranda/States Newsroom) Iowa's delegation in Washington, D.C. backed legislation this week aimed at combatting fentanyl trafficking and improving access to child care. U.S. Sens. Chuck Grassley and Joni Ernst also played roles this week in the confirmation hearings for President Donald Trump's cabinet picks. Senators heard from several of Trump's nominees to fill leadership positions in the new administration, including controversial picks like Tulsi Gabbard for director of national intelligence and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. for Health and Human Services secretary. On Thursday, Grassley spoke in support of former North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum's nomination to lead the Department of Interior. Burgum, who ran for the GOP presidential nomination in 2024, was confirmed by the Senate on a bipartisan vote of 79-18. Grassley said he supported Burgum's nomination because of his 'all-of-the-above' strategy on energy production and management. 'An all-of-the-above strategy really means just that – an emphasis on what we've got energy from, fossil fuels, and that's declining in use, but is still going to be around for a long, long time,' Grassley said. 'It means all of the alternative energy that we can create; it means conservation, and not necessarily conservation promoted by government, but individual conservation; and of course nuclear, and nuclear brings to our attention a whole new generation of ways to produce energy … Of course, in order to accomplish that, we ought to cut back on Biden-era regulations.' Burgum was a strong critic of the Biden administration's energy policies, with North Dakota suing the U.S. Department of the Interior under President Joe Biden at least five times over policies like the Public Lands Rule and limits on the amount of methane released by oil companies. Ernst, who chairs the Senate Small Business Committee, led the questioning on former U.S. Sen. Kelly Loeffler's bid to serve as Small Business Administration (SBA) administrator Wednesday, saying her former GOP colleague was well-suited for the position because of her background as an entrepreneur. Loeffler was one of the wealthiest lawmakers when she was appointed to serve as a senator for Georgia, previously having been chief executive officer of Bakkt, a subsidary of the financial service provider Intercontinental Exchange. Her husband, Jeffrey Sprecher is the CEO of Bakkt. The SBA had 'mismanaged and misinformed Congress' on its disaster loan account in 2024 that led to shortfalls impacting disaster victims in states like North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia and Florida, Ernst said, showing a need for 'substantial reforms.' 'The SBA has been completely out of touch with the real-world challenges of entrepreneurs, and while the Biden administration simultaneously let SBA employees stay home, they also added positions in Washington, D.C. while stripping offices in Iowa, New Hampshire, Utah, and other states,' Ernst said in her opening remarks on Loeffler's nomination hearing. 'I would like to work with you, Sen. Loeffler, on ways to ensure SBA is effectively utilizing its personnel and ensuring that small businesses in all parts of America are able to access SBA programs if they need them.' Alongside Sen. Jacky Rosen, D-Nevada, Ernst also backed legislation Wednesday that she said would help increase the availability of child care. The Small Business Child Care Investment Act would allow nonprofit child care providers to participate in SBA loan programs. and would provide religiously-affiliated nonprofit providers access to more loan programs that could be used for real estate, construction, remodeling, and other expenses. Ernst said that access to child care is an issue she commonly hears about from Iowa constituents. 'When traveling river to river across Iowa, I consistently hear about the difficulties families face in finding affordable, high-quality child care,' Ernst said in a statement. 'In many of our state's rural communities, religious organizations often offer the only child care options but for too long have been denied access to federal funding. To drive down prices, I'm dedicated to real solutions like this that expand options and kick down regulatory hurdles on behalf of hardworking families.' Iowa child care providers and advocates voiced support for the measure. Tiffany Finch, Director of Cambridge Little Achievers Center in Fairfield, said in a news release that rural child care nonprofits would 'greatly appreciate the opportunity to apply for the SBA Loans.' 'There continues to be a need for child care that offers families the same quality found in larger communities,' Finch said. 'Allowing non-profit child care centers the same access to SBA Loans would allow us to apply for funding that can focus on the quality and culture of the programs without adding more expense to rural families.' Grassley introduced a measure Thursday to reclassify fentanyl-related drugs as a schedule I drug under the Controlled Substances Act, with plans to discuss the measure at a Tuesday Senate Judiciary Committee meeting. The bill, the Halt Lethal Trafficking (HALT) Fentanyl Act, would permanently reclassify fentanyl-related substances as a schedule I drug, meaning there is no currently accepted medical use for the substance. Fentanyl is currently classified as a schedule II controlled substance, meaning it can be prescribed for medical use, but related substances are currently only temporarily classified as a schedule I drug. Grassley, alongside Sens. Bill Cassidy, R-Louisiana and Martin Heinrich. D-New Mexico, said they introduced the measure to permanently reclassify these synthetic opioids as a way to help law enforcement combat the trafficking and distribution of fentanyl and prevent deaths. 'Today, roughly 150 Americans will die from fentanyl poisoning,' Grassley said in a news release. 'Cartels fuel this crisis by marketing their poison as legitimate prescription pills. They also avoid regulation by chemically altering the drugs to create powerful fentanyl knock-offs. Congress closed that loophole by temporarily classifying fentanyl related substances under Schedule 1. The HALT Fentanyl Act would make permanent fentanyl related substances' Schedule 1 classification and ensure law enforcement has the tools they need to combat these deadly drugs.' U.S. Rep. Zach Nunn also co-introduced a measure Wednesday titled the Stop Chinese Fentanyl Act that he said would 'hold China accountable for its role in the fentanyl crisis.' The bill would amend the existing Fentanyl Sanctions Act, allowing the U.S. to impose sanctions on Chinese entities involved in the production, sale, financing or transportation of synthetic opioids and the chemicals used to make fentanyl-related substances. Individuals and organizations would be classified as foreign opioid traffickers under the bill if they fail to cooperate with U.S. counternarcotics efforts or fail to implement 'know-your-customer' procedures. While China banned fentanyl exports to the U.S. in 2019, Nunn said that more needs to be done to stop the illegal trafficking of fentanyl into the country. 'Fentanyl is the number one killer of Americans from my daughter's age to my age,' Nunn said in a statement. 'Something has to change. Securing the border is the first step to stopping the scourge of fentanyl pouring into our communities. But we must also cut off the cartel's supply at its source. That starts with holding the Chinese Communist Party accountable for their role as the primary manufacturer, supplier, and launderer of these illicit drugs worldwide.'
Yahoo
26-01-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
North Dakota sued Interior at least five times under Doug Burgum. Now he's set to run the agency.
Former North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum testifies Jan. 16, 2025, before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources during a hearing on his nomination to be secretary of the Interior. (Photo by) This article was produced for ProPublica's Local Reporting Network in partnership with the North Dakota Monitor. Sign up for Dispatches to get stories like this one as soon as they are published. During Doug Burgum's two terms as North Dakota governor, the state repeatedly sued the U.S. Department of the Interior, attempting to rip up rules that govern federal lands in his state and across the country. Now, Burgum is poised to oversee that same department as President Donald Trump's nominee for secretary of the interior. Those lawsuits and a host of others the state launched against the federal government, some of which are ongoing, reveal the worldview he'll bring to a department that touches nearly every aspect of life in the West. Its agencies oversee water policy, operate the national parks, lease resources to industries including oil and ranching, provide services across Indian Country and manage more land than any person or corporation in the nation. During his confirmation hearing last week before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Burgum portrayed the Interior Department as key to geopolitical power struggles. On energy policy, he said that growing consistently available types of energy production — namely nuclear and climate-warming coal, oil and gas — is a matter of national security; he claimed that greenhouse gas emissions can be mitigated with carbon capture technology that's unproven at scale; and he argued that renewable energy is too highly subsidized and threatens the electrical grid. The committee advanced his nomination to the full Senate on Thursday. The North Dakota Monitor and ProPublica reviewed the nearly 40 lawsuits in which the state was a named plaintiff against the federal government at the time Burgum left the governor's office. In addition, the review included friend of the court briefs the state filed to the Supreme Court and Burgum's financial disclosures and public testimony. Many of the nearly 40 suits were cases North Dakota filed or signed onto with other Republican-led states, although the state brought a handful independently. Five of the cases were lodged against the Interior Department. Burgum is a relative newcomer to politics who initially made his fortune when he sold his software company. But the cases and disclosures highlight his deep ties to the oil and gas industry, which have aided his political rise. The records also put on display his sympathy for Western states that chafe at what they believe is overreach by the Interior Department and that attack federal land management. Notably, the litigation includes a case aimed at undoing the Interior Department's hallmark Public Lands Rule that designated the conservation of public lands as a use equal in importance to natural resource exploitation and made smaller changes such as clarifying how the government measures landscape health. Additionally, North Dakota filed a case to roll back the agency's rule intended to limit the amount of methane that oil companies could release, a practice that wastes a valuable resource and contributes to climate change. North Dakota also cosigned a brief in support of a controversial, although ultimately futile, attempt by Utah to dismantle the broader federal public lands system. While some of the cases mirror his party's long-running push to support the oil and gas industry over other considerations, including conservation, the litigation over public lands represents a more extreme view: that federal regulation of much of the country's land and water needs to be severely curtailed. Burgum did not respond to requests for comment but made clear many of his positions in public statements. A spokesperson did not answer a question on whether Burgum would recuse himself from matters pertaining to the cases his state filed. While the state's attorney general handled the lawsuits, Burgum emphatically supported them, urging state lawmakers last spring to fully fund the legal fights. He also cited the litigation during his confirmation hearing to assure Republican lawmakers that he would increase oil and gas leasing on public lands. While speaking to North Dakota lawmakers about federal actions, Burgum characterized the Biden administration's environmental policies as 'misguided rules and regulations proposed often by overzealous bureaucrats.' The rules, he said, pose 'an existential threat to the energy and ag sectors, our economy and our way of life.' Burgum is considered less controversial than some other Trump nominees and is expected to gain Senate approval in the days ahead. Outdoor recreation groups and multiple tribes publicly supported his nomination, and he was lauded at his confirmation hearing by Republican as well as some Democratic senators. 'If anybody is the pick of the litter, it's got to be this man,' said Sen. Jim Justice, a Republican of West Virginia, another key fossil fuel-producing state. Conservation groups, meanwhile, decried Burgum as an anti-public lands zealot who does oil companies' bidding. Among them is Michael Carroll, who runs the Wilderness Society's Bureau of Land Management campaign. 'If you're not a reality TV star or under investigation for ethics violations or misconduct, you're considered a normal nominee,' Carroll said of Trump's picks. But, he continued, that obscures how Burgum and a Republican sweep of the federal government present a threat to public lands that's 'as extreme as we've seen. Period. Full stop.' The federal government manages significant portions of the West. Most of that comes through the Interior Department's Bureau of Land Management, which oversees an area more than five times the size of North Dakota. As a result, public lands management is a local flashpoint. North Dakota has had a particularly contentious relationship with the federal government over its management of public lands that intermingle with parcels owned by the state or private citizens. Lynn Helms was the state's top oil regulator for more than 25 years before retiring last year, and he witnessed constant conflict over how federal agencies wanted to manage land in the state. 'From the time I took this office until the day I walked away, there has always been at least one federal resource management plan or leasing plan under development and in controversy,' he told the North Dakota Monitor and ProPublica. Two titanic legal fights will shape the future of federal land management. North Dakota is not a named plaintiff in the cases, but the state and Burgum have made known their opposition to federal authority in both. Last August, Utah sued the United States, asking the Supreme Court to rule that the federal government's oversight of 18.5 million acres of public land in the state was unconstitutional. Utah, in its founding documents, forswore any unappropriated public lands to the federal government. Still, legal scholars and environmentalists worried a conservative Supreme Court might remove land management responsibilities from the federal government, which is widely seen as more favorable to conservation than Republican-led states are. 'Few issues are as fundamentally important to a State as control of its land,' a coalition that included North Dakota wrote in support of Utah's case in a friend of the court brief during Burgum's tenure. Carroll, of the Wilderness Society, said that North Dakota siding with Utah was cause for concern about Burgum leading the Interior Department. 'Supporting that lawsuit suggests that he'd be willing to support large-scale sell-off or giveaways of federal public lands, which, for most of us who live in the West and are concerned about the future of those public lands, is a very extreme position,' he said. The Supreme Court in mid-January declined to take up the case, but Utah pledged to keep fighting. Burgum expressed sympathy for the state during his confirmation hearing, agreeing with Sen. Mike Lee, a Utah Republican and champion of the anti-federal movement, who said that Western states feel like 'floating islands within a sea of federal land.' Meanwhile, Republicans and industry groups also have their sights set on the 118-year-old Antiquities Act, which gives the president authority to create national monuments to protect areas of cultural, historical or scientific significance. Using the act, former President Joe Biden set aside more land and water for conservation than any previous president. Burgum's stance on the act is key, as the Interior Department typically handles details of these monuments, including where their borders are drawn. During his confirmation hearing, Burgum said the Antiquities Act should be used for limited 'Indiana Jones-type archeological protections,' not the sweeping landscapes that recent Democratic presidents have protected. While various tribes supported the use of the Antiquities Act in recent years, Burgum suggested monument designations have hurt tribes. In western North Dakota, tribal representatives, conservation groups and others have pushed for a monument — which they've suggested calling Maah Daah Hey National Monument — to preserve 140,000 acres considered sacred by members of the Mandan, Hidatsa and Arikara Nation and other nearby Indigenous cultures. Burgum has expressed concern that such a designation would impede oil and gas drilling. And while he boasted at his confirmation hearing about conservation wins in his home state — such as creating the North Dakota Office of Outdoor Recreation — he didn't mention the monument proposal. In addition to legal challenges against the Interior Department, North Dakota is part of 14 lawsuits against the Environmental Protect Agency and at least five cases that challenge environmental or climate-related regulations against other federal agencies. One of those cases, led by Iowa and North Dakota, seeks to roll back updates to Biden-era rules concerning the implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act, one of the nation's core environmental laws. The legal battle will have sweeping implications for the government's environmental permitting process, influencing major construction projects across the country, including those aimed at building infrastructure to meet the ongoing surge in electricity demand. In North Dakota's litigation and Burgum's record, one idea stands out for how often it is repeated: the opinion that the federal government impedes oil and gas drilling. The state, one of the country's top oil and gas producers, has consistently pushed for more drilling on public lands. Burgum has been cheerleading the industry for years. Shortly before completing his term in mid-December, Burgum appealed a Bureau of Land Management land-use plan for the state, saying it hindered oil and gas development by barring oil, gas and coal leasing on several hundred thousand acres of federal mineral rights. (The agency denied Burgum's appeal and finalized the plan.) Under Burgum, North Dakota also sued the Bureau of Land Management over the agency's handling of mineral lease sales, a system that allows companies to drill for and profit off publicly owned natural resources and that Helms labeled as 'badly broken.' In the lawsuit, which is ongoing, the state argued the bureau neglected its duty to host quarterly lease sales under the Mineral Leasing Act. (A federal judge has ordered the bureau to address this issue.) Environmental groups worry that Burgum's ties to the oil industry influence his oversight of fossil fuels. Trump also picked Burgum to run the nascent National Energy Council, which will focus on boosting energy production. His relationship with oil magnate Harold Hamm, the richest man in Oklahoma and a pioneer in hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling technology, has been well-documented. Hamm pledged $50 million to the Theodore Roosevelt Presidential Library, a favored project for Burgum. When Burgum ran for president before dropping out and supporting Trump, he received nearly $500,000 in campaign contributions from oil and gas interests, about half of which came via a PAC sponsored by Continental Resources, which Hamm founded. Burgum also has acknowledged that he attended an April 2024 meeting at Mar-a-Lago that Hamm helped organize for oil executives to meet with Trump and pledge financial support for his campaign. Burgum's financial disclosure reports reveal a personal fortune spread across software companies, real estate ventures and farmland. He also listed royalties from oil and gas leases involving Hess Corporation, Kodiak Oil & Gas Corp. and Continental Resources. In his required ethics agreement to become secretary of the interior, Burgum committed to resign from several companies, divest from energy-related holdings and work with agency ethics officials to avoid conflicts, including those tied to his home state. He also testified at his confirmation hearing that he had no outstanding conflicts of interest. 'Doug Burgum's blatant conflicts with the oil industry cast doubt on his ability to fairly manage our public lands,' said Tony Carrk, executive director of government ethics watchdog Among its many mandates, the Interior Department is tasked with fulfilling the United States' trust responsibility to 574 federally recognized sovereign tribes. This includes providing schools and health care, representing tribes as they negotiate water rights settlements and liaising between tribes and the federal bureaucracy. Burgum has had good relationships with tribal leaders in North Dakota. He partnered with tribes to pass tax-sharing agreements, was the first North Dakota governor to permanently display tribal nations' flags outside his office and created an annual conference to bring together leaders of tribal and state governments. Burgum also found common ground with a local tribe seeking to expand oil and gas drilling. 'He wants to cut tape so that the benefits actually get to the tribes,' said Chairman Mark Fox of the Mandan, Hidatsa and Arikara Nation, who hopes to see more wells drilled on the Fort Berthold Reservation. Fox said that he stays in touch with the former governor and that Burgum has asked him for input on issues affecting Indian Country, although he declined to share specifics. 'The No. 1 priority in discussion is: How do we enhance our opportunity to develop our trust resources of oil and gas?' Fox said. But the state, under Burgum's leadership, has also taken opposing positions on major issues to tribes, both inside and outside its boundaries. When Burgum assumed the governorship in December 2016, a monthslong protest was raging against construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline, which transports oil from North Dakota to Illinois. Thousands of protesters joined with the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, who assert that the pipeline infringes on its tribal sovereignty, disrupts sacred cultural sites and poses an environmental hazard. Burgum supports the project. North Dakota sued the federal government over claims that the Army Corps of Engineers should have done more to quell the demonstrations, leaving state and local law enforcement and first responders to step in at a cost of $38 million. During the case, which went to trial in early 2024 and is yet unresolved, Burgum also criticized other agencies, including the Interior Department, alleging they sided with protesters. 'It's dangerous in our country where politics on either side — either party, either direction, whatever — can somehow inject themselves in a permitting process,' Burgum said, according to court records. The difference between Burgum's views and that of many tribes around the country is especially stark on conservation. The state became a co-defendant in December in a separate lawsuit the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe brought against the Army Corps of Engineers calling for the pipeline to be shuttered. Parties to the litigation have filed briefs, and the case is ongoing. And the state and some tribes are at odds over the Bureau of Land Management's Public Lands Rule, which clarified the role of a land designation called 'areas of critical environmental concern.' A central purpose of the designation is to protect 'rare or sensitive archeological resources and religious or cultural resources important to Native Americans.' Various tribes support the rule, but North Dakota is suing to halt it. Despite those disagreements, tribal leaders in North Dakota said they respect Burgum, and several credited him with rebuilding relations. Standing Rock Sioux Tribe Chairwoman Janet Alkire said Burgum has a strong grasp of issues facing Indian Country, while Fox said Burgum has been willing to work with tribal leaders. As Burgum takes the reins at the Interior Department, Monte Mills, director of the Native American Law Center at the University of Washington School of Law, said he is watching how Burgum will work with tribes that favor conservation over natural resource extraction. It remains to be seen if keeping the federal government's commitments to Indian Country are a priority for Burgum, Mills said, or whether tribal issues are 'only really taken up where they align with other priorities of the administration.' North Dakota Monitor is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. North Dakota Monitor maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Amy Dalrymple for questions: info@
