Senate Passes BLM Rule Disapprovals for Montana and North Dakota, Rejects Resolution to Terminate Trump's Energy Emergency, and Invokes Cloture on Judicial Nominee
The Senate convened for a major legislative day, addressing several high-stakes matters including two joint resolutions to disapprove Bureau of Land Management (BLM) rules, a joint resolution to terminate a Presidential declaration of an energy emergency, and a cloture vote on a judicial nomination. The day's proceedings were marked by extensive debate on energy policy, executive authority, and the ongoing government shutdown. Two resolutions disapproving BLM resource management plans for Montana and North Dakota were passed, while a resolution challenging the President's energy emergency declaration was rejected. Cloture was also invoked on a circuit court judicial nominee.
This chamber-day holds significant consequence as the Senate took definitive action on federal land management and energy policy, directly challenging or affirming the Trump administration's directives. The passage of resolutions disapproving BLM rules could alter the landscape for energy development in key states, while the rejection of the energy emergency termination signals continued executive discretion in this area. Debates also highlighted fundamental constitutional questions regarding war powers and the legislative branch's role in authorizing military force, alongside the persistent issue of the government shutdown and its impact on healthcare costs.
Terminating the national emergency declared with respect to energy
S.J. Res. 71Question before the chamber
Passage of S.J. Res. 71, a joint resolution to terminate the national emergency declared with respect to energy.
The case for
Proponents argued that the President's declaration of an energy emergency on his first day in office was a "sham" and a "pretext" to bypass environmental regulations for fossil fuel projects, not a response to a genuine crisis. They asserted that this policy has led to soaring electricity prices, job losses in the clean energy sector, and undermined America's global competitiveness in renewable energy. Senators Kaine, Markey, Wyden, Reed, Blumenthal, and Heinrich cited specific examples of canceled clean energy projects and rising household electricity bills, arguing that the administration's actions constrict energy supply at a time of increasing demand, driving up costs for consumers and benefiting fossil fuel donors.
The case against
No opposition was aired in the Record for this specific resolution.
Disposition
Rejected · recorded vote
The joint resolution failed to pass, leaving the President's energy emergency declaration in effect.
47-51
Who is affected
- American consumers: Face higher electricity bills and energy costs due to policies that constrict clean energy supply and favor more expensive fossil fuels.
- Clean energy industry and workers: Experience job losses, project cancellations, and reduced investment due to policy shifts and regulatory hurdles.
- Low-income Americans: Lose access to programs designed to make solar power affordable, increasing their energy burden.
- U.S. economy and global competitiveness: Suffers from reduced domestic manufacturing and innovation in clean energy, ceding leadership to countries like China.
Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Land Management relating to "Miles City Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment"
H.J. Res. 104Question before the chamber
Passage of H.J. Res. 104, a joint resolution disapproving a BLM rule for the Miles City Field Office.
The case for
Senator Daines argued that the BLM rule, issued by the Biden administration, was a "midnight Biden rule" that constituted an "attack on Montana jobs, Montana communities, Montana's energy production, [and] Montana's economy" by prohibiting all new coal development in the Powder River Basin. He stated that the Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolution would officially roll back this "war on Montana coal" and lead to more Montana jobs, energy, and tax revenue for K-12 education and stronger communities.
The case against
Senator Heinrich argued against using the Congressional Review Act to overturn resource management plans (RMPs), stating that it would "brush away all of the local voices and community input that went into making these plans." He warned that treating RMPs as "rules" under the CRA could legally invalidate all leases, permits, and rights-of-way issued under any RMP finalized after 1996, leading to "potential chaos and uncertainty." He specifically cited the Ambler industrial corridor in Alaska as a project that would be built, jeopardizing wilderness and subsistence hunting, and benefiting a foreign company.
Disposition
Passed · recorded vote
The joint resolution passed, disapproving the BLM rule and potentially opening the door for new coal development in Eastern Montana.
52-47
Who is affected
- Montana's coal industry: Gains potential for new development and leasing opportunities in the Powder River Basin.
- Local communities in Eastern Montana: Could see increased jobs and tax revenue from renewed coal development.
- Public land users (e.g., hunters, recreationists, energy developers): Face uncertainty regarding the legal validity of existing leases and permits if the CRA precedent is broadly applied to RMPs.
- Tribal communities: May see their input on ancestral lands disregarded if RMPs are overturned without local consultation.
- Environmental groups: Concerned about potential habitat destruction and increased fossil fuel extraction.
Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Land Management relating to "North Dakota Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan"
H.J. Res. 105Question before the chamber
Passage of H.J. Res. 105, a joint resolution disapproving a BLM rule for the North Dakota Field Office.
The case for
Senators Cramer and Hoeven argued that the Biden administration's BLM resource management plan for North Dakota was flawed and undermined BLM's "multiple-use mandate." They stated it restricted access to vast taxpayer-owned energy reserves by prohibiting coal leasing on over 4 million acres (99% of federal coal) and blocking 213,000 acres (45%) of federal oil and gas acreage from future development. They asserted these restrictions would cost North Dakota $34 million annually in lost oil and gas revenue and at least $50 million for the State's Common Schools Trust Fund, calling it a "de facto taking" from state and private mineral owners. They emphasized that the CRA would reassert congressional intent and allow for a proper replacement RMP.
The case against
No opposition was aired in the Record for this specific resolution.
Disposition
Passed · recorded vote
The joint resolution passed, disapproving the BLM rule and aiming to remove restrictions on energy development in North Dakota.
50-45
Who is affected
- North Dakota's energy industry: Could see increased opportunities for coal, oil, and gas production due to the removal of federal restrictions.
- State of North Dakota and its Common Schools Trust Fund: Could recover tens of millions of dollars in annual revenue previously lost due to development restrictions.
- Rural communities in North Dakota: May benefit from increased economic activity and jobs related to energy development.
- Taxpayers: Impacted by the management of publicly owned energy reserves and potential revenue generation.
Directing the removal of United States Armed Forces from hostilities that have not been authorized by Congress
S.J. Res. 83Question before the chamber
Motion to discharge the Committee on Foreign Relations from further consideration of S.J. Res. 83.
The case for
Proponents argued that the President's military strikes against vessels in the Caribbean, allegedly tied to drug trafficking, were an unconstitutional usurpation of Congress's power to declare war. Senators Schiff, Kaine, Slotkin, and Reed emphasized that the Constitution vests war-making power in Congress, not the Executive, and that these strikes were conducted without congressional authorization, transparency, or clear evidence. They raised concerns about setting a dangerous precedent for executive overreach, potential for unintended conflicts (e.g., with Colombia), and the lack of due process for those killed. They clarified that the resolution does not limit the ability to defend against imminent threats or existing AUMFs, but requires congressional approval for offensive military action against groups designated by the Executive.
The case against
Opponents, including Senators Cotton and Risch, defended the President's actions as fulfilling his constitutional duty to protect Americans from "narcoterrorists" who bring deadly drugs into the country. They cited horrific acts of violence committed by groups like Tren de Aragua and argued that the strikes were lawful, justified under Article II authority, and within the President's role as Commander in Chief. They asserted that the resolution was "overbroad," potentially preventing the President from striking terrorist threats like Houthi leaders planning attacks, and dismissed the challenge as "Trump derangement syndrome" and political.
Disposition
Rejected · recorded vote
The motion to discharge the resolution from committee was rejected, preventing a vote on the resolution's passage and allowing the President's military operations to continue without explicit congressional authorization.
48-51
Who is affected
- U.S. military personnel: Deployed to hostilities without explicit congressional authorization, potentially risking lives without national consensus.
- American public: Faces potential for unauthorized military conflicts and the erosion of constitutional checks and balances on war-making power.
- Individuals targeted by U.S. military action: Killed without clear public evidence of guilt or congressional authorization for lethal force.
- Foreign governments in the Caribbean and Latin America: Face potential for unintended conflicts or diplomatic tensions due to unilateral U.S. military strikes.
Senate Passes H.J. Res. 104, Disapproving BLM Rule for Miles City Field Office
highThe Senate passed H.J. Res. 104 by a vote of 52-47, disapproving a Bureau of Land Management (BLM) rule related to the Miles City Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment. Senator Daines argued the BLM amendment, issued in the final days of the Biden administration, prohibited all new coal development in Eastern Montana, impacting jobs and the economy. He stated the Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolution would reverse this "war on Montana coal." Senator Heinrich, in opposition, warned that using the CRA to overturn resource management plans could invalidate leases and permits issued under plans finalized after 1996, creating widespread legal uncertainty.
Senate Rejects S.J. Res. 71, Terminating President Trump's Energy Emergency
highThe Senate rejected S.J. Res. 71 by a vote of 47-51, which sought to terminate President Trump's declaration of a national energy emergency. Proponents, including Senators Kaine, Markey, Wyden, Reed, Blumenthal, and Heinrich, argued the emergency was a "sham" and a "pretext" for favoring fossil fuels, leading to rising electricity prices, job losses in clean energy, and diminished U.S. competitiveness. They cited cancellations of clean energy projects and the impact on consumers. No opposition to the resolution was aired in the Record, though broader defenses of the President's actions were made in other contexts.
Senate Passes H.J. Res. 105, Disapproving BLM Rule for North Dakota Field Office
highThe Senate passed H.J. Res. 105 by a vote of 50-45, disapproving a Bureau of Land Management (BLM) rule concerning the North Dakota Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan. Senators Cramer and Hoeven argued the Biden administration's plan undermined the "multiple-use mandate" by restricting coal, oil, and gas development across millions of acres in North Dakota. They asserted the plan would cost the state $34 million annually in lost revenue and $50 million for the Common Schools Trust Fund, calling it a "de facto taking" from state and private mineral owners. No opposition to the resolution was aired in the Record.
Cloture Invoked on Jennifer Lee Mascott's Nomination to the Third Circuit
mediumThe Senate invoked cloture on the nomination of Jennifer Lee Mascott to be United States Circuit Judge for the Third Circuit by a vote of 50-47. Senator Grassley supported the nomination, highlighting Professor Mascott's academic achievements, Supreme Court clerkships, and national scholarly influence. Senator Whitehouse objected, arguing that the nomination circumvented the traditional blue-slip process and that Mascott had minimal ties to Delaware, the state associated with the Third Circuit seat, setting a precedent for future judicial appointments.
Motion to Discharge War Powers Resolution (S.J. Res. 83) Rejected
highA motion to discharge the Committee on Foreign Relations from further consideration of S.J. Res. 83, a War Powers Resolution, was rejected by a vote of 48-51. Proponents, including Senators Schiff, Kaine, Slotkin, and Reed, argued the President's military strikes against alleged narcoterrorist vessels in the Caribbean were unauthorized by Congress and unconstitutional, emphasizing Congress's sole power to declare war. Opponents, including Senators Cotton and Risch, defended the President's actions as fulfilling his constitutional duty to protect Americans from narcoterrorists and criticized the resolution as overbroad and politically motivated.