hold on there's just too much going on in Congress lmao...
Congress disapproves a rule protecting MN lands from mineral leasing.
US Congress (Passed both chambers)
Passed both chambers, awaiting Presidential action.
This Joint Resolution officially cancels a rule by the Bureau of Land Management (Public Land Order No. 7917). That rule had previously withdrawn specific federal lands in Cook, Lake, and Saint Louis Counties, Minnesota, from mineral and geothermal leasing. By disapproving this rule, these lands would no longer be protected from such activities. The bill is an 'Enrolled Bill,' meaning it has passed both the House and the Senate.
Introduced Jan 12, 2026
This bill has passed both the House of Representatives and the Senate, as indicated by its 'Enrolled Bill' status. This means it has completed the legislative process in Congress and is now waiting for the President's signature or veto to become law. If the President signs it, it becomes law; if vetoed, Congress can attempt to override the veto.
If this joint resolution becomes law, it removes the federal protection that previously prevented mineral and geothermal leasing on over 225,000 acres in Cook, Lake, and Saint Louis Counties, Minnesota. This means companies could apply to lease these lands for exploration and development, potentially leading to increased mining or geothermal energy operations. Such activities could bring economic changes to the region, but also raise concerns about environmental impact on areas like the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, which were previously protected by the withdrawn rule.
Supporters Say
Supporters argue for greater access to natural resources and economic development in Minnesota.
Critics Say
Critics contend that the rule protected vital natural landscapes and ecosystems from irreversible damage.
The original rule, now disapproved by this bill, aimed to protect the Rainy River Watershed, the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, and other significant natural areas. Supporters of this disapproval likely believe that opening these lands to leasing will foster economic growth and allow access to important minerals and energy sources. Critics, however, would likely argue that this move compromises long-term environmental health and recreation for short-term economic gains, threatening sensitive ecosystems.