White House signs five joint resolutions, scrapping a key BLM plan and reshaping land-use rules

President enacts five joint resolutions; Miles City BLM amendment is the headline change

On December 12, 2025, the White House confirmed that the President signed five joint resolutions of disapproval into law: H.J. Res. 104, 105, 106, 130 and 131. The most consequential measure, H.J. Res. 104, undoes a recent Bureau of Land Management rule amendment affecting the Miles City Field Office in eastern Montana. The other resolutions also roll back or block specific federal agency actions. The White House statement noted the President’s signature and said the measures take effect immediately under the Congressional Review Act framework.

What each resolution does — and how H.J. Res. 104 wipes out the Miles City amendment

Put simply, these joint resolutions are Congress using a fast-track tool to nullify recent agency rules. H.J. Res. 104 specifically revokes the BLM’s amendment to the Miles City Field Office Resource Management Plan. That amendment had adjusted the way the BLM manages certain uses of public land in that region, including decisions about grazing, surface-disturbing activities, and how the agency balances multiple uses.

The other resolutions address separate agency actions; each vote cancels a named rule or guidance and stops it from taking effect. Under the statute Congress used, when a joint resolution of disapproval becomes law it not only blocks the underlying rule but also prevents the agency from issuing a new rule that is ‘‘substantially the same’’ without fresh statutory authority. The changes are immediate for the specific rules named in the resolutions.

How this changes the BLM’s work and what it means for rulemaking

On the ground, nullifying a resource management amendment means the BLM must treat the Miles City planning area as if that specific change never happened. The agency returns to the prior version of the plan and to the decision-making and permit conditions tied to it. For BLM processes more broadly, the action is a reminder that Congress can quickly overturn agency choices, which may make agencies more cautious about using regulatory changes to handle contested local decisions.

It also tightens scrutiny on how the BLM crafts big, program-level adjustments. Agencies may now spend more time on stakeholder outreach, legal review and detailed explanations to try to defend future rule changes from similar disapproval votes. That could slow some kinds of rulemaking or push more decisions into case-by-case administrative actions instead of broad rule changes.

How local leaders, ranchers and conservation groups reacted

Responses split along predictable lines. Local elected officials and many ranching and energy interests welcomed the move, saying it restores clearer rules for grazing permits, mineral access and other uses of public land in the Miles City area. They argued the amendment had introduced uncertainty for local economies and land managers.

Conservation groups and some outdoor recreation advocates criticized the resolutions, saying they remove protections or planning tools intended to better balance uses and conserve habitat. The White House statement announcing the signatures framed the action as a legislative check on agency power while acknowledging differing views from communities and stakeholders.

Legal fights ahead and how agencies will implement the change

Legal challenges are likely but not guaranteed. Groups that opposed the resolutions can sue, arguing procedural or substantive problems with either the rule that was rescinded or with Congress’s use of the disapproval tool. If suits are filed, courts will have to decide quickly whether the nullification stands while litigation proceeds.

Administratively, the BLM must update its records, rescind any new procedures tied to the amendment, and notify permittees and partners. Because the disapproval statute also restricts reissuing a similar rule, the agency may instead pursue narrower, locally tailored actions or seek new statutory direction from Congress.

Local economic effects — important for nearby communities, limited for markets

At the local level, rolling back the amendment could affect grazing schedules, permit conditions, and timelines for energy and mineral projects needing BLM sign-off. That matters to ranchers, energy companies, and service contractors operating in eastern Montana. But this is a geographically narrow policy change with little immediate impact on national markets or investor portfolios. Its main consequence is operational: it reduces near-term uncertainty for some local users while keeping the bigger policy fights about public land management very much alive.

Sources

• whitehouse.gov