- Interior proposed rescinding the 2024 Public Lands Rule on September 10, 2025.
- A 60-day public comment period runs through November 10, 2025.
- Supporters of the repeal cite multiple-use access and reduced permitting risk.
- Opponents say the repeal sidelines conservation and public access.
- Lawmakers and advocacy groups issued sharply split statements.
Friday, September 12, 2025 — On Wednesday, the Department of the Interior
announced a proposal to rescind the Bureau of Land Management’s Public Lands Rule, which the agency finalized in May 2024. The department framed the action as a return to the Federal Land Policy and Management Act’s multiple-use and sustained-yield mandate, with an emphasis on local decision-making and activities such as grazing, timber, energy and recreation.
The companion proposed rule in the Federal Register explains Interior’s view that the 2024 rule is unnecessary, exceeds statutory authority, and constrains the agency’s flexibility, particularly through conservation leasing and changes to Areas of Critical Environmental Concern and land-health provisions. The notice seeks comment on the statutory basis, costs and benefits, and potential effects on productive uses.
How the 2024 rule worked.
The 2024 Public Lands Rule, also called the Conservation and Landscape Health Rule, recognized conservation and restoration alongside extraction, grazing, timber, and recreation within BLM’s 245-million-acre portfolio. It introduced tools such as restoration and mitigation leases and updated planning guidance to factor in intact landscapes, wildlife habitat, watershed health, and Indigenous knowledge.
Support for rescission.
Interior’s announcement stated that rescinding the rule would reduce litigation risk, remove uncertainty for industry, and prevent conservation from being treated as “no-use” in ways that could curtail traditional land uses. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said overturning the rule “protects our American way of life and gives our communities a voice in the land that they depend on.”
Western lawmakers who favor repeal argued that the 2024 rule conflicted with Congress’s multiple-use direction and restricted access to federal lands. For example, Idaho’s congressional delegation praised the move as a restoration of common-sense management for recreation, grazing, energy, and mineral development.
Industry and ranching groups also welcomed the proposal. The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association and the Public Lands Council have called the 2024 rule unlawful, asserting that it threatens family ranching and longstanding grazing practices. They attribute the reversal to litigation and continued advocacy.
Opposition to rescission.
Environmental organizations argued that revoking the rule would sideline conservation, jeopardize wildlife habitat and watersheds, and undercut outdoor recreation economies. The Natural Resources Defense Council described the step as a “dangerous” rollback that abandons conservation as a core element of BLM management.
A coalition of conservation groups and outdoor advocates criticized the proposal, saying it favors drilling and mining over public access and land health. The Wilderness Society said the rule helped put recreation and conservation on equal footing and that Interior’s rationale for repeal was on “shaky footing.” The Sierra Club called the move part of a broader shift that prioritizes corporate interests and undermines long-term stewardship.
Democratic lawmakers echoed those concerns. Representative Diana DeGette said rescission would undermine years of progress protecting public lands, while Representative Jared Huffman called the action part of a campaign to dismantle protections and “hand” public lands to extractive interests.
Public comments (Federal Register).
The Bureau of Land Management’s proposed rule was published on September 11, 2025. Comments must be received by November 10, 2025. Submissions may be filed through the Federal eRulemaking Portal under docket BLM-2025-0001, or delivered by mail or messenger to BLM headquarters in Washington, D.C. The notice provides contact information for the Division of Regulatory Affairs and Directives and explains that the agency is soliciting input on legal authority, economic effects, and the 2024 rule’s impacts on productive uses.
The notice also states that BLM intends to document the application of a Departmental categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act for the final rulemaking and identifies potential changes to information collection requirements and Areas of Critical Environmental Concern procedures if rescission is finalized.
What happens next
Interior’s proposal initiates a 60-day comment period which expires on November 10, 2025. After reviewing comments and completing any required analyses, BLM could issue a final rule that rescinds the 2024 framework in whole or in part, maintain the existing rule, or pursue modifications based on the record. Observers from across the West expect continued legal and policy debate over the balance among conservation, recreation, grazing, timber, mining, and energy development on public lands.
