Senate Advances Bill to Kill Biden's Minnesota Mining Ban

Why It Matters

The Senate voted 51-47 on a motion to proceed on H.J.Res. 140, a joint resolution that would nullify the Bureau of Land Management's Public Land Order No. 7917. The Biden-era rule locked up roughly 225,504 acres of Superior National Forest land in northern Minnesota from mineral and geothermal leasing for 20 years. The H.J.Res. 140 floor vote broke almost entirely along party lines.

The land in question sits atop what supporters describe as the Duluth Complex, one of the world's largest untapped copper-nickel deposits. Overturning the 2023 BLM withdrawal would reopen the door to mineral leasing and, potentially, sulfide-ore copper mining in Cook, Lake, and Saint Louis Counties.

Proponents argue the withdrawal puts domestic critical mineral production, and the jobs that come with it, at risk. Opponents say mining upstream from the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, one of the country's most visited wilderness areas, threatens a multibillion-dollar outdoor tourism economy and the water quality of a federally protected wilderness.

The resolution uses the Congressional Review Act, the same legislative tool Republicans deployed repeatedly this Congress to undo Biden-era land management rules.

The Big Picture

The Biden administration issued Public Land Order No. 7917 in January 2023 under then-Interior Secretary Deb Haaland, withdrawing the acreage from new mineral leasing for two decades. The rule also effectively canceled mineral leases and prospecting permits that had been in process since 2021.

Republicans moved quickly in the 119th Congress to reverse it. The House Rules Committee took up H.J.Res. 140 in a January 20, 2026 hearing alongside two other measures. The resolution passed the House and now advances in the Senate after Tuesday's motion to proceed vote.

The 119th Congress has already used the Congressional Review Act to nullify a string of BLM resource management plans. H.J.Res. 104, H.J.Res. 105, H.J.Res. 106, H.J.Res. 130, H.J.Res. 131, and S.J.Res. 80 have all become law in this Congress, targeting BLM plans in Montana, North Dakota, Alaska, Wyoming, and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Yes, but: Democrats are not conceding the argument. Sen. Tina Smith (D-MN) has drawn a careful distinction, stating: "Minnesota has been and always will be a pro-mining state...But not this mine in this precious place." Her colleague in the House, Rep. Jared Huffman (D-CA-2), went further, warning that if the CRA resolution succeeds, "it won't only open the Boundary Waters to pollution. It would set a terrible and dangerous precedent for Congress to roll back protections for any of our treasured public lands."

Democrats have also introduced competing legislation. Rep. Betty McCollum (D-MN-4) introduced the Boundary Waters Wilderness Protection and Pollution Prevention Act, which would codify the same withdrawal in statute. Sen. Smith introduced a companion bill, S. 1366, in the Senate. Neither has advanced.

Partisan Perspectives on the H.J.Res. 140 Floor Vote

For the bill:

Rep. Pete Stauber (R-MN-8), the resolution's primary sponsor, called the original withdrawal "Biden's illegal mining ban that directly threatened our way of life."

At the House Rules Committee hearing, Rep. Austin Scott (R-GA-8) argued the withdrawal "made it easier for our adversaries like China to control resources throughout the world."

The Trump White House issued a formal Statement of Administration Policy saying it "strongly supports passage of H.J. Res. 140."

Against the bill:

Rep. Huffman challenged the national security framing directly, noting that Twin Metals — the proposed mining company — is owned by Antofagasta, a Chilean firm, and that "Antofagasta sends most of its minerals to China."

Sen. Smith was blunter: "There is NOTHING 'America First' about selling out some of our most pristine waters so a Chilean mining company can come in, take our minerals, ship them to China."

Notable defections: Two Republicans broke with their party and voted no on the motion to proceed: Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) and Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC). No Democrats crossed the aisle.

Political Stakes

For Senate Republicans, the vote is a demonstration of caucus discipline and alignment with the Trump administration's energy and minerals agenda. Fifty-one of 53 Republicans held the line (a 96 percent unity rate) enough to clear the motion without needing Democratic support.

For Democrats, the vote is a rallying point. The party held unanimous opposition, and members like Smith and Huffman are framing the fight in terms that resonate beyond Minnesota: foreign corporate interests, public lands precedent, and water quality. That message may have more shelf life than the vote itself.

For the Trump administration, this is another notch in a broader effort to reverse Biden-era federal land restrictions through the Congressional Review Act, a tool with a tight statutory window.

Worth Noting

Northeastern Minnesotans for Wilderness spent $160,000 lobbying in 2025 to maintain the federal mineral withdrawal. The League of Conservation Voters spent $120,000 in 2022 supporting the Forest Service withdrawal of the same acreage. On the other side, PolyMet Mining spent $435,000 in 2018 alone lobbying on Superior National Forest mineral access issues. Kinross Gold USA has spent $180,000 between 2025 and 2026 on related mining regulatory legislation.

The Bottom Line

H.J.Res. 140 is advancing, but passing the motion to proceed is not the same as enacting law. A final Senate vote still lies ahead, and even if it passes, the resolution would face legal and regulatory hurdles before any mining activity could begin. The underlying permitting processes would also need to restart from scratch.

The 119th Congress has now moved to nullify BLM land management decisions across Montana, North Dakota, Alaska, Wyoming, and Minnesota. Each resolution follows the same template: a Biden-era resource protection rule, a Republican-sponsored CRA disapproval, near-unanimous party-line votes, and a White House signature. The Boundary Waters fight is the highest-profile version of that story yet, and the one with the most vocal opposition.

Access the Legis1 platform for comprehensive political news, data, and insights.