Federal Lands Bill Restricts Public Input to U.S. Citizens Only, Requires CAPTCHA for Comments

The aptly named American Voices in Federal Lands Act is looking to rewrite the rules on who gets a say in how our federal public lands—managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Forest Service—are governed. If you care about hiking trails, local resource management, or just making sure your voice is heard on federal decisions, this bill cuts the line right in front of you.

The New Gatekeepers of Public Input

This bill makes two major moves in Section 2 regarding public involvement. First, it explicitly changes the definition of “the public” when the BLM is writing new rules for public lands. Moving forward, the agency can only consider public comments that come from “citizens of the United States.” This is a significant restriction. If you are a legal permanent resident, a green card holder, or any other non-citizen who lives near, works on, or uses these lands—maybe you run a ranch, work in a tourism business, or are part of an indigenous community—your formally submitted comments on BLM rules can now be legally ignored. Your local knowledge and stake in the land suddenly don’t count for regulatory purposes.

CAPTCHA and the Administrative Speed Bump

Beyond limiting who can comment, the bill changes how comments are submitted and how the government processes them. To combat automated submissions, the bill mandates that any public input process related to these lands must use a “Completely Automated Public Test to tell Computers and Humans Apart” (CAPTCHA). While the goal is to stop AI spam, this requirement creates a technical hurdle. For some people—especially older users, those with certain disabilities, or those with limited digital literacy—CAPTCHA can be a frustrating barrier that effectively locks them out of the process. For those who rely on advocacy groups to submit comments efficiently, this extra friction slows everything down.

Furthermore, when the Secretary of the Interior or Agriculture creates these new rules, the bill allows them to skip a specific part of the standard administrative procedure (Section 553(a)(2) of Title 5). This part of the process usually ensures specific procedural safeguards are met. Skipping it means the agencies can potentially finalize new regulations faster, but with one less check on their work. While speed sounds good, less oversight often means less accountability and fewer chances to catch unintended consequences before a rule goes into effect.

What This Means on the Ground

Think about a small town that borders a National Forest. Currently, if the Forest Service proposes new logging regulations, anyone living there can submit detailed comments on the environmental or economic impact. Under this bill, if the BLM proposes a new rule on grazing permits or drilling leases, the agency is legally required to disregard the input of anyone who isn’t a U.S. citizen. This concentrates decision-making power and accountability, making it easier to push through controversial regulations without having to address the concerns of everyone who lives and works near the land. Until new rules are finalized, the bill requires the land to be managed under existing rules “as much as possible.” This vague language leaves room for interpretation and could allow agencies to operate in a gray area for a long time, using potentially outdated management plans while they slowly craft new rules with restricted public input.