Analyses / Public Summary / 119 · HR 839 Public Summary

119-HR-839 Journalist Public Summary

119 · HR 839 No FED in West Texas Act

park Public Lands and Natural Resources
No Federal Expansion Designation in West Texas Act or the No FED in West Texas ActThis bill prohibits the Department of the Interior from finalizing, implementing, administering, or enforcing its...

A House bill would block the Interior Department from carrying out a previously approved plan to expand conservation lands around the Muleshoe National Wildlife Refuge; backers frame it as protecting private property and limiting federal expansion, while opponents say it would shut down voluntary habitat conservation; as of January 9, 2026, it has been reported and placed on the House Union Calendar, awaiting possible floor debate. (congress.gov)

Published
09 Jan 2026
Updated
09 Jan 2026
Tags
public-summary · US-Congress · environment
Unvetted
01 · Section

Headline Summary

This bill would stop the federal government from implementing a land-expansion plan around the Muleshoe National Wildlife Refuge in West Texas. (congress.gov)

02 · Section

What It Does

The “No FED in West Texas Act” bars the Interior Department from finalizing or carrying out the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Land Protection Plan for Muleshoe. That plan envisioned working with willing sellers to protect up to roughly 700,000 acres of habitat across parts of West Texas and eastern New Mexico; the Service later withdrew the plan in 2025, but this bill would put a statutory stop to it. (congress.gov)

03 · Section

Who’s For It

  • Rep. Jodey Arrington (R–TX), the sponsor, argues it protects private property and prevents federal land expansion. (congress.gov)
  • House Natural Resources Committee Republicans, including Chair Bruce Westerman, praised advancing the bill in 2025 as a check on “overreach.” (myplainview.com)
  • Property-rights advocates such as American Stewards of Liberty back the bill and oppose the Muleshoe expansion plan. (americanstewards.us)
04 · Section

Who’s Against It

  • Some Democrats on the House Natural Resources Committee—e.g., Rep. Jared Huffman—criticized withdrawing the underlying plan, saying it limits landowners’ voluntary conservation choices; they are likely to oppose codifying the halt. (chron.com)
  • Conservation supporters who favored the plan say it would have protected habitat (e.g., for sandhill cranes and lesser prairie-chickens) using willing-seller tools, with broader environmental benefits. (fws.gov)
05 · Section

What’s Next

As of January 9, 2026, H.R. 839 has been reported from committee, assigned Union Calendar No. 374, and awaits House floor consideration. If it passes the House, it would move to the Senate. (congress.gov)

Discussion