Photo: Lee Vue on Unsplash.com

By Laura Durenberger-Grunow - Boreal Community Media - Updated April 17, 2026. Original post April 15, 2026

Yesterday, Thursday, April 16, 2026, the U.S. Senate voted  to pass H.J.Res. 140, overriding the Biden administration’s 20-year ban on mineral leasing in 225,504 acres of the Superior National Forest. This reversal clears a path for the potential development of the Twin Metals copper-nickel mine.

The final vote was a narrow 50–49. While the vote largely followed party lines, two Republicans—Senators Thom Tillis (R-NC) and Susan Collins (R-ME)—joined Democrats in voting "No."

Following the vote, Senator Tina Smith, who opposed the bill on the Senate floor for hours on April 16 as ewll as earlier in the week, said on social media:

"Do not lose hope. This fight is not over. We should all be so proud of the coalition we built to fight this...One day, the shoe will be on the other foot, and they will regret what they did to the Boundary Waters today — because this was a mistake. They’ve set a new precedent that no public lands are ever truly safe, including those in Montana. Utah. The Dakotas. Idaho. Republicans privately told me they knew this is wrong, and I wish they had voted their conscience."

Representative Stauber, who authored the resolution in the House, celebrated the Senate’s passage, stating it was a historic win for his district:

"Today is a major victory for America and for Minnesota’s families and workers. Mining is our past, our present, and our future. This bill doesn’t bypass environmental safeguards—it simply returns the decision to science and established permitting processes. Never again can an administration unilaterally lock away trillions of dollars of critical minerals that are essential to our national security and our way of life."

Senator Klobuchar, who voted against the resolution, stated she believes in the need for permanent protections for the wilderness, sharing information on her grandfather’s life as a miner while insisting that the Boundary Waters must remain "off-limits" to sulfide-ore projects.

The resolution now heads to President Trump's desk for his signature. Because the resolution was passed under the Congressional Review Act (CRA), its enactment will not only reverse the 2023 mining ban but will also legally prevent any future administration from issuing a "substantially similar" ban without a new act of Congress.

Environmental groups, including Save the Boundary Waters, have stated they are exploring all remaining legal and administrative avenues to challenge the resumption of mineral leasing in the region.

Original post--------------------------------

Speculation is building around a U.S. Senate vote on H.J.Res. 140 this week, a resolution that would overturn the 20-year ban on mineral leasing in the Superior National Forest established by the Biden Administration in 2023. The bill was introduced by Minnesota Representative Pete Stauber. 

While the vote is not listed in the official Senate Daily Digest or Floor Schedule, several stakeholders have suggested that a vote could be triggered as early as today, Wednesday, April 15.

On Tuesday, April 14, U.S. Senator Tina Smith addressed the Senate to "implore" her colleagues to uphold the 2023 mineral withdrawal. Smith also took to social media to share the same message.

"I'm taking to the Senate floor to implore my colleagues to oppose legislation that would allow a foreign mining company to build a copper-nickel sulfide mine in the watershed of the Boundary Waters," Smith posted on Facebook.

She went on to add that while Minnesota remains a "pro-mining state" regarding taconite, she warned that a "toxic sulfide copper-nickel mine" owned by a Chilean company would jeopardize the region's outdoor recreation economy and pristine land.

Later that day, Rep. Stauber posted on X (formerly Twitter), calling Smith "out of touch with northeastern Minnesota," accusing her of supporting an "illegal mining ban" that threatens local jobs and economic growth.

The most significant indication of a potential imminent vote came from environmental "watchdogs." Late Tuesday, both Save the Boundary Waters and Friends of the Boundary Waters posted on social media, citing "latest intel from Capitol Hill," that floor time is being reserved for the resolution on Wednesday.

"This is the critical moment we’ve been anticipating," Save the Boundary Waters said, urging a "flood" of calls to Senate offices. Friends of the Boundary Waters echoed the message, stating they expect the vote on April 15 and warning that the resolution would undo years of scientific review and ignore hundreds of thousands of public comments.

These organizations typically receive early warnings via "hotline" updates, which are informal notifications sent to Senate leadership and staff to "clear" a bill for floor action, which are then channeled through lobbyists and legislative directors.

Because the Congressional Review Act (CRA) allows for an expedited, "privileged" process for resolutions like H.J.Res. 140, these votes do not need to appear on the long-term calendar. Instead, they can be brought up by any Senator, without a debate, effectively jumping to the front of the legislative line with almost no public notice. This status also allows the Senate to bypass the standard 60-vote filibuster threshold, requiring only a simple majority for passage.

If the bill is not voted on this week, the Senate has until the end of April to act before the statutory CRA window closes.