Heinrich Questions Trump Nominee on the Interior Department’s Failure to Unfreeze Federal Funding & Adhere to Court Rulings, Complying with the Law, and Permitting Reform

VIDEO: Heinrich Questions Interior Department Nominee for Solicitor William Doffermyre, May 8, 2025.

WASHINGTON — U.S. Senator Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), Ranking Member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, questioned the U.S. Department of the Interior Solicitor nominee, William Doffermyre, on the Interior Department’s failure to unfreeze federal funding that was passed into law and adhere to court rulings. Heinrich additionally questioned Doffermyre on his views regarding permitting reform and complying with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

During his opening remarks at an ENR hearing to consider Doffermyre, Heinrich stressed that the Interior Department Solicitor does not make the law but enact law. Heinrich also highlighted that a Senior Advisor to Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, Greg Zerzan, used his authority to suspend the legal opinions of the prior Interior Solicitor. Heinrich stressed that while departmental policies change from one administration to another, the laws do not. Heinrich also expressed his concerns that Zerzan had reinstated an earlier’ Solicitor’s opinion, which was vacated by a Federal District Court. Heinrich then directed his questions to Mr. Doffermyre on his nomination to serve as the Solicitor for the U.S. Department of the Interior.

Watch a video of Heinrich’s line of questioning here.

Heinrich opened his questions by discussing the disbursement of obligated funds, “Mr. Doffermyre, the Office of the Solicitor is responsible for making sure that the Department follows the law. However, right now, the Department continues to violate court orders with respect to frozen funds, and at some point, the excuse that these funds are quote “under review” begins to not hold water. If confirmed, will you ensure that appropriated funds are obligated and disbursed in a timely manner, in accordance with the law and in accordance with the Impoundment Control Act?”

Doffermyre answered, “Thank you, Senator Heinrich. I have not started working at the Department of Interior yet, so I'm not familiar with what appropriated funds have or have not been spent. But as the Solicitor, my job will be to review the facts and review the law and provide my clear advice on what the law requires, and the Impoundment Control Act and other legal requirements say that you know, Congress controls the purse strings. And I will analyze them and give the advice that if the law requires that funds be obligated and spent, then the funds will be obligated and spent.”

Heinrich then turned his line of questioning to highlight the Interior Department’s recent actions overruling decisions of a federal judge, “Last month, a Senior Advisor to the Secretary exercising the power of the Solicitor outside of the Vacancies Reform Act reinstated a legal opinion that had been vacated by a Federal District Court. The District Court vacated the prior solicitor's opinion because the solicitor had misinterpreted the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Notably, the Justice Department did not press an appeal to that court's decision. Yet the Senior Advisor’s opinion purports to reinstate the vacated opinion in 93 of the nation's 94 judicial districts. So I'm curious, do you believe that a Solicitor, or even an Advisor exercising the Solicitor's authority can overrule the decision of a federal district judge?”

Doffermyre replied, “Thank you, Senator Heinrich. the short answer is, No. I do not believe that the Solicitor can overrule a Federal District Judge. M-Opinions, what you're referring to, is something that I've learned a little about. And I look forward to learning a lot more about. But they're the highest-level legal interpretation by the Solicitor, and they are binding. Those opinions are binding on the Department of Interior. My past, as you heard, in addition to Easter Bunny and Hannah Raft guide and other things, I was a litigator for 12 years. I've since gone on to the private sector, but when I first learned about M-Opinions, and took, you know, turn through a few of them, I thought, wow, this is really going to hurt them. Back to my, my litigation days, they are very long, reasoned opinions. They look a lot like court opinions, and I look forward to exercising some of those skills that I learned in order to analyze the law and the facts and provide them opinions that are that are sound and, and durable, and will stand up in court.”

Heinrich then turned to permitting reform and the necessity of meeting legal requirements throughout the process, “I want to go back for just a minute to something that the Chairman asked you about, which is complying with NEPA, with both environmental impact statements and environmental assessments in these 14 to 28 day timelines. And if you can do that and meet all the requirements of the law, I'm all for it. I think what you've seen in this Committee has been a bipartisan commitment to permitting reform, to getting to yes or no faster for projects. However, if you get to the end of 28 days and, and you haven't been able to meet all the legal requirements for an EIS (Environmental Impact Statement), if at that point you publish an EIS that does not meet those requirements, it creates litigation risk. That's the opposite of shovels in the ground. So, talk to me about how you're going to balance that. If you can get to a high-quality legal product that does not create litigation risks for the proponents in 28 days? I'm all for that, but if you haven't checked all those boxes, at the end of 28 days, are you going to continue forward and make sure that those products actually will withstand, legal challenge?”

Doffermyre answered, “Thank you. That's a great question, and I do want to first say thank you very much to you and the members of this committee for the work that you've done on permitting reform. The Fiscal Responsibility Act, with the time limits for NEPA, as well as the work for the permitting reform bill that didn't quite pass last year were both very, very welcome is to the industry, when it comes to...”

Heinrich interjected to speak to his colleagues, “We could still pass that law, I would just mention to all of my colleagues. I think that would be a good idea.”

Doffermyre continued, “But the short answer to your question is, well, I don't know if there's a short answer. What I will say is, it would do no good and would be counterproductive to publish a final EIS and a record of decision that did not, you know, entail the necessary hard look at what's required by the statute. You know, you can get a permanent 28 days, but if two years' worth of litigation results in a remand, that's going to require six months of a new analysis that's not doing anyone good, that's not getting shots in the ground. So, we are completely aligned on that Senator Heinrich. Thank you.”

Heinrich wrapped his questions, “Thank you, I appreciate it.”

###