Hearing on bill blocking international health and climate rules draws sharp questions from state agencies

Representative Halvorsen introduced House Bill 1089, a proposal that would prohibit state or local laws, ordinances or policies that "deliberately or inadvertently" restrict private property rights in furtherance of certain United Nations agendas and would bar public funds for related initiatives.

The bill's sponsor said the measure is intended to be proactive protection of state sovereignty and private-property rights. "The key part ... is 'may not adopt or implement a law, ordinance, or policy that deliberately or inadvertently infringes on ... private property rights in North Dakota,'" Representative Halvorsen said, adding he would seek drafting clarifications after committee questions.

Supporters: Several local Republicans and activists testified in support, arguing the United Nations' publicly posted agendas (including references to Agenda 21, the 2030 agenda and other climate-related initiatives) present ideas the state should scrutinize before they enter state policy. "I'm in support of anything that protects our sovereignty as a state," testified Travis Ziblotny, a Minot resident and regional GOP official.

Opposition and legal concerns: The Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and the attorney general's office urged caution and raised constitutional and practical problems. DEQ Director David Glatt (transcript identifies him as David Glott) testified in opposition, warning the bill could unintentionally prevent the state from adopting federal rules that reference international standards — a step that could jeopardize cooperative federal programs administered in North Dakota under the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act and RCRA. "HB 1089 could prohibit the DEQ from adopting or enforcing existing or proposed federal regulations that may directly or indirectly reference international standards or climate initiatives," Glatt told the committee.

Claire Ness, chief deputy attorney general, flagged constitutional questions and vagueness concerns. She told the committee that protecting property rights is already a constitutional requirement but that the bill's wording — including phrases such as "in accordance with an agenda plan or resolution of the United Nations" and broad bans on spending "for any other related plan or initiative" — could be challenged as unconstitutionally vague. She also noted the supremacy clause means states cannot simply ignore federal law; a statute purporting to refuse to comply with federal obligations could be preempted. Ness said enforcement questions and vagueness could make the provision vulnerable to legal challenge.

Committee action: The committee took testimony on the bill and heard both supporters and multiple state officials opposed or concerned; the hearing closed without immediate committee action.

Why it matters: Proponents framed the bill as a preemptive protection of state prerogatives and property rights. Opponents warned the drafting, as written, could weaken state environmental programs and create legal exposure, making it harder for the state to retain program delegations from federal agencies.

Ending: Representative Halvorsen said he would work with legislative counsel to clarify the language; the committee closed the hearing with no vote recorded.