In Minnesota, a new proposal from Democrat Sen. Mary Kunesh of New Brighton is pushing to give wild rice its own “inherent right to exist and thrive.”

Supporters are describing it as a way to honor Indigenous heritage.

Critics, however, see it as another step toward giving legal rights to plants, which could unravel common sense environmental law and invite endless activist lawsuits.

Kunesh, who has Native American ancestry through the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, recalled childhood memories of her father cooking wild rice and described it as an “honorable gift.”

Trump's Sovereign Wealth Fund: What Could It Mean For Your Money?

The senator has previously sponsored efforts related to Indigenous recognition, but this latest move goes much further than simple cultural respect.

Her amendment to Minnesota’s state grain law proposes adding the Dakota and Ojibwe words for wild rice, psin and manoomin, along with the declaration that wild rice possesses an inherent right to exist and thrive.

“The pride and the reinforcement of how important wild rice is to people is always evident,” Kunesh told the committee.

She added that the proposal intends to recognize wild rice not as property, but as “a sacred living entity with its own legal rights.”

FREE Gun Law Map: Laws Don't Pause During Social Unrest

That phrase alone has put officials on edge. Bureaucrats at state agencies like the Department of Natural Resources and the Pollution Control Agency warned lawmakers that it is unclear how anyone could interpret or enforce such language.

WATCH:

Bob Meier from the DNR admitted that his department values the cultural importance of wild rice but said the wording could create major uncertainty in managing land and water.

Tom Johnson, a director at the Pollution Control Agency, expressed concern that the bill would ignite a legal minefield.

“It’s unclear how we would navigate the right of wild rice to exist and thrive, or what our obligation exactly would be,” he said.

In other words, who decides when wild rice is being denied its rights, and who gets sued for it.

Supporters of the bill, however, argue that the measure is about responsibility to future generations.

Leanna Goose, an activist with the Rise and Repair Alliance, claimed that the change would symbolize protection of the environment and show that people are “looking out for our children’s future.”

Another supporter, Annie Humphrey, said the law is needed because wild rice beds and the surrounding water are declining and need more protection.

Behind the emotional rhetoric lies the broader progressive push known as “rights of nature.”

The idea treats rivers, forests, and even wildlife as legal persons that can sue or be represented in court.

It is a concept that has quietly spread through a network of environmental activists and tribal advocates across the country, often slipping into state codes under the banner of Indigenous respect or climate rights.

Minnesota’s proposed language could easily open the door to more of that loophole lawmaking.

Critics say the bill’s supporters are mixing cultural recognition, which most Minnesotans respect, with radical ecological theory.

Recognizing native terminology is one thing. Declaring that a plant has a “right to exist and thrive” is quite another.

This kind of language could theoretically allow environmental groups to block development projects, road improvements, or even private agriculture near rice lakes, arguing that such activities infringe on the “right” of the plant to live unbothered.

Even those inside the DNR are unsure what compliance would look like.

Would predators or natural events like storms be considered a violation of the plant’s rights?

Would humans need to fend off animals that feed on rice?

The absurdity is plain to see once government starts applying legal principles designed for people to blades of grass and handfuls of seeds.

Kunesh brushed off the criticism, saying that the amendment merely aligns with “the natural rhythm of life” and recognizes that humans and animals alike depend on the plant.

But this romanticism does not settle the question of how the state could enforce such supposed rights or where the boundaries of those rights might end.

The proposal’s supporters are already hinting at further legislation related to wild rice protection.

They are calling for new limits on pesticide use, restrictions on boats entering rice beds, and additional risk assessments.

These might sound minor at first, but they could lead to even greater regulation of private landowners and tighter government control over waterways, all justified by the claim that wild rice has a right to thrive.

This measure might pass quietly if the public does not pay attention, since it is buried in committee discussions and couched in flowery phrases about “cultural understanding.”

But the practical effect of this kind of law would be to embolden bureaucrats and activist lawyers while confusing everyone else.

Once again, the state’s progressive lawmakers seem more interested in spiritual symbolism than clear, usable legislation that serves real people.

The amendment is awaiting consideration for inclusion in a future legislative package.

If adopted, it would officially transform Minnesota’s state grain from an agricultural product into a political statement about plants having personhood.

It is a symbolic gesture that might please the climate lobby, but it also signals how far the left is willing to stretch the meaning of law in the name of environmental ideology.

The opinions expressed by contributors and/or content partners are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Objectivist. Contact us for guidelines on submitting your own commentary.