A Republican proposal that would bring millions of acres of federally owned land to market has elicited intense opposition from Democrats, conservative-aligned conservationists, and even lawmakers within the GOP, potentially engendering another division within the party over President Donald Trump‘s “big, beautiful bill.”
In early June, Utah Republican Senator Mike Lee introduced the new provision for the budget reconciliation bill, which would require the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service to make between 0.5 and 0.75 percent of their land holdings in 11 Western states available for purchase. While this would amount to between two and three million acres, The Wilderness Society estimates that the language of the provision could make over 250 million acres eligible for sale.
The idea has long been a pet interest of Lee, who last week defended it against what he called “falsehoods being circulated by the Left.” Lee stated that national parks and monuments would be exempt, and that auctioning off land with “zero recreational value” was a “common-sense solution” to the nation’s housing shortage.
But criticism has been far-reaching, with opponents arguing that selling off public land could have irreparable environmental consequences, and that any resulting housing developments are unlikely to serve the needs of ordinary Americans.
“We are opposed to this terrible amendment for a number of reasons,” said Zachary Frankel, executive director of the Utah Rivers Council, “not the least of which is that it would lead to the widespread pollution of the water supplies for tens of millions of Americans living across the 11 Western states.”
As Frankel told Newsweek, Lee’s proposal also includes no provision requiring that these lands be developed into low-cost housing, and called the argument that this was the reason behind the plan “a farce designed to hoodwink Americans into supporting this bad idea.”
“There is no provision to prevent lands sold from being developed into high-end vacation homes, Airbnbs, or luxury housing projects, which would be especially desirable near scenic or high-demand areas,” the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance told Newsweek.
“Selling off public lands is short-sighted, self-serving, and irreversible,” the group said. “These lands belong to all Americans, not to the highest bidder at the whims of a political agenda.”
Newsweek reached out to Lee’s office for comment.
Democrats representing the affected states are similarly opposed. Colorado Senator Michael Bennet said of his state’s public lands that these “are the foundation of our economy and represent treasured parts of our culture, our geography, and our history.”
“Selling public lands is unpopular among both Republicans and Democrats, and we will continue to fight this every step of the way,” he told Newsweek.
“If Republicans have their way, we will never get our public lands back once they are privatized,” said California Senator Alex Padilla.
Though less unanimous, opposition is also mounting within Republican ranks. A spokesperson for Senator Mike Crapo, who represents Idaho—which could see up to 14.4 million acres made available for purchase, according to The Wilderness Society—told The Spokesman-Review that Crapo “does not support transferring public lands to private ownership.”
“After reviewing the Senate Energy and Natural Resources reconciliation language, I do not support the proposed provision to sell public lands,” said Idaho Senator James Risch in a statement to the Idaho Statesman.
A spokesperson for Montana Representative Ryan Zinke, who was instrumental in removing a similar provision from the House version of the budget reconciliation bill last month, told The New York Times that he remains “a hard no on any bill that includes the large-scale sale of public lands.”
In addition to this handful of GOP lawmakers, several high-profile conservative figures have also spoken out. Right-wing commentator Mike Cernovich called public lands “the birthright of Americans,” while American Conservation Coalition founder Benji Backer last week wrote that “Americans across the political spectrum are **overwhelmingly** against the sale of our beauty.”
Some conservative-aligned conservationists are similarly skeptical, arguing that Lee’s proposal contradicts the principles of responsible land management.
Danielle Franz, CEO of the American Conservation Coalition, said that her group would be “open to targeted public lands sales as a policy avenue,” but stressed the importance that these policies “do not compromise our ability to fulfill the original mission of public lands, which is for the use and benefit of the American people.”
“The affordable housing pretense is just an excuse for public land opponents like Senator Lee to dispose of our public estate,” said David Jenkins, president of Conservatives for Responsible Stewardship, a group that champions environmentalism as an “inherently conservative” ideal.
“It’s also worth noting that the public lands most attractive for real estate developers are those in close proximity to populated areas, which means they are also likely to be valued recreational lands that serve the folks living there and contribute to the local economy,” Jenkins told Newsweek.
“Turning them over to private developers could adversely impact a lot of folks.”
Some of the environmentalist groups that spoke to Newsweek said they have been in contact with members of Congress to drum up opposition at the legislative level. Last week, the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance sent a letter to members of the Senate, signed by nearly 150 organizations, urging them to oppose any version of the budget reconciliation bill that contains Lee’s provisions.
Though conservative commentators, advocacy groups and a handful of Republicans have voiced their opposition, other GOP lawmakers have rallied around Lee’s proposal.
Alaska Senator Dan Sullivan told Newsweek that residents of his state were “keenly aware of how the federal government’s ownership of 60 percent of Alaska’s lands can inhibit economic development and cause challenges for our communities.”
Sullivan said he worked to include his state among those whose lands will be eligible for sale under the proposal, and that this “will give us the opportunity to free up some Forest Service and BLM lands for additional housing.”
However, with Republicans’ small Senate majority already threatened by resistance to some fiscal elements of the bill, it would take only a few defections to derail the legislation and dash hopes of it reaching Trump’s desk by the self-imposed July 4 deadline.
The post GOP Split Emerges Over Plans to Sell Millions of Acres of Federal Land appeared first on Newsweek.
