Fact, Fiction, and the Federal Land Sale
The senator behind a plan to sell millions of acres of federal land says his opponents are simply misinformed. Here’s what’s really in the proposal:
The year is 2040, and you’re excited to take your son on his first ever camping trip.
You’ve been waiting for this day for a long time — and I mean a LONG time. It’s taken half a decade to get your $500 timed entry application to Citi Bank National Park and Preserve, the sole square mile of undeveloped land in the entire state.
Packing is a cinch! Since AirBNB built their LuxLodge vacation rentals all around Mastercraft Lake, there’s no need to bother bringing a tent. An abundance of on-site restaurants means you won’t have to fuss with camp cooking either. You just throw some clothes in a duffel, hop in your car, and hit the road.
Traffic starts as soon as you cross the park’s original boundary. What used to be pristine alpine meadow was now one big, endless strip mall, spilling off either side of the six lane Trail Ridge MegaHighway.
At least you don’t have to worry about finding rest areas; pull over wherever you like, and you’ll have your pick from thousands of dingy, barred-window bodegas. The rundown shops are interspersed with a litany of dispensaries with inventive names like “Rocky Mountain High,” and “Where the Puffalo Roam.”
“What’s that?” Your points to a steep exit ramp, wrapping up around to a fortified gate that looks like a border checkpoint. The road itself is freshly paved and painted, almost like its never been driven on before. A gilded sign above the razor wire-toped gate reads:
The Rocky Mountain Club
Members Only
“Those are the estates,” you explain. “Great big mansions, all on thousands of acres. There’s even a private ski resort.”
“Doesn’t look like many people go up there,” your son says, snapping you back to the moment.
“No,” you agree. “Not anymore. The ones who do, usually don’t drive.” As if to make your point, a charter helicopter flies low overhead, cutting a wide path around the soaring towers of the Rocky Mountain Projects. These half-finished concrete skeletons sprout from the strip mall hellscape like Saguaro Cacti, blotting the sun and obscuring the ridgeline. Originally designed to house tens of thousands of low income residents, this place was overrun by squatters before construction was even finished.
After a few hours in gridlock, the campground’s check-in gate comes into view. But it’s another full hour before all of the highway lanes merge down into one, and it’s your turn at the vandalized check-in kiosk.
You tap through the menu on a crusty touch screen before presenting the QR code from your reservation. After a few minutes of finagling, the scanner chirps, and the gate lifts.
Along the right side of the road, an endless parade of billboards and restaurants sits just beyond the park boundary. Your assigned LuxLodge is opposite a waffle house, and looks more like a shed you’d find for sale at your local hardware store than an actual cabin. It comes with a phonebook sized list of rules and chores you’ll have to abide by, lest the owner charge you a steep cleaning fee.
But at least the property has a decent view of lake Haiyaha — though you remember it being crystal blue, not this muck-brown color. It also smells suspiciously like a mixture of raw sewage and industrial runoff.
Your son has been begging you to show him how to build a bonfire once the sun goes down. But the sky never darkens, instead remaining dusty yellow with the glow of light pollution.
At first, you’re confused by the fire pit, down by the edge of the foul-smelling water. Here, a few fake ceramic logs are permanently affixed in a teepee formation.
A covered control dial sits in the stone beside a placard, explaining that everything in the park is powered by clean energy, harnessed from the perpetual motion of Teddy Roosevelt rolling in his grave. You turn it, activating some incandescent heat lamp beneath the bed of fake coals. It reeks of burning dust and disappointment.
You awake in a cold sweat, thrashing to get out of your mummy bag. You unzip your tent and stagger out into the night, frantically rushing to make sure it’s all still there.
The starry sky makes dark silhouettes of the surrounding mountain peaks. The scent of smoke from last night’s fire still clings to your clothes.
No strip malls. No high rises.
It's the present day, and there is still time to prevent this future from coming to pass.
Unless you’ve been boondocking on some remote BLM land for the past couple weeks, you’ve probably heard about the proposal to sell off millions of acres of federally owned land.
Utah Senator Mike Lee slipped it in the senate version of the so-called “Big Beautiful Bill.” The proposal would require the government to sell off several million acres of federal land across a list of 11 western states.
For now, the Senate Parliamentarian (something of a non-partisan political referee) ruled that Lee’s plan isn’t the sort of thing you can pass in budget reconciliation (a special way to pass spending-related legislation with fewer votes than you’d normally need.)
This development came after I’d written the bulk of this article, and I considered simply scrapping it. However, because Senator Lee has promised not to give up on the idea, it seemed prudent to tackle what exactly is on the table, and why the plan’s supporters argue it’s necessary.
According to Lee, scenarios like our story above could never happen; this bill is about selling off a glut of extra land that can help us balance the budget, and even get some much-needed affordable housing in western states. He assures critics that pristine forests, streams, hunting grounds, etc. will remain protected.
That message doesn’t seem to be resonating with voters, who overwhelmingly oppose the plan across the entire political spectrum. 71% of U.S. residents are against it, with only 10% in favor, according to a YouGov survey on the issue.
Senator Lee argues that this negative perception is because the public has been misinformed by paid actors, spreading falsehoods about what the bill actually entails.
Before it’s possible to debate the merits of the plan, we first need to agree on what’s actually in it. And the best way to do that, is by reviewing the plan line by line.
Because I care about transparency, I’m providing you with a PDF copy of the latest version1 so you can check my work, if you feel so inclined. Let me know in the comments if you think my assessment is unfair or inaccurate. I’ll be citing page and line numbers to make this much easier to discuss.
Don’t be intimidated by the page count; the plan also covers gas, lumber, and mining leases — which is a much bigger topic than we can fit into this article. We will just be focusing on the actual land sale provision, which runs from pages 30-41. You can skim it in just a few minutes.
What’s Inside, Really
Are national forests protected?
Senator Lee has asserted multiple times, including in a podcast appearance on Charlie Kirk’s show (1:09 — 1:26) that national forests are protected from sale under his bill. This is false.
The bill lays out a long list of carve-outs for national parks, preserves, monuments, etc. (page 31, lines 16-25, and page 32 lines 1-15.) Not only are the national forests not on this list, they’re named elsewhere as one of the specific kinds of lands that can be sold (page 31, line 23 / page 32, line 16.)
Could this proposal just transfer lands to local governments, who might better manage them?
Not necessarily. Some supporters have argued that the federal government simply isn’t the best steward to control that much land, and it would be better if it was transferred to states and communities. The proposal requires consultation, but not consent from local government before sale (page 35, line 1.)
Despite claims that local governments will get an automatic “right of first refusal” to buy the land, this is only done at the discretion of the Secretary of Agriculture (page 36, line 17) and is in no way guaranteed.
Will this actually be used for affordable housing?
Maybe. The plan’s author argues this land can be used to develop affordable housing. However, the phrase “affordable housing” appears 0 times in the entire 67 page plan. “Affordable,” is also absent, and “affordability,” is mentioned once (page 35, line 20) in reference to an example of factors that could be considered when nominating a tract of land for purchase.
The proposal requires the land be used “solely for the development of housing or to address associated infrastructure to support local housing needs,” (page 36, line 23) but never actually stipulates this housing must be “affordable,” as supporters have claimed.
Other considerations
The sale of 0.5 — 0.75% of Federally held land is mandatory; the bill does not simply allow for sale, it requires it (page 33, line 11.) In the Charlie Kirk interview clip above, Lee inaccurately claims that his proposal would make less than half of a percent available for sale.
The Secretary of Agriculture gets to decide how much land one entity can buy, and what can be done with it (page 37, line 8)
The land in question cannot be:
Federally protected (defined above)
Subject to “valid existing rights”
Not located in an eligible state (Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, Wyoming) (page 38, line 1)
Under the criteria laid out in this plan, it would be entirely permissible to sell off a huge swath of land currently occupied by, say Winter Park Ski Resort in Colorado, to build a new Yellowstone Club.2 It’s in an eligible state; classified as “multiple use land,” meaning it’s not protected; and it’s close to existing infrastructure. And remember: the bill never stipulates the housing development has to be affordable.
Other critics have raised concerns about disposing of some of our favorite climbing routes and hiking trails, treasured fishing spots, gorgeous remote campsites, and much more.
So the plan does threaten some of the land we were told is off limits. In response to persistent backlash, Senator Lee announced some changes to his proposal. Here’s a statement that he shared on social media regarding the matter:
Housing prices are crushing families and keeping young Americans from living where they grew up. We need to change that.
Thanks to YOU—the AMERICAN PEOPLE—here’s what I plan to do:
1. REMOVE ALL Forest Service land. We are NOT selling off our forests.
2. SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCE the amount of BLM land in the bill. Only land WITHIN 5 MILES of population centers is eligible.
3. Establish FREEDOM ZONES to ensure these lands benefit AMERICAN FAMILIES.
4. PROTECT our farmers, ranchers, and recreational users. They come first.
Yes, the Byrd Rule3 limits what can go in the reconciliation bill, but I’m doing everything I can to support President Trump and move this forward.
Stay tuned. We’re just getting started.
Regarding the forest service land: it’s curious that Lee is now promising to remove a provision he repeatedly claimed never existed. Whether he deliberately spread falsehoods, or is simply unfamiliar with his own bill — many are having a difficult time taking the Senator at his word on this matter.
It doesn’t help that Lee also launched his entire social media stump by clipping a year-old speech from then-candidate Trump, talking about an extremely specific big of federal land in Nevada, in a relation to an entirely unrelated issue.
Some of the plan’s critics also cast doubt on whether this plan is even the Senator’s actual goal. Author Braxton McCoy unearthed an exchange in which Lee endorses capping the maximum amount of federal land that can be held in each state at 1.8%, to match Texas.
To meet Lee’s desired ratio, the United States would need to dispose of more than half a billion acres of federally held land — an amount greater than the combined size of Alaska and Texas. This would mean the proposal to unload less than 1% of federal land would be the beginning of a much bigger sale.
The Steel Man
Despite all of these inconsistencies, is Senator Lee’s land sale an unpleasant but ultimately necessary compromise to get affordable housing, and reduce the deficit? Let’s address his arguments at face value, and evaluate how effective this plan would be.
Addressing the Reasoning
The first argument is that this is necessary to pay off our national debt, which is sitting around $37 trillion. That’s kind of a misleading number though, because it doesn’t cover the category of “unfunded liabilities.” This is money we — the collective United States — haven’t spent yet, but have promised to spend in the future on stuff like social security, Medicare, and federal pensions. These total between $60-100 trillion, depending on who you ask, and what policy changes our representatives enact in the coming years.
Since those numbers are almost incomprehensibly huge, let’s shrink things down to the personal level for a moment:
Let’s say you’re $37,000 in credit card debt, your salary isn’t enough to cover the minimum monthly payment, and your kid just got into a college that costs between $60,000 and $100,000 total. You don’t know the exact amount yet, because you’re still crossing your fingers and hoping for some financial aid.
After venting to your neighbor about your situation, he decides to make you an offer. He’s looking to redo his whole yard, and build an extension on the house so his aging parents can move in. He’s got plenty of cash, but not enough room. You on the other hand, have about an acre of mostly-wooded land just outside your back door.
“I’ll give you ten bucks for a couple hundred square feet of your land,” he says. “We’ll take it right off the edge; bump the fence about a foot-and-a-half onto your property.”
That’s not a lot of money. But you figure it’s also not a lot of property, so you agree.
Now you only need $96,590 to cover your debts (assuming of course that you wind up owing as little as possible on that tuition!) You wind up spending your meager boon in less than a day, leaving you right back where you started.
Not to worry though: you have more land to sell.
Rather than address your chronic spending habit, you return to your neighbor and offer to sell more of your land at the same price. He’s thrilled. You repeat this trade until your fence is an inch away from your back window.
You still owe $96,000. And now you have no yard.
The deficit may be a problem. But at the rate the U.S. Government spends, the money raised from the land sale would be gone in less than a day, losing irreplaceable open spaces in the process.
Housing Confusion
The second reason for the proposal, according to Lee, is the demand for affordable housing. But remember, this isn’t actually a requirement spelled out by the bill. The plan only requires the land is used non-specifically for “housing,” and necessary utilities. Even that requirement disappears after a decade. So ten years down the line, a developer can knock down the abandoned subdivision and put up a Costco.
Setting aside the issue of affordability, there’s still a question about how much housing we actually need.
Reason being: Sen. Lee’s party controls both houses of congress, all three branches of government, and just successfully ran on a platform of mass deportation. The country has dropped to a below-replacement birthrate of 1.6. For the first time in half a century, the United States is expected to see its population shrink in 2025. If the population is declining, then so is the demand for housing.
Who are the homes for?
Surely the working class American families aren’t looking to purchase their starter house up in the middle of national forests and BLM land.
Based on the information before us, several commenters have expressed concern that the land sale may just amount to a bunch of exceptionally rich people gobbling up extremely desirable estate-building land for pennies on the dollar.
“If you look at the map of eligible land, it’s misleading because not all that land will be sold. Only about 0.5% of that land will end up being sold, but…
What land gets sold is up to the BLM and state & local municipalities. If we take a closer look at the land, it’s a wash - lots of deserts, mountain areas (not good for housing), and then of course the pristine national forests everyone is angry about.
Lee claims we need to sell off the land for “affordable housing,” but if you look at the map of eligible land, very little of it is suitable for affordable housing. The land is either extremely hilly, like the mountains near LA or SLC, or desert shrub land hours away from major cities. Who would buy this stuff?
While the bill has “language” in it that controls what land can be sold, I have a strong hunch here is what will happen - (1) very little land will be sold (2) almost no affordable housing will be built, because the eligible land isn’t good for that (3) the best land, such as National Forests in WY, CO, and WA, will be bought by rich people and enclosed for private use.
In the end, the sale of public land will not reduce the debt, it will not lead to affordable housing, and will result in enclosure of pristine public land. The actual ‘useless’ land people are talking about will mostly remain unsold because by definition it’s useless.”
The Bull Moose Betrayal
In a guest post for , I laid out the difference between right wing naturalism, and left wing environmentalism: the former views humanity as a part of the ecosystem and seeks to preserve it for future generations; whereas the latter sees humanity as an interloping cancer that must be removed from that ecosystem.
Conservatives have a strong claim to the mantle of the ultimate naturalist president and outdoorsman extraordinaire, Teddy Roosevelt.
Roosevelt understood the value in preserving the natural beauty of the country, and took steps to ensure it was safeguarded for generations. Because of his efforts, virtually anyone can explore the same rugged peaks and untamed wilderness that inspired our forefathers.
As a citizen of the United States, these treasures are both your birthright, and your responsibility to safeguard for your progeny. These lands are quite literally priceless, and this plan would sell them for a pittance to service a dubious goal.
Senator Lee — and any Republican who votes for his plan — betrays Roosevelt’s legacy, and risk permanently ceding ground in the outdoor community to their political opponents.
"The establishment of the National Park Service is justified by considerations of good administration, of the value of natural beauty as a National asset, and of the effectiveness of outdoor life and recreation in the production of good citizenship." —Teddy Roosevelt
Getting Involved
While the land sale plan has been stripped from the “Big Beautiful Bill,” this fight is far from over. The only reason Senator Lee waffled and promised concessions, is because of intense public outcry.
You can reach out to your senator, or your representative to share your thoughts on the land sale proposal.
Awareness is important as well. If you’re passionate about this issue, I strongly urge you to spread the word by sharing this story — either by forwarding it to a friend, or posting it on your social media platform of choice.
I have also seen a leaked version, supposedly showing a few pages of a revised version of the land sale plan, but haven’t been able to independently verify them. As soon as I do, I will be sure to publish a follow-up.
As always, thanks for reading!
Senator Mike Lee has since pledged to make revisions to the proposal. However, because Lee has consistently made multiple false statements about his bill while advocating for it, we will be basing our arguments on the bill’s actual text.
A controversial and private residential club, ski resort, and golf resort in Montana. Membership costs $4,000,000 for a condo, plus a $300,000 deposit, annual club dues of $36,000 and annual property owners dues of $10,000.
This is the senate parliamentarian situation I mentioned earlier in the article
What's interesting about this is that most people do not consider that the Federal Government once own almost all the land and has been selling it for over 200 years. Hell, we used to give it away to settlers through homesteading. However, I get the concerns because in places without much public land, there's not a lot of trail systems. Texas is a great example of that.
Bottom-line, there needs to be a balance. The government has locked up a lot of land that could be opened and reduce the skyrocketting housing costs. Arizona and Colorado are in that boat where, here in Arizona, finding land over an acre is tough. Similarly, Colorado Springs in sandwiched between federal land and large ranches making it hard to expand.
Excellent post, Cole! Although I don't agree with your characterization of environmentalists on the left versus those who are conservative... I too, considered scrapping my post on the subject but I added the rescission of the roadless rule to the mix. I chose not to go into a legal analysis of the provisions, but I agree that they (in this case the Republicans) are obscuring the facts of the bill.