WASHINGTON — Sen. Mike Lee and Rep. Celeste Maloy are defending a proposal to sell federally owned land after environmental groups launched a campaign against the proposal, included in the Senate version of President Donald Trump’s tax bill.
The groups accuse congressional Republicans of trying to siphon off millions of acres of federal land to help pay for Trump’s tax cuts.
But Lee and Maloy, both Utah Republicans, say maps circulated by groups like the Wilderness Society are misleading, and come from national groups that don’t understand the local issues at play.
The decades-long debate over whether to sell off federally controlled land was reignited last week after Lee drafted language requiring 11 Western states to sell between 2.2 million and 3.3 million acres over the next five years.
The proposal is tucked into a larger bill of energy-related provisions meant to offset trillions of dollars in proposed tax cuts in Trump’s reconciliation package.
The proposal has prompted pushback, mostly beyond the handful of states it directly affects.
Public land advocates and outdoor groups have criticized the legislation — even attracting the attention of some celebrities, such as actress Sydney Sweeney who said this week that public lands “belong to all Americans, and it is the patriotic duty of every citizen to resist this scheme.”
Lee rejected that characterization, responding in a post on X: “Great—if federal land is an unmitigated good, then every state should have an equal share of it.”
The online discourse has resulted in conflicting interpretations about what the legislation would do — or wouldn’t do, in some cases. Here’s a breakdown of the basic components of the bill and how different groups are responding.
How much land would be eligible for sale?
Under the bill, 11 states would be required to sell anywhere between 0.5% and 0.75% of all Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service lands, which could total up to a maximum of 1.5% in some cases.
The legislation specifically applies to Utah as well as Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Washington, and Wyoming.
About 63% of Utah’s land is owned by the federal government, the most of any state in the country aside from Nevada. The federal government owns more than 80% of the land in Nevada.
By comparison, the federal government owns just 0.3% of the land in Connecticut and Iowa, the least among the states.
The bill would require the land be used only for “the development of housing or to address associated community needs,” although it does leave that interpretation up to the secretaries of Interior and Agriculture.
Lee has said there will be updates to the legislation that would further restrict what lands can be sold, mandating that those being sold by the U.S. Forest Service are within two miles of a population center and those being sold by the Bureau of Land Management are within five miles.
The Utah senator notes lands with existing permits for grazing, mining, mineral leases, or more would also be exempt.
Would this affect national parks?
The bill outlines 15 categories of protected land that cannot be sold for housing purposes. These include national monuments, national historical parks, recreation areas, conservation areas, units of the National Wildlife Refuge System, units of the National Fish Hatchery System, national trails, national memorials, battlefield sites and military parks, among other things.
However, conservation groups such as the Wilderness Society have circulated maps depicting lands they believe would fall under the bill’s definition of public lands.
The map shows popular hiking trails, ski resorts and grazing areas the group says would be at risk under Lee’s proposal. Those lands stretch across the Wasatch Front to include Big Cottonwood Canyon, Little Cottonwood Canyon and Parleys Canyon.
Lee has pushed back against those characterizations, with his office arguing the Wilderness Society map is not an official government document and is “speculative and misleading.”
Rep. Celeste Maloy, R-Utah, who led a similar public lands sales proposal in the House earlier this year, also rejected the Wilderness Society map, warning it’s part of an agenda from a “national group that may have no understanding of Utah.”
“People see that map and they get panicky,” Maloy told the Deseret News in an interview. “I want people in Utah to be more thoughtful in how they respond to maps on the internet, because that map isn’t part of any legislation.”
“Not every acre of public land is a national park. The vast majority of it is not,” Maloy added. “We have a lot of sagebrush ground that is adjacent to cities and towns where we do have infrastructure needs, and we’ve got to be able to have serious conversations about how we handle the real needs of communities in Utah. It can’t always devolve into loud rhetoric about parks and access.”
Instead, the Utah lawmakers have maintained the bill does not list any lands “for sale” but instead creates a nomination process to purchase lands currently owned by the government. The legislation excludes specific acreage as well as any maps to adhere to the strict Senate rules of reconciliation.
“When this bill puts land in the category of eligibility for sale, it doesn’t mean for sale,” Lee told conservative radio host Glenn Beck on Thursday. “It just means there’s a process by which it could be transferred.”
How would that process to purchase land work?
The process for selling off land would begin shortly after the bill is passed. The legislation requires the secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture to solicit nominations from interested parties within 30 days of passage. The bill does not specify who qualifies as an “interested party” nor does it have restrictions.
The lands under consideration must meet certain criteria, such as being adjacent to existing developed areas, having access to existing infrastructure, is suitable for resident housing, and contains isolated tracts that are inefficient to manage.
After that initial solicitation, the secretaries must publish lists of land for sale every 60 days until they meet the required acreage of lands to sell in each state.
However, the provision would require the interior secretary to consult with state and local governments as well as any Indian tribes before facilitating any sort of sale, according to the bill. That way, aides noted, it created a “public participant process.”
The bill also carves out what is known as “first right of refusal,” which would give state and local officials an early opportunity to make a first offer if they so choose.
When drafting her initial amendment, Maloy proposed selling about 11,000 acres of public lands in Utah’s Washington and Beaver counties, which was drafted upon request from county officials. That proposal was ultimately removed from the tax bill amid pushback from some Republicans as well as concerns it did not adhere to strict reconciliation rules.
Still, Maloy says the arguments influencing the original amendment still stand: Local leaders should decide whether to sell off public lands.
“Every event I have, especially political events, somebody asks, ‘What are you going to do to get us more control of our public land?’” Maloy told the Deseret News. “I think there’s a big appetite for that in Utah. People want it to be thoughtful. They want more access, they want more control. They want more of a voice.”
Lee’s language is separate from Maloy’s, although the Utah senator did work with the congresswoman when drafting his own version, he told the Deseret News.
Republicans split on whether to back the proposal
The proposal to sell off public lands is still an uphill battle in Congress, even with Trump’s support on the issue.
While some conservatives are supportive of the effort to sell federally owned lands to pay for Trump’s signature tax cuts, other Republicans in Western states have come out against the proposal — particularly those in Montana.
Both Republican Sens. Steve Daines and Tim Sheehy of Montana told the Deseret News they oppose the sale of public lands. However, they both noted separately they were pleased to see Montana exempted from Lee’s proposal, which the Utah senator did after consulting with the pair.
However, Rep. Ryan Zinke, R-Mont., has gone even further to say he would outright oppose any reconciliation package that includes the sale of public lands, possibly putting the bill at risk.
“I don’t yield to pressure, only higher principle,” Zinke said in a statement. “I have said from day one I would not support a bill that sells public lands. I am still a no on the Senate reconciliation bill that sells public lands. We did our job in the House. Let’s get it finished.”