Opinion: Congress Must Stop the Proposed Public Land Sell-Off

Motor Trend

a day ago

Congress must stop the proposed sell-off of public land owned by the Bureau of Land Management included in the "One Big Beautiful" budget reconciliation bill. Its passage into law would be harmful to MotorTrend readers and car enthusiasts nationwide.
MotorTrend opposes a bill mandating the sale of federal lands, impacting off-road trails and car enthusiasts. It criticizes the bill for risking public land privatization and denying access to car enthusiasts and urges public and industry action to halt the sell-off.
This summary was generated by AI using content from this MotorTrend article Read Next
MotorTrend rarely takes a position on proposed or enacted legislation. However, because this ill-advised land sale would be harmful to our readers, the car enthusiast community at large, the American auto industry, and MotorTrend 's editorial operations, we must voice our unequivocal opposition.
Land available for sale under the provisions of this bill, as written at the time of publication, covers innumerable miles of off-road trails and maintained roads in the western United States encompassing popular and famous sites, including most of the Moab trail network. If this land were sold, it would cut off automotive enthusiasts from the best off-roading our nation has to offer.
Rock crawlers are far from the only car enthusiasts who would be affected. Anyone who uses their car, truck, or SUV to overland, camp, hike, hunt, fish, boat, swim, climb, photograph, paint, observe wildlife, or any other outdoor activity on federal land would be cut off by land sales.
Should the land be developed as the bill suggests (but does not require), boundary wilderness would be affected by the new neighborhoods built in formerly wild areas in ways that could discourage or restrict access to anyone hoping to drive out to a remote lake, river, mountain, forest, or desert.
MotorTrend would likewise be hurt by public land sales. Our reviews of trucks and SUVs often rely on access to trails on public lands in order to bring you full and complete evaluations of their off-road capabilities. Our photography and videos also often rely on access to public lands for off-road and other stories.
The Title V Energy And Resources rider, Subtitle C-Lands, Section 50301, titled 'Mandatory Disposal of Bureau of Land Management Land for Housing,' would require the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to sell a minimum of 0.25 percent and maximum of 0.5 percent of all land owned by BLM, not including protected lands such as National Parks and Monuments, within five years.
This equals a maximum of 2.1 million acres across 11 named western states: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Montana, which is considered a western state and is approximately 30 percent federal land, was exempted from the legislation in a deal between Montana Republican Senator Steve Daines and rider author Utah Republican Senator Mike Lee in return for supporting the rest of the bill. A total of 210 million acres of federal lands in the above states would be eligible for sale.
An earlier version of the bill mandated the sale of up to 3.3 million acres of land, including land managed by the National Forest Service. Senator Lee stripped that from the proposed legislation after significant bipartisan backlash and an unfavorable ruling from the Senate Parliamentarian judging it unacceptable in a reconciliation bill.
Now, Senator Lee is trying again with a watered down bill that still threatens some of America's greatest off-road trails. The revised wording now limits sales to land within 5 miles of a "population center boundary," which is not defined in the text. Nearly all of Moab's trail network, as an example, exists on or crosses BLM land within 5 miles of the city of Moab.
While the bill purports to restrict the sold land for housing development, it does not require it. As written, the bill requires prospective buyers to describe how the land could be used for housing and/or infrastructure to support housing, but the bill does not actually require any housing be built and has no enforcement mechanism to compel construction or resale.
A buyer could therefore submit their proposal with no intention of actually building, and the government would have little recourse once the sale is complete. It would be a backdoor way for individuals to purchase formerly public land for their own private use, so long as they continued to insist development is being planned. Proving otherwise to show breach of contract would be difficult at best and up to the chronically underfunded BLM to enforce.
Were the buyer to go through with development plans, it could potentially mean a suburb built on what is currently the top the famous Hell's Revenge trail, or the top of Poison Spider.
The bill also does not require the input or consent of the affected state and local governments or local citizens. The bill only requires the head of BLM 'consult' with governors, local governments, and local indigenous tribes and give 'priority' to lands nominated by those governments but does not require them to abide by those consultations. The ultimate decision as to which lands to sell rests with the head of BLM alone. Similarly, the department head is allowed, but not required, to give first right of refusal to those local governments.
In practice, the department heads can sell whatever land they want to whomever they want if vague and limited rules are met. This leaves your public lands at the whim of an unelected department head and the willingness of your state and local officials to advocate effectively on your behalf. The bill requires BLM to relinquish all title, rights, and interests to the land sold, so it will almost certainly remain private forever. Once it's gone, it's gone.
While the purpose of this measure is purportedly expanding housing stock, the remote location of most of the eligible land makes this reasoning hollow. As the bill requires 85 percent of the money generated by the sale of these lands go to the U.S. Treasury's general fund, it appears the real purpose of this sale is to offset the cost of tax cuts for primarily wealthy individuals found elsewhere in the bill. Because the measure requires the land to be sold or auctioned for market value or greater, it will likely end up in the hands of the same wealthy individuals whose tax cuts are being funded by its sale.
For these reasons, we urge you to contact your senators and representatives and demand they stop the public land sell-off in the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act." Call the U.S. Capitol Switchboard at [phone], ask for the office of your state's senators or representative, and tell the staff member who answers you oppose the sale of public land and want it stripped from the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act." If you're unable to call, send an email. You can also contact your senators and representatives at their local offices by phone or email. You can find your representative by clicking here and find your senator by clicking here.
We further call on automakers and the aftermarket industry to publicly denounce the sale of public land. Car brands like Ford, Jeep, Rivian, and Subaru have built their brands in part or fully on outdoor recreation, and we ask them to stand up for the public lands they eagerly promote in their marketing and advertising. Similarly, we call on the aftermarket industry and its primary advocacy organization, SEMA, to likewise stand up for the public lands their customers recreate on with all the suspension, powertrain, recovery, and camping equipment they produce.