Plan To Sell 250 Million Acres of Public Land Suffers Major Setback
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
The proposal to sell millions of acres of federal land has been voted out of the GOP's tax and spending bill on the basis it could go against the chamber's rules.
Senate Energy Committee Chairman Mike Lee had pushed for the sale of more than 2 million acres of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and U.S. Forest Service (USFS) land over the next five years as a way of generating federal income to help cover sweeping tax cuts.
However, the plan was met with opposition by some in the Senate during their deliberations of President Donald Trump's "Big Beautiful Bill."
Newsweek has contacted Lee outside regular hours via email for comment.
Chairman Mike Lee during a Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing in the Dirksen building on June 18, 2025, in Washington.
Chairman Mike Lee during a Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing in the Dirksen building on June 18, 2025, in Washington.
Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call via AP
Why It Matters
The U.S. government controls about 28 percent of all the land in the country. Selling federal land to provide more affordable housing for Americans is something Trump has advocating for, but conservation advocacy groups have criticized such plans, arguing that little of the federal land for sale is suitable for housing.
There is also concern among conversation groups about what the sale of federal land means for wildlife and its habitat in those areas—a concern that could become more pressing now that the Trump administration has said it will rescind a 2001 rule that prevented logging on national forest lands.
What To Know
Despite the proposal being struck off the bill, which would have seen millions of acres of land sold across 11 Western states, Lee has made it clear he will not yet accept defeat, that he was "just getting started."
In a post on X, formerly Twitter, on Monday night, he wrote: "Housing prices are crushing families and keeping young Americans from living where they grew up. We need to change that."
Lee said that going forward, he would significantly reduce the amount of BLM land in the bill to include only land that is within 5 miles of population centers.
He said he would establish "freedom zones to ensure these lands benefit American families."
He also wrote that farmers, ranchers and recreational users come first and promised to protect them.
"Yes, the Byrd Rule limits what can go in the reconciliation bill, but I'm doing everything I can to support President Trump and move this forward," he said.
While Lee has been planning his next moves to push his proposal forward, conservation groups have been celebrating the Senate's decision.
"This is a victory for the American public, who were loud and clear: Public lands belong in public hands, for current and future generations alike,'' said Tracy Stone-Manning, president of The Wilderness Society. "Our public lands are not for sale."
Meanwhile, Carrie Besnette Hauser, president and CEO of the nonprofit Trust for Public Land, said the ruling was "an important victory in the fight to protect America's public lands from short-sighted proposals that would have undermined decades of bipartisan work to protect, steward and expand access to the places we all share."
What People Are Saying
Patrick Parenteau, a professor of law and senior fellow for climate policy at Vermont Law and Graduate School, told Newsweek: "The Senate Parliamentarian ruled the proposal out of order, but the Senate has not yet voted on the Reconciliation bill. Senator Lee said he intends to revise the proposal to exclude Forest Service lands and narrow the scope for BLM lands and give local communities more say. That might not be enough to satisfy the parliamentarian.
"The repeal of the Roadless Rule would open 58 million acres of Forest Service land to logging, mining and oil and gas development. These are remote areas that would be very expensive to develop. Repealing the rule requires compliance with several federal laws and will be challenged in court. These roadless areas have a lot of bipartisan political support among outdoor recreationists and local communities. I predict a ferocious fight to preserve them."
Senator Mike Lee, on X on Tuesday: "I'm still listening. I'm working closely with the Trump administration to ensure that any federal land sales serve the American people—not foreign governments, not the Chinese Communist Party, and not massive corporations looking to pad their portfolios. This land must go to American families. Period."
Oregon Senator Jeff Merkley, the top Democrat on the Senate Budget Committee: "Democrats will not stand idly by while Republicans attempt to circumvent the rules of [budget] reconciliation in order to sell off public lands to fund tax breaks for billionaires."
Senator Maria Cantwell, a Washington Democrat: [My constituents] "don't want these lands to be luxury resorts or golf courses."
What Happens Next
The Senate will continue to deliberate over the bill and proposals until the self-imposed deadline of July 4.
This story contains reporting from the Associated Press.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
10 minutes ago
- New York Post
Most US adults still support legal abortion 3 years after Roe was overturned, poll finds
Three years after the Supreme Court opened the door to state abortion bans, most U.S. adults continue to say abortion should be legal — views that look similar to before the landmark ruling. The new findings from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll show that about two-thirds of U.S. adults think abortion should be legal in all or most cases. About half believe abortion should be available in their state if someone does not want to be pregnant for any reason. Advertisement 6 The new findings from the poll show that about two-thirds of U.S. adults think abortion should be legal in all or most cases. AP That level of support for abortion is down slightly from what an AP-NORC poll showed last year, when it seemed that support for legal abortion might be rising. Laws and opinions changed when Roe was overturned The June 2022 Supreme Court ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade and opened the door to state bans on abortion led to major policy changes. Advertisement Most states have either moved to protect abortion access or restrict it. Twelve are now enforcing bans on abortion at every stage of pregnancy, and four more do so after about six weeks' gestation, which is often before women realize they're pregnant. In the aftermath of the ruling, AP-NORC polling suggested that support for legal abortion access might be increasing. 6 About half believe abortion should be available in their state if someone does not want to be pregnant for any reason. REUTERS Advertisement Last year, an AP-NORC poll conducted in June found that 7 in 10 U.S. adults said it should be available in all or most cases, up slightly from 65% in May 2022, just before the decision that overruled the constitutional right to abortion, and 57% in June 2021. The new poll is closer to Americans' views before the Supreme Court ruled. Now, 64% of adults support legal abortion in most or all cases. More than half the adults in states with the most stringent bans are in that group. 6 The June 2022 Supreme Court ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade and opened the door to state bans on abortion led to major policy changes. AP Advertisement Similarly, about half now say abortion should be available in their state when someone doesn't want to continue their pregnancy for any reason — about the same as in June 2021 but down from about 6 in 10 who said that in 2024. Adults in the strictest states are just as likely as others to say abortion should be available in their state to women who want to end pregnancies for any reason. Democrats support abortion access far more than Republicans do. Support for legal abortion has dropped slightly among members of both parties since June 2024, but nearly 9 in 10 Democrats and roughly 4 in 10 Republicans say abortion should be legal in at least most instances. Fallout from state bans has influenced some people's positions — but not others Seeing what's happened in the aftermath of the ruling has strengthened the abortion rights position of Wilaysha White, a 25-year-old Ohio mom. She has some regrets about the abortion she had when she was homeless. 6 In the aftermath of the ruling, AP-NORC polling suggested that support for legal abortion access might be increasing. AP 'I don't think you should be able to get an abortion anytime,' said White, who calls herself a 'semi-Republican.' But she said that hearing about situations — including when a Georgia woman was arrested after a miscarriage and initially charged with concealing a death — is a bigger concern. Advertisement 'Seeing women being sick and life or death, they're not being put first — that's just scary,' she said. 'I'd rather have it be legal across the board than have that.' Every morning, the NY POSTcast offers a deep dive into the headlines with the Post's signature mix of politics, business, pop culture, true crime and everything in between. Subscribe here! Julie Reynolds' strong anti-abortion stance has been cemented for decades and hasn't shifted since Roe was overturned. 'It's a moral issue,' said the 66-year-old Arizona woman, who works part time as a bank teller. Advertisement She said her view is shaped partly by having obtained an abortion herself when she was in her 20s. 'I would not want a woman to go through that,' she said. 'I live with that every day. I took a life.' Support remains high for legal abortion in certain situations 6 'It's a moral issue,' said the 66-year-old Arizona woman, who works part time as a bank teller. AP The vast majority of U.S. adults — at least 8 in 10 — continue to say their state should allow legal abortion if a fetal abnormality would prevent the child from surviving outside the womb, if the patient's health is seriously endangered by the pregnancy, or if the person became pregnant as a result of rape or incest. Advertisement Consistent with AP-NORC's June 2024 poll, about 7 in 10 U.S. adults 'strongly' or 'somewhat' favor protecting access to abortions for patients who are experiencing miscarriages or other pregnancy-related emergencies. In states that have banned or restricted abortion, such medical exceptions have been sharply in focus. This is a major concern for Nicole Jones, a 32-year-old Florida resident. Jones and her husband would like to have children soon. But she said she's worried about access to abortion if there's a fetal abnormality or a condition that would threaten her life in pregnancy since they live in a state that bans most abortions after the first six weeks of gestation. Advertisement 'What if we needed something?' she asked. 'We'd have to travel out of state or risk my life because of this ban.' Adults support protections for seeking abortions across state lines — but not as strongly 6 In states that have banned or restricted abortion, such medical exceptions have been sharply in focus. REUTERS There's less consensus on whether states that allow abortion should protect access for women who live in places with bans. Just over half support protecting a patient's right to obtain an abortion in another state and shielding those who provide abortions from fines or prison time. In both cases, relatively few adults — about 2 in 10 — oppose the measures and about 1 in 4 are neutral. More Americans also favor than oppose legal protections for doctors who prescribe and mail abortion pills to patients in states with bans. About 4 in 10 'somewhat' or 'strongly' favor those protections, and roughly 3 in 10 oppose them. Such telehealth prescriptions are a key reason that the number of abortions nationally has risen even as travel for abortion has declined slightly.
The Hill
10 minutes ago
- The Hill
6 months in, Trump's unorthodox foreign policy is rewriting the rules
President Trump's return to office has marked a fundamental departure from conventional foreign policy approaches that have dominated Washington for decades. His first six months demonstrate how unorthodox methods — transactional negotiations, direct pressure and strategic leverage — can achieve breakthroughs that traditional diplomatic playbooks consistently failed to deliver. The results challenge long-held assumptions about international relations. Where successive administrations have relied on multilateral consensus-building and careful diplomatic protocol, Trump has moved decisively to address longstanding challenges through direct engagement and clear incentives. The outcomes speak for themselves: concrete achievements that decades of conventional wisdom could not produce. The June NATO summit in Brussels exemplifies this transformation. Trump secured an unprecedented agreement from member nations to increase defense spending to 3.5 percent of GDP by 2035, with Poland, Estonia, and Lithuania committing to reach 5 percent within the decade. This represents the largest collective defense spending increase since the alliance's founding. For decades, American presidents from both parties have struggled to convince NATO allies to shoulder more of the defense burden. George W. Bush, Barack Obama and others made passionate appeals with minimal results. Trump's direct pressure on individual leaders — including frank conversations about the consequences of continued free-riding — achieved what 20 years of diplomatic consensus-building could not. The breakthrough reveals how Trump's willingness to challenge diplomatic norms can produce substantive results. When allies understand that America's patience with free-riding has limits, they respond accordingly. Perhaps nowhere is Trump's departure from conventional wisdom more evident than in Iran policy. His coordination with Israel on strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities in July set back Tehran's nuclear program by up to two years according to Pentagon officials cited by Reuters — a more concrete achievement than decades of sanctions and diplomatic engagement that was slow-walking Tehran to having a nuclear bomb. This wasn't reckless escalation — it was calculated deterrence after years of failed accommodation strategies that spanned multiple administrations. Iran's subsequent diplomatic overtures to European partners suggest the strikes achieved their intended effect. Where traditional approaches allowed Iran's regional influence to grow unchecked, Trump's decisive action has forced Tehran to recalculate its strategic position. The success challenges the foreign policy establishment's preference for extended diplomatic processes over direct action. Sometimes, as Trump demonstrates, credible threats require credible follow-through. Immigration policy demonstrates another area where Trump's approach has succeeded. New agreements with Mexico and Central American nations include enhanced enforcement provisions and expanded return protocols, contributing to a more than 90 percent reduction in detected border crossings in May compared to the previous year, according to Department of Homeland Security data. The key difference lies in leverage. Trump used trade access and visa negotiations to secure these commitments, demonstrating that America's economic power can be an effective diplomatic tool. Mexico agreed to deploy additional forces along its southern border in exchange for streamlined trade procedures — a classic win-win arrangement that Biden's team never successfully negotiated. This success highlights a broader truth about international relations: Countries respond to clear incentives and consequences. When America articulates its interests clearly and backs them with appropriate leverage, even reluctant partners find ways to cooperate. Trump's approach to Africa represents a fundamental departure from the aid-focused diplomacy that characterized previous administrations. Rather than continental tours filled with promises of development assistance, Trump has hosted five African leaders at the White House in recent months, emphasizing trade and investment opportunities. This shift addresses a critical gap in American foreign policy. While recent presidents maintained traditional approaches that often created dependency relationships, Trump is building partnerships based on mutual economic interest. Early agreements with Liberia and Senegal focus on critical mineral extraction and energy partnerships — arrangements that benefit both American businesses and African development. The message is clear: America seeks partners, not dependents. By reframing relationships around mutual economic interest rather than charity, Trump is building more sustainable and dignified partnerships. Perhaps most surprisingly, Trump's tough approach has yielded diplomatic breakthroughs that eluded his predecessor. In late June, he hosted talks between Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo that produced a cease-fire agreement including troop withdrawals and commitments to joint economic development. The success came from Trump's willingness to use America's full diplomatic and economic weight — not to lecture, but to incentivize. This contrasts sharply with Biden's reactive approach to international crises, which often left the U.S. struggling to respond effectively to fast-moving global events. As we assess these first six months, the question isn't whether Trump's methods conform to diplomatic norms — it's whether they work. The evidence suggests they do. In a world where traditional institutions struggle to address complex challenges, Trump's transactional approach offers a compelling alternative. His first six months suggest that sometimes bold action succeeds where diplomatic convention fails. Kurt Davis Jr. is a Millennium Fellow at the Atlantic Council and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. He is also an advisor to private, public, and state-owned companies and their boards as well as creditors across the globe on a range of transactions.
Business Insider
11 minutes ago
- Business Insider
Feeling generous? You can Venmo the US government to help pay down the debt
Helping the federal government pay down the country's soaring national debt is now as easy as reimbursing your friend for a round of drinks. Earlier this year, the US Treasury Department began accepting Venmo payments on where individuals can go online to contribute gifts to reduce the public debt. The department had already accepted payments via credit card, debit card, and bank account, and it has accepted charitable contributions for decades. According to Treasury data, the government has brought in roughly $120,000 a month in charitable contributions to pay down the debt since 2020. The Treasury received more than $2.7 million in gifts in 2024, and roughly $1 million in 2023. In the first five months of this year, the department brought in about $434,500. Reached by Business Insider, a spokesperson for the Treasury Department's Bureau of Fiscal Service did not immediately provide comment on the change. According to the Wayback Machine, Venmo was added as a payment method between February 22 and March 8 of this year. NPR reporter Jack Corbett first identified the change on Wednesday. The United States government is more than $36 trillion in debt, a number that's only expected to grow in the coming years. President Donald Trump's"Big Beautiful Bill," recently approved by Congress, is projected to add an additional $3.4 trillion to the debt over the next 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
