In Shutdown of Federal Lands Sale, a Win for Public Process

Republican Sen. Mike Lee of Utah got stars in his eyes. What if all of the purported housing woes felt in places like St. George, Utah, and Bend, Oregon, could be alleviated by simply selling off millions of acres of land owned and managed by the American people? Better yet, wouldn’t it be great to rid those lands of the onerous burdens of environmental and land-use regulations to do so!

The notion of selling off public lands in the interest of “housing” has gotten a lot of attention over the last several weeks, after Lee added language to the “Big Beautiful Bill” that is expected to be voted upon, ironically, this Independence Day. On its face, it seemed like a Republican dream: make up for the trillions they’ll be adding to the deficit by selling off the “useless” land around some of the West’s most desirable areas — and do it without regulations.

Except, many who might be assumed to appreciate this idea, decidedly did not. The language that would have allowed such sales of public lands was stripped out of the “Big Beautiful Bill” by the Senate parliamentarian last week. Around the same time, members of Congress, including Oregon’s Cliff Bentz, came out against the proposal. So did a number of others, including ranchers and the public-lands advocacy group, Backcountry Hunters & Anglers — both entities that regularly make use of our public lands for things like grazing and hunting. Ranchers, hunters and anglers have enjoyed the use of vast swaths of land for decades, and they’re not likely to give up a perk like that so easily. Also opposed to the sale are various environmental groups, who advocate for wild places and maintaining wildlife habitat.

Bentz has gotten a lot of press — and plenty of kudos — this week for coming out against the willy-nilly sale of the lands put in trust to the American people, but that stance came with caveats. In his statement regarding his opposition, Bentz said he supports the sale of public lands — but only when it comes with an appropriate process.

“I do support and encourage sale or exchange of parcels of federal land when there is a clear economic or social demand for such disposition, and when that disposition follows appropriate procedure and is generally supported by those affected,” Bentz wrote in a June 25 statement. “I include congressional action as an appropriate procedure. I do not support a mandated disposition of millions of acres of federal land, the amount of which was arbitrarily established, the primary goal not being to respond to demand, but instead being the removal of land from federal ownership.”

To summarize: those in support of this proposal have thus far given the public no assurances that the lands that could be up for sale in some 11 Western states would actually, as advertised, be used for homeownership. With the rushed process that we’ve seen thus far, it’s just as likely that they would be sold to the highest bidder for anything from private resource extraction to mega-wealthy retreats. Public process, as Bentz advocated for, would at least slow the process down enough to get more people involved in the decision-making. That is how democracy is supposed to work.

While the broader “One Big Beautiful” bill still offers plenty for people to worry about — not the least of which is the prospect of millions losing health care under Medicaid — we’ll take our wins where we can get them. The fight for our public lands is one to be fought another day — ideally with a lot more discussion and regulation.

This article appears in Source Weekly July 3, 2025.