This story is developing and has been updated since it was first published.
In early May, House Republicans took the dramatic step of including sales of Western public land in a massive federal budget bill. The surprise proposal, which passed out of the House Natural Resources Committee, authorized the sale of nearly 500,000 acres of public land in Nevada and Utah.
Introduced by Rep. Mark Amodei from Nevada and Rep. Celeste Maloy of Utah, the amendment generated immediate outrage from Democrats and conservation advocates.
“Republicans’ plans to sell off our public lands to pay for tax handouts for their billionaire donors is an outrageous slap in the face to all of us,” New Mexico Sen. Martin Heinrich, D, who sponsored an amendment blocking federal land sales, told High Country News in a statement.
Several Western Republicans joined in the backlash, enough to torpedo the budget bill in a powerful demonstration of the bipartisan popularity of public land in the West. On May 21, House Republicans stripped the public land sales from the legislation. “I do not support the widespread sale or transfer of public lands,” said Montana Rep. Ryan Zinke, R, in a statement. “Once the land is sold, we will never get it back.
The public-land sale fight emerged as part of a broader GOP effort to cut taxes and ramp up domestic energy production. Republicans in Congress are hoping to avoid the Senate filibuster and pass the budget bill via reconciliation, in a process that is likely to continue into the summer. The current iteration of the bill also includes expanded oil and gas exploration, new drilling leases in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and what critics describe as a “pay-to-play” permitting scheme. Under this provision, companies could pay a fee to fast-track a given project’s permitting and environmental reviews.
“Unfortunately, even without selling off public lands outright, this budget reconciliation proposal remains the most extreme legislative attack on public lands in our nation’s history,” said Lydia Weiss, senior director for government relations at The Wilderness Society, in a statement.
In the wake of mass layoffs that weakened public land agencies earlier this spring, the new bill proposes further cuts by rescinding funding from the Inflation Reduction Act designated for the National Park Service, the U.S. Forest Service , and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
The bill would also mandate a 25% increase in timber production on lands managed by the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management, while lowering the royalty rates that coal, oil and gas companies pay to lease public lands.
But even as these ideas gain speed in Washington, D.C., the threat to public lands has created an energetic opposition movement, especially in the West. Mass support for public land crosses the two-party divide, which has forced some Republicans to break with the national party on the issue and created the potential for some unusual political alliances.
The attacks on public lands began immediately after Trump took office in January. Staffing cuts implemented by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) have disproportionately impacted land-management agencies. Critics say these staffing reductions are part of a deliberate strategy to undermine the agencies’ ability to manage their lands effectively, thereby paving the way for privatization.
“I’m really concerned about what I see as a deliberate effort to set federal land management agencies up to fail. Once they fail, it’s not such a stretch to say, ‘Well, someone else could do a better job,’” said Susan Brown, a lawyer at Silvix Resources, a nonprofit legal group that focuses on public lands and environmental governance.
“I’m really concerned about what I see as a deliberate effort to set federal land management agencies up to fail.”
The Trump administration — working with Interior Secretary Doug Burgum and Housing and Urban Development Secretary Scott Turner — has launched a joint task force to identify “underutilized” federal lands suitable for residential development, arguing that selling off these acres could help solve the nationwide housing shortage. Critics argue that this idea is simply an excuse to open the door to privatization, as well as being a poor solution to the housing crisis. An April report from the Center for American Progress found that in the Western states with the most BLM-managed land, less than 1% of that land is located within 10 miles of a major population center, and much of it is unlikely to be suitable for sale or development. Another recent study, this one from Headwaters Economics, found that nearly half the federal land near communities with housing needs faces high wildfire risk.
Opponents also note that the Republican-led efforts risk alienating a bipartisan base that supports public lands. Recent polling from Colorado College shows that 72% of Westerners prioritize conservation over energy development regardless of political affiliation. Public opinion has been consistent on this for years.
Over 70% of Republicans and more than 90% of Democrats consider conservation and public-land issues to be important factors when determining their vote, according to the same poll of Western voters. Even in conservative-leaning states like Wyoming and Utah, strong majorities oppose the idea of selling public lands or reducing their protections. Another recent poll, this one from YouGov for the Trust for Public Land, found that 71% of Americans oppose the sale of public lands, including 61% of the Trump voters polled.
The knowledge that so many of their constituents favor keeping public lands public has put Western Republicans repeatedly at odds with the national party. In March, Montana’s Republican Sens. Steve Daines and Tim Sheehy voted with the Democratic minority in the unsuccessful attempt to block sales of federal land. Around the same time, Idaho Rep. Mike Simpson, a Republican, introduced the Public Lands in Public Hands Act, a bill that would prevent the Department of the Interior from selling or transferring most public lands.
In May, Zinke and New Mexico Democrat Rep. Gabe Vasquez launched a new congressional caucus. The caucus is built around opposition to public-land sales and includes representatives from both sides of the aisle. Zinke has called the fight against public land transfers his “San Juan Hill,” referring to a battle won by Teddy Roosevelt, a Republican champion of conservation.
This isn’t Zinke’s first defection from the national party on the issue. In 2016, the former Interior secretary withdrew as a delegate to the Republican National Convention, citing his objection to the party’s platform, which proposed transferring federal public lands to state control.
Across the West, Democrats and conservation advocates have used the threat of public land transfers to galvanize support. Protests against potential sales have erupted in various state Capitols, including Idaho and Colorado, as well as at Arches National Park. Meanwhile, major outdoor brands are trying to rally recreationists around the issue. This spring, more than 60 businesses launched an initiative called Brands for Public Lands, headlined by Patagonia and Black Diamond. The group is helping people contact their congressional representatives and urge them to oppose public land sales.
“It’s all of our backyards,” said Land Tawney, executive director of American Hunters and Anglers, a nonpartisan network of public-lands advocates, “and I have confidence that the people will stand united.”
Editor’s Note: This story has been updated to reflect Susan Brown’s last name change.
We welcome reader letters. Email High Country News at editor@hcn.org or submit a letter to the editor. See our letters to the editor policy.
This article appeared in the June 2025 print edition of the magazine with the headline “Public-land advocates rally.”
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
