Republican House leaders have pulled a controversial provision from the federal budget bill that would have required the sale or transfer of some 500,000 acres of federal public land in the West.
Late this afternoon, leadership of the House Rules Committee removed the provision through a mechanism called a “manager’s amendment” after being pressured by maverick House Republicans.
“This was my San Juan Hill,” said Montana Republican Ryan Zinke in a press release. “I do not support the widespread sale or transfer of public lands. Once the land is sold, we will never get it back. God isn’t creating more land. Public access, sportsmanship, grazing, tourism… our entire Montanan way of life is connected to our public lands.”
The land-sale amendment to the House Natural Resources budget has inflamed conservationists and threatened to be a motivating election issue for hunters, anglers, and outdoor recreationists. The provision was stripped after at least six Western Republicans, led by Zinke, said they wouldn’t support the budget if it contained the land-sale amendment.
The amendment from Nevada Republican Mark Amodei and Utah Republican Celeste Maloy, slipped into the budget at the last minute earlier this month, at first seemed to call for selling about 11,000 acres in southern Utah. Then details emerged that it also included a requirement to sell or trade another 500,000 acres in Nevada.
Conservationists and public land advocates worried that if Congress established a precedent for selling federal lands with no public process or clear understanding of the acreages involved, the pattern could continue with wholesale sales of public lands elsewhere.
“I think every hunter in America was calling their [Congress] member with a note that said 10 days ago this was 11,000 acres for housing. Then it was 350,000 acres. Then 500,000 acres,” says David Willms, vice president for public lands for the National Wildlife Federation. “They were saying maybe we shouldn’t be including something in [budget] reconciliation at the eleventh hour if no one actually knows how much land is at stake, and that blindsided the public. They were telling their congressmen, ‘Pull it.’”
The land-sale provision threatened to derail The One Big, Beautiful Bill Act, the mega-bill that contains President Trump’s spending priorities and a permanent tax cut. The bill is projected to increase the national deficit by up to $4 trillion while reorienting many federal agencies missions and capabilities.
While the toxic land-sale amendment is out of the budget bill, which will go to the full House for a floor vote later this week, it could be inserted back into the bill when it goes to the Senate. Utah Republican Mike Lee, the chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee and a staunch champion of selling or transferring federal land to the states, is among several senators who could revive the amendment.
Congressional leaders have said they want to pass the budget by Memorial Day. Any substantive revision on the Senate side would require concurrence from the House, and that might push passage past the holiday.
“We extend our deep appreciation to Representative Ryan Zinke and Representative Mike Simpson for publicly opposing language in the House budget reconciliation bill that would sell off and sell out our public lands legacy,” said Kaden McArthur, Backcountry Hunters & Anglers director of policy and government relations, in a prepared statement. “As the Senate considers a budget reconciliation bill, hunters and anglers across the nation must continue the groundswell of opposition to public land sales so it is understood that this issue is a line in the sand that we will not allow to be crossed.”
Editor’s Note: A previous Outdoor Life story referenced a report from onX stating that approximately 1.5 million acres would be sold if the budget amendment were passed. However that report was inaccurate. The true number of acres that were up for disposal was approximately 500,000.
Trending Products
