(C) Daily Kos
This story was originally published by Daily Kos and is unaltered.
. . . . . . . . . .
Public Lands for Sale: The Hidden Trillion-Dollar Heist in the "One Big Beautiful Bill" [1]
['This Content Is Not Subject To Review Daily Kos Staff Prior To Publication.']
Date: 2025-06-24
A proposal buried in the Senate's version of the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" represents the largest potential transfer of public wealth to private interests in American history. While the bill mandates the sale of just 2.2 to 3.3 million acres of public lands over the next five years, the true scope of this heist is staggering: over 250 million acres of America's public lands—more than one-third of all federal lands—now meet the criteria for sale under the legislation's broad definitions. This isn't just an environmental catastrophe; it's an economic disaster that would sacrifice our $1.2 trillion outdoor recreation economy and hand over trillions of dollars in public assets to wealthy corporations for pennies on the dollar.
The Staggering Scale: A Quarter-Billion Acres on the Auction Block
The initial description of this proposal as affecting "only" 2-3 million acres fundamentally misrepresents the threat. Recent analysis by The Wilderness Society reveals that the bill's criteria would make 258 million acres eligible for sale across 11 western states. To put this in perspective, that's an area larger than Texas, California, and Montana combined—roughly 40% of all land west of the Mississippi River.
The expansion happened through a seemingly minor language change made over the weekend of June 14, 2025. The original bill exempted lands with "valid existing rights," including grazing permits. The revised version determined that grazing permits "do not rise to the same standard" as mining claims, instantly doubling the eligible acreage. In Utah alone, eligible land exploded from 1.9 million acres to 18.7 million acres, while Alaska now has over 82 million acres at risk.
This means the 3.3 million acres that must be sold represents just 1.3% of the lands now eligible for disposal. As Michael Carroll of The Wilderness Society explained, "They capped it at 3 million acres, but 258 million acres is on the menu". Once the infrastructure for large-scale public land sales is established, there's nothing preventing future expansions of the mandate.
The Economic Returns We're Throwing Away
The economic case for keeping these lands public is overwhelming. Every dollar taxpayers invest in the Bureau of Land Management generates approximately $39 in economic output. In fiscal year 2022, BLM-managed lands contributed $201 billion to the national economy while receiving just $5.2 billion in appropriations. This represents one of the most profitable investments in the federal budget.
Visitors gather at a popular staging area in Zion National Park amidst towering sandstone mountains
The numbers become even more compelling when examined sector by sector. National Parks alone generate more than $10 in economic activity for every dollar of taxpayer investment. The outdoor recreation economy, which depends heavily on public lands access, now contributes $1.2 trillion annually to GDP—more than farming, mining, and utilities combined. This economic powerhouse supports 5 million American jobs and has grown 36% in real terms since 2012.
Western counties with substantial public lands dramatically outperform their counterparts without such access. Non-metropolitan western counties where more than 30% of land is federally protected saw job growth of 345% over the past 40 years, compared to only 83% growth in counties with no federal public lands. Public lands don't just preserve nature—they're economic engines that create sustainable prosperity for rural communities.
The Mineral Extraction Gold Rush: Trillions in Resources for Pennies
The real motivation behind this land grab becomes clear when examining the mineral wealth beneath these public lands. Under the antiquated 1872 Mining Law, mining companies currently extract approximately $1 billion worth of minerals annually from public lands without paying taxpayers a single cent in royalties. Unlike oil, gas, and coal companies, which pay federal royalties, hard rock mining operates under rules written when the West was being settled.
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that mining companies receive about $1 billion worth of minerals from federal lands each year while paying nothing for the privilege. Major international corporations like Rio Tinto, which reported $7.9 billion in profit in 2006, and Barrick Gold Corporation, with $1.5 billion in net earnings, collectively hold claims on 785,490 acres of public land. The federal government receives more than $12 billion annually in revenues from mineral extraction on federal lands and waters, but hard rock mining contributes zero to this total due to the 1872 law's antiquated provisions.
The current value of mineral resources in the United States is estimated at $6.2 trillion, with significant portions located on the public lands now eligible for sale. Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum has explicitly framed public lands as part of America's "balance sheet," stating that "we might have $100 trillion in assets" in public lands, including "critical minerals, energy resources". This isn't about housing or fiscal responsibility—it's about transferring trillions of dollars in mineral wealth from public to private hands.
Selling Trillion-Dollar Assets for Yard-Sale Prices
The pricing mechanisms for public land sales reveal the true extent of this wealth transfer. Under current BLM procedures, public lands are routinely auctioned for as little as $1.50 to $2 per acre. Even when competitive bidding occurs, the results are stunning: more than 30% of the 17.7 million acres currently under lease to oil and gas companies sold for less than $2 per acre.
Compare this to actual land values. California's 2022 median land price was approximately $18,000 per acre statewide, with rural areas averaging $1,000 per acre and desirable locations commanding over $1 million per acre. Yet under the proposed legislation, 16.7 million acres in California would be eligible for sale at government auction starting prices of $2 per acre.
The bill contains no meaningful requirements that sold land actually be used for affordable housing or any other public purpose. The language simply requires sales to "any interested party" with minimal restrictions. Wilderness Study Areas, Areas of Critical Environmental Concern, roadless areas, and even critical habitat are all considered eligible for sale.
The Timeline: A Rushed Giveaway with Permanent Consequences
The urgency of this legislation reveals its true priorities. Senate Republicans have set a July 4, 2025 deadline for passing the bill. If enacted, federal agencies would have just 30 days to begin soliciting nominations for land sales, with mandatory sales lists published every 60 days until the quota is met. As one expert noted, "If it passed on July 4, that means that by the time school starts, you're gonna have public lands being sold off across the country".
This rushed timeline prevents thorough environmental review, public input, or economic analysis. The bill moves through budget reconciliation, which requires only a simple majority and limits opportunities for public debate. Once these lands are sold, they are "gone for good"—there's no mechanism for the public to reclaim them regardless of future economic or environmental needs.
A Betrayal of Bipartisan American Values
Even within Republican ranks, opposition is mounting as lawmakers recognize the economic and political disaster this represents. Representative Ryan Zinke, Trump's former Interior Secretary, successfully fought to exclude Montana from eligible states, declaring: "It's a no now. It will be a no later. It will be a no forever" regarding federal public land sales. His opposition was credited with ensuring Montana's complete exclusion from the proposal.
Senator Steve Daines of Montana and Representative Mike Simpson of Idaho have also joined the opposition, recognizing that public land sales harm constituents across party lines who depend on these lands for recreation, economic opportunity, and quality of life. This represents a rare area where MAGA supporters, traditional conservatives, Democrats, and environmental groups are united in opposition.
The Housing Justification: A Transparent Lie
Senator Mike Lee, R-UT
Senator Mike Lee of Utah, the primary architect of this proposal, claims this sale is about addressing America's housing crisis. This crumbles under the slightest scrutiny. Analysis by Headwaters Economics found that "there are no BLM-owned parcels in Oregon, Washington or Idaho large enough to justify housing development". Most eligible lands lack the essential infrastructure required for residential development—road access, water, electricity, and gas—making them "impractical for residential homes".
The housing crisis is concentrated in urban areas like Portland and the Willamette Valley, not in the remote federal lands being offered for sale. Experience internationally confirms this skepticism: in the UK, only one in five homes built on formerly public land were classified as "affordable," with many developments consisting exclusively of luxury properties.
The Corporate Network Behind the Land Grab
This isn't a grassroots movement—it's an "orchestrated, multi-layered strategy" funded by extractive industries. The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), which creates model legislation for land transfers, is funded by corporations like Koch Industries and coal giant Peabody Energy. The American Lands Council has raised hundreds of thousands of dollars to advocate for federal land transfers as part of a broader network that "includes K-Street lobbyists and is becoming an accepted political plank".
Senator Mike Lee's campaign finance records show substantial support from extractive industries, with real estate contributing $620,496 and securities & investment providing $684,098 to his campaigns. The broader movement represents the culmination of the "Sagebrush Rebellion," a corporate political movement from the 1980s that was "funded by the big pollution and extraction industries of the west, led by brewer Joseph Coors".
The Utilitarian Economic Disaster
From a strictly utilitarian perspective—examining the greatest good for the greatest number—this proposal represents an economic catastrophe. Public lands provide economic benefits through recreation and tourism, ecosystem services through carbon sequestration and clean water, and quality-of-life benefits for all Americans regardless of income level. The proposed sales would exchange these perpetual benefits for a one-time payment representing pennies on the dollar.
Western rural counties that include or neighbor public lands have substantial competitive advantages in terms of income growth, employment, and migration compared to western rural counties further from public lands. Public lands attract entrepreneurs, retirees, and businesses seeking locations with high quality of life and recreational opportunities. Counties with public lands see faster employment and income growth amid other economic benefits.
The mineral extraction angle makes the economic case even more stark. Current mining operations supported 1.5 million American jobs directly in 2018, with industries using processed mineral materials adding $3.0 trillion to the U.S. economy—about 15% of GDP. However, under the 1872 Mining Law, mining companies pay no royalties on the billions of dollars in minerals they extract from public lands. Selling these lands to private interests would eliminate any future opportunity to reform this system and ensure fair compensation for public resources.
The Climate and Environmental Costs
Beyond the immediate economic losses, selling public lands would eliminate crucial climate benefits. Public lands sequester millions of tons of carbon dioxide annually, providing services valued at hundreds of millions to billions of dollars. National Park lands alone sequester 17.5 million metric tons of CO2 annually, valued at $707 million using standard carbon pricing. All federal lands in the contiguous U.S. store over 11,613 teragrams of carbon, with forests on federal lands storing approximately 75% of this total.
Grazing lands represent 15% of the potential for U.S. soils to sequester carbon. Once privatized, these lands would lose their carbon storage capacity as new owners maximize short-term profits through development or intensive resource extraction. The climate costs of this carbon release would be borne by all Americans while the profits flow to private interests.
A Better Path Forward
If addressing housing affordability were truly the goal, there are far more effective approaches that don't require sacrificing irreplaceable public assets. Targeted land transfers with strict affordability requirements, long-term leases to local governments for workforce housing, and reform of local zoning laws would do far more to address the housing crisis.
Communities across America have demonstrated successful models for developing affordable housing without sacrificing public lands. California's requirement that excess state lands be prioritized for affordable housing includes stringent oversight to ensure the land actually serves its intended purpose. Florida has developed comprehensive guidelines for deploying public lands for affordable housing while maintaining public benefit.
The Real Solution: Fair Pricing for Public Resources
Instead of selling public lands, Congress should focus on ensuring taxpayers receive fair compensation for the resources extracted from these lands. A modest 4% royalty on existing mining operations and 8% on new operations would generate hundreds of millions in annual revenue while keeping lands in public hands. This approach would maintain the economic, environmental, and recreational benefits of public ownership while ensuring fair compensation for resource extraction.
Australia's Rio Tinto Ltd, which holds claims on just under 200,000 U.S. acres of public land, reported a 2006 profit of $7.9 billion. These companies can clearly afford to pay fair market rates for the privilege of extracting public resources. The current system of essentially free access to billions of dollars in mineral wealth represents one of the largest corporate subsidies in the federal budget.
The Utilitarian Imperative
The math is unambiguous: keeping public lands in public hands delivers far greater benefits to far more Americans than selling them to private interests. The $1.2 trillion outdoor recreation economy, five million jobs, and billions in ecosystem services represent value that extends far beyond any one-time sale price. These lands belong to all Americans and provide benefits to all Americans—rich and poor, urban and rural, current and future generations.
As we approach the July 4th deadline, Americans across the political spectrum must recognize that this isn't about partisan politics—it's about protecting an irreplaceable asset that provides far greater economic value when kept in public hands than when sold to the highest bidder. The "One Big Beautiful Bill" would create one of the ugliest wealth transfers in American history, sacrificing our shared heritage for the profit of a wealthy few.
Our public lands are indeed part of America's balance sheet—but they're assets that appreciate in value over time and provide dividends to every American family. Selling them now for a fraction of their worth would be economic malpractice on an unprecedented scale. The greatest good for the greatest number demands that we keep our public lands public.
[END]
---
[1] Url:
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2025/6/24/2329275/-Public-Lands-for-Sale-The-Hidden-Trillion-Dollar-Heist-in-the-One-Big-Beautiful-Bill?pm_campaign=front_page&pm_source=more_community&pm_medium=web
Published and (C) by Daily Kos
Content appears here under this condition or license: Site content may be used for any purpose without permission unless otherwise specified.
via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds:
gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/dailykos/
