In the face of mounting bipartisan criticism, Utah Sen. Mike Lee has backed off from a plan to sell Forest Service land at the same time a congressional official concluded his proposal didn’t meet rules to fast-track the federal budget.
Lee, a Republican, had sought to include a “mandatory disposal” provision in the Senate’s reconciliation budget, a measure that would have put 2-3 million acres of public land up for sale in Wyoming and 10 other Western states. The provision, Lee maintained, would help reduce the deficit and supply housing in the West. The reconciliation package can be passed by a simple majority.
But in a post on X Monday evening Lee said he would no longer target U.S. Forest Service lands in the plan forwarded by his Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.
His about-face came as a Senate rule-maker — Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough — opined that the 11-page mandatory disposal section didn’t comply with a rule requiring reconciliation measures — the Republican’s One Big, Beautiful Bill in this case — to focus on budget matters.
“We are NOT selling off our forests.”
Mike Lee
That means the provision would be subject to protest and a ruling by the presiding senator when the matter is considered by the upper chamber. Measures that are found to violate the rule must be passed by 60 votes, not a simple majority.
In a narrowly divided Senate, that prospect would likely doom the land-sale effort.
“Here’s what I plan to do,” Lee posted. “REMOVE ALL Forest Service land. We are NOT selling off our forests.”
Further, Lee would require lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management to be considered for sale only if they were within five miles of population centers. He would also ensure the lands benefit American families, he said. Critics have worried foreign investors might swoop in on the sales.
Democrats said Monday evening that Republicans continue to violate the rule.
“Today, the Senate Parliamentarian again advised that several provisions in the Republicans’ ‘One Big, Beautiful Bill,’ would be subject to a 60-vote threshold if they remain in the bill,” Oregon Sen. Jeff Merkley, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Budget Committee, posted on the committee’s website.
One of the seven provisions ruled out-of-bounds required mandatory public land sales. “This section mandates the unprecedented sale of millions of acres of public land, including from both Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service lands,” Democrats said.
Lee’s provision sparked an outburst of opposition as Wyoming residents of all stripes rose up to criticize it. U.S. Sens. John Barrasso and Cynthia Lummis and U.S. Rep. Harriet Hageman, all Republicans, told upset constituents that the Wyoming delegation continued to support President Donald Trump’s agenda.
Criticism of the measure, Hageman wrote, amounts to “an effort to control these lands to ensure our amenities are used solely by the independently wealthy, who have little concern as to whether there is affordable housing available for the people who seek to make their lives in places like Kemmerer or Green River or Pinedale.”
But Democrats have countered that it is the Republican public lands plan that would benefit the wealthy at the expense of average Americans.
“Democrats will not stand idly by while Republicans attempt to circumvent the rules of reconciliation in order to sell off public lands to fund tax breaks for billionaires,” Merkley said in a statement.
“Democrats continue to show up and fight every provision of this Big, Beautiful Betrayal of a bill, because this bill is an attack on workers and families everywhere,” he stated. “We will make sure the Byrd Rule is followed and review any changes Republicans attempt to make.”
Has anyone seen how much per acre the federal government will be charging to buy the BLM land? The forest service land seems to be tabled for now. The cost of the land would seem to an influencer if it feasible for a builder to construct affordable housing and make a profit for their business investment
Hageman’s comments are misleading at best. She claims sales will help provide affordable housing. But 90% of the proceeds will go to the US Treasury to balance the budget; 5% will go to the agency overseeing the land and 5% to the local community to support their needs. Balancing the budget is misleading in itself. It means extending tax breaks for the already wealthy. Wyoming deserves so much better than Hageman and our two spineless senators.
All as I can say is that we are being poorly represented by our current Congressional Delegation. The thought that we can reduce the National Debt by selling public land is particularly scurrilous. Harriet Hageman voted for the Big Beautiful Bill and it won’t be too long before Barrasso and Lummis follow suit. That bill increases the National Debt by about $3 trillion Dollars.
Anyone that can, please SHOW UP for the anti-land grab rally in Cheyenne, Thursday June 26th, 6pm, Capitol Building. That’s tomorrow, folks!
The American public has spoken loud and clear – we will not allow the sale of ANY of our public lands for any reason or for any amount of money. Period. Yet Wyoming’s Three Congressional Stooges, Barrasso, Lummis and Hageman continue to follow a blind and tone-deaf ideology against an avalanche of opposition from their own constituents and a remarkable cross-section of individuals, businesses, and hunting, fishing, and conservation organizations that have made it clear that the sale of public lands is out of the question. It’s clear who Wyoming’s Three Stooges represent and it’s not their constituency in Wyoming. Barrasso, Lummis and Hageman continue to support Mike Lee’s insidious fight to sell these irreplaceable resources owned and cherished by all Americans, and we all have a responsibility to keep the pressure on until this battle is won. And after we’ve won this fight, let’s vote Barrasso, Lummis and Hageman out of office.
Granted, there are places where communities need land to expand, particularly for infrastructure. However, there is already a process in place for achieving that without direct sales that has been used for years. Federal land can be exchanged for land of equal value. In many, perhaps most cases, this would be an exchange of state land. Lee thinks he is making a great concession, but the door is still open on down the road once the president of selling our public lands is opened. I say drop the whole land sales deal all together and go back to the old way of doing it that includes public input.
Maybe it’s just me but Rep. Hageman’s statement quoted in this article doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. Sell off millions of acres of public land so that the communities of Kemmerer, Green River, Pinedale can have a few hundred acres to expand? All we have to do is stop listening to all those billionaires that have exclusive use all the public land in Wyoming. I didn’t know that all the people I see on public lands are billionaires. Confusing.
It’s too bad the same level of upset cannot be generated regarding the defunding of NPR and PBS.
You’re right MR. Sanders, I watch -and donate -to PBS, the most trusted news on TV.
Very frustrating and scary– CO had 14 million acres they proposed to sell and the Coloradan reported yesterday that CO senate has blocked it. Sayng this is for affordable housing is a big stupid LIE because they think we are so gullible and and ignorant to believe this. Building houses on these beautiful REMOTE areas with NO sewer, water, electricity, fire fighter support, and roads is a joke and will not be affordable. Lets’ call it what it is — a transfer of OUR land and money to billionaires so they can build mansions and LOCK the land from public access.
Stay in the fight folks, don’t think we have won yet. This could be an effort to relieve the public pressure. We need to ramp up the pressure even more until this amendment of Senator Lee’s is struck in its entirety from the Big Beautiful Bill.
We already have a process in place for BLM and the USFS to dispose of of undesirable lands and that is the Federal Land Planning Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976.
Let’s force them to use what we already have. He doesn’t like this because it is most likely slow and more restrictive. Please keep the pressure on, keep writing, calling and messaging, just keep respectful but firm. We have power in numbers if we just use it!
Wyoming representatives are beholden to the orange jesus, not the people of wyoming. This is a true test who they are faithful to. Everyone in the Cowboy State is against the sell off of our public lands, but Barrasso, Lummis and Hageman continue to support this nonsense. Who they truly represent is obvious.
Hageman’s statement is absurd, the exact opposite is true. The first thing we need to do is vote Lummis out of office. Then the other two trump bootlickers. Keep up the good fight. Join Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, TRCP, WOC, Wilderness Society, etc. I can’t believe anyone would vote for Mike Lee. What a goofball.
Don’t kid yourself, Lee and the infamous Wyoming sellout 3 had something to gain by stealing public land. These people don’t do anything for free. Was it to earn a smokey back room commission or a finders fee to assist a shady eastern european billionaire to obtain thousands of acres of U.S. lands for pennies on the dollar? A russian oligarch to diversify his portfolio or perhaps someone like elon musk here in America? Throughout this whole endeavor, the weasel Barrasso, head in sand Lummis and that sneaky smirky Hageman tried to steal your land and made it pretty loud and clear that they are not for Wyoming.
Don’t cut back Public Land Sales, (ELIMINATE Public Land sales.)
You can trust Lee only as far as you can throw him. Same with our shameful 3 DC reps, what forces of nature brought these sellouts together?
fealty to chrump is the only reasonable explanation.
Wow. Support from an unexpected source. Let’s raise a glass to the Senate Parliamentarian.
Still, the war isn’t over. Keep the pressure up.
Keep the pressure up, and recruit a set of candidates for the next election. Preferably young folk, who have grown up with the internet, and have a better understanding of ecology, and the era of scarcity we are entering. Public access to the land is not a renewable resource.