Conservative blasts Senator Mike Lee for 'secretly trying to sell' US land: 'It's a loser issue to the American people'

Yahoo

7 hours ago

A top conservative environmentalist is calling out a Republican U.S. senator as a "liar" and igniting a fiery public debate about whether America's public lands should be for sale.
Benji Backer, founder of the nonprofit environmental organization Nature Is Nonpartisan, has publicly condemned Republican Senator Mike Lee of Utah for his attempt to reintroduce a controversial proposal into the Senate reconciliation bill that would sell public lands for development.
In a post earlier this week, Backer accused Lee of "a secret mass sell-off (of some of America's most sensitive areas)."
When Lee responded, arguing that Backer was wrong about the land eligible for development, Backer called Lee a "liar" and pleaded with other Republican senators not to "let this man ruin our legacy on conservation."
X's Community Notes moderation tool also called out Senator Lee's response to Backer as "incorrect," fact-checking him with a confirmation of Backer's allegations that Lee's proposal would sell off some of America's most precious lands.
In an exclusive interview with The Cool Down, Backer said that while Senator Lee's office has reached out to him about the public spat, he's still not planning to back down.
"I'm representing the vast majority of conservatives, and I'm willing to go to the mat on this — I stand by what I said," Backer told The Cool Down.
"The American people do not support the mass sell off of public land. It's critical for the future of America that we stop this," he added. "Public lands are part of our legacy."
During negotiations in the House of Representatives around the so-called "One Big Beautiful Bill," Utah Representative Celeste Maloy introduced a proposal that would allow 10,000 acres of public lands in Utah and about 500,000 acres in Nevada to be sold off for the development of affordable housing.
That proposal received significant criticism from conservatives and environmental advocates, and it was struck from the bill before it moved to the Senate.
But when the Bill moved to the Senate, Utah Senator Mike Lee, the chair of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, reintroduced the proposal at an even larger scale, expanding the sale of up to 3 million acres of public lands to provide additional housing across 11 states.
"He put it in there hoping that no one was going to notice it, adding even more acres for sales than the House bill," Backer said in the interview.
While Senator Lee's proposal doesn't allow the sale of national parks, it would allow the sale of public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service across 11 states: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Backer linked to an interactive map on X and displayed screenshots in an Instagram carousel.
Sen. Lee argues that, in addition to creating revenue, the proposal would give states like Utah, where two-thirds of the land is managed by the federal government, more control over their land.
"We're opening underused federal land to expand housing, support local development and get Washington, D.C., out of the way of communities that are just trying to grow," Lee said in a video. "Washington has proven, time and again, it can't manage this land. This bill puts it in better hands."
The bill would require the Interior and Agriculture secretaries to publish a list of lands for sale and consult with local officials and tribes. Proceeds would go to the U.S. Treasury, with 5% of each sale given to the local government to support local housing development and 5% towards maintenance on other BLM and Forest Service land. The proposal also includes plans to expand gas, coal, geothermal, and timber leasing on public lands.
The problem, Backer says, is that there are no specifics provided about exactly which lands would be eligible for sale or who would be allowed to buy the lands.
"As a conservative, it's also really worrisome that it doesn't say who can and can't buy [this land]," he told The Cool Down. "You're telling me that China can't come in and develop it — you're telling us that they're not going to take this opportunity to buy these lands?"
As Republicans such as Rep. Mike Collins of Georgia has expressed concern about, companies from China, some state-run, have been buying American agriculture land and businesses over the last decade. NPR reported the figure to be near 400,000 acres of land in 2023.
Backer argued that the areas under threat are some of the most pristine wilderness in our country. National polling of 4,000 Americans surveyed this spring from YouGov showed that 71% of those surveyed oppose selling lands.
"This is a non-starter, it's a loser issue to the American people," he said.
The proposal is also receiving serious backlash from hunters, fishers, anglers, and leaders in the outdoor recreation industry, who sent a letter to Sen. John Thune and Sen. Chuck Schumer encouraging them to omit federal public land sales from the budget reconciliation bill.
"While we appreciate the desire to address federal land management challenges and respond to local community needs, we ask that any public land disposal be considered within transparent, public channels and that funding from sales be reinvested back into habitat and access," the letter said.
In fact, the existing bipartisan Federal Land Transaction Act already requires that proceeds from public land sales be reinvested in conservation or ecological restoration.
The letter to Thune and Schumer also outlined several concerns about the public lands sell-off proposal:
It wouldn't allow for public engagement among hunters, anglers, recreationalists, and other stakeholders
The proceeds from land sales would go toward economic development instead of land conservation and would "likely lower the ecological and recreational value of our public lands."
Sales could have a negative effect on rural economies and cultural heritage, noting that the outdoor recreation industry has demonstrated a $1.2 trillion economic output nationally.
Underneath the public land dispute is a real challenge around the availability of affordable housing for Americans and the protection of our natural resources.
But Backer argues that there is another way to tackle these issues without sacrificing the country's natural beauty.
"Affordable housing is a real challenge, and the lack of space for cities to grow is something that is challenging," he said. "At the same time, we aren't managing our national lands very well. But the answer to those challenges is not to sell off millions of acres of land secretly with places for sale being the most pristine."
Do you think America is in a housing crisis?
Definitely
Not sure
No way
Only in some cities
Click your choice to see results and speak your mind.
Backer argues that any considerations around public land sales should be supported by local buy-in and data — and any land sales should focus on non-ecologically sensitive areas.
Backer also warns that the proposal is "a very slippery slope." Selling off even a limited number of acres now could set a troubling precedent for the future.
That, Backer says, risks triggering a cascading effect of land sale and development, which could "impact conservation for the rest of our lives."
"We don't get these lands back," he said, "This is our legacy."
Backer, whose organization is working with the current administration and other national leaders to advance nonpartisan environmental policy, is hoping that speaking out will inspire people to reach out to their Senators to voice their opposition to the proposal and demand stronger protections for public lands.
"There is nothing 'conservative' or 'American' about selling a massive chunk of our nation's most beautiful landscape to developers," Backer wrote on X. "This should always transcend partisan politics…always."
While he told The Cool Down that he's willing to have a conversation with any Senator who wants to discuss solutions, he added that he's "not willing to back down until lawmakers are willing to 'try a different approach' to tackling challenges like access to affordable housing alongside the protection of our national lands."
"Americans don't want their public lands to be developed for economic gain," he said. "That's not what Teddy Roosevelt intended. That's not what Ronald Reagan intended. That's not what Richard Nixon intended. That's not what President Trump intended in his first term," he said.
"Public lands have always been for the public's benefit. They are one of our best ideas."
Join our free newsletter for good news and useful tips, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet.