House Republicans Kill Provision to Sell Public Lands
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.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
32 minutes ago
- Yahoo
DHS wants National Guard to search for and transport unaccompanied migrant children
A Department of Homeland Security request for 21,000 National Guard troops to support "expansive interior immigration enforcement operations" includes a call for troops to search for unaccompanied children in some cases and transport them between states, three sources briefed on the plan tell NBC News. Having National Guard troops perform such tasks, which are not explained in detail in the DHS request, has prompted concern among Democrats in Congress and some military and law enforcement officials. The tasks are laid out in a May 9th Request for Assistance from the Department of Homeland Security to the Pentagon. The document states that, 'this represents the first formal request by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for the deployment of National Guard personnel in support of interior immigration enforcement operations.' The request calls for National Guard troops to be used for 'Search and Rescue for UACs [Unaccompanied Alien Children] in remote or hostile terrain,' and 'Intra- and inter-state transport of detainees/ unaccompanied alien children (UACs)," without clearly explaining what that would entail. Most of the troops, about 10,000, would be used for transporting detained individuals, the DHS said. Roughly 2,500 troops would be used for detention support but the document does not specify where. Another 1,000 troops would be assigned to administrative support, such as processing detainees. The request also asks for up to 3,500 troops to 'Attempt to Locate — Fugitives' and to conduct 'surveillance and canvassing missions,' as well as 'night operations and rural interdictions.' It also asks for support for ICE in 'joint task force operations for absconder/fugitive tracking,' according to the three sources familiar with the plans. NPR first reported the details of the DHS request. Democrats in Congress and military and law enforcement officials have expressed concern about the use of National Guard troops to perform what they say are civilian law enforcement duties. One characterized the plan as the Trump administration 'finding a way to get the National Guard into the streets and into American homes,' saying, 'I fear it's going to look like a police state.' A second source said, 'Trump has said he wants to use the National Guard for law enforcement, and the Pentagon and other entities have always said, 'Oh, don't worry, it will never come to that.' But this is it.' Defense officials say the request has not been approved and is being evaluated by Pentagon policy officials, the General Counsel's office, and other Pentagon leadership. The officials say the most likely course of action would be for some parts of the request to be approved and others rejected. But one source briefed on the plans said that Secretary of Defense Peter Hegseth is close to approving some elements of the request and considering which state governors to approach first regarding National Guard units. 'We are so much closer to this being real,' said the source, who spoke on condition of anonymity. DHS is requesting the National Guard troops under Title 32 status, which means they would remain on state active duty under the command of their governor but would be federally funded. Title 32 status generally allows National Guard troops to conduct law enforcement activities without violating the Posse Comitatus Act, an 1878 law that bars the use of federal troops in law enforcement operations. A National Guard member who opposes troops performing such tasks told NBC News, 'I plan to leave the National Guard soon over this.' The Pentagon is also being asked by DHS to pay the full cost of deploying the 21,000 National Guard troops. That comes amid growing tension between the Pentagon and DHS over the cost of border and other immigrant-related operations. The DHS request for National Guard troops arrives when the Pentagon is already footing a $23-million-a-month bill to hold as many as 2,500 undocumented immigrants in a military facility in Texas. Defense officials say they are frustrated that the camp is holding far fewer individuals than they were told to expect and they would like a reprieve. The Defense Department is in a contract with the DHS to help support DHS and Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, officers who are under pressure from Deputy White House Chief of Staff Stephen Miller to arrest 3,000 undocumented immigrants a day. But it has been slow going for ICE agents, resulting in fewer arrests of undocumented immigrants across the country. That has resulted in many empty beds at facilities like the one in El Paso, owned and operated by the Defense Department. Military officials say the facility has been holding an average of 150 undocumented immigrants each day over the last several weeks — a fraction of its 2,500 beds. On one recent day, they said, the facility housed fewer than 80 people. Pentagon officials are asking to cut the number of beds in the facility from 2,500 to about 1,000, which they say would save $12 million per month. It is not clear if the DHS request for National Guard troops will increase the need for beds in the El Paso facility. The DHS request also comes as the Pentagon is struggling to fund critical projects to support U.S. troops. 'Congress is aware that the department is redirecting funds from existing military construction projects like barracks improvements for lower enlisted personnel and longstanding infrastructure projects elsewhere in the world in favor of southwest border missions,' a Senate aide who spoke on condition of anonymity told NBC News. 'They are pretty frustrated with the way that the department is ordering them to support DHS out of their own pockets for a grossly disproportionate cost compared to what ICE facilities would cost the government,' added the aide, referring to military officials. Last month, the Pentagon notified Congress that it planned to transfer more than $1.74 million in the current DOD budget to the southwest border mission, as step that will take money away from renovating barracks and base facilities. Service member advocacy groups have criticized the move. Rob Evans, the founder of Hots&Cots, where services members can post reviews of barracks, dining areas and other facilities, says he sees evidence daily of barracks with sewage leaks, mold, failing HVAC systems, and more. 'When funding is pulled from this line, troops pay the price in real ways: delayed repairs, worsening conditions, and a growing sense that their well-being comes second to optics and operations,' Evans said. 'Service members deserve clean, safe, and dignified living conditions. They've earned at least that much.' This article was originally published on
43 minutes ago
Drought, rising prices and dwindling herds undercut this year's Eid al-Adha in North Africa
CASABLANCA, Morocco -- Flocks of sheep once quilted Morocco's mountain pastures, stretched across Algeria's vast plateaus and grazed along Tunisia's green coastline. But the cascading effects of climate change have sparked a region-wide shortage that is being felt acutely as Muslims throughout North Africa celebrate Eid al-Adha. Each year, Muslims slaughter sheep to honor a passage of the Quran in which the prophet Ibrahim prepared to sacrifice his son as an act of obedience to God, who intervened and replaced the child with a sheep. But this year, rising prices and falling supply are creating new challenges, breeders and potential buyers throughout the region say. At a market in suburban Algiers last week, breeders explained to angry patrons that their prices had increased because the cost of everything needed to raise sheep, including animal feed, transport and veterinary care, had grown. Slimane Aouadi stood watching livestock pens, discussing with his wife whether to buy a sheep to celebrate this year's Eid. 'It's the same sheep as the one I bought last year, the same look and the same weight, but it costs $75 more," Aouadi, a doctor, told The Associated Press. Amid soaring inflation, sheep can sell for more than $1,200, an exorbitant amount in a country where average monthly incomes hover below $270. Any disruption to the ritual sacrifice can be sensitive, a blow to religious tradition and source of anger toward rising prices and the hardship they bring. So Morocco and Algeria have resorted to unprecedented measures. Algerian officials earlier this year announced plans to import a staggering 1 million sheep to make up for domestic shortages. Morocco's King Mohammed VI broke with tradition and urged Muslims to abstain from the Eid sacrifice. Local officials across the kingdom have closed livestock markets, preventing customers from buying sheep for this year's celebrations. 'Our country is facing climatic and economic challenges that have resulted in a substantial decline in livestock numbers. Performing the sacrifice in these difficult circumstances will cause real harm to large segments of our people, especially those with limited incomes,' the king, who is also Morocco's highest religious authority, wrote in a February letter read on national television. Trucks have unloaded thousands of sheep in new markets in Algiers and the surrounding suburbs. University of Toulouse agro-economist Lotfi Gharnaout told the state-run newspaper El Moudjahid that Algeria's import strategy could cost between $230 and $260 million and still not even meet nationwide demand. Overgrazing has long strained parts of North Africa where the population is growing and job opportunities beyond herding and farming are scarce. But after seven years of drought, it's the lack of rainfall and skyrocketing feed prices that are now shrinking herds. Drought conditions, experts say, have degraded forage lands where shepherds graze their flocks and farmers grow cereals to be sold as animal feed. With less supply, prices have spiked beyond the reach of middle class families who have historically purchased sheep for slaughter. Moroccan economist Najib Akesbi said shrinking herds stemmed directly from vegetation loss in grazing areas. The prolonged drought has compounded inflation already fueled by the war in Ukraine. 'Most livestock farming in North Africa is pastoral, which means it's farming that relies purely on nature, like wild plants and forests, and vegetation that grows off rainwater,' Akesbi, a former professor at Hassan II Institute of Agronomy and Veterinary Medicine, said. For breeders, he added, livestock serve as a kind of bank, assets they sell to cover expenses and repay debts. With consecutive years of drought and rising feed costs, breeders are seeing their reserves drained. With less natural vegetation, breeders have to spend more on supplemental feed, Acharf Majdoubi, president of Morocco's Association of Sheep and Goat Breeders said. In good years, pastures can nourish nearly all of what sheep flocks require, but in dry years, it can be as low as half or a third of the feed required. 'We have to make up the rest by buying feed like straw and barley,' he said. Not only do they need more feed. The price of barley, straw and alfalfa -- much of which has to be imported -- has also spiked. In Morocco, the price of barley and straw are three times what they were before the drought, while the price of alfalfa has more than doubled. 'The future of this profession is very difficult. Breeders leave the countryside to immigrate to the city, and some will never come back,' Achraf Majdoubi said.
43 minutes ago
The 911 presidency: Trump flexes emergency powers in his second term
WASHINGTON -- Call it the 911 presidency. Despite insisting that the United States is rebounding from calamity under his watch, President Donald Trump is harnessing emergency powers unlike any of his predecessors. Whether it's leveling punishing tariffs, deploying troops to the border or sidelining environmental regulations, Trump has relied on rules and laws intended only for use in extraordinary circumstances like war and invasion. An analysis by The Associated Press shows that 30 of Trump's 150 executive orders have cited some kind of emergency power or authority, a rate that far outpaces his recent predecessors. The result is a redefinition of how presidents can wield power. Instead of responding to an unforeseen crisis, Trump is using emergency powers to supplant Congress' authority and advance his agenda. 'What's notable about Trump is the enormous scale and extent, which is greater than under any modern president,' said Ilya Somin, who is representing five U.S. businesses who sued the administration, claiming they were harmed by Trump's so-called 'Liberation Day' tariffs. Because Congress has the power to set trade policy under the Constitution, the businesses convinced a federal trade court that Trump overstepped his authority by claiming an economic emergency to impose the tariffs. An appeals court has paused that ruling while the judges review it. The legal battle is a reminder of the potential risks of Trump's strategy. Judges traditionally have given presidents wide latitude to exercise emergency powers that were created by Congress. However, there's growing concern that Trump is pressing the limits when the U.S. is not facing the kinds of threats such actions are meant to address. 'The temptation is clear,' said Elizabeth Goitein, senior director of the Brennan Center's Liberty and National Security Program and an expert in emergency powers. 'What's remarkable is how little abuse there was before, but we're in a different era now.' Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., who has drafted legislation that would allow Congress to reassert tariff authority, said he believed the courts would ultimately rule against Trump in his efforts to single-handedly shape trade policy. 'It's the Constitution. James Madison wrote it that way, and it was very explicit,' Bacon said of Congress' power over trade. 'And I get the emergency powers, but I think it's being abused. When you're trying to do tariff policy for 80 countries, that's policy, not emergency action.' The White House pushed back on such concerns, saying Trump is justified in aggressively using his authority. 'President Trump is rightfully enlisting his emergency powers to quickly rectify four years of failure and fix the many catastrophes he inherited from Joe Biden — wide open borders, wars in Ukraine and Gaza, radical climate regulations, historic inflation, and economic and national security threats posed by trade deficits,' White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said. Of all the emergency powers, Trump has most frequently cited the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, to justify slapping tariffs on imports. The law, enacted in 1977, was intended to limit some of the expansive authority that had been granted to the presidency decades earlier. It is only supposed to be used when the country faces 'an unusual and extraordinary threat' from abroad 'to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States.' In analyzing executive orders issued since 2001, the AP found that Trump has invoked the law 21 times in presidential orders and memoranda. President George W. Bush, grappling with the aftermath of the most devastating terror attack on U.S. soil, invoked the law just 14 times in his first term. Likewise, Barack Obama invoked the act only 21 times during his first term, when the U.S. economy faced the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression. The Trump administration has also deployed an 18th century law, the Alien Enemies Act, to justify deporting Venezuelan migrants to other countries, including El Salvador. Trump's decision to invoke the law relies on allegations that the Venezuelan government coordinates with the Tren de Aragua gang, but intelligence officials did not reach that conclusion. Congress has granted emergency powers to the presidency over the years, acknowledging that the executive branch can act more swiftly than lawmakers if there is a crisis. There are 150 legal powers — including waiving a wide variety of actions that Congress has broadly prohibited — that can only be accessed after declaring an emergency. In an emergency, for example, an administration can suspend environmental regulations, approve new drugs or therapeutics, take over the transportation system, or even override bans on testing biological or chemical weapons on human subjects, according to a list compiled by the Brennan Center for Justice. Democrats and Republicans have pushed the boundaries over the years. For example, in an attempt to cancel federal student loan debt, Joe Biden used a post-Sept. 11 law that empowered education secretaries to reduce or eliminate such obligations during a national emergency. The U.S. Supreme Court eventually rejected his effort, forcing Biden to find different avenues to chip away at his goals. Before that, Bush pursued warrantless domestic wiretapping and Franklin D. Roosevelt ordered the detention of Japanese-Americans on the West Coast in camps for the duration of World War II. Trump, in his first term, sparked a major fight with Capitol Hill when he issued a national emergency to compel construction of a border wall. Though Congress voted to nullify his emergency declaration, lawmakers could not muster up enough Republican support to overcome Trump's eventual veto. 'Presidents are using these emergency powers not to respond quickly to unanticipated challenges,' said John Yoo, who as a Justice Department official under George W. Bush helped expand the use of presidential authorities. 'Presidents are using it to step into a political gap because Congress chooses not to act.' Trump, Yoo said, 'has just elevated it to another level.' Conservative legal allies of the president also said Trump's actions are justified, and Vice President JD Vance predicted the administration would prevail in the court fight over tariff policy. 'We believe — and we're right — that we are in an emergency,' Vance said last week in an interview with Newsmax. 'You have seen foreign governments, sometimes our adversaries, threaten the American people with the loss of critical supplies,' Vance said. 'I'm not talking about toys, plastic toys. I'm talking about pharmaceutical ingredients. I'm talking about the critical pieces of the manufacturing supply chain.' Vance continued, 'These governments are threatening to cut us off from that stuff, that is by definition, a national emergency.' Republican and Democratic lawmakers have tried to rein in a president's emergency powers. Two years ago, a bipartisan group of lawmakers in the House and Senate introduced legislation that would have ended a presidentially-declared emergency after 30 days unless Congress votes to keep it in place. It failed to advance. Similar legislation hasn't been introduced since Trump's return to office. Right now, it effectively works in the reverse, with Congress required to vote to end an emergency. 'He has proved to be so lawless and reckless in so many ways. Congress has a responsibility to make sure there's oversight and safeguards,' said Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., who cosponsored an emergency powers reform bill in the previous session of Congress. He argued that, historically, leaders relying on emergency declarations has been a 'path toward autocracy and suppression.'
