Plan to sell public lands withdrawn, New Mexico leaders react
'Lands like these are supposed to belong to every single American,' said Senator Martin Heinrich, (D), New Mexico.
New Mexico Senator Martin Heinrich is celebrating what he's calling a big win for public lands. 'Obviously, they took it out of the bill without even having an amendment because it was clear we were gonna win this one,' said Heinrich in a video on social media.
Provision that would sell off public lands removed from Senate megabill
Utah Senator Mike Lee announced Saturday night, he would be dropping plans to sell public land from President Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill.' In a post on X, Lee blames strict constraints of the budget process and a lack of clear, enforceable safeguards to guarantee that these lands would be sold only to American families.
The Republican Party of New Mexico thinks this was the right choice: 'I know that the intent of the land sale was to be able to develop urban areas that are pretty much landlocked for economic development and housing opportunities,' said Chairwoman Amy Barela, RPNM.
But RPNM agrees, they don't think there were enough restrictions placed in the bill to protect the public lands. 'I think it'd be a great opportunity for private investors to go in to be able to buy for housing opportunities and all of that because we know New Mexico is short on housing,' said Barela.
Former Santa Fe public schools superintendent files lawsuit against district
New Mexico Senator Martin Heinrich said in a press conference earlier this week that this isn't about housing, it's about making money. 'We will not let them sell our American birthright to build luxury condos or second homes or to pay for tax cuts,' said Heinrich.
Heinrich also said in a statement, 'To those already plotting to go after our public lands another way: don't. Unless you like losing.'
'Public lands along the Pecos are among my favorite in New Mexico and the West. They're a reminder of how lucky we are to have places to fish and explore and pass down experiences to future generations,' said Heinrich.
A land conservation non-profit, called the Wilderness Society, is thanking the lawmakers who fought to kill the plan, saying quote, 'Future generations are counting on members of congress to remain vigilant against any more attempts to sell off our public lands—including the threats that we know are coming from the administration.'
RPNM told News 13, they are looking forward to the tax relief Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill' will bring.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
16 minutes ago
- Newsweek
D.C. Mayor Calls Trump Takeover 'Un-American'
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The mayor of Washington, D.C., has condemned the Trump administration's federal intervention in the city's policing, describing the deployment of troops to the capital as unpatriotic. "American soldiers and airmen policing American citizens on American soil is #UnAmerican," Mayor Muriel Bowser wrote in a post on X, formerly Twitter. Newsweek has contacted the White House for comment via email outside office hours. Why It Matters It comes after President Donald Trump said at a press conference on Monday that the city "has been overtaken by violent gangs and bloodthirsty criminals, roving mobs of wild youth, drugged-out maniacs and homeless people." Trump's intervention marks an unprecedented federal involvement in the local governance of the District of Columbia, using emergency powers that city officials and critics describe as a political power play. The deployment has sparked backlash over constitutional limits and home rule rights. Critics argue it breaches democratic principles and could set a dangerous national precedent, while supporters frame it as a necessary measure for public order. Members of the District of Columbia National Guard patrol outside Union Station in Washington, D.C., on August 16, 2025. Members of the District of Columbia National Guard patrol outside Union Station in Washington, D.C., on August 16, 2025. Jose Luis Magana/AP What To Know On Tuesday, 800 National Guard troops arrived in Washington following an order from Trump. The deployment, aimed at addressing crime in the city, stands out as one of the most forceful federal actions in local policing in decades, even as crime rates have fallen to their lowest point in 30 years. Violent crime has plummeted by 26 percent this year compared with the same time last year, according to data from the Washington, D.C., police. Federal agents have been deployed in busy areas across the city, while National Guard troops patrol key locations such as the National Mall and Union Station. Washington officials filed a lawsuit against the administration in a bid to stop the federal takeover of the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD), according to court documents. Lawyers representing the Trump administration and Washington, D.C., reached a deal on Friday to partially roll back U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi's directive that placed the city's police department under federal control. According to the new agreement, the D.C. police chief will continue to lead the Metropolitan Police Department, replacing Bondi's earlier decision to hand full authority to Terry Cole, the head of the Drug Enforcement Administration. On Saturday, three Republican-led states announced plans to deploy hundreds of National Guard troops to Washington, D.C., to assist with the federal government's plans, according to statements released by the respective state governors. West Virginia said it would send 300 to 400 troops, South Carolina pledged 200, and Ohio announced it would deploy 150 troops in the coming days, representing an increase in the federal presence in the city. Hundreds of Washington, D.C. residents gathered in Dupont Circle on Saturday to protest Trump's federal takeover of local policing, marching 1.5 miles to the White House while carrying banners that read "No fascist takeover of D.C." In March, Trump signed an executive order titled "Making the District of Columbia Safe and Beautiful." This directed Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum to instruct the National Park Service to remove and clean up all homeless encampments located on federal land within the city that falls under the National Park Service's authority. The Trump administration's crackdown on homelessness in Washington, D.C., has led to the dismantling of numerous encampments across the city. What People Are Saying A White House spokesperson told Newsweek on August 16: "The National Guard will protect federal assets, create a safe environment for law enforcement officials to carry out their duties when required, and provide a visible presence to deter crime." D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser in an open letter to city residents: "Over the course of a week, the surge in federal law enforcement across D.C. has created waves of anxiety. President Donald Trump, on Truth Social: "I'm going to make our Capital safer and more beautiful than it ever was before. The Homeless have to move out, IMMEDIATELY. We will give you places to stay, but FAR from the Capital." White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, at a press briefing: "Homeless individuals will be given the option to leave their encampment, to be taken to a homeless shelter, to be offered addiction or mental health services. If they refuse, they will be subjected to fines or jail time." What Happens Next Legal challenges to the federal takeover may be ongoing as the city attempts to wrestle control back from the president.
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
Once again, Trump sends soldiers to do police officers' jobs
Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up It's clear that he intends to keep sending troops into American cities. But Americans can't let that become the new normal. Advertisement There ought to be bipartisan pushback. After all, Republicans used to be the first to object to federal interference in local affairs. Indeed, it should not have to be said how dangerous this is: Federalized police takeovers of cities are hallmarks of autocracies. When leaders cannot govern by democratic means, they turn to force to bend citizens to their will. And, as is often the case in backsliding democracies, they falsely claim to be acting for people's own good. Advertisement 'Our capital city has been overtaken by violent gangs and bloodthirsty criminals, roving mobs of wild youth, drugged-out maniacs, and homeless people, and we're not going to let it happen anymore,' Trump said at His words are not backed up by data. Among other things, he cited 2023 crime statistics from the city, which did experience a post-pandemic crime surge. But since then, violent crime has plummeted in the city. Even if the district really were the dystopian hellscape Trump describes, though, it is wrong to think the military could fix it. Crime is a complicated, multifaceted problem, not something that can be solved with Humvees. Trump, though, was not deterred by facts. 'I'm officially invoking Section 740 of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act, you know what that is, and placing the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department under direct federal control,' Trump said. Trump's announced plan is, at least in part, of debatable legality. Because of D.C.'s unique status as the nation's capital, the president and Congress do have powers there that they lack elsewhere. Still, the law Trump cited does not allow the president to commandeer local law enforcement in Washington, as he seemed to imply. The Home Rule Act, which established D.C.'s local government, gives the president no local law enforcement powers at all, meaning he cannot direct local police to conduct patrols, detain people, or arrest them. What the law does allow is for the president to direct the local police, under Section 740, if 'special conditions of an emergency nature exist which require the use of the Metropolitan Police force for federal purposes .' The law also caps the amount of time such emergency declaration can last to 48 hours, which can be extended to 30 days if Congress is properly notified of the action. Advertisement 'In other words,' borrow the [Washington police] for his own priorities; but he can't control how they discharge their other duties.' This is something Trump could have done, for example, on Jan. 6, 2021 during the violent siege of the US Capitol building to allow seamless coordination of local and federal law enforcement to assist Capitol Police in stemming the violence. But in that emergency, he chose not to. Something else the president has done in D.C. this week that he didn't do during the Jan. 6 attack is to mobilize the D.C. National Guard. Unlike in states, where governors direct the National Guard, the D.C. National Guard reports directly to the president, who reportedly deployed The federal government also has some powers to deploy agents from other agencies, such as the US Park Police, the Department of Homeland Security, and ICE, but the law limits some of those agency's powers based on jurisdiction and subject matter. For example, ICE agents can only conduct civil immigration enforcement, they cannot conduct an arrest for suspected carjacking or any other local criminal action, and Park Police only have jurisdiction on federal land. Whether all law enforcement officials are staying within legal and constitutional lines is yet to be determined. In California, where a trial is underway to determine if the administration violated the law with its deployment of the National Guard to Los Angeles, it will take months if not years for the matter to make its way through the courts. The same will be true with the latest gambit in D.C. Advertisement But in the meantime, the president and other administration officials have the The president is taking advantage of the fact that he can implement legally and constitutionally dubious actions before courts have time to vet and stop them. But leaders, including Republicans who have long called for limited government, should decry this and do what they can to stop this autocratic move. Whether it is part of a cynical play to the the GOP's base ahead of midterm elections, or part of a deeper plan, as outlined by the White House earlier this year to ' Editorials represent the views of the Boston Globe Editorial Board. Follow us
Los Angeles Times
an hour ago
- Los Angeles Times
D.Law Named to Inc.'s 2025 Best Workplaces List
The annual list recognizes the businesses that set the standard for workplace success and awards excellence in company culture is proud to announce it has been named to Inc.'s 2025 Best Workplaces list, honoring companies that have built exceptional workplaces and vibrant cultures that support their teams and businesses. This year's list, featured on is the result of comprehensive measurement and evaluation of American companies that have excelled in creating exceptional workplaces and company cultures – whether inperson or remote. The award process involved a detailed employee survey conducted by Quantum Workplace, covering critical elements such as management effectiveness, perks, professional development and overall company culture. Each company's benefits were also audited to determine overall score and ranking. is honored to be included among the 514 companies recognized this year. 'At we believe our people are the heartbeat of everything we do. From professional growth opportunities to team celebrations and community involvement, we're committed to cultivating a workplace where everyone feels empowered, supported, and inspired to do their best work,' said Emil Davtyan, founder and managing attorney. 'Being named one of Inc.'s Best Workplaces confirms that our focus on people-first culture makes a meaningful difference. We're proud to be part of a new generation of firms that are redefining what it means to be in this profession.' Founded in 2015, is a purpose-driven law firm focused on providing compassionate, effective legal services to clients across California. With a team-oriented approach and an emphasis on continuous learning, has quickly built a reputation for both its client service and its inclusive internal culture. The firm is part of a growing movement to redefine what it means to be an employment law firm by putting people, empathy and impact at the center of everything it does. 'Inc.'s Best Workplaces program celebrates the exceptional organizations whose workplace cultures address their employees' welfare and needs in meaningful ways,' says Bonny Ghosh, editorial director at Inc. 'As companies expand and adapt to changing economic forces, maintaining such a culture is no small feat. Yet these honorees have not only achieved it – they continue to elevate the employee experience through thoughtful benefits, engagement, and a deep commitment to their teams. is an employment law firm dedicated to defending the rights of workers under California employment law. Based in Los Angeles with offices throughout the state, represents workers in every industry, whether they work for large corporations or small companies. specializes in the full range of employment law, including wrongful termination, pay and overtime issues, discrimination and harassment, workplace retaliation, leaves of absence and more. attorneys have over 350 years of collective experience in employment law and have helped over 150,000 workers get more than $1.5 billion in settlements.
