logo
Land sale plan draws GOP foes, but how hard will they fight?

Land sale plan draws GOP foes, but how hard will they fight?

E&E News13-06-2025
Sen. Mike Lee's megabill plan to sell off millions of acres of public lands drew negative reactions from some Republican lawmakers Thursday, but it's not clear how hard they'll fight on the matter.
Lee, a Utah Republican who chairs the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, has long sought to turn federal lands over to state control. Now, he's seizing the opportunity.
His committee's proposal for the Republican tax and spending bill would mandate the sale of up to 1.5 percent of federal lands across 11 states. In releasing text, summaries and a FAQ on Wednesday, the committee said the land sales were aimed at building 'millions of affordable homes,' though the bill text allows for a virtually unlimited range of uses.
Advertisement
Chief among the opponents of the plan is the Montana delegation. Public lands are especially popular in Montana — a likely factor in Lee's decision to exempt the state from the land sales.
Crucially, both of the state's senators did not explicitly draw a red line on the provision when asked about it Thursday.
'I don't like it — I oppose the sale of public lands. The only part that I like about it is that it exempted Montana,' said Sen. Steve Daines (R-Mont.) in an interview after working with Lee in an attempt to pare back or nix public lands sales in the proposal.
'I pushed back strongly. I guess he heard me in terms of exempting Montana, which still doesn't make me happy with the overall bill.'
When asked, Daines did not say he would tank the whole bill if the land sales remained in it. However, he did say he's planning to introduce an amendment to strip the sales.
'I'm gonna be pushing for an amendment vote, so we'll see,' Daines said. 'But the text is out, and I oppose it.'
Daines' fellow Montanan in the Senate, Republican Sen. Tim Sheehy, also opposes the land sales, his spokesperson said.
But Sheehy similarly did not explicitly threaten to vote against the bill if the land sales weren't removed.
'Senator Sheehy believes public lands belong in public hands and opposes the sale of public lands. He is pleased to see Montana exempted,' a Sheehy spokesperson said.
Should Daines, Sheehy or any other Republican senator threaten to withhold their vote over the land sales, they would have significant leverage.
Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) is eager to pass the Senate's version of the bill by Independence Day and has little wiggle room with many senators already expressing displeasure over various sections of the bill, like steep cuts to Medicaid or the $2.4-trillion-dollar hole the bill is projected to open in the federal deficit.
The bill is being passed using budget reconciliation to skirt the Senate's 60-vote filibuster threshold.
'You need everybody's vote to pass the bill,' Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.) said Wednesday, while speaking about the public lands sales.
'Remember who won San Juan Hill?'
It's not the first time public lands sales have proven a thorny issue in Republicans' quest to pass the bill that would boost President Donald Trump's domestic agenda.
The House stripped a proposed sale of public lands from their version of the bill, which was inserted as an amendment from Reps. Mark Amodei (R-Nev.) and Celeste Maloy (R-Utah) and would have sold off roughly 500,000 acres in Nevada and Utah — a fraction of Lee's proposed sales.
Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) pulled the provision from the bill after protests from Rep. Ryan Zinke (R-Mont.), who threatened to withhold his vote unless the provisions were removed.
Zinke could prove to be a problem for congressional leaders once again if the bill comes back to the House with land sales in it, and he vowed in an interview Thursday to fight Lee on the issue.
'Remember my comment that it was 'my San Juan Hill?'' Zinke said, referring to a famous charge by future President Theodore Roosevelt, a hero in the eyes of public lands defenders.
'I understand [Lee] said it was his, too, but remember who won San Juan Hill? Teddy Roosevelt,' Zinke said.
'We're coming after you'
Democrats, though left out of the GOP's party-line budget reconciliation process, also vowed to fight the sale of public lands. Senate ENR ranking member Martin Heinrich said in an interview with POLITICO's E&E News that they plan to stir up public outrage to pressure Lee to back down.
'We need to engage the American people, because that's what worked in the past,' Heinrich said, noting a failed effort in the House to sell public lands that was led by former Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), who was forced to withdraw his measure after public outcry.
'I think this is a direct attack on our Western identity,' Heinrich said. 'This is an attack on every Westerner who owns a hunting license, a fishing license, a backpack or a mountain bike.'
Indeed, outdoor groups are already speaking out. Land Tawney, co-chair of American Hunters and Anglers, said the bill is 'worse than the dog shit under Mike Lee's polished shoes,' and an 'in-your-face selloff of America's best idea—our public lands.'
'Any politician who supports this language is an enemy of public lands, and we're coming after you,' Tawney said.
Heinrich said he would support the Montana delegation should they push for an amendment to kill the land sales.
He also suggested they could have another, more procedural, way to fight it since the bill is being passed via reconciliation — a process that allows the Senate parliamentarian to ax provisions of the bill that are not related to the budget, which is required by the rules.
Democrats could argue that the land sales are not germane to a reconciliation bill. ENR said they expect the sales to net between $5 billion and $10 billion over a 10-year period.
'We're gonna fight it through the process,' Heinrich said. 'This is clearly policy masquerading as a budget item, so we will engage the parliamentarian on this.'
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Meta spent $27 million protecting Mark Zuckerberg last year, more than any other CEO
Meta spent $27 million protecting Mark Zuckerberg last year, more than any other CEO

Fast Company

timea minute ago

  • Fast Company

Meta spent $27 million protecting Mark Zuckerberg last year, more than any other CEO

The targeted murder of United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson last December put the business world on alert. Companies beyond the insurance and healthcare industries began ramping up security for founders and CEOs, worried that Thompson's death (and some of the public's reaction to it), along with rising cyberattacks and death threats, could increase real-world risks for any business leader. That has led to a substantial increase in security spending, and a new study from the Financial Times finds that no company is spending more to protect its CEO than Meta. Security spending was up more than 10% last year at the parent company of Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp, with $27 million spent to protect Mark Zuckerberg—$3 million more than in 2023. 'We believe that Mr. Zuckerberg's role puts him in a unique position: He is synonymous with Meta and, as a result, negative sentiment regarding our company is directly associated with, and often transferred to, Mr. Zuckerberg,' the company says in its 2025 proxy statement. Google parent Alphabet and Amazon also saw increases of more than 10% in protection costs last year. Altogether, the 10 major tech firms spent more than $45 million to protect their leaders. Meta's spending dwarfed all others. The next highest was Alphabet, which allocated $6.8 million to protect Sundar Pichai. Coinbase spent nearly as much, dedicating $6.2 million to guard CEO Brian Armstrong. The big question on many minds, though, is how much is being spent to protect Elon Musk, arguably the most polarizing of the tech CEOs. The answer isn't entirely clear. Only one of his companies, Tesla, is public, and it disclosed spending $500,000 to protect Musk last year (down from $2.4 million in 2023). SpaceX and xAI are private and did not disclose figures. Musk also owns his own security company, Foundation Security—described as a mini Secret Service, run in part by a former Army special forces weapons sergeant. While some companies have boosted spending, others have scaled back, perhaps due to one-time expenses in previous years. Here's what other corporations reported: Nvidia: $3.5 million to protect CEO Jensen Huang, up from $2.2 million in 2023 Apple: $1.4 million for Tim Cook, down from $2.4 million in 2023 Amazon: $1.1 million for CEO Andy Jassy, and $1.6 million for Jeff Bezos, an amount consistent for at least 15 years Palo Alto Networks: $1.6 million for CEO Nikesh Arora, down from $3.5 million in 2023 JPMorgan: $882,000 for CEO Jamie Dimon, up slightly from $866,000 in 2023 Some companies declined to break out their security costs but offered hints. Fox, for example, said it was spending more to protect CEO Lachlan Murdoch as partisanship grows. Lockheed Martin now requires its CEO to fly exclusively on private corporate jets. And Alex Karp, CEO of AI and military intelligence company Palantir, always travels with at least four bodyguards. For some executives, the threat is very real, and not always tied to corporate activities. Musk, for example, told shareholders last year: 'We actually did have two homicidal maniacs in the last roughly seven months come to aspirationally try to kill me.' The number of businesses protecting their CEOs continues to rise. Intelligence firm Equilar found that 34.4% of companies in the S&P 500 offered executive security last year, compared to just 28.2% in 2023. Median spending rose 6% overall, with an average of $105,749.

Trump wants to change voting. The Constitution was designed to protect it from people like him
Trump wants to change voting. The Constitution was designed to protect it from people like him

Fast Company

timea minute ago

  • Fast Company

Trump wants to change voting. The Constitution was designed to protect it from people like him

President Donald Trump has big plans for redesigning the way states hold elections ahead of the 2026 midterms, calling for a nationwide end to mail-in ballots and voting machines on Monday. The U.S. Constitution stands in his way. In a new post on his social network Truth Social, Trump wrote that he was 'going to lead a movement to get rid of MAIL-IN BALLOTS' as well as voting machines, which he called 'Highly 'Inaccurate'' and 'Seriously Controversial.' 'ELECTIONS CAN NEVER BE HONEST WITH MAIL IN BALLOTS/VOTING, and everybody, IN PARTICULAR THE DEMOCRATS, KNOWS THIS,' Trump wrote without providing evidence supporting his claims. Presidents aren't given power over state election law. The 'Elections Clause' in Article I Section 4, leaves 'the times, places, and manner of holding elections' for the U.S. House and Senate up to the states, and only Congress is given power 'make or alter' these rules. Subscribe to the Design newsletter. The latest innovations in design brought to you every weekday Privacy Policy | Fast Company Newsletters Trump falsely claimed in his social media post on Monday that the U.S. is the only country with mail-in voting (at least 40 countries allow people to vote by mail), and he said he would sign an executive order ahead of next year's midterm election to make the changes. Eight states and Washington, D.C., allow for all-mail-in elections, and an additional 15 states allow for mail-in elections in some circumstances and jurisdictions, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Hollow legal ground Trump's apparent legal argument for having the power to end mail-in voting as president, as laid out in his post, is that states are 'merely an 'agent'' for the federal government in counting and tabulating votes, and the president is the ultimate authority of the federal government. 'They must do what the Federal Government, as represented by the President of the United States, tells them,' Trump wrote. Like his push for Texas to adopt new congressional districts that are gerrymandered to help Republicans, Trump's latest election proposals are about letting the president decide policy that's actually left up to the states, and giving the executive branch power to shape the legislative branch that was designed to act as one of its checks. Rather than a separation of powers, it's a consolidation.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store