Sen. Mike Lee considers reinstating language to sell Utah's public lands in massive tax package
WASHINGTON — A proposal to sell off public lands in Utah and Nevada could be revived in the massive tax reconciliation bill making its way through Congress.
When asked if he would push to reinstate language selling roughly 11,000 acres of public lands in southern Utah, Sen. Mike Lee told Politico this week: 'Yes.'
Although details are not clear on how Lee would move forward with such a proposal, his office told the Deseret News the Utah senator would advocate for handing control of the land to Utahns.
'Sen. Lee remains committed to advancing Western priorities and ensuring that those who live closest to the land have a voice in how it's managed,' a spokesperson for Lee told the Deseret News. 'As the process moves forward, he'll continue to advocate for solutions that reflect the needs of Utahns and other Western communities.'
The move comes after the House stripped language to sell more than 211,000 acres across Utah and Nevada amid pushback from some Republicans who threatened to vote against the full reconciliation package if it was included.
The original amendment was led by Utah Rep. Celeste Maloy, R-Utah, who drafted the provision upon request from officials in Washington and Beaver counties, who would have facilitated the sale.
Maloy told the Deseret News she was unaware of any efforts to revive that language as the Senate begins deliberations on the reconciliation package.
About 63% of Utah's land is owned by the federal government, the most of any state in the country aside from Nevada. The lands that would have been sold make up 'only a third of one percent of federal lands in the state,' according to Maloy.
The proposal was met with pushback from some Republicans who have historically opposed public land sales, such as Rep. Ryan Zinke, R-Mont., the co-chairman of the newly created Public Lands Caucus.
'There's a lot of frustration down in the West. I understand that,' Zinke said in response to the amendment last month. 'But I prefer the management scheme. And I give an example as a hotel — if you don't like the management of a hotel, don't sell the hotel. Change the management. That's where I sit on that position.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
32 minutes ago
- Forbes
Musk Digs Up Trump's 12-Year-Old Tweet To Attack His Policy Bill
Elon Musk directly jabbed President Donald Trump over his policy bill Thursday— in his most pointed attack on Trump himself—over the legislation Musk has previously mostly blamed Republican lawmakers for. President Donald Trump speaks during a news conference with Elon Musk in the Oval Office of the ... More White House in Washington, DC, on May 30, 2025. (Photo by ALLISON ROBBERT/AFP via Getty Images) Musk reposted a 2013 tweet from Trump that said he was in disbelief and 'embarrassed' Republicans were extending the debt ceiling, captioning the repost 'wise words.' Trump on Wednesday said the debt limit should be 'entirely scrapped' as a provision of his 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act,' which would raise the debt ceiling ahead of its expected expiration date in August. This is a developing story and will be updated.
Axios
34 minutes ago
- Axios
Democrats more likely than Republicans to boycott brands, new survey
Why it matters: These murky expectations highlight the complicated environment businesses are currently operating in. What they're saying: "Businesses need to understand how their brand aligns to current issues and the values that matter to their customer base," says Mallory Newall, vice president at Ipsos. "Brands cannot please everyone, and wading into the political fray does not come without risk. It needs to be done in a strategic way. However, there are potential upsides if companies have a clear understanding of who they're talking to and who their customers are. Those who act inauthentically will lose ground in this environment," she added. State of play: There's a disconnect in what consumers say and what they do. 53% of Americans say they are less likely to buy from a company that takes a stance they don't agree with, but only 30% actually do. Between the lines: A company's political or social stances influence Democrats more than Republicans, per the survey. Democrats are more likely to boycott (40%) than Republicans (24%), but they are also 2x more likely to go out of their way to support a brand that aligns with their values. Target is the latest American corporation to grapple with these boycotts, following its retreat from diversity, equity and inclusion efforts. Of note: Boycotting is a luxury afforded to those with disposable income, per the survey. Households with incomes of $100k and above are 50% more likely to stop buying from a company they disagree with than those households making $50k and below. What to watch: 67% of Democrats say they are closely tracking how companies respond to pending Supreme Court decisions, compared to 52% of Republicans. There is more appetite across party lines for business commentary on economic issues — like inflation and trade policies — than other policy issues. The bottom line: "The data suggest that Democratic consumers are much more likely to actually follow through on the threat to withhold or reduce spending when they disagree with brands during this era of complete GOP control," says Matt House, managing partner at CLYDE.
Yahoo
35 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Elon Musk is gone, but DOGE's actions are hard to reverse. The Institute of Peace is a case study
WASHINGTON (AP) — The staff was already jittery. The raiders from Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency had disposed of the U.S. Institute of Peace board, its acting president and its longtime outside counsel. But until 9:30 p.m. on March 28, there was hope the damage might be limited. Then termination notices started popping up in personal emails. As he departs, Musk is leaving behind a wounded federal government. DOGE's playbook has been consistent: Take over facilities, information technology systems and leadership. Dismiss the staff. Move too quickly for the targets or courts to respond or fix the damage. Thousands of federal workers have seen the playbook unfold. What makes USIP, a 300-employee organization, unique is the blitz during its takeover has been, for the moment, reversed in court. The headquarters taken away in a weekend of lightning moves is back in the hands of its original board and acting president. The question they must answer now is a point that U.S. District Judge Beryl A. Howell made during one hearing: Can USIP be restored? 'A bull in a China shop breaks a lot of things,' she said. As the institute tries to reboot, it's a question for others in their own DOGE struggles. Targeting an agency aimed at fostering peace USIP was created by Congress in the 1980s. Described as an independent, nonprofit think tank funded by Congress, its mission has been to work to promote peace and prevent and end conflicts. When DOGE came knocking, it was operating in 26 conflict zones, including Afghanistan. The institute was one of four organizations targeted by President Donald Trump's Feb. 19 Executive Order 14217. Despite conversations to explain the organization's role, most of the Institute's board was fired by email March 14. The lone holdovers were ex officio — Cabinet members Pete Hegseth and Marco Rubio and the National Defense University's president. Within minutes of the 4 p.m. emails, DOGE staff showed up and tried to get into the building but were turned back. That, according to court documents, kicked off a weekend of pressure by the FBI on institute security personnel. DOGE returned the following Monday and got into the headquarters with help from the FBI and Washington police. Outside counsel George Foote thought the local officers were there to expel the DOGE contingent but learned quickly they were not. He, security chief Colin O'Brien and others were escorted out by local authorities. 'They have sidearms and tasers and are saying you can't go anywhere but out that door,' Foote said. The board filed a lawsuit the following day. Howell expressed dissatisfaction with DOGE's tactics but she let their actions stand. By then a DOGE associate, Kenneth Jackson, had been named as acting president of the organization by the ex officio board members. The staff knew what he'd done as the head of the U.S. Agency for International Development. Now Jackson was at the institute, but they were hopeful 'we would have a process of explanation or review of our work,' said Scott Worden, director of the Afghanistan and Central Asia programs. Then came March 28. By midnight, nearly all the institute's employees had been let go. The actions reverberated The impact was 'profound and devastating,' Worden said. First, employees at the institute are not government employees so they got no government benefits or civil service protections. Insurance also was gone. Partners abroad suddenly lost their support and contacts. The lawyers representing board members in their lawsuit sought a hearing to head off rumors of more mayhem to come. But when they walked into a courtroom the headquarters and other assets were gone, too. It was, Howell said at the hearing, 'a done deal.' Over the weekend, DOGE had replaced Jackson with fellow DOGE associate Nick Cavanaugh, whose name was on the documents that allowed DOGE to take control of institute assets and transfer the headquarters to the General Services Administration. In court, the Trump administration's attorney laid out the timeline, making clear the newly named president of USIP had not only been authorized to transfer the property but also the request had gone through proper channels. Throughout hearings, Howell struggled with describing the organization — whether it was part of the executive branch and under Trump's authority. The government argued it had to fall under one of the three branches of government and clearly wasn't legislative or judicial. Lawyers defending the government also said that because presidents appointed the board, presidents also had the authority to fire them. Howell's May 19 opinion concluded the institute 'exercises no Executive branch power under the Constitution.' She added that the law that created it set specific steps for firing the board members and none of those had been followed. The case is now with an appeals court. What it looks like now Two weeks later, about 10% of the people who would normally be inside the headquarters are doing maintenance, getting systems running and trying to access the institute's funding. Desks are empty but with paperwork and files strewn across them, left by the speed of the takeover. O'Brien, the security officer, praised the General Services Administration and security managers who tried to keep the building going. But getting systems fully functioning will entail lots of work. Foote said some returnees are trying to access the institute's funding, including money appropriated by Congress and the part of the endowment moved during the takeover. He said transferring funds within the federal government is 'complicated.' The result: Workers are furloughed, and overseas offices will remain closed. Nicoletta Barbera, acting director for the U.S. Institute of Peace's West Africa and Central Africa programs, is one of the furloughed workers. 'We had USIP representatives based in Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger that, overnight, were left with no support system from anyone here in HQ,' she said. Barbera said a recent attack in Burkina Faso ended with 'hundreds of atrocities and deaths.' 'And I couldn't just stop but think, what if I could have continued our work there during this time?' she said. Moose has said there will likely be lasting damage — on traumatized staff and relationships with partners around the world. 'That's going to be hard to repair,' he said.
