If you tune into political news even a little, you likely heard about Congress frantically trying to pass the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” (yes, it really does end with “Bill Act”). On July 1, the Senate passed their version of the bill, with Vice President JD Vance casting a tie breaking vote. The bill will now go back to the House of Representatives.
This bill largely focuses on tax breaks and the budget, so it had to go through the reconciliation process, something we usually only see when one party has a majority in both the House and the Senate. This expedited procedure is particularly important in the Senate, as it allows massive budget bills to pass with only a simple majority rather than needing 60 votes to overcome a filibuster.
Naturally, members of the majority party in Congress try to cram as much into reconciliation bills as possible, including an unsurprisingly unpopular provision that would have forced the sale of potentially millions of acres of federal lands across the West. This story starts in the House of Representatives, which already passed their own budget megabill. During that process, some members tried to insert a provision that would have forced the sale of thousands of acres of federal land in Utah and Nevada. Thanks to public outcry and backlash from representatives on both sides of the political aisle, the provision was dropped before the bill passed and moved to the Senate.
This win was short-lived, however, as Senator Mike Lee of Utah ignored the cautionary tale from the House’s experience and crafted a new provision that would force the sale of millions of acres of national forest and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands across 12 western states. Once again, opposition rapidly mounted in both parties and among a diverse coalition of conservation, sport, and tribal organizations across the country. Senator Steve Daines and Rep. Ryan Zinke—former Secretary of the Interior during the first Trump administration—were so opposed to the concept that Senator Lee revised the bill language to exclude Montana from the proposal entirely.
The revised provision would still have forced the sale of 0.5 – 0.75% of national forest land and BLM land not already protected as Wilderness, a national monument, or a few other land designations. The Wilderness Society and the Outdoor Alliance quickly released interactive maps showing which lands would be eligible to be sold across the 11 states under the plan, and word spread faster than social gossip in a high school cafeteria. The public outcry was enormous.
Runners for Public Lands frequently attends trail races and running events to inform runners about issues affecting public lands.
Runners for Public Lands helped inform trail race directors around the western U.S. about this provision. Our own analysis of a limited set of race route data identified at least 35 running races that are entirely or partially on federal lands that would have been eligible to be sold, most of which had more than half their route mileage on such lands. And runners everywhere joined with other recreation user groups in lambasting the proposal.
The Senate parliamentarian then ruled on June 23 that including the forced land sale provision in the reconciliation bill would violate the “Byrd Rule”, which limits what can be included in this legislative process in a way that avoids a filibuster. While the parliamentarian’s rulings are advisory in nature, they are essentially always followed—albeit sometimes begrudgingly. Senator Lee vowed the following day to revise the provision’s language.
We created advocacy postcards for runners to fill out at races and other events.
Senator Lee released another version of the provision on June 26, which entirely excluded National Forest land from being part of any forced land sales. This was almost certainly in response to the intense public backlash he had been receiving for weeks. The new proposal also limited the sale of BLM lands to those within five miles of a population center—a still undefined term at that point—and which do not already have a valid existing right such as a grazing or oil and gas lease or permit. And, thanks to criticism of the original provision’s confusing language, it would have limited the use of purchased land to housing development.
The new provision would still have forced the sale of 0.25 – 0.5% of eligible BLM land across the western U.S. Due to a lack of good spatial data about valid existing rights, it was difficult to pinpoint exactly which BLM lands might be eligible under the new version of the provision. Our own analysis of publicly available data suggests that millions of acres across the 11 western states would be eligible, and up to 1.2 million acres of those lands would be sold if the proposal was signed into law. The complete budget bill text was released on June 27, and the land sale provision further clarified that a population center meant any Census designated place or incorporated city/town with at least 1,000 residents.
Even with those additional criteria, Senator Lee’s plan still threatened many landscapes important to runners. Just take a look at the beautiful deserts surrounding Las Vegas. Over 126,000 acres of BLM land within five miles of the edge of the metropolitan area may have been eligible to be sold. These areas are adjacent to Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area (NCA), Sloan Canyon NCA, Lake Mead National Recreation Area, and Tule Springs Fossil Beds National Monument. A large portion of this land just east of the city is home to Frenchman Mountain and a geological wonderland known as the Rainbow Gardens, which local conservationists in the area say should also be designated a national monument.
Map of BLM lands around Las Vegas, NV that would have been eligible to be sold under the revised proposal.
Despite Senator Lee’s tightened bill language, opposition to the plan continued to be widespread. Within 24 hours of the final bill text being made public, the senator announced that he would be stripping the provision from that section of the legislation. In his statement, Senator Lee decried strict Senate rules and what he perceived to be misinformation about the provision. However, the political reality of the situation appeared to be insurmountable. Senator Daines told reporters that he had the votes to nix the provision, presumably during the amendment process, and Rep. Zinke and several other Republican representatives stated that they would vote no on any version of the bill that forced the sale of public lands.
So what does all of this mean for the future of these federal lands that at least one senator is so keen on selling? This likely is not the last time Senator Lee will try to facilitate the sale of federal lands in the West. In fact, much of the provision that briefly appeared in the Senate budget bill seemed to be rooted in a separate bill he introduced in 2022 and 2023. That bill, the HOUSES Act, would have made it easier for the federal government to sell public lands for housing and other development, though it made no distinction about which types of lands could be sold. While the legislation never made it out of a single committee in the Senate, we may see Senator Lee introduce some version of it in the future. But considering the massive amount of opposition the forced land sale in the budget bill received, future similar attempts may be just as likely to fail.
One thing is for certain, however: there remains a concerted effort by the current administration and some in Congress to open up public lands to things like oil drilling, mining, timber harvesting, development, and other activities. The bill is now back in the house. Continue to make your voice heard by contacting your Representatives. You can use this form from Outdoor Alliance to help make your voice heard. Make sure you are signed up to receive our newsletters and follow us on social media to find out about issues affecting your favorite running haunts and how you can get involved.
Featured photo (top) by Ben Pitterle features the Happy Boulders area near Bishop, CA, which was one of the many places threatened by the forced land sale proposal.