Sen. Mike Lee has pulled his federal land sale from Trump’s tax bill, after significantly narrowing the controversial plan to sell off public lands, following both widespread criticism and a procedural roadblock in the U.S. Senate.
The original proposal, tied to a massive federal budget bill, called for selling off up to 3.3 million acres of federal land across 11 Western states. Lee argued the goal was to help lower housing costs by making more land available for development.
On June 20, Lee defended the original plan on X, formerly Twitter, writing: “It’s less than ONE PERCENT of federal land … Read the language for yourself, & don’t fall for the scams.”
But by the following Monday night, Lee’s tone had shifted. He posted a list of revisions:
- All Forest Service land removed from the bill
- Only BLM (Bureau of Land Management) land within five miles of cities eligible for sale
- Creation of “Freedom Zones” to benefit American families
- Protections for farmers, ranchers and recreation users
The changes followed growing pressure from advocacy groups and constituents.
A 2025 Colorado College “Conservation in the West” survey found that 82% of Western voters oppose selling public lands to address housing challenges, and 83% say the loss of natural areas is a serious problem.
More than 100 organizations, including the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, signed a letter urging senators to remove the land sale provision from the budget bill.
“We strongly oppose any attempts to recklessly sell public lands through legislative shortcuts like budget reconciliation, which bypass public input, environmental review, and accountability,” the letter stated.
“Doing so threatens public access, undermines responsible land management, puts environmental values, cultural resources, and endangered species at risk along with clean drinking water for 60 million Americans and betrays the public’s trust.”
Opposition also came from within the state’s hunting and fishing community. 21 sportsmen’s organizations and more than 50 local outdoor businesses signed a separate letter opposing the proposal.
Legal concerns also played a role. The Senate parliamentarian, the official who enforces Senate budget rules, ruled that Lee’s amendment violated the Byrd Rule, which limits what can be included in budget reconciliation bills. The parliamentarian decided Lee’s land sale plan didn’t fit because it was more of a policy change than a budget issue.
John Ruple, a research associate professor at Utah Valley University’s College of Law, said Lee’s changes don’t address this. “Reducing the total acreage available is somewhat responsive, but I don’t know that it addresses the Senate parliamentarian’s concerns,” he said.
While the amendment has been removed from the Senate version of the bill for now, Ruple said Lee could still attempt to reintroduce it through other legislative channels.
Utah resident Anders Sorenson, who’s lived in the state for 22 years, is passionate about protecting Utah’s public lands and went to social media to spread awareness. Despite the bill being changed, he remains skeptical about the ways in which the land would be used.
He recalled how Sliding Rock, a childhood hiking spot of his, became part of a gated neighborhood. “I would hate for that type of thing to happen to the rest of Utah,” he said.
Audrey Horn and her fiancé, Conner Biser, both BYU students studying conservation, said they were alarmed by the proposal and its long-term implications.
“Usually land conservation is seen as a left-wing issue, but there’s a huge population of Utah hunters and fishers who are just as opposed,” said Horn, who previously worked for the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources.
Horn and Biser joined others in contacting lawmakers and raising awareness online. Biser said it was frustrating to hear Lee claim the land had “no conservation value,” referring to Lee’s appearance on The Charlie Kirk Show, where he said the land targeted for sale had no recreational or conservation value.
Ruple noted that the proposal did not exclude areas with significant ecological or cultural importance.
“He hasn’t excluded lands with critical habitat for endangered species, municipal watersheds, or areas sacred to tribes,” Ruple said. “To say they don’t have any conservation value. I’m not sure how he’s supporting that conclusion.”
National parks, wilderness areas, and Forest Service land were taken off the table. Only select BLM parcels near cities were eligible for sale, and it remains unclear what kinds of housing or development would have been permitted.
According to Lee’s post on X, he chose to withdraw the bill because he was unable to ensure that the land would be sold only to American families.
