Senate Republicans are pushing forward a controversial provision in their sweeping budget reconciliation bill that would authorize the sale of up to 3.3 million acres of public land in the Western United States.

The measure, which has a potentially significant impact on outdoor recreation, hunting and wildlife across some of the most iconic landscapes of the U.S., has ignited fierce resistance from conservationists, Democrats, and even some MAGA Republicans, uniting unlikely political allies in defense of keeping public lands from being developed.

Why It Matters

The proposal was introduced by Utah Republican Mike Lee, a strong supporter of President Trump. It is embedded in what party leaders call the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” a broader legislative package to fund Trump‘s economic agenda.

If passed, the legislation would require the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service to sell off between 0.5 and 0.75 percent of their land holdings in 11 Western states, including Colorado, Utah, Idaho and Arizona. Montana is notably excluded.

What To Know

The intended use of the land, according to Lee, is to promote housing development and support local economic growth — though no specific development plan has been released. “We’re opening underused federal land to expand housing, support local development and get Washington, D.C. out of the way of communities that are just trying to grow,” Lee said in a video message shared with the bill’s release.

But critics across the political spectrum argue that the bill is far more expansive than it appears and argue it lacks safeguards to prevent misuse or over-development. A map created by the Wilderness Society, a non-profit land conservation organization, visually outlines the vast geographic impact of the proposed sell-off.

According to the Wilderness Society, the data reveals that more than 250 million acres — roughly equivalent to the land mass of Texas, California and New York combined — could technically qualify for sale, despite Lee’s claim that only “underused” parcels would be considered.

“Don’t take the bait that this is about ‘affordable housing,’ as its proponent claims,” said David Willms, associate vice president for public lands with the National Wildlife Federation, in an interview with Outdoor Life magazine. “It isn’t.”

The conservationists warn that critical landscapes—such as Otero Mesa, the Owyhee Canyonlands, and areas near Snoqualmie in Washington—fall within the bill’s eligibility range. The map also exposes how much of the potential sales footprint overlaps with wildlife migration corridors and public access lands prized by hunters, anglers and hikers.

“This is a fraudulent scheme to swindle American citizens out of our shared legacy,” said Patrick Berry, head of Backcountry Hunters & Anglers, in a statement quoted by Colorado Public Radio. The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation have also mobilized their members to oppose the bill.

While lands in designated National Parks and Monuments are protected under current designations, a recent Justice Department opinion says the president can both create and revoke National Monument land without Congress, under the Antiquities Act. Trump used this in 2017 to sharply reduce Bear’s Ears in Utah—the largest rollback of land protections in U.S. history.

Fierce and United Backlash

Benji Backer, founder of the nonprofit Nature Is Nonpartisan and a leading conservative environmentalist, accused Lee of lying and condemned him for trying to jam the proposal into the Senate reconciliation bill.

When Lee responded on X, arguing that Backer was wrong about the land eligible for development, Backer called Lee a “liar” and pleaded with other Republican senators not to “let this man ruin our legacy on conservation.”

Newsweek reached out to Lee’s office for further comment.

The backlash has also been swift in Capitol Hill. Senator John Hickenlooper, a Democrat from Colorado who sits on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee chaired by Lee, said he was blindsided by the measure.

“Our public lands are an heirloom — something to hand down to our children,” Hickenlooper told Colorado Public Radio. “No one asked my opinion or Michael Bennet‘s opinion,” he added, referring to his counterpart in the Colorado Senate delegation. “No one asked, to my knowledge, anyone’s opinion outside a very small group of people that were hell bent on chaos.”

Montana’s Ryan Zinke, who led the Interior Department under Trump and now serves in Congress, worked to remove a similar provision from the House version of the bill. “This was my San Juan Hill; I do not support the widespread sale or transfer of public lands,” Zinke told The New York Times.

While the Senate version includes language that exempts national parks and areas with active leases, the bill still allows any “interested party” to nominate tracts for sale. That includes corporations, developers or other private buyers. Once nominated, land would be reviewed by federal agencies and, under the proposal, sales would be considered to have already met public-comment requirements under existing law.

“It’s basically Washington telling Coloradans what lands are for sale,” Hickenlooper said. “Anyone can nominate land, but the criteria are defined in D.C.”

Most Americans—across party lines—oppose selling off public lands. A recent national Co/efficient poll found that 75 percent are against permanently selling millions of acres for development, including 65 percent of Republicans and 88 percent of Democrats.

Still, the administration is standing by the measure. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum described the targeted areas as “barren land next to highways with existing billboards that have no recreational value.”

Colorado Republican Lauren Boebert also voiced support, likening it to her past effort to transfer a small piece of federal land to Mesa County for local development. “The outrage from the far left is not only unwarranted — it’s out of touch with the real challenges facing rural America,” she said in a statement.

What People Are Saying

Kent Ebersole, President of the Outdoor Industry Association, told CPR News: “We will continue working with the bipartisan coalition in Congress that helped stop this proposal last month to protect these critical places that power the outdoor recreation economy.”

Secretary of Interior Doug Burgum told the U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee: “This is not about our most sacred and beautiful places. This is often about barren land next to highways with existing billboards that have no recreational value.”

Benji Backer, founder of the nonprofit Nature Is Nonpartisan, wrote in an op-ed for The Daily Caller: “President Trump made a promise to revive this legacy, and he kept that promise during his first term with the Great American Outdoors Act. But now, this selling of public lands could undo those years of hard work and progress.”

The Teddy Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, in a statement last week: “The Senate proposal sets an arbitrary acreage target and calls for the disposal of up to six times more land than was proposed in early versions of the House budget reconciliation bill. If passed, sportsmen and women would lose access to large tracts of public land.”

Mike Cernovich, the popular MAGA influencer, on X: “Selling off our federal lands should be a no-go. We haven’t even done mass deportations. Men better than any of us died exploring these areas. They are the birthright of Americans. Selling them off for a bowl of stew would be heresy.”

Conservative author and veteran Braxton McCoy, on X: “If you’re in Utah calling Mike Lee’s office isn’t going to do anything. He has been focused on selling this land off since he got elected. He already knows you don’t want it sold. That’s why he pitched his lawsuit on the lie that it was only about transferring it to the state because muh local management is better. Call all the other offices though. They may be more receptive.”

What Happens Next

While the House narrowly passed its version of the reconciliation bill without the land sales provision, the Senate version could face a rockier path. With Republicans holding only a slim majority, just a few defections based on the growing public backlash could sink the measure.