The Trump administration is making moves to reduce the government’s footprint in the West by offloading public land. This move has long been a goal of conservatives, and it is now being put into action by Interior Secretary Doug Burgum. Federal agencies currently manage around 640 million acres of land, which accounts for about 28 percent of the nation’s total land area. Burgum has referred to this land as “America’s balance sheet,” highlighting its value.
Recently, the Interior Department and the Department of Housing and Urban Development announced a plan to make large tracts of government land available to developers. Burgum stated that this partnership will change how public resources are utilized as the country enters the “Golden Age” promised by President Trump. However, little information has been shared about the process for identifying parcels or how they will be sold or transferred.
Burgum mentioned that the Interior Department would consider selling hundreds of thousands of federally-managed acres within 3 miles of urban areas. Jon Raby, the acting director of the Bureau of Land Management, also stated that the initiative would consider land within 10 miles of towns with populations of 5,000 people. This lack of transparency and clear guidelines has raised concerns among conservation groups.
The task force responsible for this initiative aims to deliver a report to the National Economic Council, identifying parcels and outlining housing construction plans. They also plan to make recommendations to streamline the regulatory process for land transfers or leases. Despite the lack of details, the Interior Department has stated that all options are being explored.
Burgum’s ties to the Yellowstone Club, a luxury real estate investment firm, have raised concerns about potential conflicts of interest in federal land transfers. Documents filed with the U.S. Office of Government Ethics revealed that Burgum has not divested his financial interest in the Yellowstone Club. The club owns an exclusive community covering about 14,000 acres, including a members-only ski resort. Burgum owns two homes and additional financial interests in the development.
The Yellowstone Club has a history of using public land transfers and sales to expand its holdings, catering to wealthy and powerful individuals. A recent controversial land swap saw the club receive 3,855 acres of land from the U.S. Forest Service in exchange for 6,110 acres of less valuable land. Critics argued that this swap restricted public access to valuable recreational areas.
Opponents, including hunting and angling groups, claimed that the process violated environmental regulations and misled the public about the Yellowstone Club’s involvement. More than 80 percent of public comments submitted to the Forest Service opposed the deal, which has now limited public access to popular outdoor areas.
As the Trump administration moves forward with plans to offload public land, concerns about transparency, conflicts of interest, and environmental impacts continue to be raised. The fate of these valuable public resources remains uncertain as the government works to reduce its footprint in the West. Critics fear that land may now become available to industry and developers, as recent developments have raised concerns about potential conflicts of interest and ethical violations. Richard Painter, former chief ethics lawyer to President George W. Bush, has warned that the acquisition of federal land by the Yellowstone Club could impact Governor Burgum’s financial interests. This could potentially change the value of his properties or lower fees that homeowners at the club pay. If regulations around federal land swaps are streamlined or reduced as a result of the joint task force, it could benefit the Yellowstone Club’s future dealings, raising ethical concerns.
Painter highlighted the history of close ties between senior Interior Department officials and private industry, emphasizing the need for oversight to ensure federal land is managed in the public’s interest. The involvement of politicians like Governor Burgum, Energy Secretary Chris Wright, and others with ties to the club has raised suspicions of the billionaire class influencing decision-making in the Rocky Mountain West.
The announcement by the Interior Department about the joint task force on selling public land under the guise of building affordable housing has drawn skepticism from experts. While the proposal aims to address housing shortages, experts argue that supply constraints are not the primary issue driving the housing crisis. Rather, there is a mismatch in supply, with factors like high mortgage rates and empty nesters staying put affecting the availability of housing.
The proposal to sell federal land reflects a long-standing Republican agenda to dismantle public lands, with roots dating back to the Sagebrush Rebellion of the 1970s. Despite public opposition and financial challenges associated with managing public lands at a loss, the idea continues to resurface. Past efforts under the Trump administration, led by Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke, saw discussions about transferring federal land to states, raising concerns about the privatization of public resources.
Opposition to selling federal land remains strong among Western voters, with concerns about the cost and risks associated with transferring control to private entities or states. With mounting ethical concerns, conflicts of interest, and a lack of public support, the future of federal land management and potential sales to developers remains a contentious issue in American politics. In a recent development, it has come to light that there was a lawsuit supported by a prominent individual seeking state control of a vast expanse of land held by the Bureau of Land Management. This lawsuit aimed to transfer control of 18.5 million acres of land to the state, a move that could have significant implications for land management and conservation efforts. However, the Supreme Court declined to hear the case in January, leaving the issue unresolved.
This push for state control of federal lands is part of a broader conservative agenda outlined in Project 2025, a blueprint for Trump’s potential second term. The chapter on the Interior Department in Project 2025, authored by William Pendley, advocates for the sale of all federal lands, arguing that the government is a poor manager of public trust. The proposed changes include weakening environmental protections and increasing resource extraction activities on public lands.
Kathleen Sgamma, a former nominee to lead the Bureau of Land Management, also contributed to the chapter and has expressed support for reducing federal ownership of land. The appointment of Katharine MacGregor, a vice president of NextEra Energy, as deputy interior secretary further signals a pro-industry stance within the administration. MacGregor has a history of supporting oil and gas leases and has been criticized for concealing public records related to her interactions with industry executives.
The administration’s emphasis on selling public lands as a solution to the national debt has raised concerns among critics. The lack of safeguards in place could lead to unintended consequences, such as the development of luxury properties on formerly public lands. Additionally, cuts to affordable housing programs and staffing reductions in key agencies could exacerbate existing housing crises and benefit only a select few.
Overall, the push for state control of federal lands and the prioritization of resource extraction over conservation efforts raise questions about the long-term sustainability of land management practices in the United States. It remains to be seen how these policies will impact the environment, local communities, and the nation as a whole. The global pandemic caused by the spread of the novel coronavirus, also known as COVID-19, has had a profound impact on people all over the world. From the loss of loved ones to the disruption of daily life, the effects of the virus have been far-reaching and long-lasting. As countries continue to grapple with the challenges presented by this unprecedented crisis, it has become increasingly clear that the world as we know it will never be the same.
One of the most significant consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic has been the toll it has taken on public health. Hospitals and healthcare systems have been overwhelmed by the influx of patients suffering from the virus, leading to shortages of essential medical supplies and equipment. Healthcare workers have been pushed to their limits, working tirelessly to care for those in need while risking their own health in the process.
In addition to the physical health impact of the virus, there has also been a significant toll on mental health. The stress and anxiety brought on by the uncertainty of the situation, as well as the social isolation caused by lockdowns and social distancing measures, have taken a severe toll on many people’s mental well-being. Rates of depression, anxiety, and other mental health disorders have skyrocketed during the pandemic, highlighting the need for increased support and resources for those struggling with their mental health.
The economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic has also been profound. Businesses of all sizes have been forced to shut down or scale back operations, leading to widespread job losses and financial hardship for millions of people. Governments around the world have implemented economic stimulus packages and relief measures to help support individuals and businesses during this challenging time, but the long-term effects of the economic downturn are likely to be felt for years to come.
As the world continues to navigate the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic, it has become increasingly clear that a return to normalcy will not be possible in the near future. The virus has fundamentally changed the way we live, work, and interact with one another, and it will take time for society to adjust to this new reality. However, there is hope on the horizon as vaccines are being developed and distributed, offering a glimmer of light at the end of the tunnel.
In the meantime, it is crucial that we continue to follow public health guidelines, practice social distancing, and take steps to protect ourselves and others from the spread of the virus. By working together and supporting one another during this challenging time, we can overcome the obstacles presented by the COVID-19 pandemic and emerge stronger and more resilient than ever before.
