While Iran and Israel simmer on the edge of a rolling boil war, ICE arrests continue, and a myriad of other things pop off in the United States, there is also apparently “the largest forced public lands sell-off in U.S. history” looming like Slender Man in the distance. While certain things about this news story are true, it’s presented in a pretty misleading way. And this time it’s not legacy media’s fault – it’s that floozy Instagram, which turns any piece of news it receives into a convoluted game of telephone.
Here’s an example below, a post recycled from The Wilderness Society with the caption:
🚨 250 MILLION ACRES. UP FOR SALE. 🚨
After a major defeat in the House, a Utah senator has reintroduced a massive public lands sell-off into the Senate’s budget reconciliation package—and this time, it’s even worse.
That’s 250 million acres—an area nearly the size of California, Montana, and Utah combined—now eligible for privatization. 🏜️💰 These are lands that belong to all of us: Indigenous communities, wildlife, future generations. Once they’re gone, they’re gone.
From California to the Rockies, public lands critical to biodiversity, food systems, and clean water are on the chopping block. We can’t let this happen.
📢 Call your senators—especially if you live in a Western state with Republican Senators—and demand they strip this provision from the reconciliation bill.
We only get one Earth. Let’s not sell it off. 🌎✊
🔗 Learn more: @wildernesssociety @sfchronicle
#ProtectPublicLands #LandBack #FoodJustice #CenterForFoodSafety #DefendTheWest #FoodSoverignty #FoodSafety
This caption seems to summarize what folks are believing about the sell-off. Maybe it’s time for a reminder not to internalize everything that reflects off our flickering screens onto our eyeballs. The headline from the New York Times (“A G.O.P. Plan to Sell Public Land Is Back. This Time, It’s Millions of Acres”) may still be a little fear-mongery, but the article itself is really informative. It also links a fact sheet from the Senate Energy and Natural Resources which I would highly recommend reading.
Here’s what is really going on.
Author Brad Plumer for the New York Times states, “The new plan to sell public lands was included in draft legislation issued on Wednesday by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee that is part of Mr. Trump’s ‘big, beautiful bill.’ The draft envisions raising as much as $10 billion by selling land for housing in Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming over the next five years.”
But that’s not as scary as it sounds. Read on.
In her June 19 “Unbiased” podcast episode, Jordan Berman summarized. “The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee said that the land sales are meant to solve the current housing crisis… essentially the proposal would require the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the U.S. Forest Service (FS) to identify and sell up to 3.3 million acres of land over the next five years. In total, there would be 258 million acres legally available for sale, but only 3.3 million of those acres at most would be sold.”
In other words, each agency must sell a minimum of 0.5% and a maximum of 0.75% of their total holdings.
Why is this happening now?
The committee’s fact sheet states: “There is a nationwide shortage of approximately 4 million homes and a shortage of 7 million affordable homes. This extreme lack of supply and affordability, coupled with excessive federal land ownership in the West constrains economic growth and the opportunity for western communities to thrive. Unlocking federal land for housing will develop millions of single-family homes, resulting in greater housing supply and making housing more affordable.”
What kind of land is up for grabs?
The sale cannot include land that is protected or land under existing rights - such as national monuments, national parks, national wilderness areas, or land with grazing permits.
The fact sheet says, “The Department of the Interior estimates that the BLM has about 1.2 million acres of land within 1 mile of a population center and another 800,000 within 1-5 miles of a population center. The Forest Service has over 1 million acres within 1 mile of a population center. Much of this land may qualify for disposal […] we expect nearly all of the land to be disposed of to be within 5 miles of a population center.”
If the proposal goes through, the decision on what land shall be sold will involve consultations with the governors, Tribes, and relevant environmental reviews. States and local government will be allowed rights of first refusal in land purchases.
What’s the status?
The House has passed the “big, beautiful bill” and the Senate is currently revising it. If they pass the revised version, it will return to the House for another vote.
Is this a good idea? I don’t know enough to truly say, but I don’t think it’s nearly as shocking as people are making it, since the BLM already sells thousands of acres every year. If we continue to welcome folks into our country, as we want to do, we need affordable housing for them. And I know that I’ve spoken with many friends and acquaintances who find it extremely hard to afford a house as a hopeful homeowner.
I’m feeling extra peevish due to the current heat wave in the Northeast, and must say that one of my many pet peeves is when the news makes something sound incredibly urgent and like such an emergency when that is really not the case. War is an emergency. A hurricane is an emergency. I would argue that this so-called “land grab” is being executed thoughtfully and slowly, and does not warrant the amount of anxiety it has garnered online. As always, I welcome your conflicting opinions. Stay cool!
Sources:
Instagram - Center For Food Safety
Fact Sheet from the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee
"That floozy Instagram" You're so great. <3
Ahh good one. As someone who is passionate about housing and thinks about it a lot, this is something I've been considering for a while. We previously lived in Colorado and which is similar but amplified to the situation in the White Mountains. It's not uncommon to hear something to the effect of "Land is so expensive here and housing is a lot because there's nowhere left to build." A single lot in Summit County Colorado, our previous home can go for as much as $1M per acre. It can also be a lot in White Mtn communities like Waterville and Loon Mountain surrounded by National Forest. My response to this has been, "if you have eyes you can see somehwere that a person COULD build a house" it's just that a lot of it is reserved by the stroke of a pen for public use. In my mind it's always been possible that some of this land be freed up for private use. I'm not saying I'm advocating for it and it's certainly a complex issue but I sure think it's interesting.