For decades, conservatives have pushed to reduce federal ownership of land, starting with the Sagebrush Rebellion in the 1970s. Those efforts haven’t stopped; they’ve evolved into persistent campaigns to transfer, sell, or devolve public lands to state or private control. The new Trump administration has not explicitly announced mass sales, but signals from officials and recent congressional maneuvers make such moves plausible — and many public-lands advocates are alarmed.
Patagonia CEO Ryan Gellert warned in Time that the current Congress and administration are working to make it easier to lease or sell hundreds of millions of acres of public lands, including iconic landscapes. He argued such policies could strip away access for hiking, climbing, camping, fishing, and hunting, harm small businesses dependent on recreation tourism, and open communities to pollution from mining and drilling.
Coalitions representing human-powered recreation, hunters, and anglers have raised similar alarms. Outdoor Alliance calls state takeover attempts and administration rumblings a “direct threat” to outdoor access in the West and to an outdoor recreation economy that reportedly generates more than $1.2 trillion in activity and supports roughly 5 million jobs.
The rhetoric from the administration and certain appointees adds to the concern. At his confirmation, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum framed federal lands in balance-sheet terms: some areas deserve protection, he said, but much of the rest should be managed to “extract value” for the American people — implying sales, leases, or development to raise revenue. Land Towney of American Hunters and Anglers Action Network reacted strongly, noting that treating public lands as a balance sheet is a new and troubling stance.
Two concrete developments point toward a potential strategy of liquidating land assets. First, the administration has proposed creating a U.S. sovereign wealth fund — a pooled investment vehicle that, given the country’s large national debt, would need sizable capital to be meaningful. Selling public lands is one of the fastest ways to raise large, immediate sums for such a fund. Second, in January, the Republican-led House adopted a rules package that makes it easier to transfer, sell, donate, or exchange federal lands — a procedural change that could facilitate broader divestment.
Advocates note these moves ignore the broader, non-market value of public lands. Beyond resource extraction, public lands provide ecosystem services (clean air, water, habitat), drive a sizable recreation economy, and support local communities. Outdoor recreation’s economic footprint rivals or exceeds many traditional industries: it’s multiple times larger than airlines or auto manufacturing, and larger than agriculture, forestry, oil, gas, and mining in many metrics. One frequently cited estimate says every federal dollar spent on public lands yields roughly $14 in economic activity — a return that’s hard to match by simply selling off acreage.
Opposition to selling public lands crosses political lines. Conservational hunting and angling groups, often aligned with conservative constituencies, have long defended federal ownership because it guarantees access and supports rural economies. Many voters — urban and rural, left and right — cherish national parks, forests, monuments, and BLM lands for recreation, heritage, and livelihood.
If you oppose land sales, there are practical steps to take. Contact your members of Congress and urge support for protections such as the Public Lands in Public Hands Act (H.R. 7430), a bipartisan bill introduced by Reps. Ryan Zinke (R‑Mont.) and Gabe Vasquez (D‑N.M.) that would block sales or transfers of large parcels (300 acres or more) managed by the Department of the Interior and the U.S. Forest Service. Coalitions like Outdoor Alliance provide tools to email representatives quickly. Calling, emailing, and engaging locally with elected officials and community leaders can help build the bipartisan pressure needed to resist wholesale divestment.
The issue is likely to remain contentious and procedural changes will matter. For now, Americans who value public lands — for recreation, livelihood, and conservation — should pay attention, make their voices heard, and track legislative and administrative moves closely.
Stephen Casimiro
Founder + Editor
Photo: At march in support of national parks, Joshua Tree, California, March 1, 2025, by Stephen Casimiro
