Map Shows Where 250 Million Acres of Public Land is Being Sold Off
The largest single sale of national public land in modern history could be carried out as part of President Donald Trump's budget bill to help pay for his sweeping tax cuts.
However, a professor who is an expert on climate policy questioned the efficacy of the proposals, telling Newsweek that "selling off public lands will not reduce federal spending to any significant degree."
Newsweek has contacted the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service via email for comment.
The Senate committee said that a lot of the land owned by BLM and USFS cannot be used for housing, and so by opening up portions of federal land for large-scale housing construction, they intend to solve the "housing crisis."
However, the nonprofit land conversation organization The Wilderness Society argued the opposite—that research suggests "very little of the land managed by the BLM and USFS is actually suitable for housing."
It warned that much of the public land eligible for sale in the bill include "local recreation areas, wilderness study areas, inventoried roadless areas, critical wildlife habitat and big game migration corridors."
The organization said the measure "trades ordinary Americans' access to outdoor recreation for a short-term payoff that disproportionately benefits the privileged and well-connected."
The measure, which was included in the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee's version of the tax-and-spending legislation released last week, aims to generate revenue for tax cuts by auctioning off public lands in 11 Western states.
The legislation mandates that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and U.S. Forest Service (USFS) sell more than 2 million acres over the next five years, with a total of 258 million acres now legally available for potential sale.
The proposal mandates the nomination of tracts within 30 days, then every 60 days until the multi-million-acre goal is met, all without hearings, debate or public input.
The plan is also part of a broader move to generate around $29 billion through a combination of expanded oil, gas, coal and geothermal lease sales, as well as new timber sales.
According to The Wilderness Society, the total of USFS and BLM land available for sale under the new proposals for the Senate Reconciliation Bill, which are consolidated in the West, are as follows for each state:
Alaska: 82.8 million acresArizona: 14.4 million acresCalifornia: 16.7 million acresColorado: 14.4 million acresIdaho: 21.7 million acresNevada: 33.6 million acresNew Mexico: 14.3 million acresOregon: 21.7 million acresUtah: 18.7 million acresWashington: 5.4 million acresWyoming: 15 million acres
Studies show that less than 2 percent of USFS and BLM land is "close enough to population centers to make sense for housing development," Patrick Parenteau, a professor of law and senior fellow for climate policy at Vermont Law and Graduate School, told Newsweek.
"Economists also found that more than half of federal lands within a quarter mile of towns needing more housing and a population of at least 100 people had high wildfire risk," he added.
The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee said that the proposal is estimated to generate between $5 to $10 billion during the 2025-2034 period.
However, whether this move will have a positive financial impact for the government has been debated by experts.
Parenteau said "selling off public lands will not reduce federal spending to any significant degree."
"There are lands that have been identified for sale or swaps due to the difficulty of managing them like checkerboard lands, but this legislation is not limited to those lands," he said. "The goal is to maximize revenue to offset the massive tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy."
Parenteau added that the mandate also means that ultimately "buyers will have the upper hand."
"The percentage of acreage being discussed is too small, in my view, to have any real effect on either the agencies' management budgets or the national debt," Deborah A. Sivas, director of the Environmental Law Clinic at Stanford Law, told Newsweek.
"Most of these lands, especially remote lands managed by BLM, don't need or receive substantial or intensive management effort by the agencies; instead, they function largely as some of the last remaining ecological habitat for our dwindling wildlife," she said.
Although, Wendie L. Kellington, a law attorney at Kellington Law Group, told Newsweek that the legislation "should have a positive budgetary impact on federal land maintenance and holding costs, because 5 percent of the proceeds from land sales must go to addressing the federal government's not insignificant backlog of deferred maintenance on federal BLM and forest lands in the states where the land is sold."
She added that is expensive to own land and the federal government "has done a relatively poor job of maintaining its lands."
The sale of public lands as part of Trump's tax bill has been a divisive measure, and a proposal to sell around 500,000 acres of federal land in Utah and Nevada was struck off the legislation by the House after some Republican lawmakers opposed the move.
A number of Republican representatives launched the bipartisan Public Lands Caucus with the aim of "expanding public access to federal lands, not auctioning them off."
Patrick Parenteau, a professor of law and senior fellow for climate policy at Vermont Law and Graduate School, told Newsweek: "The legislation sets a target of over 3 million acres to be sold by 2030, but over 200 million acres of public lands would be eligible for sale to the highest bidder which is likely to be real estate developers or wealthy individuals looking for property near major attractions like Lake Tahoe or Gates of the Arctic.
"Even though national parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers and other protected areas are excluded, the areas eligible for sale include local recreation areas, wilderness study areas, inventoried roadless areas, critical wildlife habitat and big game migration corridors."
He added: "Sales could impact local communities by eliminating access to popular recreation areas for hiking, camping, fishing, hunting, and more, reducing revenues from tourism near gateway communities, imposing more costs for public services like sewage and fire and police protection, increasing air and water pollution depending on what land uses are allowed, and so forth."
Wendie L. Kellington, a law attorney at Kellington Law Group, told Newsweek: "The impact should be positive in the states and regions where the land is sold because the federal land to be sold can only be used for the development of housing or to address associated community needs.
"The states identified in the bill are ones with disproportionately great housing shortages and affordability challenges. The affected regions will not lose beloved park or conservation lands. Rather, the bill is narrow and expressly prohibits sales of 'federally protected land" which includes national parks, wild and scenic river areas, national wildlife refuges, national historic sites and many other federally protected sites.
"The bill is an effort at a federal solution to a well-known, stubborn, serious housing shortage problem that no one has been able to solve for the past three decades."
Deborah A. Sivas, director of the Environmental Law Clinic at Stanford Law, told Newsweek: "Most federal public land is remote from infrastructure and communities, which means it has little value as land per se on the private market and is unlikely to raise appreciable revenue. Maybe there are some parcels immediately adjacent to human communities and services, but for the most part, developers will not be interested in lands that do not connect to supporting infrastructure, human amenities, or nearby jobs."
She added: "Starting in 1976, we largely halted, as a matter of public policy, the very long history of selling or giving away federal lands. And I recently saw yet another poll reaffirming that Americans remain overwhelmingly opposed to the sell-off of public lands, which are considered a national treasure and legacy for future generations."
The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committeesaid in its fact sheet on the legislation: "In the West, this means that the federal government is depriving our communities of needed land for housing and inhibiting growth. President Trump recognized the connection between federal land ownership and the housing crisis, which is why he pledged to 'open up portions of federal land for large-scale housing construction.'"
It added: "This proposal allows a fraction of 1 percent of federal land to be used to build houses. In doing so, it will create thousands of jobs, allow millions of Americans to realize the American dream, and reduce the deficit and fund our public lands."
The committee's proposals, unveiled June 11 and revised June 14, is still subject to debate and potential amendment as the Senate deliberates over Trump's tax bill ahead of the self-set deadline of July 4.
Related Articles
E. Jean Carroll on 'Comedy Gold' of Trump Trial and How She'll Spend $83MNo Kings Protests or Trump's Army Parade-Which Won the Weekend? Newsweek Contributors DebateDonald Trump's Approval Rating is Suffering With RepublicansHow Recall of 20 Million Eggs Could Affect US Prices
2025 NEWSWEEK DIGITAL LLC.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
15 minutes ago
- Yahoo
A guide to the 'doomsday plane': The US airborne command center
As President Donald Trump weighs whether he will target Iranian nuclear facilities amid escalating Israel-Iran conflict, the president's U.S. Air Force E-4B Nightwatch, also known as the "doomsday plane," is now attracting attention, having reportedly landed at Joint Base Andrews outside Washington, D.C., earlier this week, according to the New York Post and other media. In response to inquiries about the alleged Nightwatch landing, officials from Joint Base Andrews told Fox News Digital that "as a matter of operational security, we cannot comment on specific location or purpose of the [National Airborne Operations Center] or other aircraft on our flightline." Other reports say the plane is no longer in the Washington area and is back at its home base. Iran Warns Us Joining Conflict Would Mean 'All-out War,' Refuses Demands To Give Up Disputed Nuclear Program Here's what to know about the E-4B Nightwatch: The E-4B is a Boeing 747-200 that has been militarized and is operated by the U.S. Air Force. Designed during the Cold War, the plane can remain airborne for up to a week and is able to refuel in midair. Sixty-seven antennas and satellite dishes allow the Nightwatch to communicate with individuals worldwide. Read On The Fox News App The U.S. maintains a fleet of four E-4Bs, built at a cost of $438.76 million each. The E-4B is designed as a mobile command post that allows national security officials, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the President, and the Secretary of Defense to continue running the government during a nuclear conflict. According to a USAF press release, it is also used for international travel by the Secretary of Defense. "Additionally, the E-4B provides outside the continental United States travel support for the Secretary of Defense and his staff to ensure Title 10 command and control connectivity." According to the Aviation Zone, in 1994 FEMA was authorized to use the plane as a control and command center during natural disasters. In Iran's 'Forever War' Against The Us, Regime Has Targeted, Killed Americans Worldwide Publicly available U.S. Air Force data states that "at least one E4-B is always generated as a NAOC and on alert 24 hours a day, 7 days a week" to support senior defense officials. The E-4B can hold a crew of 112. Onboard, officials have access to 18 bunks, six bathrooms, a conference room, communications space, a briefing room and a rest area. The Air Force says that "the conduct of E-4B operations encompasses all phases of the threat spectrum." The Nightwatch can withstand an electromagnetic pulse and can survive nuclear blasts and cyberattacks. Netanyahu Declares Israel 'Will Exact The Full Price' After Iranian Strike Hits Hospital In Israel Leaders within Iran have threatened retaliation against the U.S. in the event it enters the Israel-Iran conflict. Theresa Payton, former White House chief information officer and CEO of the cybersecurity firm Fortalice Solutions, told Fox News Digital that the Islamic Regime may prepare a high-impact cyberattack on the U.S. "as it becomes more and more desperate." The president is said to be deciding whether to use the B-2 Spirit stealth bomber to deliver a series of 30,000-pound GBU-57 Massive Ordinance Penetrators, also known as "bunker busters," to destroy Iran's well-fortified Fordow nuclear facility, which may lie further than 300 feet below mountainous rock. While Israel targeted facilities associated with the Iranian military and Iran's nuclear program, on June 19, Iran struck Soroka Hospital, the largest hospital in southern Israel, with a ballistic missile, causing damage. Original article source: A guide to the 'doomsday plane': The US airborne command center
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
What's the best age to buy a house?
Buying a home is one of the biggest financial decisions you'll ever make. So, you may be wondering: What is the best age to buy a house? Are you too young to think about homeownership? Or do you feel like you've waited too long to buy? Here's a look at the average age of first-time home buyers and how to decide the right age to make a move. Learn more: A step-by-step guide to buying a house This embedded content is not available in your region. In this article: Average age to buy a house Pros and cons of buying when younger Pros and cons of buying when older Is there a 'right time' (or age) to buy? FAQs Young adults are now waiting longer to buy their first homes. In 2024, the average age for Americans to buy their first house reached a record high of 38, according to a report from the National Association of REALTORS®. The shift is largely due to soaring home prices and student loan debt levels. Many young adults are also delaying marriage and prioritizing personal growth and career development over homeownership. That said, the right age to buy a home may vary depending on your financial situation, desired location, lifestyle, and long-term goals. Building equity. Buying early and owning your own home for an extended period gives you time to build up equity. Your home equity is the difference between what your home is worth and the amount you still owe on your mortgage. You can leverage home equity to invest or meet other financial goals in the future, and even use it to afford a down payment on your next house if you move. However, you don't accumulate equity when you rent. Predictable housing costs. Annual rent increases are relatively common. But when you purchase a home with a fixed-rate mortgage, you get set monthly mortgage payments. (Note: Property taxes, homeowners insurance, and homeowners' association fees, if applicable, may fluctuate over time.) Tax perks. You can save at tax time by deducting mortgage interest, property taxes, and other home costs on your return. Homeowners who itemize deductions can take advantage of this perk. Reach out to a tax professional to learn more. Freedom of expression. Most landlords impose restrictions on the customizations you can make to rental properties. Owning a home, though, means you can renovate or upgrade your space to make it more functional. Lower price point. Home prices generally rise over time. So, buying young means you can take advantage of the lower price point. Plus, if you stay in the house for a long time, you could pay off your home loan before you retire. Limited mobility. Leasing means you only have to stay put for a year (or less in some cases) before you can relocate. But buying a home is more of a long-term investment, and selling too prematurely could be costly. Lending terms. There are loan programs for people with low or no credit scores or those with limited income, minimal cash reserves, or high debt levels. The problem is, you may not qualify for the best lending terms offered to prospective buyers. Specifically, you could get stuck paying a higher mortgage stability. Buying in your middle or older years gives you more time to build a solid financial foundation. Remember, good credit, ample reserves, and a low debt-to-income ratio make you more attractive to lenders. More clarity. It's also highly likely that you'll have more clarity on where you want to live long term when you're older. Whether you're retiring in your dream area or relocating to be closer to adult children, buying a home later in life can bring peace of mind. You'll have confidence knowing you're living exactly where you want to be. Forfeited equity growth. Again, buying young can work in your favor as home values climb. But buying older gives you less time to build up equity that you can convert to cash to use however you see fit. Mortgage payments during retirement. Some homeowners experience a significant dip in income during their golden years. Unfortunately, costly mortgage payments could stretch your budget thin. Uncertainty. There's no way to know what the future holds. You could face medical challenges or other unexpected obstacles as you age that make it difficult for you to afford or maintain your dream home. The right time to buy a home isn't always about age. It's more about your financial situation, future plans, and ability to manage homeownership costs. Here are some questions to ponder: Do you meet the lending criteria for a mortgage? Do you have a minimal debt load? Can you afford to make a down payment on a new home? Do you have at least three to six months of expenses saved for emergencies? Can you comfortably afford the monthly mortgage payments? Do you plan to live in the home for an extended period of time? Do you have the means to cover maintenance and repairs? Do you have a designated point of contact to assist with questions or address your needs? Answering yes to most of these questions is a sign that you're ready to buy a home, regardless of your age. Before moving forward, analyze your situation, needs, and goals to make an informed decision. Dig deeper: Should you buy a house? How to know if you're ready. A 2024 National Association of REALTORS® report revealed that the average age of first-time home buyers is 38. However, depending on your financial situation and goals, the right age for you could be much younger or older. Again, there's no right or wrong age to purchase a home, as it depends on your unique situation. However, most states require you to be at least 18 unless an adult signs real estate contracts on your behalf. If you're financially stable with a solid credit profile, adequate savings, and a clear vision for your future, homeownership in your 20s could be a smart financial move. You'll have several years to build equity, benefit from predictable housing costs, and even enjoy a paid-off home before retirement should you purchase your 'forever home.' Laura Grace Tarpley edited this article.
Time Magazine
26 minutes ago
- Time Magazine
Trump to Win a Nobel Peace Prize? Pakistan States Nomination
Pakistan has stated its intention to'formally recommend' U.S. President Donald Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize, on account of his role in helping India and Pakistan reach a cease-fire after conflict between the two long-time rivals resurged earlier this year. Previous Nobel Peace Prize recipients include former TIME100 Women of the Year honoree Malala Yousafzai, and previous TIME Person of the Year recipients Martin Luther King Jr. and former President Barack Obama. 'At a moment of heightened regional turbulence, President Trump demonstrated great strategic foresight and stellar statesmanship through robust diplomatic engagement with both Islamabad and New Delhi, which de-escalated a rapidly deteriorating situation, ultimately securing a cease-fire and averting a broader conflict between the two nuclear states that would have had catastrophic consequences for millions of people in the region and beyond,' the Government of Pakistan said in its announcement via social media. 'This intervention stands as a testament to his role as a genuine peacemaker and his commitment to conflict resolution through dialogue.' The Pakistani government went on to say that Trump's 'leadership during the 2025 Pakistan-India crisis manifestly showcases the continuation of his legacy of pragmatic diplomacy and effective peace-building.' Read More: India and Pakistan Cease-Fire Appears to Hold Despite Accusations of Violations When Trump announced the cease-fire between India and Pakistan on May 10, he said the agreement had been reached after 'a long night of talks mediated by the United States.' He later went on to thank Vice President J.D. Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio for their efforts. Pakistan's Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif took to social media to express gratitude to Trump at the time, saying: "We thank President Trump for his leadership and proactive role for peace in the region. Pakistan appreciates the United States for facilitating this outcome, which we have accepted in the interest of regional peace and stability.' By contrast, the Indian government did not mention U.S. involvement in the mediation talks. "India and Pakistan was worked out directly between the two countries," a statement read. Pakistan's announcement of its intentions regarding a nomination comes after Trump posted on Truth Social about the Nobel Peace Prize when commenting on his international mediating. Within that social media post, Trump took credit for 'stopping the war' between India and Pakistan. 'I won't get a Nobel Peace Prize for stopping the war between India and Pakistan. I won't get a Nobel Peace Prize for stopping the war between Serbia and Kosovo. I won't get a Nobel Peace Prize for keeping peace between Egypt and Ethiopia," Trump claimed. Read More: A New Middle East Is Unfolding Before Our Eyes Pakistan's announcement also comes as Trump weighs his options on whether the U.S. should embark on military involvement in the Israel-Iran conflict. Trump has given himself two weeks to decide whether the U.S. will continue supporting Israel from afar or become an active participant in the conflict with Iran.
