House Republicans Kill Provision to Sell Public Lands
Republican House leaders have pulled a controversial provision from the federal budget bill that would have required the sale or transfer of some 500,000 acres of federal public land in the West.
Late this afternoon, leadership of the House Rules Committee removed the provision through a mechanism called a 'manager's amendment' after being pressured by maverick House Republicans.
'This was my San Juan Hill,' said Montana Republican Ryan Zinke in a press release. 'I do not support the widespread sale or transfer of public lands. Once the land is sold, we will never get it back. God isn't creating more land. Public access, sportsmanship, grazing, tourism… our entire Montanan way of life is connected to our public lands.'
The land-sale amendment to the House Natural Resources budget has inflamed conservationists and threatened to be a motivating election issue for hunters, anglers, and outdoor recreationists. The provision was stripped after at least six Western Republicans, led by Zinke, said they wouldn't support the budget if it contained the land-sale amendment.
The amendment from Nevada Republican Mark Amodei and Utah Republican Celeste Maloy, slipped into the budget at the last minute earlier this month, at first seemed to call for selling about 11,000 acres in southern Utah. Then details emerged that it also included a requirement to sell or trade another 500,000 acres in Nevada.
Conservationists and public land advocates worried that if Congress established a precedent for selling federal lands with no public process or clear understanding of the acreages involved, the pattern could continue with wholesale sales of public lands elsewhere.
'I think every hunter in America was calling their [Congress] member with a note that said 10 days ago this was 11,000 acres for housing. Then it was 350,000 acres. Then 500,000 acres,' says David Willms, vice president for public lands for the National Wildlife Federation. 'They were saying maybe we shouldn't be including something in [budget] reconciliation at the eleventh hour if no one actually knows how much land is at stake, and that blindsided the public. They were telling their congressmen, 'Pull it.''
The land-sale provision threatened to derail The One Big, Beautiful Bill Act, the mega-bill that contains President Trump's spending priorities and a permanent tax cut. The bill is projected to increase the national deficit by up to $4 trillion while reorienting many federal agencies missions and capabilities.
While the toxic land-sale amendment is out of the budget bill, which will go to the full House for a floor vote later this week, it could be inserted back into the bill when it goes to the Senate. Utah Republican Mike Lee, the chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee and a staunch champion of selling or transferring federal land to the states, is among several senators who could revive the amendment.
Congressional leaders have said they want to pass the budget by Memorial Day. Any substantive revision on the Senate side would require concurrence from the House, and that might push passage past the holiday.
'We extend our deep appreciation to Representative Ryan Zinke and Representative Mike Simpson for publicly opposing language in the House budget reconciliation bill that would sell off and sell out our public lands legacy,' said Kaden McArthur, Backcountry Hunters & Anglers director of policy and government relations, in a prepared statement. 'As the Senate considers a budget reconciliation bill, hunters and anglers across the nation must continue the groundswell of opposition to public land sales so it is understood that this issue is a line in the sand that we will not allow to be crossed.'
Editor's Note: A previous Outdoor Life story referenced a report from onX stating that approximately 1.5 million acres would be sold if the budget amendment were passed. However that report was inaccurate. The true number of acres that were up for disposal was approximately 500,000.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
San Francisco Chronicle
an hour ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Supreme Court delivers another blow to California's imperiled emissions standards
The Supreme Court reinstated legal challenges by oil and gas companies Friday to California's strict emissions standards for motor vehicles, standards that the Trump administration is likely to halt on its own in the near future. Federal law allows California to set tighter limits on auto emissions than the national standard, and since 1990 has allowed other states to adopt California's rules, an option taken by 17 states and the District of Columbia. But fuel companies affected by the increasing use of electric vehicles contend the state's standards are too restrictive and have sued to overturn them. Lower federal courts ruled that companies had failed to show they were being harmed by the standards, and therefore lacked legal standing to sue, because electric car sales are increasing for other reasons. The Supreme Court disagreed in a 7-2 decision. 'The whole point of the regulations is to increase the number of electric vehicles in the new automobile market beyond what consumers would otherwise demand,' Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote in the majority opinion. 'The government generally may not target a business or industry through stringent and allegedly unlawful regulation, and then evade the resulting lawsuits by claiming that the targets of its regulation should be locked out of court.' But dissenting Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said lawyers in the case had told the court that the Environmental Protection Agency, under President Donald Trump, was about to withdraw its approval of California's waiver from nationwide standards, 'which will put an end to California's emissions program.' The EPA took that action during Trump's first administration, which was reversed under President Joe Biden. Meanwhile, legislation passed by the Republican-controlled Congress and signed by Trump would prevent California from banning sales of new gasoline-powered vehicles in 2035, a law the state has challenged in court. The Supreme Court 'is already viewed by many as being overly sympathetic to corporate interests,' and Friday's ruling 'will no doubt aid future attempts by the fuel industry to attack the Clean Air Act,' said Jackson, a Biden appointee. In a separate dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the court should have returned the case to a lower court to await the EPA's action. Kavanaugh, however, said fuel companies affected by California's current standards could seek to prove in court that they were arbitrary and unlawful. His opinion was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett and Elena Kagan. Liane Randolph, chair of the California Air Resources Board, said it was not a full-scale rejection of the state's emissions standards. 'This ruling does not change California's Advanced Clean Cars rulemaking, nor does it dispute what data has shown to be true: vehicle emissions are a huge source of pollution with grave health impacts, consumer adoption of zero emission vehicles continues to rise, and global auto manufacturers are committed to an electric future,' she said in a statement. But attorney Brett Skorup of the libertarian Cato Institute said the ruling was 'a welcome rebuke to judicial gatekeeping' and affirmed that 'predictable economic harms from government regulation' entitle 'injured parties (to) have their day in court.' The case is Diamond Alternative Energy v. EPA, No. 24-7.
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Mahmoud Khalil released from federal immigration detention
Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil was released from federal immigration detention on Friday following a judge's ruling, the Associated Press reported. Khalil, a lawful permanent resident and lead negotiator for the encampment at Columbia University while he was a student, was detained more than three months ago as the first case in a wave of crackdowns against foreign students involved in campus protests. 'My priority now is to get back to my wife and son,' Khalil told reporters after his release. 'Although justice prevailed, it is very long overdue.' As a condition of his release, Khalil must surrender his passport and cannot travel internationally. His movement within the United States will be restricted to New York and Michigan to visit family, Washington to lobby Congress, and New Jersey and Louisiana for court appearances. A judge ordered earlier Friday that Khalil should be released, calling it 'highly, highly unusual' that the government still sought to detain him. 'Together, they suggest that there is at least something to the underlying claim that there is an effort to use the immigration charge here to punish the petitioner — and, of course, that would be unconstitutional,' the judge, Michael Farbiarz, wrote in his ruling. The Trump administration had argued that Khalil could be deported under a rarely-used law that allows them to do so if they determined his presence in the country would have significant negative consequences for American foreign policy. Khalil has not been charged with a crime. Farbiarz had previously held that the government could not continue to hold Khalil under the determination by Secretary of State Marco Rubio. However, the judge allowed his detention to continue under a claim by the administration that Khalil had omitted some prior work experience from his green card application. Khalil's release follows the releases of several students apparently detained for pro-Palestine speech, including fellow Columbia alum Mohsen Mahdawi, who was arrested at his citizenship interview, and Tufts student Rumeysa Ozturk, who co-wrote an opinion in her campus newspaper calling for divestment from Israel. Khalil's arrest on March 8 was the first shot from the Trump administration in a dramatic salvo against international student visas. The administration has since declared it will ask student visa applicants to make their social media accounts available for inspection. Also on Friday, a judge indefinitely blocked the government's move to bar Harvard University from being able to enroll international students. The Associated Press contributed to this report. This is a developing story.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
What is the Prenatal Equal Protection Act? New bill would effectively ban abortion in Ohio
(WJW) — On Wednesday, Republican State Reps. Levi Dean and Johnathan Newman are set to introduce a controversial new bill at the Ohio Statehouse that would ban abortion in the Buckeye State. The legislation is called the Prenatal Equal Protection Act, and it aims to extend full legal rights to fetuses from the moment of fertilization. Bagworm outbreak threat growing in Ohio, OSU warns 'We are trying to create a constitutional debate in which we believe the state's constitution would be superseded by the U.S. Constitution,' said pro-life activist Austin Beigel, who helped craft the bill. Beigel, a member of End Abortion Ohio, said the legislation is about ensuring what he sees as equal protection for all life — born or unborn. 'To simply say this is a person in the womb, out of the womb — we know they are human. We believe all people deserve legal protection under the law,' he said. Supporters of the bill argue it is not about politics, but about morality. 'It is not going to permit the killing of innocent human beings, innocent people,' Beigel added. But opponents said the bill defies the will of Ohio voters, who passed a constitutional amendment in 2023 explicitly protecting access to abortion. 'I mean, we knew on Nov. 7, 2023, that there would be plans to undermine the will of the Ohio voter,' said Jordyn Close, deputy director of the Ohio Women's Alliance. Close said she first learned of the proposed legislation last week and was troubled by what she found. 'This bill does not account for any special circumstances. It does not account for any real-life realities for Ohioans who need abortion care,' she said. Baby delivered from brain-dead woman on life support in Georgia The bill argues that Ohio's constitutional amendment legalizing abortion should be considered invalid, claiming it violates the U.S. Constitution's equal-protection clause. But Close believes that argument won't hold up in court. 'Our fantastic legal team and legal scholars will be able to defeat this,' she said. Supporters of the legislation are expected to hold a rally inside the Statehouse from 2:30 to 4 p.m. on Wednesday as the bill is officially filed. Whether the bill gains traction in the legislature remains to be seen, but the fight over abortion rights in Ohio appears far from over. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
