How Trump's 'One Big Beautiful Bill' Could Impact Skiing
On Wednesday, June 11, 2025, the US Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee published a provision to the current reconciliation bill that was introduced by the House earlier this year. The bill is referred to as the 'One Big Beautiful Bill' by President Donald Trump.The bill and its provision introduce a number of polarizing policies on things like funding for environmental and land management agencies, as well as the sale of huge parcels of public lands, which has a potentially massive impact on outdoor recreation in the US. One of the key points in the bill's most recent provision mandates the sale of between 0.5% and 0.75% of the 193 million acres of land managed by the US Forest Service, and 245 million acres managed by the BLM for housing development. In total, the bill references between roughly 2.2 million and 3.3 million acres of land split between BLM (1.23-1.84 million acres), and the Forest Service (between 956,000 and 1.45 million acres) that would be sold across 11 western states including Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Utah, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, New Mexico, Nevada and Wyoming.But what does this mean for skiers? Keep reading for more.Want to keep up with the best stories and photos in skiing? Subscribe to the new Powder To The People newsletter for weekly updates.
According to a fact sheet issued by the Committee, which is led by Utah Senator Mike Lee, the sale excludes the sale of National Parks, National Monuments, National Recreation Areas, components of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, National Wildlife Refuge System, National Fish Hatchery Systems, Wilderness Preservation Areas, and 'nearly every other protected designations.''This is not about our most sacred and beautiful places. This is often about barren land next to highways with existing billboards that have no recreational value', said Interior Secretary Doug Burgum. The fact sheet also notes that the US Department of the Interior estimates that the BLM has 1.2 million acres of land within a mile of a population center and another 800,000 acres between one and five miles of a population center. The Forest Service has another million acres within one mile of population centers, all which may qualify for 'disposal.' While lands like those in our National Parks and Monuments are protected under their current federal designations, a recent Justice Department opinion means that the President is allowed to both designate and repeal National Monuments, and their land protections, without a vote from Congress, per the Antiquities Act. President Trump is no stranger to the Act, as he significantly reduced the size of Bear's Ears National Monument in Utah in 2017, in what was the largest reversal of federal land protections in U.S. history.
A map released by the Wilderness Society shows the large splotches of Forest Service and BLM land that could be included in these disposals across the 11 western states. A quick scroll through the map (included at the top of this article) shows the footprints of many ski areas covered by the green overlay of Forest Service land. While the protections of National Parks and National Monuments feel precarious under the bill and the current administration, the fact sheet does note that land with valid existing use permits cannot be sold as part of the bill.As it pertains to skiing, many ski areas in the US operate on Forest Service land with a Ski Area Term Special Use permit, created under the National Forest Ski Area Permit Act of 1986. Section IV of this permit notes that these permits qualify as valid existing rights, making it highly unlikely, at least in the bill's current state, that any of the Forest Service lands that ski areas are on such as Mt. Bachelor, Arapahoe Basin, Mt. Hood, Steamboat, Keystone, Copper, and more could be sold and developed. So, while the current provision to the bill might not threaten ski area footprints themselves, there are other pieces of the bill that would certainly have an effect on skiing, and more broadly, the use of our public lands for recreation. For one, land near ski resorts doesn't necessarily fall under the rights of a Ski Area Special Use permit, and could hypothetically be sold. The fact sheet says that 'the proposal prioritizes lands that are nominated by States or units of local governments; are adjacent to existing developed areas; have access to existing infrastructure; are suitable for residential housing; reduce checkerboard land patterns; or are isolated tracts that are inefficient to manage.' However, with a number like 2.2 million acres as the minimum number of land acreage mandated to be sold in the bill, there is a distinct possibility that the footprint of lands sold would bleed beyond those dubbed 'prioritized' by the proposal. Given the bill's $29 billion in expected revenue, and an emphasis on building housing, a resource that can be sparse in mountain towns that are often bordered by expanses of Forest Service and BLM land, the idea that precious wilderness would be sold is not remotely impossible.
Along with the potential sale of lands managed by The Forest Service, proposed funding would also be rescinded for a number of Forest Service programs, including the protection of old growth forests. These budget cuts to the US Forest Service could be up to $392 million in management alone, and another $391 million to Forest Service operations budgets in an effort to 'restore federalism by empowering states to assume a greater role in managing forest lands within their borders.' Additionally, Interior Secretary Burgum is pushing for a bill that would cut $900M in funding for the National Park Service, which would potentially lead to the closure of up to 350 sites managed by the National Park Service, and the cutting of 5,000 full-time Park Service jobs.This rescinding of funds for the National Park System and Bureau of Land Management would also impact funding for the carrying out of projects concerning the conservation, protection, and resiliency of lands and resources managed by the two agencies, as well as for certain conservation and habitat restoration projects on NPS and BLM Lands. In total, the administration's 2026 budget recommendations would cut around a billion dollars from the NPS. 'Isn't it a betrayal of the relationship (between Congress and the Forest Service) to be cutting programs in half in preparation for shutting them down completely when the vision has not been laid out by Congress to do so?' said Oregon Senator Jeff Merkley, who also expressed concern over a reorganization of the country's firefighting teams, an issue close to the hearts of many Oregonians.
Beyond the bill's provision on public lands, there are other facets of the bill that have potentially catastrophic long term effects on our climate. As skiers, we know that climate change is already a threat to our winters, livelihoods, and industry.If passed, the bill would rescind funding for a number of government agencies and programs that monitor and collect data on climate change-related metrics, as well as for federally funded conservation programs. Specifically, the bill rescinds funding to implement the EPA's addressing of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), a commonly used component in traditional ski waxes that have been found to have significant negative environmental impacts. The bill would also rescind funding for the Council on Environmental Quality as it pertains to collecting data related to environmental and climate issues, amongst other things. Funding for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and USGS, whose work is essential in weather forecasting and studying climate change, would be rescinded. This could be detrimental to certain communities when preparing for extreme weather events.To summarize, the bill and provision in question have the potential for a massive reduction in size to public lands used for recreation, like skiing, and funding cuts to government led research and management of climate change, that could have significant impacts on the planet's rapidly warming climate. Conservation groups such as the Outdoor Alliance and Protect Our Winters, as well as a slew of brands, athletes, and outdoor climate activists in skiing have taken to social media to share information and encourage the public to contact their Senate representatives with their opinions on the bill.The bill passed in The House on May 22, 2025, and is now up for debate in the Senate. President Trump is reportedly hoping for a Senate vote to take place by July 4, 2025, but any number of things could delay that vote. If passed, the bill would be sent back to the House for approval before being sent to the oval office to be signed.How Trump's 'One Big Beautiful Bill' Could Impact Skiing first appeared on Powder on Jun 18, 2025
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
40 minutes ago
- Yahoo
‘This presidency is a brand-franchise': Trump has taken the commercialization of politics to a new level
'I like thinking big. I always have. To me it's very simple: if you're going to be thinking anyway, you might as well think big.' Those were Donald Trump's words to writer Tony Schwartz in the Art of the Deal. In his second term, Trump has been thinking big about making money. Since his reelection campaign began, Trump is estimated to have more than doubled his net worth to $5.4bn. A sizeable chunk of that cash has come from the launch of Trump-branded products. This week the Trump Organization entered the mobile phone business with a Trump-branded service that will include a 'sleek gold' phone, which costs $499, that is 'made in America'. Maybe? Never to miss a patriotic marketing moment, they launched Trump Mobile at Trump Tower in New York on the 10-year anniversary of their father's announcement at the top of a gold escalator, to the sound of Neil Young's Rockin' in the Free World, that he would run for president. The premium tier of service would be dubbed the 47 Plan, priced at $47.45 a month. Donald Trump Jr said the brothers had partnered with 'some of the greatest people in the industry to make sure that real Americans get true value from their mobile carriers'. 'Celebrity' phone launches are hardly new. The launch announcement came days after the actor-hosts of the popular SmartLess podcast – Will Arnett, Jason Bateman and Sean Hayes – announced their own cut price phone plan, and more than two years since actor Ryan Reynolds profited from his stake in Mint Mobile, sold to T-Mobile for $1.35bn. So was Trump – or the Trumps – thinking big or just following a pattern of seemingly random licensing deals that renew concerns about the president's business enterprises? After all, if Trump is really concerned about phone prices, he could – as president – push for legislative change. 'There was a lot of dialog when Trump returned to power that we would see in this term a particularly interesting residency in the White House about how much money would be made,' says marketing-PR guru Mark Borkowski, 'and this is a typical Trump side-hustle playing off Maga patriotism.' The blurred lines between business and politics, impacting how candidates are portrayed, policies are shaped and voters engage with the political process – commonly referred to as the commercialization of politics – may not be Trump's to own exclusively, but he's taken it to a new level. 'It is troubling, and more than in jest, that this is now a political economy and he's actually saying this presidency is a brand-franchise,' says Borkowski. 'There is no separation between power and profit. He's redrawn the boundaries between commerce and the office of the president, and he's accelerated the notion of post-ethical politics.' The gold phone and patriotically-priced phone plan – '47' referring to Trump's current term, and '45' referring to the previous – is only the latest ask of the Maga (Make America Great Again) faithful, otherwise known as ultra-Magas, to show their commitment in dollar terms. 'The Trumps' continued business expansion often serves to reinforce Trump's political persona rather than distract from it. For Maga supporters, his business ventures are interpreted as proof of his self-made success and outsider status – both key pillars of his political brand,' says Zak Revskyi at the New York brand management consultancy Baden Bower. 'These business moves don't just coexist with his political identity – they actively feed into it. They help sustain the image of Trump as a results-oriented executive who blends capitalism with populism,' Revskyi adds. On Thursday, Bloomberg revealed that investment bank Dominari Holdings, where Donald Jr and Eric work as advisers, helped an obscure toymaker selling Smurf-branded tumblers, koala backpacks and plush sea turtles, pivot into crypto this week, sending its shares up more than 500%. The outlet noted that there was no sign in regulatory filings that Trump family members were involved in this or previous crypto-related transactions through the bank – which is based in Trump Tower – but noted that 'the gain added to the windfalls of executives orbiting the president's family'. Aside from the Trump's well-publicized (and profitable) adventures in crypto – his ownership stake in World Liberty Financial produced $57,355,532 in income since it was launched last year – the family brand has upped by 20 its Trump-branded real-estate projects around the globe, calculated Citizens for Ethics, including an 80-storey skyscraper in Dubai, and plans for branded hotels in Riyadh and Jeddah, and a golf course in Qatar, to an estimated value of $10bn. A 234-page financial disclosure form released by the Office of Government Ethics this month showed 145 pages of stock and bond investments. The disclosure showed that 2024 was a very good year for royalty payments from products featuring his name and likeness. Among them, calculated NBC News, was $3m from a Save America coffee table book; $2.5m from Trump sneakers and fragrances; $2.8m from Trump watches; $1.3m from a Trump-endorsed Bible; and just over $1m each from '45' guitars and non-fungible token (NFT) sales. Most have at least some aspect of gold-coloring, according to a review of the 'Golden Age of America' Trump collection. Many of the assets are held in a revocable trust overseen by Donald Jr, including more than 100,000 shares, or 53%, of Trump Media and Technology Group, the company that owns Truth Social, valued at 5.15bn, or held in partnerships that do not require divestment under conflict of interest laws. The business of selling the family name hums along despite, or because of, the on-the-fly dramas that envelope the White House from week to week. The White House claims that the president 'has been the most transparent president in history in all respects, including when it comes to his finances', noting that Trump handed over 'his multibillion-dollar empire in order to serve our country, and he has sacrificed greatly'. The Trump phone, which analysts doubt can be 'made in America', as promotional materials assert, is merely an add-on to a thriving political-business operation. Democrats have found it hard to find a footing in calling out the interplay, in part because Trump's predecessor, Joe Biden, was similarly accused of allowing a family business of influence peddling to evolve around him and issued a pre-emptive pardon of family members before he left office. 'I don't do it for the money. I've got enough, much more than I'll ever need. I do it to do it,' Trump wrote in the opening lines of in the Art of the Deal, published in 1987. 'Deals are my art form. Other people paint beautifully on canvas or write wonderful poetry. I like making deals, preferably big deals. That's how I get my kicks.' But under Trump politics and business have become melded as never before. 'It's a new hyper-reality that exists in America,' says Borkowski. 'It's about turning political fandom into money, and he's laughing all the way to the bank. He's doing exactly what was expected. Nobody in Trump's heartland sees this as damaging – it's what they expect a deal-maker to do. The absurdity of everything Trump does is the point.'
Yahoo
41 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Advantages of Social Security Privatization, According to Experts
Social Security privatization would shift retirement funding from the government to individual Americans. Proponents of privatization believe it can lead to higher investment returns, thus providing retirees with more money in retirement. For some, the focus on personal responsibility is key. The $23,760 Social Security bonus most retirees completely overlook › If you want to get people worked up, ask a small group of friends what they think of Social Security privatization. Privatization refers to the idea of shifting the management and funding of retirement from the government to individuals. In other words, rather than paying Social Security taxes as part of FICA, you would keep the money and invest for retirement on your own. Experts have dramatically different opinions on privatization, with some fearing that it will lead to more people entering retirement with little to no financial resources. Those arguing in favor of privatizing the program take a completely different view. Here's how they believe the change would benefit the average American worker. Imagine that a portion of your Social Security taxes were invested in a personal account rather than used to fund current retirees' benefits. You could invest in stocks and bonds to your heart's content. In fact, you could invest in any vehicle you believe will provide a strong return. One of the beauties of investing is the way compound interest can significantly increase your retirement savings over time. As long as you begin investing early and are consistent, proponents of privatization believe you're in a position to build up more money than you could ever collect through Social Security payments. Proponents believe that Americans will appreciate the ability to invest their retirement savings where they want. Rather than paying it into a program supporting current retirees, they can choose where their money will go. However, the open question becomes: What happens to the millions of current retirees when workers stop paying into the system? Read any message board, and you're likely to find plenty of people with an opinion about Social Security privatization. It's been a hot-button topic since President George W. Bush first suggested it in his 1978 Congressional race, then pushed for it again following his successful 2004 presidential campaign. Since that time, the subject has been supported by a rotating cast of politicians, who claim it will put the responsibility for saving on individuals rather than allowing them to depend on the government to provide a safety net. While this reasoning overlooks the fact that Americans spend decades contributing to the system and Social Security has never been a public assistance program, it does appeal to the "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" crowd. Proponents believe that pushing Americans to invest on their own means greater financial literacy among the masses. It's also believed that it will foster a culture of savings and investment. While this may be true for some, it's fair to imagine that wealthier Americans can afford to pay financial planners to help them make the most of their investments, while workers living paycheck to paycheck may have trouble saving the funds at all. It's likely that most people would like to save for retirement, but not everyone can afford to do so. The good news is that plenty of people are actively involved in seeking a solution to potential Social Security shortages. It may turn out that some form of Social Security privatization -- such as a hybrid system that allows you to continue paying into the current system while setting aside some money to make your own investments -- will be the answer. Or, it may be something entirely different. While proponents of Social Security privatization offer numerous potential advantages, it's yet to be seen if anyone will come up with a better solution. If you're like most Americans, you're a few years (or more) behind on your retirement savings. But a handful of little-known could help ensure a boost in your retirement income. One easy trick could pay you as much as $23,760 more... each year! Once you learn how to maximize your Social Security benefits, we think you could retire confidently with the peace of mind we're all after. Join Stock Advisor to learn more about these Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. Advantages of Social Security Privatization, According to Experts was originally published by The Motley Fool Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
41 minutes ago
- Yahoo
How a high heel entrepreneur is handling tariffs before the other shoe drops
Haley Pavone thought this was going to be the biggest and best year yet for her footwear company. Based in Southern California, she had big dreams for Pashion Footwear, the online business she started as a 20-year-old college junior that sells high heels that convert into flats. Instead, she found herself imploring lawmakers for help as tariffs threaten to cripple her company. 'We went from duty-free status to paying actually 190% on average overnight,' Pavone told NBC News. In the months since President Donald Trump took office, the trade war has swung wildly back and forth. Tariff rates have, at times, changed suddenly and dramatically as U.S. officials seek deals with other countries. It has ensnared business owners like Pavone in a battle they didn't choose, as they struggle to plan for a future they can't clearly see. 'It has been chaos to say the least,' she said. 'It feels like small businesses are either being intentionally attacked or being completely forgotten. And I don't know which one is worse.' Pashion Footwear was born out of Pavone's own struggles with high heels. She loved wearing them but hated the inevitable pain that came with being hours on her feet. So in 2016, she founded Pashion. 'It's the biggest love-hate relationship in women's closets,' she said. 'And we're trying to change that.' Pavone's company has grown to employ 12 and has patents in the United States, China and the European Union. for its sole-support technology. And last year, Pashion made $9 million in gross revenue, up 88% from 2023. Pavone attributes much of that success to social media. She and the company have more than 2 million followers combined across TikTok and Instagram, with posts showing an array of heels transforming into flats with a quick twist and press. For Pavone's small business, it has never been easy: between Trump's first trade war with China and then the pandemic — plus the ensuing supply chain crisis and recession. Pavone said this year she had expected her business to grow 150%, planned to hire several employees and was looking into wholesale. But then Trump eliminated the 'de minimis' exemption, which allowed items from China valued at $800 or less to come into the U.S. duty-free. The change took effect May 2. 'We went from making about 19-20% per shoe after all of our operating expenses to actually losing about $40 per shoe,' Pavone said. The Walnut Knit Booties that used to make the company $43.70 per pair, she said, turned into a $41.16 loss. After the U.S. and China agreed to a 90-day tariff pause, Pashion was left with tariffs of 36% to 75% on each product. The company has paid more than $50,000 in tariffs to U.S. Customs and Border Protection since the May 2 change. The company's shoes are manufactured in China, and Pavone said they can't be made elsewhere — though it's not for lack of trying. 'I've tried talking to manufacturers in Vietnam, Brazil, India and even one very small factory I was able to find in the U.S.,' she said. 'All of them have unanimously said that China is the only supply chain currently that can do what we need at scale.' And Pashion was hit hard by another rule change. Earlier this year, it qualified for and signed a $5 million loan from the Small Business Administration. Pavone planned to use that money to buy Pashion out of predatory debt it took on to survive the pandemic, invest in hiring and buy more inventory. But the Trump administration changed the qualifications to receive the funding, now requiring all shareholders to be U.S. citizens — and Pavone said her company raised 1.7% of its funding from international investors. The loan was pulled. 'We feel completely ignored, and we also feel completely out of control,' she said. 'It basically feels like we're just waiting for the other shoe to drop every second of the day.' The changes and uncertainty have dashed Pavone's big dreams for the year. She said she slashed inventory orders from $1 million for the fall and $1.5 million for the holidays to around $300,000 each, wanting to keep her budget open to assume tariff liability. 'This went from being a growth year to a year where we're really just trying to make ends meet and stay afloat,' she said. To handle the increased costs, the company added a tariff tax averaging $15 to $25 per product when U.S. customers check out. Demand from U.S. consumers has since dropped around 30%, Pavone said. 'There's plenty of customers where even though they understand what we're doing, they're now priced out of what they can pay, so they can't buy,' she said. She shared her frustrations on TikTok, breaking down for her followers exactly how tariffs are affecting the business. And at a hearing in May, Pavone explained to lawmakers just how painful the changes have been. 'Every day that these trade policies continue, it means the death of more American dreams,' she told lawmakers. 'This is not a short-term pain. This is the destruction of livelihoods, both for entrepreneurs and those they employ.' Pavone hopes her testimony could help lawmakers push for relief. 'No matter what happens, I at least know that I've fought as hard as anyone possibly could,' she said. This article was originally published on
