Could Trump Sell Your Public Lands? Absolutely

Well, they warned us. For more than 50 years, since the 1970s, conservatives have been trying to steal Americans’ most precious resources, our shared ownership in what are called federal lands but really are public lands, lands owned by you and me. Beginning with the so-called Sagebrush Rebellion, they have attacked federal land ownership from all angles. Now, with Donald Trump as president, it appears the government is, at minimum, open to selling public lands to private owners. I say “appears” because nobody in the administration has yet suggested dumping land explicitly, but they sure are hinting at it, and the many public lands activists I’ve contacted are terrified Trump will carve away parts of the commons at a pittance.

In an essay published on Time’s website last week (“Trump Shouldn’t Sell our Public Lands”), Patagonia CEO Ryan Gellert wrote, “This Congress and the Trump administration are trying to make it easier to lease or sell 640 million acres of public lands, including America’s most iconic landscapes, and turn our back on the Indigenous and local groups that championed their protection. The government’s plans could revoke our access to hike, climb, camp, fish, and hunt in the places we treasure. Small-business owners who rely on tourists would suffer from the drop in visitation. The entire surrounding communities would be affected by the economic shift and the pollution that would come when the drilling or mining starts.”

Outdoor Alliance, a coalition of human-powered recreation groups, called the efforts by states and rumblings in the Trump administration ”a direct threat to the legacy of outdoor access in the West and to the outdoor recreation economy, which generates more than $1.2 trillion in economic activity and supports 5 million American jobs.”

The issue gets weedy and wonky pretty fast, but I’ll simplify it as best I can. States have long tried to take federal lands with no success. At his confirmation, new Interior Secretary Doug Burgum talked of treating government like a business and extracting value from U.S. assets. “Some of those areas we have to absolutely protect for their precious stuff, but the rest of it, this is America’s balance sheet,” he said. “If we restrict access, we don’t cut a tree, we don’t use them for recreation, and then we don’t develop the minerals sustainably and in a smart way, then we get a super low return for the American people.”

Land Towney, the co-chair of American Hunters and Anglers Action Network, said, “Looking at our public lands as part of a balance sheet? That’s shit that’s never been said out loud before.”

Quick reminder: Governments are not for-profit businesses, and the value of land is much, much more than its extractive or selling price.

Two other moves point to the administration’s intentions. First, Trump wants to create what’s called a sovereign wealth fund, a giant kitty of American money for investing. With the U.S. $36 trillion in debt, the easiest and fastest way to fuel the fund is by selling land. Second, in January, the Republican-led Congress passed a rule that makes it easier to transfer, sell, donate, or exchange lands.

From the Outdoor Alliance again: “This budgetary maneuver is designed to make it look like giving away or selling public land would cost nothing. In fact, public lands provide valuable ecosystem services like clean air and water, are a large source of government revenue, form the foundation of the $1.2 trillion outdoor recreation economy, and are instrumental to the well-being of local communities across the country.”

Let’s be clear. The U.S. government has the right and responsibility to transact land on behalf of all Americans. That’s not what we’re talking about here. This is looking like a wholesale assault by people who for decades have been trying to dismantle our national treasures. In the first month of the Trump administration, we have seen almost gleeful attacks on institutions like the National Park Service and Forest Service with little regard for people who make them run or the effect on the lands they manage. Even if you agree government should be smaller, Trump, Musk, and company have brought chaos and probable illegality to the process. Given their record so far, there’s nothing to suggest they would approach public lands with sensitivity, nuance, or understanding. Quite the opposite.

Let’s also be clear that Americans across the political spectrum cherish public lands and are opposed to selling them. This is a bipartisan issue. Indeed, the traditionally conservative hunting and angling community has been out ahead of the human-powered recreation community at warning of the attacks on public land and fighting to preserve access. Finally, the argument in favor of continuing federal ownership can be cast in starkly economic terms. As mentioned above, outdoor recreation generates $1.2 trillion in economic growth and is responsible for 5 million U.S. jobs. The outdoor rec economy is 3.5 times bigger than the airline or auto manufacturing industries, twice the size of agriculture and forestry, and 1.5 times the size of oil and gas development and mining.

Oh, and for every $1 the U.S. government spends on public lands, $14 are created and added to the economy. Good luck getting a 14X return with your sovereign wealth fund, Donald.

So, how do you take action? Make your voice heard. There’s a form on this page where you can quickly send an email to your representatives. If you want to call or email them directly, you can find their information here. You also should convey your support the Public Lands in Public Hands Act, a bipartisan House bill introduced by Rep. Ryan Zinke (R-Mont.) and Rep. Gabe Vasquez (D-N.M.), which blocks the sale or transfer of large parcels (300 acres or more) managed by the Department of the Interior and the U.S. Forest Service.

Finally, keep your eye on this space. I’m following the issue closely and will continue to report on it.

Stephen Casimiro
Founder + Editor