Our Government’s Push to Privatize US Public Lands

By Cap Puckhaber, Reno, Nevada

I’m Cap Puckhaber, a marketing professional, amateur investor, part-time blogger and outdoor enthusiast. Today we break down the government’s proposal to sell public land.

I didn’t react with outrage when I heard about it. Instead, I just sat still for a while, staring at the screen. This was another proposal out of Washington. It was another few million acres of public land on the chopping block. Furthermore, it was another plan dressed up as economic policy but hiding a deeper cost that people like you and me will feel most. The original threat was the most overt: a massive, single-stroke sale of millions of acres. This strategy was intended to reduce the deficit and raise money for tax cuts; consequently, it targeted lands the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) manage.

The Legislation from Mike Lee

The key legislation, primarily pushed by Utah Senator Mike Lee, was designed to authorize the sale of these public lands without critical safeguards. This meant no environmental review, no public input, and minimal oversight. It opened the door for private developers, corporations, and deep-pocketed investors to nominate parcels for sale. However, widespread public opposition eventually forced the withdrawal of a significant part of the most extreme land sale language.

Despite this victory, the danger did not pass. Instead, it fractured. The threat morphed into a complex series of legislative and administrative assaults that collectively pose a greater, quieter risk to America’s public domain. Therefore, the fight to protect the places where we hike, camp, fish, and hunt is no longer about a single bill but a constant struggle. We oppose a system designed to prioritize profit over public access and conservation. This update breaks down where we are now and, more importantly, how we can get involved to ensure these places remain protected for the next generation.

The New Reality of Public Lands: From Land Sale to Legislative Assault

The initial campaign to sell millions of acres of federal land was pushed for inclusion in a broader economic package. It garnered the kind of widespread outrage and attention that ultimately helped defeat its most egregious provisions. The American public, spanning the political spectrum, spoke loudly. We made it clear that public lands must remain in public hands. Hunters, anglers, hikers, and conservationists all united against the privatization effort. They succeeded in forcing the withdrawal of the most overt land-sale language from the proposed budget bills. Clearly, that was a crucial, hard-fought victory.

Nevertheless, this success masked the continuation of the underlying agenda. That agenda simply shifted from outright sale to subtle, systematic dismantling. This is the update we must pay attention to. It’s an attempt to devalue the land before selling or leasing it indefinitely. The original threat focused heavily on the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA). This act was designed to pay for tax cuts for billionaires by selling public lands.

A Victory on the Budget Bill, a War on Multiple Fronts

Thanks to an outpouring of opposition from across the political spectrum, Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) was forced to withdraw the most egregious language. Still, the OBBBA and other related legislation didn’t disappear entirely. They were merely stripped of the most visible ‘for sale’ signs while quietly leaving behind mechanisms for a massive transfer of control to extractive industries.

The provisions left behind serve to rig the system. They treat public resources as a giveaway to corporate interests rather than a shared asset managed for all citizens. These changes include mandating aggressive lease sales, drastically cutting the royalty rates oil and gas companies must pay, and eliminating the modest fees for nominating leases. In other words, this institutionalizes the sell-off process, not through land transfer, but through resource exploitation. This is why we must stay informed.

The pressure from Congress continues, but the strategies have become more specialized and politically disguised. The concept of selling off “disposable” or “underused” land has given way to bills that target specific, revered pieces of legislation that underpin American conservation. These attempts seek to bypass environmental review and public input under the guise of national security and economic development. However, the intent remains painfully clear: to take something public and permanent and turn it into something private and profitable. This chipping away at the foundation of our public land system is the real battle now.

The Legislative Landscape: Understanding Senator Lee’s Multi-Pronged Attack

The pressure from Congress continues, but the strategies have become more specialized and politically disguised. The concept of selling off “disposable” or “underused” land has given way to bills that target specific, revered pieces of legislation that underpin American conservation. These attempts seek to bypass environmental review and public input under the guise of national security and economic development. Ultimately, the intent remains painfully clear: to take something public and permanent and turn it into something private and profitable, chipping away at the foundation of our public land system.

The New Border Bill: A 100-Mile Attack on the Wilderness Act

In a particularly alarming move, Senator Lee introduced a border security bill that would have irreparable impacts on public land users and wildlife. The proposal sought to open all federal land within 100 miles of both the northern and southern international borders to activities currently prohibited in protected areas. This 100-mile buffer, which covers an enormous swath of the country including a third of Montana, as noted by groups like Backcountry Hunters and Anglers—would allow the Department of Homeland Security to construct and maintain roads. Furthermore, it would allow them to use motorized vehicles and boats, and deploy tactical infrastructure such as surveillance towers and vehicle barriers, all within designated wilderness areas.

This legislation directly challenges the bedrock 1964 Wilderness Act. That act specifically prohibits motorized use to preserve the wild, untrammeled character of these lands. Places like Glacier National Park and the Bob Marshall Wilderness Complex would be fundamentally defiled. Sportsmen’s and conservation groups were quick to point out that giving border agents complete, unchecked authority in such a huge area makes no sense. In addition, it sets a dangerous precedent for future land use decisions. It’s an example of how a bill with one clear goal (border security) can hide provisions that damage a completely separate national treasure (wilderness).

The Corporate Pipeline: Loopholes in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA)

While the full land sale was defeated, provisions within the OBBBA have continued to supercharge the administration’s efforts. They give oil and gas companies free rein over more than 200 million acres of public lands. The new law mandates formal lease sales every three months in nine Western states, essentially institutionalizing the sell-off process not through land transfer, but through resource exploitation. Moreover, this legislation gives the oil and gas industry unprecedented control over what lands they can lease. It strips federal land managers of the ability to deny leases on land with clear conflicts related to wildlife, recreation, or archaeological resources.

To illustrate, the oil industry can now choose to drill in a popular fishing or camping spot, and the BLM has minimal power to stop them. Consequently, the OBBBA slashed royalty rates for oil, gas, and coal. It also mandated a 75 percent increase in timber sales across national forests and BLM lands. The law even requires land managers to enter into new 20-year timber sale contracts. These provisions create a legal framework that prioritizes corporate extraction over long-term public benefit and conservation. The system allows the legal rights to drill and mine to be and often are extended again and again. These extendable leases can be acquired for as little as $10 per acre, which is a giveaway of public resources.

The Quiet Dismantling: Trump Administration’s Rule Rollbacks

Beyond Congressional action, the Trump administration aggressively dismantled conservation at the executive level. It prioritized mining and energy production as the “primary land uses” across all federal lands. This subtle war on conservation policy often garners less media attention than a headline-grabbing land sale, but its collective impact is on track to be massive. It affects over 175 million acres of U.S. lands in total, according to a recent analysis by the . This figure is larger than the states of California, Florida, and Georgia combined. Clearly, these actions amount to a dramatic reversal of the long tradition of American land stewardship.

Targeting the National Forests: The Roadless Area Conservation Rule

One of the most consequential administrative rollbacks is the elimination of protections for nearly 40 million acres of national forests conserved as “roadless areas.” These protections, first established by the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule, prevent industrial development and logging in some of the most ecologically intact forests in the country. The Secretary of Agriculture announced the repeal of this rule, which opens these public lands to potential oil and gas drilling, logging, and mining. The direct impacts are widespread, affecting national forests in 36 states and Puerto Rico, including the Tongass National Forest in Alaska. The Tongass harbors one of the last remaining old-growth coastal rainforests in the world.

This is not just an aesthetic issue. An estimated 48 million people source their drinking water from watersheds that currently enjoy roadless area protections. Major cities such as Atlanta, Los Angeles, and Salt Lake City rely on drinking water sourced from these now-threatened forests. Outdoor user groups also estimate these roadless areas protect over 25,000 miles of trails. Ultimately, losing these protections means losing critical habitat, clean water, and access to some of the country’s most pristine backcountry.

Mining as Priority #1: Reversing Protections for Treasured Waters

The administration has systematically targeted mineral withdrawals. These are specific protections against mining in ecologically or culturally unique areas. In the Boundary Waters of Minnesota, the mineral withdrawal for the surrounding watershed has been eliminated. This opens more than 225,000 acres of national forest to destructive copper sulfide mining, despite opposition from the vast majority of Minnesotans. In fact, this move directly threatens the pristine, clean waters relied upon by countless paddlers and anglers. In the Ruby Mountains of Nevada, known as “Nevada’s Swiss Alps,” the administration lifted drilling restrictions, leaving the area vulnerable to oil, gas, and geothermal leasing.

These actions are driven by an executive order that mandates mineral production and mining activities be the “primary land uses” of any federal lands with mineral deposits. As a result, this mindset elevates mining above all other uses—including outdoor recreation, wildlife conservation, and archaeological preservation.

To compound the issue, an antiquated legal framework dating back to the 1872 Mining Law allows companies to stake claims and mine for valuable minerals on Western public lands without paying a dime in royalties for the minerals they extract. Trump’s order is poised to dramatically expand that giveaway of public resources.

Eliminating Habitat: Gutting the Endangered Species Act

Perhaps the most far-reaching rollback is a proposal that guts key habitat protection provisions of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). For a half-century, the ESA has prohibited harm to endangered species, which included injuring or killing wildlife by modifying or destroying their habitat. This meant that activities like clear-cutting or strip-mining were generally prohibited if they resulted in injury or death of the wildlife. However, the Trump administration issued a formal proposal to completely eliminate this definition of species “harm.”

This move greenlights habitat destruction for imperiled wildlife, weakening protection across more than 87 million acres of vital wildlife habitat. As a backpacker and outdoorsman, this is devastating. We know that habitat loss and degradation are the top drivers of the alarming extinction crisis. Therefore, by removing this protection, the administration is making it easier for corporate interests to develop these lands without consequences for the wildlife that depends on them. This creates a dangerous precedent for the future of conservation efforts.

What This Means for the Hiker: Loss of Access, Silence, and Freedom

When I looked at the maps for the original proposed land sale, I noticed familiar places. I’ve hiked areas near Tahoe more than once. I’ve watched the sun hit the rocks just right on ridges outside of Moab. I caught my first native trout a few miles from a creek in the Eastern Sierra. Consequently, these places might soon be leased, fenced, or degraded beyond recognition. The motivation behind these continued legislative and administrative actions is not just about raising money. It’s about taking something public and permanent and turning it into something private and profitable.

The Economic Lie vs. the Real Cost

The argument from proponents is always about reducing the deficit. Yet, the value of public land cannot be calculated on a balance sheet alone. Local guides who depend on access to these lands to run their businesses stand to lose everything. Small-town economies built around trailheads, fishing seasons, and hunting permits will crumble. In fact, the price breaks and sweetheart deals offered to extractive corporations in the OBBBA are essentially a massive taxpayer subsidy—the opposite of sound economic policy.

As one commenter on a popular environment forum put it, the entire system feels like a “pay to play” structure. They felt all the avenues the people who paid the most controlled to those in charge. That perspective is sadly relevant when we see multi-million-acre tracts being stripped of protection to favor corporations. Once public access is gated off or trails are blocked by a private fence, the cost is immeasurable. For example, the outdoor recreation economy, generating over $1.2 trillion in economic output and supporting 5 million American jobs, relies entirely on having healthy, accessible public lands. This fact is routinely ignored in favor of extracting resources that produce a fraction of that long-term value.

An Insult to History: Past Land Battles

Some people will say this is overblown. They argue the land being targeted is “disposable” or “not scenic” or “underused.” But, if you’ve spent time in the backcountry, you know the value of places that aren’t famous. They’re quiet, real, and wild in a way that national parks can’t always be. The current situation is an evolution of past attempts to seize control of federal lands, such as the Sagebrush Rebellion in the 1980s or the recent efforts to shrink national monuments like Bears Ears.

The current strategy, however, is different: it is bigger and faster. It uses the legislative process to bypass normal debate and the administrative process to quietly dismantle environmental safeguards. Therefore, the idea that conservation should be dismantled by the very people who claim to be “conservative” is a painful irony for many outdoor enthusiasts. When we lose land, we lose more than access. We lose the silence between the trees and the long walks that lead us back to ourselves.

The Evergreen Fight: Everyday Actions to Protect Public Lands

Since the threat is no longer a single, visible bill but a constant, multi-faceted assault on numerous fronts, our defense must also be constant and multi-faceted. Protecting public lands is a legacy issue, and it requires sustained, evergreen commitment from every user. You don’t have to work in Washington, D.C., to make a difference. Instead, the most powerful changes start on the ground and with an informed voice. This is how we push back against the constant pressure to privatize, pollute, and restrict access to these shared treasures.

Be an Activist

The modern fight for conservation requires informed advocacy. First, start by researching the specific legislative threats and administrative rules being targeted. Groups like have detailed reports on how the elimination of mineral withdrawals affects critical waterways. You must use this information.

To start, submit public comments. When agencies propose to repeal rules, such as the BLM Public Lands Rule, they are legally required to accept and consider public comments. This is one of the most effective, accessible forms of action. Your personal experience of how a roadless area provides clean drinking water or a pristine fishing stream gives your comment weight. Consequently, it helps federal land managers make a case for conservation. Your voice counts most when it’s tied to concrete facts and personal experience.

Second, engage with legislative specifics. Use resources provided by organizations like the Backcountry Hunters & Anglers to track specific Senate and House bills. For example, knowing the difference between a direct land sale and a bill that attempts to gut the Wilderness Act under the guise of “border security” allows you to communicate with your representatives effectively. This makes your argument specific, authoritative, and difficult to dismiss.

The On-the-Ground Commitment: Actions in the Backcountry

Every single visit to a public land parcel is an act of advocacy. The more we use these lands responsibly, the more proof we have of their value to the American people. This commitment is the simplest, most fundamental form of defense. It’s a mild contraction that we must fulfill.

First and foremost, practice Leave No Trace. This is the non-negotiable standard for responsible land use. You must reduce your impact, pack out all trash (even if it’s not yours), and minimize campfire impacts. Public land agencies often have to divert critical funding and staff hours to trash cleanup. By contrast, by reducing your impact, you free up those resources to be used for genuine conservation and trail maintenance. You can learn more about the seven core principles at the .

Next, volunteer your time. Join local trail maintenance crews with organizations like the Forest Service or local trail groups. If you hunt or fish, get involved in habitat restoration projects. Ultimately, these activities provide irrefutable proof of your personal investment in the land, which is key. Look up your local Friends of National Forests or Friends of Wilderness groups. They are always seeking dedicated helpers.

Finally, support conservation groups. Donate to and join the large conservation organizations that are in Washington fighting legislative battles—groups like The Wilderness Society or Trout Unlimited. Also, look at smaller, local land trusts and organizations focused on specific regions, such as the Central Sierra Environmental Resource Center near Yosemite. Supporting these groups ensures that there is a full-spectrum defense, from the national political level down to the local, on-the-ground issues.

The Political Play: Strategic Engagement

While on-the-ground action is vital, political pressure and strategic voting ultimately win the legislative war. We must treat our public lands as a political priority, just as they are a personal one.

First, engage locally and at the state level. While Washington often draws the most attention, many land management decisions local BLM and Forest Service offices make at the state or district level. Attend local meetings, monitor the local news for public comment periods related to Resource Management Plans (RMPs), and build relationships with your local land managers. When a specific tract is nominated for leasing, the local community’s opposition is often the most effective barrier.

Second, demand accountability from your representatives. Contact your federal representatives, not just in times of crisis, but consistently. Tell them that selling or devaluing public lands is not acceptable. Above all, use the data: remind them that the outdoor recreation industry is a powerful economic driver, contributing $1.2 trillion to the national economy. This is why the constantly emphasizes the economic argument. Transform your emotional plea into an economic argument they can’t ignore.

Finally, vote with the land in mind. Public land voting records and scorecards conservation and sportsmen’s groups make available. Make your local elections matter by understanding a candidate’s history and stated stance on land conservation and use. This is a legacy issue, not a left or right issue. For this reason, voting for a candidate who has a strong, proven record of public land advocacy is the ultimate long-term action we can take to keep these lands in public hands.

Conclusion: Our Legacy on the Line

This isn’t a left or right issue. Rather, it’s a legacy issue. Public lands are part of what makes America, well, America. You don’t have to pay a subscription fee to see the stars in the Sierra. You just have to show up, breathe deep, and walk. But, if these legislative and administrative assaults continue, that might not be true for long. We cannot afford to be passive while the system is quietly rigged against us through legislative loopholes and regulatory changes.

We Cannot Afford the Silence

I’ll keep hiking, no matter what. Still, I don’t want to do it on land that used to be public. I don’t want to have to peek over someone’s fence to see a view that once belonged to all of us. I don’t want to carry the weight of knowing we didn’t speak loudly enough while there was still time. The attacks on the Wilderness Act, the stripping of the Roadless Rule, and the systematic devaluing of conservation as a public land use are clear signals. We are losing the freedom to wander, the clear water of high country streams, and the silence between the trees—all being traded for short-term corporate profit.

So, this is me speaking up. Not with hashtags or slogans, but with what I know. Ultimately, when we lose land protections, we lose more than access. We lose the freedom to wander. Let’s not let them take that away.

Cap Puckhaber Hiker, backpacker, and founder of TheHikingAdventures.com

About the author

Cap Puckhaber is a marketing strategist, finance writer, and outdoor enthusiast. He writes across CapPuckhaber.com, TheHikingAdventures.com, SimpleFinanceBlog.com, and BlackDiamondMarketingSolutions.com. Follow him for honest, real-world advice backed by 20+ years of experience.

Hiking Rescues and Hiker Responsibility

National Park Reservation System Explained

Why Taranaki Volcano Is a Legal Person