Senator Mike Lee’s Plan to Sell Public Lands for Housing: A Controversial Proposal

In June 2025, Utah Senator Mike Lee sparked a firestorm of debate with a bold proposal to sell millions of acres of federally owned public land in the American West, pitching it as a solution to the nation’s housing crisis. As chairman of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Lee introduced this measure as part of President Donald Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” a sweeping budget reconciliation package aimed at tax cuts, spending reforms, and other policy priorities. However, the plan to auction off up to 3.3 million acres of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and U.S. Forest Service land faced intense bipartisan opposition, ultimately leading to its withdrawal. This blog explores the details of Lee’s proposal, its intended goals, the backlash it provoked, and its implications for public lands and housing affordability.

The Proposal: Selling Public Lands for Housing

Senator Lee’s plan, introduced on June 11, 2025, aimed to address the housing shortage in 11 Western states—Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming—by making federal lands available for development. The draft legislation required the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture to sell between 0.5% and 0.75% of BLM and Forest Service holdings, equating to roughly 2.2 to 3.3 million acres over five years, with a pool of up to 258 million acres eligible for nomination. Notably, Montana was excluded from the plan, reportedly due to lobbying by its Republican senators, Steve Daines and Tim Sheehy.

Lee argued that the federal government’s ownership of 640 million acres—nearly a third of U.S. land—stifles local economies and drives up housing costs, particularly in the West, where states like Utah are 67% federally owned. In a video announcement, he stated, “We’re opening underutilized federal land to expand housing, support local development, and get Washington, D.C., out of the way for communities that are just trying to grow”. The proposal allocated 5% of sale proceeds to local governments for housing-related infrastructure and another 5% for BLM and Forest Service maintenance, with the rest going to the U.S. Treasury to offset the bill’s tax cuts.

The senator framed the sell-off as a way to create “freedom zones” for single-family homes, emphasizing benefits for American families over corporate or foreign buyers. He later revised the plan to exclude Forest Service lands and limit BLM sales to parcels within five miles of population centers, addressing concerns about losing recreational areas. However, the bill lacked explicit requirements for affordable housing, raising fears that it would primarily benefit developers building luxury homes, vacation properties, or commercial projects.

The Housing Crisis Context

Lee’s proposal tapped into a real issue: the housing affordability crisis gripping the West. In areas like Summit County, Colorado, where waitresses and ski-lift workers sleep in parking lots due to scarce housing, the need for solutions is undeniable. Lee argued that unlocking federal land could double the supply of single-family homes, making it easier for young Americans to afford housing in their hometowns. Supporters, including Utah Governor Spencer Cox, praised the idea, noting that “using lands in and adjacent to our cities for affordable housing is going to be critical”.

However, critics questioned whether the plan would deliver affordable housing. The bill’s language allowed land to be sold “for the development of housing or to address associated community needs,” but included no mandates for affordability or density, potentially enabling high-end developments like ski villas or golf communities. The Center for American Progress noted that the proposal bypassed existing processes under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976, which already allows targeted land sales for housing with public input.

Widespread Opposition and Bipartisan Pushback

The proposal faced immediate and fierce resistance from a broad coalition of environmentalists, outdoor enthusiasts, Western lawmakers, and local communities. Conservation groups like The Wilderness Society highlighted that up to 18.7 million acres in Utah alone—including popular trails, ski resorts like Alta and Snowbird, and grazing lands—could be eligible for sale, threatening recreational and ecological value. A map by The Wilderness Society, viewed 300,000 times, showed parcels overlapping with cherished areas like Big Cottonwood Canyon and Mount Timpanogos, fueling public outrage.

Bipartisan opposition emerged swiftly. Republican Senators Steve Daines and Tim Sheehy (Montana) and Mike Crapo and Jim Risch (Idaho) opposed the plan, citing the cultural and economic importance of public lands for hunting, fishing, and recreation. Daines’ spokesperson emphasized his opposition, noting Montana’s exemption as a victory. In the House, Rep. Ryan Zinke (R-Montana), a former Trump Interior Secretary, led efforts to strip a similar 500,000-acre proposal by Rep. Celeste Maloy (R-Utah) from the House version of the bill, declaring, “Once the land is sold, we will never get it back”.

Democrats, including Senators Maria Cantwell (Washington) and Martin Heinrich (New Mexico), decried the plan as a “fire sale” to fund tax cuts for the wealthy, bypassing environmental reviews and public input required under FLPMA. Cantwell warned that high-traffic recreation sites like the Columbia River Gorge could be at risk, even under Lee’s revised plan. Conservation groups, such as the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, mobilized nearly 150 organizations to urge senators to reject the measure, arguing it threatened tribal sovereignty and public access.

Senate Parliamentarian’s Ruling and Withdrawal

The proposal’s fate was sealed on June 24, 2025, when the Senate parliamentarian, Elizabeth MacDonough, ruled that it violated the Byrd Rule, which limits budget reconciliation bills to fiscal matters. The land sale provision was deemed “extraneous,” requiring a 60-vote majority to remain in the bill—a threshold Republicans couldn’t meet. Facing this procedural setback and mounting opposition, Lee announced on June 28, 2025, via X that he was withdrawing the measure entirely. He cited the inability to secure “clear, enforceable safeguards” to ensure lands would benefit American families, not foreign entities or corporations like BlackRock.

Lee expressed gratitude for public feedback, acknowledging “sincere concerns” while maintaining that the federal government mismanages too much land. He vowed to work with President Trump to find alternative ways to use underutilized federal land for housing, respecting the legacy of public lands. Conservationists celebrated the withdrawal, with Scott Braden of the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance noting the “universally unpopular” nature of the proposal. However, Democrats like Sen. Ron Wyden warned that the fight over public lands is far from over, given Lee’s long-standing advocacy for privatization.

Implications and What’s Next

The defeat of Lee’s proposal highlights the deep attachment Americans, particularly in the West, have to public lands. Areas like Utah’s redrock country, ski resorts, and trailheads are not just scenic—they’re economic and cultural lifelines for communities reliant on recreation and tourism. The backlash underscored the challenge of balancing housing needs with conservation, especially when proposals lack affordability guarantees. Summit County’s stalled attempt to develop 45 acres for 800 affordable units, hindered by wildfire risks and infrastructure costs, illustrates the complexity of building on public land, even when approved.

For now, existing processes like FLPMA remain the primary mechanism for targeted land sales, ensuring public input and environmental review. Lee’s withdrawal may temper immediate concerns, but his commitment to revisit the issue suggests future battles. As Sen. Heinrich warned, “To those already plotting to go after our public lands another way: Don’t. Unless you like losing”. With housing costs still crushing families, the debate over how to use federal land—without sacrificing America’s natural heritage—will continue to shape policy discussions.

What do you think about the balance between housing development and preserving public lands? Share your thoughts below, and stay tuned for updates on how Congress addresses the housing crisis without auctioning off America’s wild spaces.