Republicans want to sell federal land for affordable housing

This recording was made using enhanced software.

Summary

Federal land for housing

Senate Republicans want to sell up to 3.3 million acres of federal land for housing development in 11 western states.

Housing crisis

Data shows there's a shortage of 7.1 million affordable homes in the U.S. and Republicans contend this could close the gap.

State and city involvement

States and cities would nominate areas they think would best serve their needs. National Parks and wildlife areas are off limits.

Full story

Senate Republicans want to sell millions of acres of federal land in order to build affordable housing in the Western United States. According to their data, there is a nationwide shortage of 4.5 million homes and 7.1 million affordable homes.

A newly added provision to President Trump’s so-called “big beautiful” tax and budget package would require the government to sell a minimum of 2,190,000 acres and a maximum of 3,285,000 acres currently owned by the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service.

How much land does the government own?

As of Friday, June 13, the federal government owned approximately 640 million acres of land in the United States, or 28% of the total of 2.27 billion acres. Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, pointed out that some states have a substantially higher percentage of federal ownership, such as Utah, where the federal government owns 70% of the land.

“That’s not sustainable. It’s not fair. It’s not serving the Americans who actually live here,” Lee said in a video announcement.

Republicans contended that the federal government’s land ownership is depriving communities of needed space for housing and inhibiting growth. President Trump supported the land sale and has previously pledged to open it up to “large scale housing construction.” The Secretaries of the Interior and Housing and Urban Development are working to make this idea a reality.

State eligibility

The states eligible for the sale include Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington and Wyoming.

Republicans said that this proposal would help relieve the housing crisis. They estimate it would generate $5 billion to $10 billion in revenue for the government over the next decade.

What sites are off limits?

The bill would establish a process for states and local governments to nominate federally owned areas that they believe would help meet their housing and community needs. National Parks, wilderness and recreation areas were off limits under the proposal.

These provisions were originally included in the House version of the budget package, but Rep. Ryan Zinke, R-Mont., had them removed with the support of at least two other members.

“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,” said Zinke. “Public access, sportsmanship, grazing, tourism… our entire Montanan way of life is connected to our public lands. I don’t yield to pressure; I only yield to higher principle.”

The House will need to reapprove the budget package after the Senate makes changes. It was unclear if Zinke and those who opposed the single provision would be willing to vote against the entire package if it’s included.

Snorre Wik (Photographer/Editor), Cole Lauterbach (Managing Editor), and Lawrence Banton (Digital Producer) contributed to this report.

Tags: Affordable housing, Donald Trump, GOP, Mike Lee, Republicans, tax bill

[RAY BOGAN]

MILLIONS OF ACRES OF FEDERAL LAND COULD SOON BE PUT UP FOR SALE UNDER A PROPOSAL FROM SENATE REPUBLICANS. ACCORDING TO THEIR DATA, THERE IS A NATIONWIDE SHORTAGE OF 4.5 MILLION HOMES AND 7.1 MILLION AFFORDABLE HOMES.

A NEWLY ADDED PROVISION TO PRESIDENT TRUMP’S SO-CALLED “BIG BEAUTIFUL” TAX AND BUDGET PACKAGE WOULD REQUIRE THE GOVERNMENT TO SELL A MINIMUM 2.2 MILLION ACRES AND A MAXIMUM 3.2 MILLION ACRES OWNED BY THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT AND FOREST SERVICE IN 11 WESTERN STATES.

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OWNS ABOUT 640 MILLION ACRES OF LAND IN AMERICA, OR 28% OF THE 2.27 BILLION ACRE TOTAL. SEN. MIKE LEE POINTED OUT THAT SOME STATES HAVE A SUBSTANTIALLY HIGHER PERCENTAGE OF FEDERAL OWNERSHIP, LIKE UTAH, WHERE 70% OF LAND IS OWNED BY DC.

“THAT’S NOT SUSTAINABLE. IT’S NOT FAIR. IT’S NOT SERVING THE AMERICANS WHO ACTUALLY LIVE HERE,” LEE SAID IN A VIDEO ANNOUNCEMENT.

PRESIDENT TRUMP SUPPORTS THE LAND SALE AND HAS PREVIOUSLY PLEDGED TO OPEN IT UP TO “LARGE SCALE HOUSING CONSTRUCTION.”

REPUBLICANS CONTEND THAT THIS PROPOSAL WOULD NOT ONLY HELP RELIEVE THE HOUSING CRISIS AND HELP CITIES GROW, THEY ESTIMATE IT WOULD GENERATE $5 BILLION TO $10 BILLION IN REVENUE FOR THE GOVERNMENT OVER THE NEXT DECADE.

THE BILL WOULD CREATE A PROCESS FOR STATES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO NOMINATE AREAS THEY THINK WOULD HELP MEET THEIR HOUSING AND COMMUNITY NEEDS. NATIONAL PARKS, WILDERNESS AND RECREATION AREAS ARE OFF LIMITS.

THESE PROVISIONS WERE ORIGINALLY INCLUDED IN THE HOUSE VERSION OF THE BUDGET PACKAGE BUT MONTANA REPUBLICAN RYAN ZINKE HAD THEM REMOVED WITH THE SUPPORT OF AT LEAST TWO OTHER MEMBERS.

HE SAID – “ONCE THE LAND IS SOLD, WE WILL NEVER GET IT BACK.”
“PUBLIC ACCESS, SPORTSMANSHIP, GRAZING, TOURISM… OUR ENTIRE MONTANAN WAY OF LIFE IS CONNECTED TO OUR PUBLIC LANDS.”

THE HOUSE WILL NEED TO RE-APPROVE THE BUDGET PACKAGE AFTER THE SENATE MAKES CHANGES. IT’S NOT CLEAR IF ZINKE AND THOSE WHO OPPOSE THE SINGLE PROVISION WOULD BE WILLING TO VOTE AGAINST THE ENTIRE PACKAGE IF IT’S INCLUDED.

Why this story matters

A proposal by Senate Republicans to sell millions of acres of federally owned land for affordable housing highlights debates over public land use, housing shortages and the balance of federal versus local control.

Public land ownership

The debate centers on how much land should be federally owned versus being available for local development, with some lawmakers arguing current federal holdings are too extensive and impede local needs.

Affordable housing crisis

The plan is presented as a response to national and regional shortages of homes, particularly affordable housing, which advocates claim could be eased by opening federal land to housing projects.

State and local impacts

The proposal could affect state and local communities by changing land availability, potential revenue, and long-term access to public spaces, raising concerns and differing opinions among regional representatives.

Get the big picture

Synthesized coverage insights across 65 media outlets

Context corner

Federal land sales have long been a debated issue in Western U.S. politics. Historically, Western conservatives have pushed for more local control over public lands—a stance fueled by beliefs that federal management limits economic growth. Conversely, conservationists cite American traditions of public land protection, emphasizing recreation, biodiversity, and generational access.

Policy impact

Should the proposal be enacted, Western states would witness potential changes in land ownership near their communities, affecting recreation, hunting, ranching, tribal lands, and local economies. Policy changes could shift land use towards housing and infrastructure but may also introduce new risks related to wildfire, infrastructure costs, and ecological disruption.

Underreported

The potential effects on Native American tribes are less reported, despite the fact some parcels are adjacent to reservation lands and tribes have opposed similar sales. Additionally, specifics about how infrastructure costs or wildfire risks could be passed on to new communities and taxpayers receive limited coverage.

Sources

Bias comparison

Media outlets on the left frames the proposed sale of millions of acres of public land primarily as an environmental and community threat, employing emotionally charged terms like “open season” and “fire-sale prices” to depict the initiative as reckless exploitation benefiting the ultrarich at the expense of future generations.
Media outlets in the center highlight political discord and pragmatic concerns over local funding impacts, notably Nevada’s reliance on federal revenues.
Media outlets on the right emphasize economic opportunity and resource development, framing the Interior Department as a partner for expanding energy production and using terms such as “responsibly steward” and critiques of “onerous permitting processes” to justify deregulation.

Report an issue with this comparison