SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
housing
Mike Lee Tries to Sneak Public Land Sale Back Into 'Big, Ugly Bill' Ahead of Senate Vote
"Republicans are STILL trying to sell off public lands in their budget bill," said Sen. Ron Wyden. "If you care about keeping your public lands please make your voice heard."
Jun 28, 2025
Ahead of a vote on Republicans' budget reconciliation package expected as soon as noon Saturday, U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Chair Mike Lee revived his effort to sell off public lands.
Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough has blocked multiple provisions of the GOP megabill, including several under the jurisdiction of the Utah Republican's panel. Among them is his attack on public lands.
"Here we go again," Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) said on social media after Lee released new text for his committee late Friday.
"Republicans are STILL trying to sell off public lands in their budget bill," Wyden continued. "Republicans are trying to get this over the finish line by the end of the weekend. If you care about keeping your public lands please make your voice heard."
"Americans left, right, and center have come together with one voice to say these landscapes shouldn't be sold off to fund tax cuts for the uberwealthy—not now, not ever."
Athan Manuel, director of Sierra Club's Lands Protection Program, said in a Saturday morning statement that "the new version of Mike Lee's public lands sell-off is like cutting 'most' of the mercury out of your diet. The fact of the matter is that Mike Lee has spent the better part of a decade trying to privatize our public lands, and with his new power in the Senate, he's trying to push that agenda even further without public input, without transparency, and shame."
"Americans left, right, and center have come together with one voice to say these landscapes shouldn't be sold off to fund tax cuts for the uberwealthy—not now, not ever," Manuel added. "Congress needs to listen to their constituents, not billionaires and private developers, and keep the 'public' in public lands.”
A document from Lee states that his "amended proposal dramatically narrows the scope of lands to be sold for housing... in communities where it is desperately needed" in the U.S. West. The new version would exclude all Forest Service land and reduce the amount of Bureau of Land Management acres to be sold by half.
"It's still bullshit," responded Noelle Porter, government affairs director at the National Housing Law Project.
Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), the ranking member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, has recently said: "This isn't about building more housing or energy dominance. It's about giving their billionaire buddies YOUR land and YOUR money."
"From the Sierra Club to Joe Rogan, everybody is pissed off about Republicans' public lands sell-off," he wrote on social media Friday. "This is the broadest coalition I've seen around public lands in my lifetime, so keep making sure your voices are heard because we're winning."
Jane Fonda's climate-focused political action committee similarly stressed on social media Friday that "Lee is committed to including a massive public land sale provision in the Big Beautiful Bill. We need you to keep up the pressure and reach out to your senators today and demand they reject any new sales of public lands in this legislation."
And it's not just the land sales in the Friday night text of what critics call the "big, ugly bill." It also "creates new fees for renewable energy projects on public lands, and cuts royalty rates for oil, gas, and coal production on public lands," noted Sam Ricketts, co-founder of S2 Strategies, which is working to build a clean energy economy. "Make it make sense."
As Manuel and Heinrich pointed out, some right-wingers are also outraged by Lee's push to sell off public lands. Benji Backer, founder of Nature Is Nonpartisan and the American Conservation Coalition, took aim at the committee chair on social media Friday night.
"Mike Lee just quietly doubled down on his mass public lands sel-loff by releasing new text," Backer said. "The Senate could consider it as soon as tomorrow. The secrecy is gross—and intentional. Lee knows it's his only path. America, we NEED to stand strong.
Tagging the Senate GOP account and Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.), Backer added that "Americans are entirely UNITED in opposition against this. Please ask Sen. Lee to let this provision... stand on its own—at the very least."
Even if the Senate somehow advances Lee's legislation, it could face trouble in the House of Representatives, which is also narrowly controlled by the GOP. On Thursday, Republican Reps. Ryan Zinke (Mont.), David Valadao (Calif.), Mike Simpson (Idaho), Dan Newhouse (Wash.), and Cliff Bentz (Ore.) warned that "we cannot accept the sale of federal lands that Sen. Lee seeks."
"If a provision to sell public lands is in the bill that reaches the House floor, we will be forced to vote no," warned the lawmakers, led by Zinke, who was the interior secretary during President Donald Trump's first term. Lee's provision, they wrote, would be a "grave mistake, unforced error, and poison pill that will cause the bill to fail should it come to the House floor."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Don't Believe It': Senate GOP Claims Huge Public Land Sell-Off Would Alleviate Housing Crisis
"This isn't about building more housing or energy dominance. It's about giving their billionaire buddies YOUR land and YOUR money."
Jun 12, 2025
Senate Republicans unveiled legislation Wednesday that would require the sale of millions of acres of U.S. public land in Western states, a proposal that conservation groups slammed as a giveaway to corporate interests and the rich disguised as an attempt to alleviate the housing crisis.
The bill released by the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources is a piece of the GOP's sprawling budget reconciliation package, which the party hopes to send to President Donald Trump's desk in a matter of weeks.
The measure directs the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to "dispose of 0.5-0.75% of certain BLM land and the Forest Service to dispose of 0.5-0.75% of certain National Forest System Land," and would give Trump administration officials wide latitude to determine whether public land sell-offs would "address local housing needs (including housing supply and affordability) or any associated community needs."
Analysts have rejected the notion that selling federal land to developers is a viable solution to the U.S. housing crisis, arguing that the proposal "is little more than a Trojan horse for a fringe, anti-public lands agenda."
"It's a travesty that Senate Republicans are putting more than 3 million acres of our beloved public lands on the chopping block to sell at fire-sale prices to build mega-mansions for the ultra-rich."
The Senate's proposal, spearheaded by Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), represents a more extreme version of a provision that was removed from the House version of the GOP reconciliation package last month amid widespread backlash.
"Senate Republicans have finally said the quiet part out loud: They want to put millions of acres of our public lands up in a fire sale, destroy the investments that have created thousands of manufacturing and clean energy jobs—including in their home states—and obliterate programs that lower energy costs for everyday Americans," said Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), the ranking member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.
“In the days ahead, you'll hear a lot of excuses from Republicans trying to cover for what they're doing. Do not believe it," Heinrich continued. "This isn't about building more housing or energy dominance. It's about giving their billionaire buddies YOUR land and YOUR money."
Patrick Donnelly, Great Basin director at the Center for Biological Diversity, warned that the Senate legislation "is just open season on public lands."
"It's a travesty that Senate Republicans are putting more than 3 million acres of our beloved public lands on the chopping block to sell at fire-sale prices to build mega-mansions for the ultra-rich," said Donnelly.
The legislation also instructs the U.S. Interior Department, currently led by Big Oil ally and drilling proponent Doug Burgum, to "immediately resume quarterly onshore oil and gas lease sales" and requires "a minimum of four oil and gas lease sales" each fiscal year in Wyoming, New Mexico, Colorado, Utah, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Nevada, Alaska, and "any other state in which there is land available for oil and gas leasing under the Mineral Leasing Act."
Burgum has described public land as "an incredible asset on America's balance sheet" that could be used "to solve our nation's affordable housing crisis."
In a statement on the legislation, the Sierra Club highlighted a provision that would enact "a harmful 'pay to pollute' scheme allowing a methane gas export company to pay a fee in exchange for LNG projects being automatically deemed in the public interest."
Athan Manuel, director of the Sierra Club's Lands Protection Program, said that Senate Republicans "are taking a second bite at a rotten apple."
"The American people made it clear last month that they will not tolerate selling off our public lands to billionaires and corporate polluters," said Manuel. "But Donald Trump and Mike Lee seem to have missed the memo. This bill would give billionaires and corporate polluters free rein to drill, mine, and log these treasured landscapes without oversight or accountability, and sell millions of acres of public lands to private developers, locking out American families forever."
"The American people will remind Trump and his congressional allies that our public lands shouldn't have a price tag on them," Manuel added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'A Betrayal': Colorado's Democratic Governor Vetoes Bill Targeting Algorithmic Rent-Setting
The veto, said one critic, "sends the devastating message that corporate landlords can keep using secret price-fixing algorithms to take extra rent from people who have the least."
May 30, 2025
Colorado Gov. Jared Polis, a Democrat seen as a potential 2028 presidential contender, used his veto pen on Thursday to block legislation aimed at banning rent-setting algorithms that corporate landlords have used to drive up housing costs across the country.
The bill, known as H.B. 1004, would have prohibited algorithmic software "sold or distributed with the intent that it will be used by two or more landlords in the same market or a related market to set or recommend the amount of rent, level of occupancy, or other commercial term associated with the occupancy of a residential premises."
A report issued late last year by the Biden White House estimated that algorithmic rent-setting cost U.S. renters a combined $3.8 billion in 2023. According to the Biden administration's analysis, Denver tenants have been paying an average of $1,600 more on rent each year because of rent-setting algorithms. The approximate monthly rent for a one-bedroom apartment in the city is $1,600.
Pat Garofalo, director of state and local policy at the American Economic Liberties Project, called Polis' veto "a betrayal" that makes "his priorities clear."
"Governor Polis had a simple choice: stand with working Coloradans or side with corporate landlords using secretive algorithms to allegedly price-fix rents," said Garofalo. "The governor talks a big game about affordability and abundance, but when given the chance to take real action—at no cost to taxpayers—he protected profiteers and let families keep paying a 13th month of rent. It's a betrayal of the values he claims to champion, and Colorado renters won't soon forget it."
"Governor Polis vetoed the most meaningful legislation we had to lower costs for renters."
Sam Gilman, co-founder and president of the Denver-based Community Economic Defense Project, said that the governor's veto "sends the devastating message that corporate landlords can keep using secret price-fixing algorithms to take extra rent from people who have the least."
"At a time when costs keep rising for working people and Republicans in Washington are attacking the social safety net," Gilman added, "Governor Polis vetoed the most meaningful legislation we had to lower costs for renters."
In a letter explaining his veto, Polis voiced agreement with the bill's supporters that "collusion between landlords for purposes of artificially constraining rental supply and increasing costs on renters is wrong." But he warned the bill could have the unintended effect of banning software that helps "efficiently manage residential real estate."
The governor's reasoning did not assuage critics.
"It stood up to corporate power," Gilman said of the legislation. "It promised to bring apartments back online. And it took on economic abuse that steals $1,600 a year from renters."
State Rep. Steven Woodrow (D-2) said it is "unfortunate that someone who claims to care so deeply about saving people money has chosen the interests of large corporate landlords over those of hard-working Coloradans."
State and local legislative efforts to rein in algorithmic rent-setting have gained steam in recent years following an explosive ProPublica story in 2022 detailing RealPage's sale of "software that uses data analytics to suggest daily prices for open units."
"RealPage discourages bargaining with renters and has even recommended that landlords in some cases accept a lower occupancy rate in order to raise rents and make more money," the investigative outlet reported. "One of the algorithm's developers told ProPublica that leasing agents had 'too much empathy' compared to computer-generated pricing. Apartment managers can reject the software's suggestions, but as many as 90% are adopted, according to former RealPage employees."
The Denver Post reported Thursday that the vetoed bill "essentially targeted RealPage," which lobbied aggressively against a similar measure that died in the Colorado Legislature last year.
Polis also used his veto authority on Thursday to tank legislation that would have "limited how much ambulance services can charge for transporting patients and required health insurance companies to cover the cost, minus deductibles or copays," The Colorado Sun reported.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular