After intense criticism from conservation groups, political leaders, and the public, a legislative proposal to sell public lands in several Western states, including Arizona, to supposedly address a housing crisis in the U.S., is now being revised and restructured.

Republican U.S. Sen. Mike Lee on June 11 introduced draft legislation in the budget reconciliation bill, known as the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act”, which includes selling millions of acres of Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management lands in 11 Western states for housing. 

The original legislative draft directed the BLM and the Forest Service to dispose of .5% to .75% of BLM land and National Forest System land “to address the housing crisis.” That amounts to about 3.2 million acres of public lands that would be subject to sale, according to the Grand Canyon Trust. 

Other language in the bill puts over 250 million acres of public lands across 11 Western states at risk, according to the Wilderness Society, including local recreational areas, wilderness study areas, endangered species habitats and more.

“The bill authorizes the permanent privatization of millions of acres of publicly owned Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service land with no environmental review, meaningful Tribal consultation, or public input,” the Center for Biological Diversity stated in a letter.

But after nearly two weeks of criticism over the potential sell-off of public lands, the Utah Republican Senator’s proposal was stripped from the Senate budget reconciliation package altogether on procedural grounds by the Senate parliamentarian. 

“Democrats will not stand idly by while Republicans attempt to circumvent the rules of reconciliation in order to sell off public lands to fund tax breaks for billionaires,” said U.S. Senate Budget Committee ranking Democrat Jeff Merkley of Oregon.

The parliamentarian’s announcement came after Lee posted about revisions to the bill on social media. He announced that they will remove all Forest Service land from the legislation. 

“We are not selling off our forests,” he wrote in a social media post on X on Monday night. 

Housing prices are crushing families and keeping young Americans from living where they grew up. We need to change that.

Thanks to YOU—the AMERICAN PEOPLE—here’s what I plan to do:

1. REMOVE ALL Forest Service land. We are NOT selling off our forests.

2. SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCE…

— Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) June 24, 2025

Besides removing all Forest Service land, Lee wrote that they will “significantly reduce” the amount of BLM land in the bill and include only land within five miles of population centers.

Further details on the amount of land were not included in the update; however, Lee wrote that they will establish freedom zones to ensure the land benefits American families and protects farmers, ranchers, and recreational users. 

“They come first,” he wrote before advising people to stay tuned.

The Center for Western Priorities praised the Senate Parliamentarian’s motion to dismiss the legislative language proposed by Lee, calling it a ridiculous attempt to sell off millions of acres of public lands.

“This is a significant win for public lands,” Executive Director Jennifer Rokala said in a statement. “Western voters have made it clear time and again that they want to protect public lands and they do not support selling America’s public lands to private developers.”

Following the release of details about the initial draft legislation on June 11, an outcry of opposition to the bill arose nationwide from recreational enthusiasts, conservation groups, and political leaders. 

“This is the most outrageous thing to come out of Congress relative to public lands,” Sandy Bahr, the Grand Canyon chapter director for the Sierra Club, said. 

There have been threats to public lands before, but Bahr said this attempt is different. 

“They are talking about selling the land — once they’re sold, they’re going to belong to one individual and company,” she added. “We’re not going to get them back. It’s pretty serious.”

The map of the land that would have been eligible under this bill showed the large land areas in the states. In Arizona, the total acreage of BLM and Forest Service land is equivalent to more than 14.4 million acres, according to the Wilderness Society.

“These were not lands that were appropriate for housing,” Bahr said, adding that being an argument to justify the potential selling of public lands is very questionable because many of these lands are far from any type of infrastructure.

Bahr said that they are pleased that the initial land selling proposal is no longer part of the bill for now, but they are still concerned about what is to come.

It took a finding that the language in the proposal was not part of the rules for them not to include it in the bill, she said, but Lee is still trying to find a way.

The plan to auction off 14 million acres of public land from Mt. Lemmon to Sedona is reckless and wrong.

These lands belong to people, not corporations.

I strongly oppose auctioning off Arizona’s public lands to the highest bidder. This land grab will prevent us and our… pic.twitter.com/qGMZrlbV5r

— Governor Katie Hobbs (@GovernorHobbs) June 21, 2025

Gov. Katie Hobbs is one of many Arizona leaders to express strong opposition to the sale of public lands in Arizona. 

“The plan to auction off 14 million acres of public land from Mt. Lemmon to Sedona is reckless and wrong,” Hobbs wrote in a post on the social media platform X. “These lands belong to people, not corporations.” 

Hobbs said that the land grab will stop people from experiencing the beauty of Arizona.

As the new language is planned for legislation, Bahr said it is essential for people to pay attention because these public lands provide so much for the communities in multiple ways. 

“Their favorite place might actually be on that list,” Bahr said. “People should pay attention, because they are serious about it and this is the most serious threat to public lands I have seen.”

Even as the intention to sell off public lands is being scrapped, the initial bill still did not include details about how tribal nations factor into the proposal, despite the lands in question having traditional, ancestral and cultural ties to tribes. 

Even with the incoming changes to the bill, the direct impact on tribal nations remains unclear.

“Even with changes to the bill, the fact remains: all public lands are Native homelands, and tribes have an inherent right to decide what happens with them,” Judith LeBlanc, executive director of Native Organizer Alliance Action Fund, said.

The bill poses a direct threat to tribal sovereignty, LeBlanc said, and to the hard-fought protections that safeguard Indigenous sacred places.

The initial bill claims that the sale of lands would address the housing crisis, but LeBlanc, a citizen of the Caddo Tribe of Oklahoma, sees it as nothing more than an attempt by Congress to sell off public lands for the benefit of private developers.

“It sets a dangerous precedent — one where the U.S. government treats public lands as disposable assets to generate revenue, auctioning them off to the highest bidder,” she said, and that is a clear violation of treaties and tribal agreements.

“As Native peoples, we don’t see our precious resources as dollar bills,” she added. “We are caretakers of these lands, with a responsibility to protect and manage them sustainably for generations to come.”

More than 450 federally recognized tribes are spread across the 11 Western states included in the original draft legislation, but the bill lacked clear language that specifically included tribal nations.

Even though the initial language has been scrapped, Gloria Tom, the senior strategic and special policy advisor for the National Wildlife Federation, said she is cautious about what is to come because it is not clear whether tribes will have any say in what happens to the public lands adjacent to their tribal lands. 

The biggest concern, Tom said, is that Indigenous people would lose access to those lands, which potentially violates treaty rights for tribes to utilize these lands for cultural and traditional purposes. 

“A lot of treaties speak to that, and we don’t know what the implications are,” Tom said. “It’s really hard to pin down what the impacts are because we don’t know which lands they’re talking about.”

When Tom looked at the maps, she noticed how much of the eligible land surrounds tribal lands, including many in Arizona.

“There should be consultation with tribes for lands identified that have impacts on tribes,” she said. “Cultural and ancestral ties would still have to be considered.”

Tom said that, as a Navajo woman, she is deeply concerned about land and how this will impact the tribal lands because there is no guarantee that tribes will be included. 

“The only way that Congress is going to hear tribal perspectives is when tribes speak up,” she said. “The National Wildlife Federation is here to support that if tribes want us to help.” 

This story originally appeared on Arizona Mirror on June 25, 2025. It is published under a Creative Commons license (CC BY-ND 4.0).

Arizona Mirror is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Arizona Mirror maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Jim Small for questions: info@azmirror.com.