House Republicans have taken a significant step towards authorizing the sale of hundreds of thousands of acres of public lands in Nevada and Utah, a move that has sparked fierce backlash from Democrats and environmentalists. The provision was added to a sweeping tax cut package during a markup session of the House Natural Resources Committee on May 7, 2025, and could pave the way for increased drilling, mining, and other development activities in sensitive areas.
The amendment, proposed by Republican Representatives Mark Amodei of Nevada and Celeste Maloy of Utah, was approved by the committee with a 26-17 vote, primarily along party lines. It allows for the sale of approximately 200,000 acres (80,000 hectares) of federal land in Clark County, Nevada, which encompasses Las Vegas, as well as additional parcels in Lyon and Washoe Counties. In Utah, the targeted lands are located primarily around the city of St. George and near Zion National Park.
In a statement, Nevada Democratic Senator Catherine Cortez Masto criticized the land sale as "a land grab to fund Republicans’ billionaire giveaway tax bill," expressing concern over the potential environmental implications. She highlighted that the proposed sales would detract from funding for vital services such as water conservation and public schools.
Amodei defended the amendment, arguing that the sale of public lands is necessary to meet housing and infrastructure needs in rapidly growing areas. "Nevada population centers are all encumbered by federal land that can’t meet their housing and development needs without disposal of federal lands," he stated during the markup. Maloy echoed these sentiments, emphasizing that local governments in Utah have been hindered by the federal land status, which restricts their ability to address housing demands.
While proponents of the amendment assert that the sales could generate significant federal revenue, critics argue that the measure is a thinly veiled attempt to benefit wealthy interests at the expense of public lands. "This is just some truly odious sausage at 11:20 p.m. at the end of a long markup," said Rep. Jared Huffman, a California Democrat. He and other Democrats have accused Republicans of disregarding the legislative process and failing to adequately consult with local representatives.
Indeed, Nevada Democratic Representatives Steven Horsford, Susie Lee, and Dina Titus were reportedly not informed about the amendment until after the vote, raising concerns about lack of representation for local residents in the decision-making process. Rep. Joe Neguse, ranking member of the subcommittee on federal land, pointed out the need for more consultation with lawmakers whose districts would be affected by the land sales.
The bill also proposes to decrease oil and gas royalty rates from 16.7% on public lands and 18.75% offshore to a uniform 12.5%, alongside reductions in coal royalties from 12.5% to 7%. This aspect of the bill has drawn criticism from environmental advocates who argue that it undermines efforts to combat climate change.
In addition to the land sales, the legislation includes provisions for expedited leasing and permitting for natural resource extraction, which Republicans argue will enhance energy production and create jobs. House Speaker Mike Johnson has set a goal of passing the package by Memorial Day, with expectations that it will generate at least $18 billion in new revenue and savings.
However, the proposal has faced opposition not only from Democrats but also from some Republicans concerned about the implications of selling public lands. Montana Rep. Ryan Zinke, a former Interior Secretary, has stated his opposition to any land sales, indicating that he believes federal lands should remain under government management. Zinke expressed his view by likening federal land management to running a hotel, suggesting that if management is unsatisfactory, it should be improved rather than selling the property.
As the debate unfolds, the public land sales amendment remains a contentious topic, with advocates and opponents on both sides passionately arguing their positions. Environmental groups, including the Wilderness Society, have condemned the amendment as part of a broader right-wing agenda to privatize public lands, while supporters maintain that the sales are necessary for local development and economic growth.
The future of the amendment remains uncertain as it heads to the full House for a vote. Given the strong reactions from various stakeholders, it is likely to be a focal point of discussion in the coming weeks as lawmakers continue to navigate the complexities of the budget reconciliation process.
With the stakes high, the outcome of this proposal could have lasting implications for public land management and environmental policy in the United States.
