The Feds Own Half the Western U.S.—and Can't Take Care of It
Selling just a fraction of the land would reduce our enormous debt.

The federal government owns about a third of America.
Since we're on a path to bankruptcy, it would be smart to sell some unused property.
President Donald Trump's Interior Secretary says it may be worth as much as $200 trillion. Selling just a fraction of it would reduce our enormous debt.
Not just that—since government doesn't manage things well, selling or leasing some would leave it in better condition.
Federal bureaucrats have been slow to do controlled burns and remove deadwood that becomes fuel for fires.
"Fires on federal lands accounted for more than half of the acres burned," says the Congressional Budget Office.
But whenever a politician suggests selling any land, environmental activists freak out.
Jennifer Mamola of The John Muir Project says the government must hold on to every bit of land it owns "to solve our biodiversity crisis."
"What is a biodiversity crisis?" I ask her in my new video.
"Human fingerprints are on the scale, and we are out-tipping it!"
Like many activists, she's not knowledgeable about science.
"We are in very tumultuous weather times," she tells me. "The fact that Hurricane Helene hit North Carolina is just unprecedented!"
No, it's not. Hurricanes hit North Carolina all the time.
"I guess I mean the travel trajectory, right?…[Helene] started in the Gulf and then it went all the way up. Seems pretty unprecedented—going inland."
Actually, lots of hurricanes go inland. Floyd caused catastrophic flooding; almost every river basin in eastern North Carolina surpassed 500-year flood levels. Matthew brought record flooding. Florence caused about $17 billion in damages.
Still, Mamola sees weather changes. "It's really not that predictable anymore because we have our thumb on the scale….In the nearly 40 years I've been alive, we're definitely seeing a shift!…D.C., I've lived there 10 years. We had a drought last summer!"
But drought isn't more common. The Environmental Protection Agency says the last 50 years have actually been wetter than average.
If government sells any land, Mamola says, loggers and mining companies will destroy it.
Climate media company The YEARS Project peddles a deceitful video that says, "Imagine the Grand Canyon filled with oil rigs. That's the world Pendley wants to live in."
"Pendley" is William Pendley, who ran the government's Bureau of Land Management during Trump's first term.
I confront him with what the activists say:
"Picture Yellowstone being strip mined for coal. These are the kinds of policies he advocates for."
"Absolutely not!" he replies. "We're not going to do parks. They made it up!"
He wants to sell, as Congress has done for decades, "multiple-use" land: "It's supposed to be used [for] oil and gas, mining, grazing."
He says private lease holders would manage it better.
Also, says Pendley, "The best forest managers are tribes and states because they've got skin in the game."
The governors of Utah and Nevada agree. They, too, want the feds to release some land.
Most of Utah is federally owned. Utah sued the feds for the right to buy some of it. But so far, no success.
In Nevada, 80 percent of land is federally owned and controlled. Gov. Joe Lombardo wants "immediate and systematic release of federal land."
"Why should it be controlled by the federal government?" I ask Mamola. "What if Utah or Nevada say they can do it better?"
Mamola replies, "They're not going to be able to maintain it."
But the feds don't maintain it! The Park Service is $23 billion behind on repairs.
Despite the incompetence of federal management, Mamola wants the feds to buy even more land.
"They own 50 percent of the West. Isn't that enough?" I ask. "What would be enough?"
"I'm happy to give up some of the East Coast," she replies.
Yikes.
But the silly people win. They've convinced voters that no land should ever be sold. Sen. Mike Lee (R–Utah) saw which way the political winds were blowing. He withdrew his proposal to sell public lands.
Too bad. We're deep in debt. The feds should at least lease unused land.
Washington bureaucrats don't need to control half the West.
COPYRIGHT 2025 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Sell it all off!
Maybe they will have a land recognition cerimony to celibrate who's land it was before we sell it to someone else.
Perhaps China will offer to pay the highest price. Getting rid of California would probably be worth it
...and please take Illinois, New York, Oregon and Washington State too.
These states are already communist, so nothing will change if the PRC does take them over.
Hilarious. New York is the world's center for capitalism.
Hilarious how NY is the center of capitalism and yet the vast majority of residents are Marxists.
Hilarious.
Look at how many businesses left NYC in the past four years.
Isn't that the state that is on the path to electing a full fledged socialist?
Washington has no state income tax. And is headquarters for Amazon, Microsoft, and Boeing.
I would lovd to see Chins pay off the National debt on exchange for undeveloped land.
Of course you would. How much do they pay you again?
Did they ever find Animal Chin?
I am ok with trading some of the East for the West. Government gets to keep the same amount of land, easterners can get a first hand look at how it manages it.
Well, you changed my mind, now I'm for keeping the status quo. I live close enough to DC to know what their eastern management looks like.
"Manage"
LOFL!
John Stossel misspelled, "mismanaged."
I'm sure it was only a clerical error.
Thar's gold in them thar environmentalism.
There are 32,363 environmental organizations in the United States. Combined, these environmental organizations employ 150,207 people, earn more than $30 billion in revenue each year, and have assets of $85 billion.
https://www.causeiq.com/directory/environmental-organizations-list/
Earn is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that statement.
More like given tax dollars.
Most of these aren't environmental organizations.
Who ever said government was smart?!
"The federal government owns about a third of America. Since we're on a path to bankruptcy, it would be smart to sell some unused property."
That makes sense, so you know that won't happen.
No... just, no.
Until you fix the problem , which is spending, this is a crackhead move. Selling the microwave for $20 until the next crack (spending) fix is needed , which you can already feel coming on.
Okay what cuts to Social Security, Medicare Medicaid, and National Defense do you propose. Be specific. The rest of the federal government isn't expensive enough to matter.
Stop voting democrat and perhaps there's a chance.
Even giving lip service to selling Yellowstone or the Grand Canyon guarantees that there will be no change. The truth is that most Bureau of Land Management and US Forest Service land could be sold and continue to be managed in an environmentally sound manner. The North Maine Woods (almost entirely private) and Adirondack Park (about half private) are examples of such. Reasonsible private owners of forest and ranch land don't want to have their land be over cut or over grazed. There will be little fossil fuel development because it won't be profitable; reasonable environmental regulations can ensure that the land can be maintained.
The big winner will be the US taxpayer. The big losers will be the taxpayers of the states where the land has been sold as they will be on the hook to pay for expensive public safety including fire protection. Time to stop having the rest of the country subsidize them.
Exactly. The National Parks are popular, and fine to keep as national parks. There is way more federal land to sell, most of it going unused or being exploited by private industry because they don't have to worry about the long term value of the land.
Except that the east coast environmental wackos have shut down much of the multiple use out west, resulting in massive buildup of fuel on the ground on USFS land in the west, resulting in most of that agency’s budget now going for fire suppression.
I live in an interior western red state where a large majority of both parties' voters and everyone in our all-Republican congressional delegation favor leaving public lands as is and not selling any of them. Even with budget cuts the federal government has billions budgeted for necessary maintenance.
Maybe start slow with just a small percentage. Instead of the federal government owning or controlling nearly 70% of Utah or 80% of Nevada, return 10% of every state with over 50% back to the state to control and manage.
Repeat the process in 10 years with another 10% returned to the state to manage for states where 40% federal ownership.
Repeat in another 10 years with another 10% for states with 30% ownership.
Repeat in another 10 years with another 10% for states with 20% ownership.
Repeat until every state has less than 20% ownership by the federal government as no state should be owned by the federal government.
The surprise will be that the states have much more of a long term vested interest in the land within their state than any federal bureaucrat does. The states will do a better job managing and maintaining the land within their state than a disinterested federal agency that is more east coastcentric than local citizens will be.
I only differ with John Stossel in that the federal government stole the land from the states, so any land that is sold, the proceeds should be returned to the state and not the federal government.
Perhaps the State of Utah should get 70% of the proceeds and the State of Nevada should get 80% of the proceeds. A direct correlation with the percentage of federal theft from the state.
Seems like it could help alleviate the housing shortage, too.
Build some cheap housing in the middle of nowhere and solve homelessness while we're at it. Employ the homeless/jobless in building more houses. Being stranded in Utah might help them kick any substance abuse issues they may have as well.
Oh! I’m just envisioning the construction quality of what a bunch of crackheads build.
While I appreciate your sentiments, I don’t see this as the solution to the homeless problem.
Well that and the BIG ELEPHANT in the room. It's 100% UN-Constitutional for the 'Fed' to pretend they own 30% of the US landmass because .......... get this! The USA is not a Communist Country.
Frankly. They never 'owned' it to begin with. It is reserved to the State upon which it resides. For the 'disposal of' per US Constitution. Just because the US Dept of Interior does Land Titles doesn't mean they 'own' it. They 'high jacked' the land they're suppose to be titling.