- Sen. Mike Lee's proposal to sell federal lands faced a setback Monday.
- The Senate parliamentarian ruled it can't be included in the budget package in its current form.
- Lee plans to amend the proposal and hopes the new version will clear the Senate's Byrd rule.
SALT LAKE CITY — The Senate parliamentarian ruled Monday that Sen. Mike Lee's current proposal to sell between 2 million and 3 million acres of federal land can't be included in the Republican budget package, but the senator is hopeful a narrowed version of his proposal will get the green light.
The proposal, which would direct cabinet secretaries to sell between 0.5% and 0.75% of public lands in Utah and 10 other Western states, drew significant pushback from environmental and outdoors groups. Lee has said the land would be used for housing development and argued it is necessary to help reduce the high cost of housing.
Lee had hoped to include his proposal as part of President Donald Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act, a tax and spending package and centerpiece of Republicans' governing priorities during the first year of their trifecta in Washington. Monday's ruling by the parliamentarian said the current version of his bill could not be included in the package, which is expected to pass through a process called reconciliation, whereby senators can pass budget policies with a simple majority vote rather than meeting the 60-vote threshold required for most bills.
The parliamentarian said the bill violated the Senate's Byrd rule, which limits "extraneous" provisions from being included in reconciliation packages.
Prior to the ruling, Lee had said he plans to introduce changes to his proposal to remove the sale of any U.S. Forest Service land, reduce the amount of Bureau of Land Management land eligible to that within "5 miles of population centers," establish what he called "freedom zones to ensure these lands benefit American families" and protect farmers, ranchers and recreational users of public lands.
The senator still plans to proceed with his amended proposal, a spokesman told KSL.com, and is working to get the language approved by the parliamentarian.
Housing prices are crushing families and keeping young Americans from living where they grew up. We need to change that.
— Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) June 24, 2025
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…
Monday night's ruling was quickly celebrated by many of the groups that opposed the proposal. Tracy Stone-Manning, the former director of the BLM and new president of the Wilderness Society, called it a "victory for the American public."
Scott Braden, executive director of the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, said the organization is glad to see it removed from the budget bill, but he added that he doesn't believe it's the end of the conversation. The Salt Lake City-based nonprofit plans to oppose "any future efforts to sell off our shared public lands for private profit," he added.
Lee's initial proposal faced backlash from various groups, ranging from conservation groups, hunting and other outdoor recreation organizations, as well as the outdoor recreation product industry.
Western governors were split on the concept during the first day of Western Governors' Association meetings in New Mexico this week. New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham, a Democrat, called it a "nonstarter," while Wyoming Gov. Mark Gordon, a Republican, said he could see the benefits looking "at certain places where the adjustments we can make just make better sense than what we have today" without eliminating public lands altogether, Reuters reported.
On a municipal level, Salt Lake City Mayor Erin Mendenhall posted to social media Monday evening — before the budget reconciliation ruling and Lee's proposed tweaks — that she supports an emergency resolution that Boise Mayor Lauren McLean submitted to the U.S. Conference of Mayors, opposing the sale of federal lands across the West.
"They are vital for our ecosystems," Mendenhall wrote. "They improve our well-being. They give us incredible outdoor opportunities. These federal lands should remain accessible for the benefit and enjoyment of all Americans."
