Why Senator Lee’s Withdrawal of Protected Lands Sale Is a Win for All Americans | The American Spectator

Utah Sen. Mike Lee has rescinded his proposal to sell millions of acres of protected federal land for housing developments, following significant backlash from the public and fellow lawmakers. 

Lee posted a statement on the removal of the provision, stating, “I was unable to secure clear, enforceable safeguards to guarantee that these lands would be sold only to American families… For that reason, I’ve made the decision to withdraw the federal land sales provision from the bill.”

The proposal, which was a provision within the GOP’s Big Beautiful Bill, would have required the sale of roughly 3.3 million acres of federal land across 11 western states. Lee argued that this land was “unused” and should therefore be sold and developed to solve housing shortages and to generate revenue for the U.S. government. 

Backlash to this proposal was swift and bipartisan, with opposition flowing from multiple sources. Environmentalists argued that the sale of this land would endanger wildlife and water quality, as well as inhibit tourism and recreation in the area. 

Other outcry was voiced by hunting and conservation advocates, many of whom are on the right. Kaden McArthur, the policy and government relations director at the nonprofit Backcountry Hunters & Anglers, told SFGATE, “Many sportsmen and women that I’ve spoken to across the country have been able to directly point to places at threat by this maneuver that they hunt and fish on, that they take their families to, that they use to enjoy the solace of the outdoors.”

Lee has maintained that the public simply does not understand the proposal. He stated in his announcement posted to Instagram, “There has been a tremendous amount of information — and in some cases, outright lies.” 

Despite the admirable motive of increasing housing in a turbulent market, Mike Lee’s provision would have been a departure from conservative ideals. To conserve necessarily means the preservation of an inheritance, and it ought to apply to our natural public lands, not just our political practices and institutions. 

Conservatives should celebrate the withdrawal of a proposal to sell millions of acres — our American birthright — for housing developments and a marginal fiscal gain. Once developed, these lands cannot return to natural use or public enjoyment. 

If we limit conservatism to D.C. politics and culture wars alone, we risk ceding vital parts of our nation in the background. The fight to protect our public natural landscape is not trivial; it is defining to the conservative vision. 

While the backlash from Sen. Lee’s provision rightly came from both sides of the aisle, those who proudly identify with conservatism bear a particular duty to conserve. It also requires guarding against overreach in our own ranks. The removal of this proposal affirms a conservative movement grounded in principle and marks a win for all Americans.

Applying our principles to Republicans and Democrats alike shows the strength of an ideological movement whose whole ethos is to conserve. Packing America’s natural landscapes with apartment complexes would have been an indictment of conservatism, but the successful rejection of this proposal marks a win for every American. 

READ MORE from Andrew Gondy:

Trump Scorches AOC as Democrats Argue for a Third Impeachment

California School Systems in Violation of Title IX, Department of Education Finds