Selling Federal Land Will Benefit Future Generations Most

America’s 640 million acres of federal land are often romanticized as an untouched birthright, but birthrights can be squandered when assets are left idle. The Senate’s “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” is the latest budget reconciliation proposal working its way through Congress, and it proposes that a small slice of federal holdings finally be put to productive use. While the proposal is controversial, future Americans will thank us for it if it is adopted. Unlocking land for development today means creating the neighborhoods, schools, and local economies our children and grandchildren will depend on.

How we got here

The House cleared its own version of the reconciliation package in May. The Senate now faces a July 4 deadline to pass a companion bill that keeps most of Trump’s 2017 tax cuts while trimming federal spending.

The Senate bill directs the Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service to auction between 2 million and 3.3 million acres over the next five years, chiefly for housing and related community development infrastructure. Although that is less than one percent of federal real estate, more than 250 million acres are technically “eligible” if local officials nominate parcels. In California alone as many as 16 million acres lie within eligibility maps drawn by conservation groups.

What the land would become

Supporters, led by Sen. Mike Lee (R‑UT), envision new subdivisions popping up around fast‑growing western towns where developable land is scarce and home prices are high. Critically, the land in question is not Yosemite Valley or Arches National Park. National parks, congressionally designated wilderness areas, national monuments, and national wildlife refuges are excluded from consideration. Parcels must lie near existing roads or towns. Some are BLM tracts that already host utility corridors or cattle allotments. The bill text requires most proceeds, estimated at $5 to $10 billion, go to the Treasury, with 5 percent kicked back to local governments.

The political backlash

None of that nuance has quieted the internet. Bipartisan opposition to the measure emerged quickly. The #KeepItPublic hashtag trended on X soon after the bill’s release. Hunting‑and‑fishing groups such as the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership criticized the plan, sending a letter to Congress and urging their members to follow suit.

Also telling is survey data. One recent poll from a conservation group found that 71% of those surveyed opposed selling public lands to the highest bidder. On paper, at least, public opinion appears to lean against privatization.

But what is the land doing now?

The land under consideration for sale consists largely of federally managed acreage overseen by the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service across 11 western states. The bill opens the door to selling a mix of land types, including roadless forests, wildlands, lands near developed areas, and other BLM and Forest Service holdings. An amendment also removes prior exemptions for lands with active grazing permits, meaning areas currently used for livestock operations may be considered.

The status quo, where vast tracts remain available only for low-fee grazing, utilities, or recreation, locks in modest public returns. Private development, meanwhile, would add value through housing, infrastructure, and other productive enterprises, creating long-term benefits beyond today’s much more limited uses. Idle land today means limited opportunity tomorrow. But by enabling growth now, we lay the groundwork for vibrant communities to flourish.

Development ensures that future generations are not priced out of homeownership simply because we refused to build. When land is sold and developed, new housing triggers construction work, retail build‑outs, and decades of property‑tax revenue that rises with home values. According to Commerce Department modelling, each $1 million in new earnings ripples into roughly $2.08 million in regional income once multiplier effects are counted. Wages fund mortgages, mortgages finance more construction, and higher densities support more businesses. The result is rising living standards and economic growth. Future generations will inherit not just plenty of land, but the prosperity that comes from putting that land to smart, productive use.

The bottom line

America’s early leaders routinely converted federal acreage into farms, towns, and railroads that drove two centuries of growth. The current proposal is tiny by historical standards, yet it could ease today’s housing crunch and unlock compounding economic returns that dwarf the status quo’s trickle from grazing fees. Freezing all public land solves nothing. It merely guarantees that the housing shortage, and its attendant cost‑of‑living crisis, worsens.

Land itself is not a birthright, and not all public lands are pristine wilderness or national treasures. Preserving every scrub‑land acre in perpetuity may feel righteous, but it risks passing along an economy less dynamic and less affordable than the one we inherited. If we want our children to thrive, we must make the land work for them, not leave it fenced off in economic stagnation. Thoughtful, targeted privatization offers a smarter legacy for future generations.