Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

For Sale. Public Lands. Never Imagined.

Opinion

For Sale. Public Lands. Never Imagined.

A group of hikers at the Zion National Park in Utah.

Getty Images, Jeremy Woodhouse

Congress was just discussing a dark and disturbing deal right under our noses: to sell up to a quarter-billion acres of America’s public lands. The proposed bill would open vast stretches of federally protected lands, including national forests to private interests. Without any substantial safeguards, these lands could be bought by foreign investors, corporations, and the ultra-wealthy to be developed into gated communities, resource extraction sites, or other commercial ventures. This legislation is a corporate land grab that threatens our natural heritage, our safety, and our future. It is a full-frontal attack on the American West.

Our country’s natural wonders are already under fire. This administration recently laid off roughly 1,000 workers in the National Park Service, or about five percent of its workforce. These dedicated professionals are the backbone of conservation efforts; they manage trails, clear brush, teach visitors about the animals and the stars, and tend to endangered species (and, presumably, at least one of them runs the National Park Service social media accounts, which are fantastic). When the personnel responsible for maintaining our parks are cut back, we risk letting our environment fall victim to neglect, creating conditions ripe for ecological disasters.


Since the passage of the Antiquities Act in 1906, presidents have been able to designate national monuments and safeguard our most cherished landscapes. Traditionally, presidents have honored the monuments established by their predecessors, but during his first term, President Trump challenged the status of not one, not two, but 26 national monuments. This resulted in significant reductions in the size of Bears Ears National Monument and Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument in Utah, and revealed a dangerous willingness to prioritize short-term gains over long-term sustainability, underscoring the fragility of these protections. This most recent legislation would exploit that fragility with devastating consequences.

The West is already uniquely positioned at the forefront of climate instability. From wildfires and droughts to rising temperatures and sea levels, this region has the unmistakable fingerprints of climate change all over it already. When public lands absorb carbon dioxide, regulate local temperatures, and sustain biodiversity, removing protections and selling them off will only accelerate environmental degradation, removing natural buffers that help mitigate these crises. From California to Colorado, the West offers a gateway to nature with a front-line community for climate impacts, and our economy depends heavily on tourism, outdoor recreation, agriculture, and clean water. Pawning off these lands risks homes and lives while undercutting our economic backbone and jeopardizing future growth. As a Native American Proverb–which was once shared with me by a Park Ranger–goes: "Only when the last tree has been cut down, the last fish caught, and the last stream poisoned, will we realize we cannot eat money."

Deforestation and resource exploitation make natural disasters more severe, diminish our ability to adapt to climate crises, and hamper strategic capabilities, making the U.S. more vulnerable. In fact, even the Department of Defense calls climate change an “existential threat,” as our own military prepares for conflicts over dwindling resources and territorial disputes arising from environmental crises. If the U.S. forfeits control over our public lands and ecosystems, our ability to project power, defend our interests, and adapt to these emerging threats will diminish too.

Besides, public lands should belong to all Americans. In 2023, the national parks welcomed over 325 million visitors—a remarkable 16% increase since 2010. These open spaces are not just scenic backdrops for memorable family vacations; they are crucial ecosystems that sustain biodiversity, offer recreational opportunities, and serve as a reminder of our environmental heritage. They promote health, learning, and community. They are priceless. But privatization limits future generations’ opportunities to enjoy nature; once privatized, these lands could be logged, drilled, mined, or paved, destroying ecosystems and wildlife habitats. As American as it may be to steal land, gain a sense of pride from it, and then strip it for parts, we can do better. Wouldn’t it be more American to preserve our purple mountain majesties for the American people?

Protecting what belongs to all of us shouldn’t be a partisan issue, but the American people may have to prove to the American government what the stakes really are here. If we don’t want to lose these lands forever, we must act now. Your voice matters. Keep exploring outdoor spaces, share stories of your experiences, and remind yourself and your community about how vital our lands are. Call your senators. Insist that instead of carving up the commons, we invest in conservation programs, sustainable water policies, and infrastructure improvements with a long-sighted perspective on preserving public resources. Tell them Teddy Roosevelt advised: “What you can do is to keep it for your children and your children's children and for all who come after you.” Or at least ask that the bill include a right of first refusal to Tribal Nations. No matter what, we should get to weigh in before these irreplaceable public lands are liquidated.

Luckily, on June 23rd, the Senate Parliamentarian blocked the provision under the Byrd Rule, finding the provision too extraneous to be included in a budget. But this was a procedural win, not a substantive one. And though in the end the budget the Senate voted for didn't include these provisions, we can surely expect to see similar attempts made again in the near future. This is far from over.

If Congress cuts down the trees in the forest but we’re not there to see it, does it make a sound? The only way politicians can get away with this kind of highway robbery is if We the People either don’t notice or don’t do anything about it once we do. We may not be able to get lawmakers to see the importance of preserving our national lands, but the issue deserves to be more than a sneaky line item tucked away in a big budget bill. It deserves a public debate. Let’s insist on one.

Julie Roland has deployed to the South China Sea and the Persian Gulf as a helicopter pilot before separating from the Navy in June 2025 as a Lieutenant Commander. She graduated law school from the University of San Diego, is currently pursuing a Master of Laws from Columbia University, and is the director of the San Diego chapter of the Truman National Security Project.


Read More

An ICE agent monitors hundreds of asylum seekers being processed upon entering the Jacob K. Javits Federal Building on June 6, 2023 in New York City. New York City has provided sanctuary to over 46,000 asylum seekers since 2013, when the city passed a law prohibiting city agencies from cooperating with federal immigration enforcement agencies unless there is a warrant for the person's arrest.(Photo by David Dee Delgado/Getty Images)
An ICE agent monitors hundreds of asylum seekers being processed.
(Photo by David Dee Delgado/Getty Images)

The Power of the Purse and Executive Discretion: ICE Expansion Under the Trump Administration

This nonpartisan policy brief, written by an ACE fellow, is republished by The Fulcrum as part of our partnership with the Alliance for Civic Engagement and our NextGen initiative — elevating student voices, strengthening civic education, and helping readers better understand democracy and public policy.

Key Takeaways

  • Core Constitutional Debate: Expanded ICE enforcement under the Trump Administration raises a core constitutional question: Does Article II executive power override Article I’s congressional power of the purse?
  • Executive Justification: The primary constitutional justification for expanded ICE enforcement is The Unitary Executive Theory.
  • Separation of Powers: Critics argue that the Unitary Executive Theory undermines Congress’s power of the purse.
  • Moral Conflict: Expanded ICE enforcement has sparked a moral debate, as concerns over due process and civil liberties clash with claims of increased public safety and national security.

Where is ICE Funding Coming From?

Since the beginning of the current Trump Administration, immigration enforcement has undergone transformative change and become one of the most contested issues in the federal government. On his first day in office, President Trump issued Executive Order 14159, which directs executive agencies to implement stricter immigration enforcement practices. In order to implement these practices, Congress passed and President Trump signed into law the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), a budget reconciliation package that paired state and local tax cuts with immigration funding. This allocated $170.7 billion in immigration-related funding for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to spend by 2029.

Keep ReadingShow less
Towards a Reformed Capitalism
oval brown wooden conference table and chairs inside conference room

Towards a Reformed Capitalism

Despite all the laws and regulations that apply to corporations, which for the most part are designed to make corporations more responsive to the greater good, corporations have wreaked great harm on our environment, their workers, their customers, and the general public. Despite all the rules, capitalism can still pretty much do what it wants.

The problem is not that the laws and regulations are not enforced, although that is partly true. The problem is more that the laws and regulations are weak because of the strong influence corporations have on both Congress (this is true of Democrats as well as Republicans) and those responsible for regulating.

Keep ReadingShow less
Families of Americans Overseas Wrongfully Detained Bring Advocacy to Capitol Hill

The Bring Our Families Home campaign brought together loved ones of Americans wrongly detained overseas to display portraits in the Senate Russell Rotunda on Wednesday, May 6.

(Jacques Abou-Rizk, MNS)

Families of Americans Overseas Wrongfully Detained Bring Advocacy to Capitol Hill

WASHINGTON – American journalist Reza Valizadeh visited his elderly Iranian parents in March 2024 for the first time in 15 years. Valizadeh’s stories for Voice of America and other U.S. government-funded outlets often criticized the Iranian regime. So before traveling, he sought and received confirmation that he would be safe from a high-ranking commander in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, a branch of Iran’s armed forces. However, in September that same year, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps arrested Valizadeh, and Tehran’s Revolutionary Court sentenced him to ten years in prison for “collaboration with a hostile government.”

In the Rotunda of the Senate Russell Building last week, the Bring Our Families Home campaign set up portraits of Valizadeh and 12 other Americans currently wrongfully detained overseas. The group, family members of illegitimately detained Americans, appealed to Congress to push for their safe return. Each foam poster board included the name, home state, and country of detainment. The display also included portraits of the 33 people released after advocacy by the James W. Foley Foundation.

Keep ReadingShow less
DHS Funding During the Shutdown
Getty Images, Charles-McClintock Wilson

DHS Funding During the Shutdown

When Congress failed to approve funding for the Department of Homeland Security for the remainder of this fiscal year in February, almost all of its employees began to work without pay. That situation changed, however, on April 3, when President Donald Trump issued a memorandum ordering the DHS secretary and director of the Office of Management and Budget to “use funds that have a reasonable and logical nexus to the functions of DHS” to pay its employees and issue back pay.

Trump shifted money to avoid the political embarrassment that would be caused by the collapse of airport security screening through the actions of disgruntled agents and the disruption to air travel that would ensue. But it’s legally dubious.

Keep ReadingShow less