Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

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

US Capitol building
The United States Capitol building with its white dome against a blue sky

Would Congressional Term Limits Make Congress Better—or Worse?

Starting in the 1990’s, the idea of putting term limits on members of Congress became a recurring idea to reform the institution and improve democracy. The idea was born out of the theory that replacing the current crop of legislators with a new batch would produce a better Congress. More than 30 years later we now have quantitative and qualitative data showing the impact of term limits.

Twenty-one state legislatures have enacted some kind of term limit on legislators since 1990. Since then, dozens of academic studies have examined the impact on such factors as: complexity of legislation, influence of lobbyists and staff on legislative outcomes, and interactions with constituent. Here are some key findings.

Keep ReadingShow less
Hand points to the word tax on a screen

Data calculations

Getty Images

Inconvenient Numbers Are a Sign the System Works

Earlier in October, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that consumer prices rose 3.7 percent over the past year, a little higher than the month before, with gasoline accounting for more than half of September's increase. Rising prices are the kind of news no incumbent politician wants weeks before an election. The report was published anyway, on schedule. That is the quiet discipline of a trustworthy statistical system. It tells us what is true even when the number is unwelcome to whoever holds power.

So, do Americans trust government data? We do. But that trust is incomplete, and it has room to grow.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Pennsylvania state capitol building.

The Pennsylvania state capitol building.

jimfeng/Getty Images

Pennsylvania’s Bipartisan Exchange Is Rebuilding Trust in Governance

The University of Pittsburgh Institute of Politics has nearly 40 years of experience working with legislators from different political parties, and it is building on this history by drawing on lessons from the successful American Congressional Exchange model, begun in 2018 at the Bipartisan Policy Center, and from state exchanges now underway in Minnesota and Michigan. The University of Pittsburgh Institute of Politics, in collaboration with the Bridge Alliance, has launched the Pennsylvania Legislative Exchange.

This state-based, systematic approach is designed to foster better relationships and build trust across the political aisle with the following guiding principles:

Keep ReadingShow less
An empty grocery cart in a market.

NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani proposes five city-run grocery stores. See the arguments for and against, from food deserts to bodega concerns and the $70M cost.

Getty Images, Kwangmoozaa

Government-Owned Grocery Stores: Accessible Nutrition or Government Overreach?

Issue Introduction

Over the past few years, affordability has become the most central issue affecting Americans and the quality of life in the United States. The prices of groceries and basic necessities have risen 25-30% since the COVID-19 pandemic and are projected to rise another 3.2% in 2026. At the same time, the exodus of grocery chains from rural and low-income areas has scattered food deserts throughout individual states. Recent mass closures include Grocery Outlet’s shuttering of 36 stores and continued shut-downs of many Albertsons locations. These factors have led politicians to make affordability a major campaign issue.

During his progressive campaign for mayor of New York City, Zohran Mamdani raised the idea of opening grocery stores owned and operated by the city government to provide New Yorkers with affordable groceries. In his April 2026 public address that marked his first 100 days in office, Mayor Mamdani announced plans for the first of five city-run grocery stores. Mamdani’s proposed initiative will use $70 million in capital funding to build five city-owned municipal stores–one in each borough–and place them under control of the New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC). NYCEDC will then select third-party operating staff in accordance with city standards for affordability and proper labor practices. Public opinion following the announcement continues to be divided between uproar and support.

Keep ReadingShow less