• Sen. Mike Lee plans to revise a proposal to sell 3.3 million acres of public land due to bipartisan criticism.
• The Senate parliamentarian excluded the sale plan from a GOP budget bill, prompting Lee to modify it significantly.
• Lee's revised plan focuses solely on Bureau of Land Management lands within 5 miles of population centers.
• Opponents, including local leaders and outdoor advocates, argue the proposal still threatens public access to natural spaces.
• Critics from both sides express concerns over potential loss of public lands to private developers.

Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) has announced plans to revise his controversial proposal that would have mandated the sale of up to 3.3 million acres of public land. This decision follows chronic bipartisan backlash and a ruling from the Senate parliamentarian excluding the measure from a Republican budget reconciliation bill. "I'm doing everything I can to support President Trump and move this forward," stated Lee in a social media post, assuring that his efforts are far from over according to HuffPost and The Hill.

The Senate's arbiter ruled that Lee's original plan, which aimed to include federal land sales as part of the GOP's broader tax-and-spending package, violated the rules governing the budget reconciliation process. Consequently, Lee confirmed that the revised legislation will focus on selling only Bureau of Land Management land and will exclude Forest Service lands. He stated intentions to significantly reduce the acreage eligible for sale to between 612,500 and 1.225 million acres, emphasizing lands "within 5 miles of population centers," to ostensibly benefit affordable housing initiatives, according to The Hill and SFGATE.

Despite these adjustments, Pacific Northwest leaders and outdoor advocates have remained staunchly opposed, arguing that even limited sale proposals threaten crucial public access to lands. Washington Senator Maria Cantwell stated, "I don’t trust him and I don’t trust this process," stressing that the sale of public lands would have adverse effects on access to hiking, fishing, and other recreational activities. Many representatives in the outdoor recreation sector warn that public lands are vital to the economy and community wellbeing. "It’s truly trading short-term gains at the cost of long-term damage," said professional climber Graham Zimmerman, emphasizing the economic value of public lands according to SFGATE.

As Lee prepares to push his revised plan, critics from various sectors—including some conservatives—remain vocal about their opposition. Outdoor recreation leaders and local officials express concerns that any loss of public land could lead to long-lasting impacts on access to outdoor spaces, which are essential for hunting, fishing, and other recreational activities. "We don’t want hunters to face a ‘no trespassing’ sign on lands they’ve used for generations," Cantwell reiterated, expressing her commitment to opposing the proposal throughout the legislative process according to SFGATE and HuffPost.