Trump’s Plan to Monetize Public Lands
The Center for American Progress (CAP) has raised alarms over President Donald Trump’s executive order to establish a sovereign wealth fund (SWF), claiming it could lead to the sale of federal public lands to generate trillions of dollars. According to CAP, this move prioritizes financial gains over conservation, recreational use, and local economies that rely on public lands. But is this purely speculation, or does Trump’s plan genuinely hinge on the liquidation of federal lands? And if so, is this necessarily a bad idea?
Why Sell Public Lands?
A sovereign wealth fund is typically built from surplus national revenue, often derived from natural resources or trade surpluses. The problem? The U.S. is currently $36 trillion in debt, leaving the administration scrambling for ways to quickly raise capital.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent hinted at the solution: “We are going to monetize the asset side of the U.S. balance sheet for the American people.” Interior Secretary Doug Burgum reinforced this view, suggesting that federal lands—containing vast reserves of oil, gas, timber, and minerals—could be worth up to $200 trillion.
Simply leasing these resources would not generate enough revenue. In 2024, leasing federal lands for oil, gas, mining, timber, and grazing brought in just $17 billion—far from the trillions needed. Therefore, selling public lands outright could be the most direct way to fund Trump’s ambitious SWF.
Once established, the SWF would invest in financial instruments such as stocks, bonds, and real estate, theoretically generating long-term wealth for the American people. However, concerns remain that without proper safeguards, the fund could be mismanaged, serving political allies and major donors rather than the general public. Critics point to Trump’s White House crypto advisor David Sacks, who suggested the fund could invest in Bitcoin, a move that could disproportionately benefit cryptocurrency investors rather than the broader economy.
Which Lands Would Be Affected?
Trump’s administration has not explicitly listed which lands would be sold, but given their market value, the likely targets include:
- Western Federal Lands: The vast, resource-rich lands of states like Nevada, Utah, and Alaska could be auctioned off to energy companies, developers, and private investors.
- National Forests and BLM Land: Timber and mineral extraction companies might acquire large portions of these lands.
- Parks and Protected Areas: While selling national parks outright would be politically unpopular, adjacent lands and lesser-known public lands could be privatized.
The Case Against Selling Public Lands
Opponents argue that this plan undermines America’s heritage and economic stability:
- Loss of Public Access: Selling these lands to private entities could restrict public use for hunting, fishing, and recreation.
- Harm to Local Economies: Many rural communities rely on tourism and recreational industries tied to public lands.
- Environmental Risks: Increased private development could lead to pollution, deforestation, and the destruction of habitats.
- Corporate Control Over Natural Resources: Allowing corporations to own and manage these lands might prioritize profit over sustainability, reducing long-term resource availability.
- Questionable Financial Management: Without oversight, the SWF could become a tool for political maneuvering rather than national benefit.
The Argument for Monetizing Public Lands
However, selling public lands is not necessarily a bad idea, particularly if structured responsibly. Some benefits include:
- Generating Trillions in Revenue: Liquidating a portion of public lands could provide the U.S. with an economic boost, paying down national debt and funding infrastructure.
- Creating an Investment Vehicle for the Future: A well-managed SWF could provide a stable financial future, much like Norway’s trillion-dollar oil fund.
- Revamping Federal Land Management: State or private ownership might result in more efficient and economically beneficial land use.
- Supporting Rural Communities: A well-designed SWF could create a permanent revenue stream for rural communities affected by economic shifts.
Rather than outright liquidation, CAP suggests a compromise: an energy-based SWF modeled after those in Norway and New Mexico. Instead of selling off land, the U.S. could create a long-term endowment from existing oil and gas revenues, ensuring sustainable income without eliminating public ownership. New Mexico’s two permanent funds, sourced from oil royalties and taxes, will soon decouple the state’s budget from fossil fuel dependence, ensuring financial stability while maintaining environmental protections. A similar approach at the federal level could provide stable funding for schools, infrastructure, and community services without auctioning off America’s natural treasures.
Trump’s proposed SWF has sparked fierce debate over the future of public lands. While the administration appears committed to monetizing federal lands, whether this results in outright sales or increased leasing remains to be seen. Selling public lands would provide a rapid influx of capital, but at the cost of public access, environmental integrity, and local economic stability. However, with careful planning, a sovereign wealth fund could be structured to generate wealth while preserving America’s natural heritage. The key question remains: Will Trump’s SWF serve the public, or will it become another tool for corporate and political interests?
