Locked away, lit on fire, and lavishly mismanaged — but so very virtuous
Nancy Churchill
Dangerous Rhetoric
By any sane measure, the federal government owns way too much land. Nearly 640 million acres — almost 28% of the country — is under Washington D.C.’s boot. Out West, it’s even worse — federal bureaucrats control nearly half the land.
That’s not “conservation.” That’s bureaucratic colonization. Thankfully, the Senate’s proposal for limited public land sales in the “One Big Beautiful” reconciliation bill cracks open the door for long-overdue local control, fiscal sanity, and a break from decades of catastrophic federal mismanagement.
Let’s begin by clearing up the lies. This proposal doesn’t touch national parks, monuments, wilderness zones, or recreation areas. It’s capped at just 0.75% of all federal land — roughly 3.3 million acres out of 640 million. The land in question is overseen by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and U.S. Forest Service (USFS) — two agencies that have failed spectacularly at their jobs. These lands aren’t pristine national treasures. They’re neglected, mismanaged, and unproductive.
What’s more, proceeds from the sales would help maintain the remaining public lands. Plus, the land to be sold must be used for housing. Not casinos, not big agriculture, not solar farms — just housing.
This isn’t a land grab. It’s a targeted correction. But you’d never know it by the hysteria coming from far-left environmental groups and their allies in the media. Why? Because they are running a coordinated panic campaign to block any meaningful reform and to politically damage President Trump for backing this tiny reform.
Some have even gone so far as to call the proposed plan “communist.” In reality, the very concept of massive federal land ownership is what reeks of collectivism.
Let’s be honest: We don’t believe in collective ownership in America. That’s a communist idea. I agree some portion of federal land deserves preservation—but preserving 30% of the country under the thumb of federal agencies isn’t conservation. It’s control. Freaking out over selling less than 1% of 640 million acres means you’ve likely been brainwashed by ideologues who believe the state should own everything.
This is more than just a political argument — it’s a practical one. In counties across the West, federal land ownership means counties can’t collect property tax on enormous swaths of their own territory. Take Ferry County, WA. Only 13% of our land is taxable. The rest belong to the USFS or BLM. Yet our local taxpayers are still expected to pay for 100% of the services: law enforcement, road maintenance, emergency services, and more.
The federal Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) program is supposed to make up the difference, but it falls short — year after year. Local governments are left scrambling to patch budget holes, trying to pay for services on land they can’t use and don’t control.
If the feds won’t allow counties to tax these lands fairly or manage them productively, then the only responsible course is to return the land to state or private control. One simple reform would be to set a uniform cap — say, 20% — on the amount of federal land allowed in each county. Anything above that threshold should either be sold or taxed at full value like any other property. That would force the federal government to justify its land hoarding and allow local governments to breathe again.
Let’s also talk about competence. Has the federal government proven it can manage forests, watersheds, or grazing land better than locals? The answer is a roaring, smoky no. The USFS and BLM block timber harvests, let forests grow into tinderboxes, then feign shock when wildfires rage. Every summer, the public pays for their incompetence.
There’s a saying in the west: “Log it, graze it, or watch it burn.” We’re tired of watching the fires rage. Local ranchers and counties could manage these lands better—because they have skin in the game.
As the Wall Street Journal pointed out, this proposal doesn’t threaten nature. It excludes all the protected parks and monuments and focuses on parcels suitable for homebuilding — those that are adjacent to existing development or infrastructure. Local governments, lease holders and even governors would have input before any sales proceed. This isn’t some land-grab. It’s an invitation to productivity and prosperity.
And let’s be honest — it’s not just about raising money. Yes, the proposal could bring in $5 to $10 billion. But more than that, it’s about hope. Housing, jobs, opportunity — all sitting under federal lock and key. Americans can’t build on their own soil, while the federal government squats on millions of acres. That’s not freedom. That’s eco-authoritarianism, plain and simple.
Imagine the housing, the jobs, and the hope that could be created if some small fraction of this locked-up land could be made available to a few local communities to help them grow.
Alex Epstein noted on X, “People have no idea how amazing this country could be, especially for less wealthy people, if the government hadn’t fascistically seized 1/3 of the land and then, to make matters worse, managed it with an anti-human, impact-is-evil environmental philosophy.”
It’s laughable. The same people who complain about land closures and government overreach suddenly become federal land defenders the minute real reform shows up. One rancher nailed it: “The only part really public right now is that the public taxes pay for the people that regulate it, mismanage it & lock us out.’’
We need to stop pretending that federal mismanagement is sacred. The truth is, federal land management is broken — financially, philosophically, and ecologically. It’s time to start putting the land back into the hands of the people who know it best, love it most, and actually live on it.
Ask your favorite Republican senator to support the public lands sale proposal in the OBBB. Reach out to your representative and let him or her know this proposal is a small step in the right direction toward better public lands management.
Let the people manage their land. Let the counties breathe. And let freedom take root again in the soil of the American West.
Nancy Churchill is a writer and educator in rural eastern Washington state, and Nancy is the chair of the Ferry County Republican Party. She may be reached at DangerousRhetoric@pm.me. The opinions expressed in Dangerous Rhetoric are her own. Dangerous Rhetoric is available on thinkspot, Rumble and Substack.
Also read:
- Letter: It’s time for Vancouver to choose change
Vancouver resident Michael Jelino calls for new leadership in the city and voices his support for Justin Forsman in the mayoral race, urging others to back change. - Opinion: ‘Vilifying broad swaths of Americans’Editor Ken Vance reflects on troubling posts by public defender Renee Alsept and shares a thoughtful perspective from longtime attorney Brad Andersen on ethics, discourse, and professionalism.
- POLL: Should the county update its Human Resources policy to include personal social media accounts of employees in sensitive roles?This week’s Clark County Today poll asks whether the county should update its Human Resources policy to include personal social media accounts of employees in sensitive roles, following concerns over online conduct.
- Opinion: Fort Vancouver Regional Libraries levy lid liftDick Rylander shares Q&A with FVRL leadership about the proposed levy lid lift, detailing budget needs, tax impacts, and what a YES or NO vote could mean for library services.
- Letter: ‘The public has allowed this to happen’Wynn Grcich calls on Vancouver residents to support Justin Forsman and Rob Anderson in local elections and urges more civic engagement to challenge current city leadership.
