Heads up, Utah: Your senator tried to sell off your national parks. Twice.

Mike Lee Withdrew After Backlash

In mid-December 2025, Utah Senator Mike Lee quietly introduced an amendment that would have removed a key protection for national parks.

The provision he targeted required the federal government to keep parks, scenic trails, and wild rivers as federal land with federal staff.

Conservation groups called it a green light for selling off America’s most treasured places. Within days, the backlash was so intense that Lee reversed course, but the fight over public lands is far from over.

The Amendment Targeted Section 130

Lee’s amendment would have struck Section 130 from the Interior Department’s 2026 spending bill.

That section, added earlier in 2025, stated that national park units must remain federal land and be staffed by federal employees.

The language was inserted after Interior Secretary Doug Burgum suggested that some park sites could be transferred to states.

By removing it, critics argued, Lee would have opened the door for the Trump administration to offload parks without congressional approval.

Parks Groups Called It Dangerous

The National Parks Conservation Association wasted no time responding. CEO Theresa Pierno said a vote for Lee’s amendment was a vote to sell national parks.

The Center for Western Priorities called it a tone-deaf attack on public lands. Outdoor Alliance urged Americans to contact their senators.

Within 48 hours, the amendment had become one of the most controversial provisions in the entire spending bill.

Lee Claimed It Was Technical

Lee’s office pushed back on the criticism.

A spokesperson said the amendment was meant to fix language that would block routine land exchanges between the Park Service and conservation partners.

The Interior Department had requested the change, Lee said, because the provision could freeze park boundaries permanently.

But given Lee’s history of pushing to sell public lands, few advocacy groups were willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

He Backed Down Within Days

By December 19, Lee filed a revised amendment that no longer touched the parks protection language.

He said he categorically opposes selling national parks.

Senator Lisa Murkowski defended him, saying critics should know better than to claim he wanted to end the Park Service.

But Lee’s updated amendment still removed other provisions that would have increased congressional oversight of the Interior Department.

This Was His Second Try in 2025

Six months earlier, Lee had attempted something even bolder.

In June, he introduced an amendment to the GOP budget bill that would have mandated the sale of up to 3.3 million acres of Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service land across 11 Western states.

He framed it as a solution to the housing crisis.

Maps from conservation groups showed the proposal could affect popular hiking trails near Salt Lake City, Denver, and other Western cities.

The June Effort Also Collapsed

The Senate parliamentarian ruled that Lee’s original land sale violated budget reconciliation rules.

Republican lawmakers from Montana publicly opposed it.

Interior Secretary Burgum distanced himself from the plan. Hunting and outdoor recreation groups rallied across the West.

By late June, Lee withdrew the amendment, blaming procedural constraints. But he made clear in a social media post that he still believes the federal government owns too much land.

Trump’s Budget Would Gut the Parks

While Lee was pushing amendments, the Trump administration released a 2026 budget that proposed cutting $1.2 billion from the National Park Service.

That includes $900 million from park operations alone, the largest proposed cut in the agency’s 109-year history.

Conservation analysts estimated that cuts of that size would eliminate funding for roughly 350 of the system’s 433 park units.

Burgum Floated Handing Parks to States

Interior Secretary Burgum told Congress that the administration is not considering transferring any of the 63 crown jewel national parks.

But he said more than 400 other sites, including historic homes, battlefields, and cultural landmarks, could be managed by state or local authorities.

He pointed to low-visitation sites that serve mostly local residents.

Critics said states cannot afford to manage these sites, and the inevitable outcome would be closures or privatization.

Staff Cuts Already Hit 24 Percent

The Park Service has lost about a quarter of its permanent workforce since January 2025. The cuts began in February when DOGE ordered the firing of 1,000 employees.

Thousands more accepted buyouts or early retirements.

By summer, visitor centers had reduced hours, lifeguard positions sat vacant at beaches, and maintenance crews were stretched across multiple parks.

The administration promised to hire seasonal workers, but only about 4,500 of the pledged 8,000 positions were filled.

Polls Show Americans Oppose the Cuts

A November 2025 survey found that 69% of Americans oppose the proposed $1 billion cut to the Park Service budget.

Support for the parks crosses party lines. About 78% of respondents said educational and historical materials should not be removed from park sites, and 77% said Congress should protect parks from closures.

The numbers suggest that the administration’s approach is deeply unpopular, even among voters who otherwise support the president.