Referred to the Subcommittee on Forestry and Horticulture.
This bill (Public Lands in Public Hands Act) prohibits the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture from transferring title to certain Federal lands to non-Federal entities when those lands are publicly accessible or contiguous to publicly accessible or certain government-owned lands. It creates size-based exceptions (e.g., under 300 acres, or under 5 acres if only water-accessible) and preserves a series of statutory exceptions (for specific Acts and authorized transfers and land exchanges).
Progressives emphasize protecting public access and conservation
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a straightforward substantive restriction on federal land disposals with well‑specified core criteria and multiple explicit statutory carve‑outs.
This bill (Public Lands in Public Hands Act) prohibits the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture from transferring title to certain Federal lands to non-Federal entities when those lands are publicly accessible or contiguous to publicly accessible or certain government-owned lands.
It creates size-based exceptions (e.g., under 300 acres, or under 5 acres if only water-accessible) and preserves a series of statutory exceptions (for specific Acts and authorized transfers and land exchanges).
The bill also bars subdividing Federal land to evade acreage minimums and includes a brief statutory-construction clause unrelated to transfer rules.
Substantive federalization of land‑disposal policy provokes strong stakeholder opposition; exceptions help but likely insufficient to overcome political division.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a straightforward substantive restriction on federal land disposals with well‑specified core criteria and multiple explicit statutory carve‑outs. It identifies responsible agencies and addresses a specific evasion risk (subdivision to meet acreage thresholds).
Progressives emphasize protecting public access and conservation
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives emphasize protecting public access and conservation
Likely broadly supportive because the bill prevents privatization of publicly accessible federal lands and preserves public access and recreation.
They may note the exceptions and potential ambiguity around transfers to tribes or states as areas needing clarity, but view the overall effect as protecting public lands and conservation values.
Mixed but generally favorable: the bill preserves public access and prevents opportunistic privatization, while also raising practical concerns about flexibility for land management, state cooperation, and routine disposals.
Would want clearer definitions and minimal technical fixes to reduce unintended consequences.
Likely opposed because the bill restricts transfers of federal lands to non-federal parties, limiting state and local control, private stewardship options, and market-based resolution of land-use conflicts.
Views it as another federal constraint on local flexibility and economic use.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Substantive federalization of land‑disposal policy provokes strong stakeholder opposition; exceptions help but likely insufficient to overcome political division.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives emphasize protecting public access and conservation
Substantive federalization of land‑disposal policy provokes strong stakeholder opposition; exceptions help but likely insufficient to overc…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a straightforward substantive restriction on federal land disposals with well‑specified core criteria and multiple explicit statutory carve‑outs. It identifies res…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.