Bullshit Doug Burgum, Giving Away Public Land Won’t Create Affordable Housing

Fact checking the Interior Secretary’s plan to give public lands to developers

Yesterday, Secretaries Doug Burgum (Interior) and Scott Turner (HUD) co-authored an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal titled, “Federal Land Can Be Home Sweet Home.” In it, they propose giving away public lands in order to address the nation’s housing crisis. The Secretaries also warn that “bad-faith critics” will argue their plan is nothing more than “a free-for-all to build on federal lands.” Since I’m the critic they’re talking about, I guess I should explain why their plan is exactly that. I’ll let you decide who’s acting in bad-faith here.

DOI has helpfully re-printed the op-ed as a press release, which you can read in full here, free of WSJ’s paywall. The Secretaries also read it aloud in the badly-lit video embedded below, before signing some sort of proclamation. That’s odd, because disposing of public lands requires an act of Congress. Let’s start there, since that feature really cuts to the heart of the lie they’re telling here.

“Working together, our agencies can take inventory of underused federal properties, transfer or lease them to states or localities to address housing needs, and support the infrastructure required to make development viable—all while ensuring affordability remains at the core of the mission,” write the Secretaries.

But the executive branch lacks the authority to transfer public lands, that ability lies with Congress.

Let’s turn to a little document known as The Constitution of the United States, which reads:

“…Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States…”

For what purposes can Congress decide to dispose of public lands? That’s governed by the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, which requires the federal government to retain ownership of public lands except in cases where, “it is determined that disposal of a particular parcel will serve the national interest.”

And that’s the game here folks. Ask yourselves: Is it more plausible that an administration which has busied itself with the work of destroying the federal government’s ability to serve the average American in order to provide tax cuts to billionaires suddenly had a change of heart, and genuinely wants to dedicate itself to providing affordable housing? Or is that just the excuse they need to manufacture an argument that giving away public lands will, “serve the national interest?”

We actually know it’s the latter, because this plan appears to be a replica of Mike Lee’s (R-Kolob) Helping Open Underutilized Space to Ensure Shelter (HOUSES) Act, which he first introduced in 2023. And it’s in the details of that bill that we find the lies being told here:

• HOUSES contains no requirement that housing constructed on formerly public land be provided for a certain price, or remain attainable to normal Americans. There’s no provision for rent control or price caps. In fact, the only provision is that buildings must be, “designed for human habitation.”

• HOUSES specifies a maximum lot size more often associated with McMansions (half an acre) than affordable housing. The average size of a new lot is one-fifth of an acre.

• HOUSES requires only 50 percent of capacity to be residential. By allowing commercial activity to make up the other 50 percent, the bill would increase demand for housing in areas surrounding these projects, not reduce it. This would increase housing prices.

• HOUSES imposes burdensome restrictions on local governments which fail to fully comply with its requirements. Stripping local communities of federal funding provided by the Economic Development Administration and Community Development Block Grant programs could exacerbate poverty.

• Land use requirements imposed by HOUSES expire after 15 years. After that point new construction on formerly public lands could be converted to short-term rentals or other uses that price out normal renters and home buyers.

• And while Burgum and Turner’s proposal contains the suggestion that DOI and HUD will work together to, “take inventory of underused federal properties, transfer or lease them to states or localities,” HOUSES clarifies that federal agencies will provide a rubber stamp only. The bill prevents federal agencies from suggesting or considering tracts of lands other than those nominated by states.

“The bill would allow local and state governments to nominate unlimited tracts of unprotected national public land to be transferred by the Interior Department to state and local governments, which could then sell the lands to private buyers to develop with minimal—and temporary—restrictions,” explains the Center for Western Priorities.

HOUSES was included as a policy proposal in Project 2025, and referenced by now-Vice President JD Vance (pictured above) in his October 1 debate with Tim Walz. There, Vance additionally blamed immigrants for the affordable housing crisis, saying:

“…You have got housing that is totally unaffordable because we brought in millions of illegal immigrants to compete with Americans for scarce homes…we have a lot of federal lands that are not being used for anything. They’re not being used for a national park, and they could be places where we build a lot of housing.”

The House of Representatives then laid the groundwork for implementation of HOUSES when, on January 3rd, it adopted a rules package that that bars Congress from considering the loss of revenues currently earned by a given tract of public land in legislation designed to transfer it to state control.

That leads us to another truth. Public lands are not, “underused,” as Secretaries Burgum and Turner argue, or “not being used for anything,” as Vance suggests. Public lands provide America’s energy, minerals, lumber, and rare earth elements. They’re what supports our nation’s $1.2 trillion outdoor recreation economy. And public lands provide unquantifiable ecosystem benefits like clean air, clean water, and thriving wildlife populations.

And yet Burgum apparently thinks of them only as, “an asset on America’s balance sheet.” Giving that asset away would allow development unfettered by regulations managed by Burgum’s own agency.

I live in Bozeman, Montana, the epicenter of the American west’s affordable housing crisis. Here, a family needs to earn $100,000 annually to afford the average rent, while the median price for purchasing a home is nearly $1 million. What draws people here? Public lands. People move to and stay in Bozeman, despite the prices, due to the beautiful mountains, healthy streams and rivers, and an abundance of wildlife.

Could converting a small slice of nearby BLM land or a wildlife refuge (the types of land Burgum manages, National Forests are managed by the USDA) increase supply of affordable housing? Probably not, for two reasons: water, and location.

Bozeman, like many areas in the west, is facing a water shortage. It’s feared that demand could outstrip supply as soon as 2027. Even in a best case scenario that year is 2040. Water rights for new developments here are a complex, nuanced issue with no good solution currently available. And half-acre lots use vastly more water than an apartment ever could.

The nearest slice of land managed by Burgum is a 300+ acre tract of BLM land north of Logan. As the crow flies, it’s 25 miles from downtown Bozeman. I can’t tell you how far of a drive it is, because there is no road access to it. Developing it would require the construction of dozens of miles of water and sewer lines, roads, and other utilities. And access for all those things would require acquiring tracts of long fought-over private lands, or negotiating public rights of way through high dollar ranches. None of that is going to be cheap enough to facilitate the development of affordable housing. Median income here is $74,000, which dictates a home price of $214,000 or less.

Like other cities in the West, where large swaths of public land exist, the solution to our housing crisis is density, not sprawl. We need affordable housing in the cities where people live and work, not expensive mansions for the wealthy spread across beautiful hillsides outside of town. It’s difficult to understand where the Secretary of the Interior even has an entry point to this conversation, beyond what should be a commitment to continue to manage public lands for all Americans under the principle of multiple use.

Also insulting is Burgum and Turner’s suggestion that they, “want to build hope,” for, “overlooked rural and tribal communities.” This from the agencies currently shuttering Bureau of Indian Affairs offices and eliminating funding for the enforcement of fair-housing laws.

But all of the above is assuming there’s even a shred of intellectual honesty in this plan, which there very much is not. There’s nothing here but the thinnest of excuses that could possibly be used by Congress to justify transfers of public land to state control, where state constitutions would promptly force its sale. And that excuse for destroying America’s natural heritage is being offered without even a suggestion of achieving any sort of fair market value for it.

This is bullshit. Clear, demonstrable, inarguable bullshit. Call that “bad-faith” if you want, but the Secretaries of the Interior and HUD are lying to the American people in order to steal what Burgum himself acknowledges is our most valuable asset.

The only upside here is that, while Republicans currently control all three branches of government, they do not hold enough seats in the Senate to pass anything other than a budget reconciliation bill without a filibuster. Call your Senator, convince them to oppose any land transfer legislation that eventually reaches that chamber, and we can defeat this thing.

Top photo: BLM

Wes Siler is your guide to leading a more exciting life outdoors. Upgrading to a paid subscription supports independent journalism and gives you personal access to his expertise and network, which he’ll use to help you plan trips, purchase gear, and solve problems. You can read more about what he’s doing on Substack through this link.