Senator Mike Lee, the Utah Republican, has once again positioned himself at the center of a contentious debate over the future of America’s public lands, introducing a pair of legislative initiatives that critics contend are thinly veiled attempts to undermine conservation and environmental protections. Following a swift and bipartisan rebuke earlier this year for a proposal that aimed to divest up to 3.2 million acres of federal land under the guise of addressing the nation’s housing crisis, Lee has now pivoted to new pretexts: national security and accessibility for individuals with disabilities. These new bills, unveiled in October, seek to dramatically reshape the management and use of vast swaths of federal acreage, including some of the nation’s most treasured natural landscapes, from the Sonoran Desert to the remote reaches of the northern Rockies.

In June, Senator Lee’s initial proposal to sell off what he characterized as "unused, garden-variety" federal parcels encountered widespread opposition. Despite his assurances that the measure would spare national parks, wilderness areas, and other "crown jewel" lands, conservation groups, outdoor enthusiasts, and even some fellow Republicans saw through the rhetoric, forcing him to withdraw the controversial land-sale scheme. The swift backlash underscored the deep public attachment to America’s public lands, which encompass national parks, national forests, wildlife refuges, and lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management, representing a collective natural heritage vital for recreation, wildlife, and ecological health. This earlier legislative maneuver established a pattern that observers now see recurring in his latest efforts.

On October 2, Senator Lee introduced the "Border Lands Conservation Act," a bill ostensibly designed to bolster border security but which, in practice, would open millions of federal acres along both the U.S.-Mexico and U.S.-Canada borders to extensive development. The proposed legislation would permit road construction, timber harvesting, the installation of surveillance systems, and other forms of "tactical infrastructure" across these sensitive ecosystems. Lee justified the bill by asserting that "Biden’s open-border chaos is destroying America’s crown jewels," claiming the measure would equip land managers and border agents with the necessary tools to "restore order and protect these places." This framing connects the perceived environmental degradation directly to immigration policy, a highly charged political narrative.

However, the geographic scope of the "Border Lands Conservation Act" extends far beyond immediate border zones, raising significant alarm among conservationists. The bill defines "covered federal land" to include any federal unit—be it a national park, forest, or monument—that shares an exterior boundary with either the southern or northern border. This broad definition means that if a designated area merely touches a border, its entire expanse falls under the bill’s provisions, irrespective of its distance from the international line. This sweeping inclusion would impact iconic landscapes such as California’s Joshua Tree National Park, Texas’s Big Bend National Park, Montana’s Glacier National Park, Washington’s North Cascades National Park, and Minnesota’s Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. Perhaps one of the most illustrative examples of the bill’s reach is Montana’s Flathead National Forest, a sprawling 2.4-million-acre wilderness that extends approximately 120 miles from the U.S.-Canada border, with over a million acres specifically designated as wilderness.

Neal Clark, the wildlands director at the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, articulated a common sentiment among environmental advocates, stating, "The big picture is Mike Lee will use any pretext to undermine public lands and conservation. It was housing six months ago, now it’s border security." This perspective suggests a consistent legislative strategy aimed at diminishing federal land protections, regardless of the stated rationale.

The proposed legislation directly targets the venerable 1964 Wilderness Act, a landmark conservation law that safeguards over 110 million acres of designated wilderness areas from most forms of development and motorized use. Lee’s bill would amend this act to authorize the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to conduct patrols using motorized vehicles—including cars, airplanes, and boats—and to "deploy tactical infrastructure" within these protected zones. The definition of "tactical infrastructure" is expansive, encompassing observation points, remote video surveillance systems, motion sensors, vehicle barriers, fences, roads, bridges, drainage systems, and various detection devices. Furthermore, the bill would grant DHS unfettered authority to conduct immigration, terrorism, and drug enforcement activities across all federal land within 100 miles of either border, critically barring existing land management agencies from restricting DHS’s operations. An additional provision, the "Border Fuels Management Initiative," seeks to address wildfire risks on federal border lands, explicitly linking this environmental concern to "illegal immigration."

This legislative push comes despite official data indicating a significant decline in unauthorized migrant apprehensions at the U.S.-Mexico border. Customs and Border Protection statistics show that Border Patrol is on track to record fewer than 250,000 apprehensions at the southern border this year, a stark reduction from 1.5 million last year, and potentially the lowest figure since 1970. Senator Lee himself has previously lauded the effectiveness of former President Donald Trump’s border policies, once remarking in an April social media post that "this is what a secure border looks like." The apparent contradiction between this past praise for reduced border crossings and the current framing of an "open-border chaos" raises questions about the primary motivations behind the new bill.

The bill’s cosponsorship roster further highlights its political nature, with only one senator from a border state, Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas), joining Senator Lee. The remaining cosponsors—Senators John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-Miss.), Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.), Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), and Rick Scott (R-Fla.)—represent states far removed from the nation’s international boundaries.

Conservation advocates fear the "Border Lands Conservation Act" could serve as a "backdoor" to introducing extensive road networks and a comprehensive surveillance infrastructure into landscapes previously protected for their pristine nature. Bob Krumenaker, who retired in July 2023 after a distinguished 40-year career with the National Park Service, including five years as superintendent of Big Bend National Park, underscored the bill’s broad implications. He noted that while Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands in the Southwest would likely bear the brunt of the impact, the sheer scope of the bill is unprecedented.

Krumenaker also pointed out that DHS already possesses substantial authority to conduct border security operations in sensitive areas. The Real ID Act of 2005, for instance, granted DHS the power to waive numerous federal laws, including the Wilderness Act, to facilitate the construction of border barriers and roads. Furthermore, a 2006 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between DHS, the Department of the Interior, and the Department of Agriculture established a framework for interagency collaboration, aiming to balance border security needs with environmental protection. This MOU requires consultation between DHS and land management agencies, ensuring that any nonconforming uses in designated wilderness are "the least intrusive possible." Krumenaker warned that Lee’s bill, by creating blanket exceptions and eliminating this critical consultative role, would likely lead to "unnecessary and often irreversible impacts to wilderness." The existing framework allows for flexibility and consideration of ecological impacts, whereas the proposed legislation removes these checks and balances, potentially prioritizing infrastructure over ecological integrity.

Beyond border security, Senator Lee also introduced a trio of bills on October 6, collectively aimed at increasing off-road vehicle (ORV) use in national parks and other federal lands. These bills, spearheaded by the "Outdoor Americans with Disabilities Act," are presented as efforts to "ensure that Americans with disabilities can access and enjoy the nation’s public lands." Senator Lee articulated his vision, stating, "The mountains, canyons, and forests managed by the federal government are part of our shared heritage, and access to them should not depend on whether someone can hike ten miles or climb a ridge." The press release accompanying these bills highlighted support from various off-road vehicle associations and enthusiasts, suggesting a close alignment with specific recreational interests.

However, the disability community itself has expressed deep skepticism regarding the senator’s motives. Syren Nagakyrie, founder and director of Disabled Hikers, a nonprofit dedicated to supporting disabled individuals in outdoor pursuits, lambasted the legislation as a "shameful" attempt to "use the disability community in his ongoing attempts to dismantle public lands, build and prioritize roads, and sell lands to the highest bidder." Nagakyrie’s statement powerfully conveyed the sentiment that "People with disabilities are not political pawns to be used while catering to special interests." This criticism highlights a crucial distinction: while enhancing accessibility for all Americans, including those with disabilities, is a widely supported goal for public lands, the method of achieving this—specifically through widespread increased off-road vehicle access—is controversial. Many advocates argue for less intrusive methods, such as improved accessible trails, facilities, and transportation options that do not compromise the ecological integrity of wilderness areas.

Senator Lee’s latest legislative initiatives underscore a persistent ideological battle over federal land management in the United States. His proposals, consistently framed around seemingly benign or urgent issues like housing, border security, or disability access, are consistently viewed by conservation groups and a segment of the public as part of a broader, long-term strategy to reduce federal oversight, open protected areas to more development, or potentially facilitate their transfer out of public hands. The potential implications for America’s national parks, wilderness areas, and other federal lands are profound, threatening to alter their ecological character, restrict wildlife movement, and diminish the wilderness experience for future generations. As these debates continue, the delicate balance between conservation, public access, national security, and economic development on America’s vast public domain remains a central and contested issue in national policy.