Despite an estimated net worth of $20 billion, positioning him as one of America’s most significant landowners and a proprietor of major sports franchises like the Denver Nuggets and Arsenal Football Club, Stan Kroenke, heir to the Walmart fortune, significantly benefits from a foundational federal subsidy program. As the owner of the vast Winecup Gamble Ranch, which encompasses extensive grasslands, waterways, and a mountain range east of Elko, Nevada, Kroenke is permitted to graze his cattle on public lands at a fraction of the cost of private land leases, paying less than 15% of the market rate. This public lands grazing program, originally established in the 1930s to combat the severe overgrazing that contributed to the ecological devastation of the Dust Bowl, has evolved into a substantial support system for a diverse range of entities, including affluent hobby ranchers, industrial mining operations, utility companies, and large corporate agricultural businesses, offering benefits far beyond the scope envisioned by its creators.

The Trump administration’s proposed reforms to this program aimed to enhance its generosity, advocating for increased access to the approximately 240 million acres managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the U.S. Forest Service for livestock grazing while simultaneously reducing environmental oversight. Proponents of these changes argued that this approach would bolster the economy and contribute to the elimination of the national debt. During his confirmation hearing in January, Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum characterized federal lands as "the balance sheet of America," suggesting that from a corporate perspective, the government was "restricting its balance sheet" by not fully leveraging these resources.

An in-depth investigation by ProPublica and High Country News reveals a significant transformation of the federal grazing system into a vast subsidy program. Although Congress mandated in the late 1970s that grazing fees on public lands reflect open market prices, these fees have remained largely stagnant for decades. The government continues to charge ranchers a mere $1.35 per animal unit month (AUM) – the amount of forage a cow and her calf consume in one month – representing an average discount of 93% compared to private land grazing rates. Beyond this substantial discount on forage, the analysis found that in 2024 alone, federal programs provided at least $2.5 billion in subsidies accessible to public lands ranchers. These subsidies encompass disaster assistance for droughts and floods, subsidized crop insurance, funding for infrastructure like fences and watering facilities, and compensation for livestock losses due to predators.

The benefits of this system disproportionately accrue to a select group of powerful entities. Approximately two-thirds of all livestock grazing on BLM acreage is managed by just 10% of ranchers, and on Forest Service lands, the top 10% of permittees control over 50% of the grazing. This concentration of control is not a recent phenomenon; a similar study conducted in 1999 by the San Jose Mercury News found that the largest ranchers held the same proportion of BLM grazing rights as they do today.

Meanwhile, the environmental impact of livestock grazing on public lands has seen a dramatic decline in oversight in recent years. Lawmakers have permitted an increasing number of grazing permits to be automatically renewed, often without completing necessary environmental reviews or even when the land has been identified as being in poor condition. The Trump administration’s efforts to further support the livestock industry directly benefit ranchers like Kroenke, whose Winecup Gamble Ranch is advertised as spanning nearly one million acres, with more than half of that being federal public land capable of supporting approximately 9,000 head of cattle. Last year, Kroenke paid the government around $50,000 in grazing fees for the BLM land surrounding his ranch, a substantial 87% discount compared to market rates, according to an analysis of government data. Previous owners of the ranch have also benefited significantly; Paul Fireman, former CEO of Reebok, utilized losses from ranch-affiliated companies for over $22 million in tax write-offs between 2003 and 2018, as indicated by internal IRS data. Even earlier, the ranch was owned by notable figures, including the iconic Hollywood actor Jimmy Stewart.

The BLM has documented instances of degraded land due to overgrazing on the very lands Kroenke utilizes. Kroenke’s representatives did not respond to requests for comment, and Fireman declined to comment. The Trump administration’s efforts to reshape the grazing system have been developed through closed-door processes. In May, a draft of proposed revisions to federal grazing regulations—the first since the 1990s—was sent to the Department of the Interior, according to communications obtained by ProPublica and High Country News. In October, the administration released a white paper titled "Plan to Fortify the American Beef Industry." This plan called for amendments to grazing regulations managed by the BLM and Forest Service, impacting how ranchers obtain permits and how environmental damage is assessed. It also proposed increasing subsidies for drought and wildfire relief, livestock losses to predators, and government-backed insurance. The Forest Service did not respond to requests for comment, and the White House referred questions to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. A USDA statement asserted that "Livestock grazing is not only a federally and statutorily recognized appropriate land use, but a proven land management tool, one that reduces invasive species and wildfire risk, enhances ecosystem health, and supports rural stewardship."

A spokesperson for the BLM stated that the agency’s mandate includes "sustaining a healthy and economically viable grazing program that benefits rural communities, supports America’s ranching heritage, and promotes responsible stewardship of public lands," adding that the program plays a crucial role in local economies and land management by offering tools to mitigate wildfire risk, manage invasive species, and maintain open landscapes.

Ranchers argue that taxpayer support for their operations ultimately benefits the public by preserving private land from development and maintaining open spaces. Bill Fales, whose family has operated a ranch in western Colorado for over a century with cattle grazing in the White River National Forest, believes that the wildlife in the area depends on these ranches remaining as open land. He notes that as development encroaches elsewhere, the public and private lands his cattle graze become vital corridors for elk, bears, mountain lions, and other species. Advocates for ranching also highlight the industry’s contribution to the nation’s food supply through meat, leather, and wool production, emphasizing its role as a cornerstone of rural economies and a preserver of a traditional American way of life. Major trade groups representing public lands ranchers did not respond to requests for comment.

Both proponents and critics of the current system agree that without these subsidies, many smaller ranching operations would struggle to remain economically viable. The history of public lands grazing in the American West dates back to the mid-1800s, fueled by government policies aimed at westward expansion and settlement. Unchecked grazing practices followed, leading to significant environmental degradation. Representative Edward Taylor of Colorado observed in the 1930s that "waste, competition, overuse, and abuse of valuable range lands and watersheds eating into the very heart of Western economy" were evident, and that the livestock industry was "headed for self-strangulation." In response to the severe overgrazing that exacerbated the Dust Bowl, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Taylor Grazing Act in 1934, dividing public domain lands into managed parcels and establishing a permit system. The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 modernized public land laws, requiring a balance of competing uses, while a subsequent law in 1978 aligned grazing fees with market values.

Today, ranching industry groups justify subsidies by emphasizing their role in feeding the nation. According to USDA research, ranching on federal lands contributes $3.3 billion to the annual economy and supports approximately 50,000 jobs. However, grazing on public lands accounts for only about 2% of the nation’s beef cattle and a minuscule portion of the overall agricultural industry. The analysis by ProPublica and High Country News further demonstrates that the government disproportionately benefits large-scale ranchers who dominate public lands grazing.

The J.R. Simplot Co., a multinational agricultural conglomerate that began as a family business in Idaho, is the largest rancher on BLM land. The company, which achieved significant success by supplying potatoes to McDonald’s, benefits substantially from subsidized forage. Last year, Simplot paid $2.4 million less than market rate to graze nearly 150,000 AUMs on federal lands, according to an analysis of BLM and Forest Service data. The company did not respond to a request for comment. Across the industry, the $21 million collected by the BLM and Forest Service from ranchers represented approximately $284 million below the market rate for forage last year.

Colorado rancher Bill Fales contends that federal land grazing should be less expensive, arguing that private leases are typically more productive and that public leases often require ranchers to cover the costs of infrastructure maintenance beyond what land management agencies provide. The full cost to taxpayers, including the environmental impact of grazing, remains difficult to quantify. Even before significant reductions in federal workforces, agency staff often lacked the capacity to adequately monitor public lands for environmental damage from grazing. From 2019 to 2024, the number of BLM rangeland managers decreased by 39%, and further reductions in federal employment have exacerbated the issue. Currently, each rangeland manager is responsible for an average of 716 square miles, making comprehensive annual inspections virtually impossible.

For many of the nation’s largest ranchers, the benefits of public land grazing extend beyond direct profits. In June, Vice President JD Vance visited the Beaverhead Ranch in Montana, owned by billionaire Rupert Murdoch, founder of Fox News. Murdoch acquired the ranch in 2021 for $200 million from a Koch Industries subsidiary. Peggy Rockefeller Dulany, an heir to the Rockefeller fortune, also owns a substantial ranch nearby. Murdoch stated through a spokesperson that he felt "privileged to assume ownership of this beautiful land and look forward to continually enhancing both the commercial cattle business and the conservation assets across the ranch." Wealthy families like the Murdochs, Kochs, and Rockefellers operate ranches for various reasons, including the allure of a "cowboy" lifestyle, the prestige of controlling vast landscapes, and as a sound business investment. Hobby ranches can qualify for significant property tax breaks, and ranching-related business expenses are often deductible from federal taxes. Furthermore, federal agencies assign grazing permits to owners of nearby private properties, known as "base properties," which enhances their value and provides stability as long-term investments. While Murdoch’s ranch was promoted as encompassing 340,000 acres, two-thirds of that land is public and leased from federal agencies. Similar to Kroenke’s operations, taxpayers subsidize grazing at Murdoch’s ranch. Beaverhead paid less than $25,000 for federal land grazing last year, a staggering 95% below market rate, according to agency data analysis. At least one of Beaverhead’s BLM allotments in the Centennial Valley, known as Long Creek AMP, is reportedly failing to meet environmental standards due to grazing. Matador Ranch and Cattle, formed by Murdoch’s acquisitions, declined to comment.

Public lands grazing can also serve strategic purposes for unrelated industries. The Southern Nevada Water Authority, responsible for supplying water to the Las Vegas Valley, has acquired land hundreds of miles from the city to secure groundwater rights. These properties were associated with public lands grazing permits, which the utility inherited. A spokesperson for the water authority stated that they continue the grazing operation as part of their "maintenance and management of property assets, ranch assets, and environmental resources in the area." Mining companies are among the largest public land ranchers, leveraging grazing permits to gain greater control over areas proximate to their operations. Companies like Freeport-McMoRan, Hudbay Minerals, and Rio Tinto operate significant cattle operations in Arizona. A Hudbay representative stated that "Ranching and mining have coexisted in Arizona for generations, and we operate both with the same commitment to land stewardship and care for our neighboring communities." Other companies did not respond to requests for comment. Nevada Gold Mines, a joint venture between two of the world’s largest gold mining companies, operates 11 ranches surrounding its northern Nevada operations and holds millions of acres of grazing permits. The company’s manager of biodiversity and rangelands explained that they acquire these permits for "access to mineral rights, water rights and mitigation credits." Many of Nevada Gold Mines’ grazing permits are located near its open-pit mines, including the world’s largest gold mining complex. Access to this land facilitates participation in programs that offer credits for environmental restoration projects, which can then be sold or used to offset environmental impacts and expand mining operations.

Jeff Burgess, who tracks grazing subsidies through the Arizona Grazing Clearinghouse, argues that these substantial government subsidies offer minimal benefit to taxpayers. He questions the ongoing expenditure, stating, "When does the spigot stop? When do we stop throwing away money? It’s a tyranny of the minority."

In Nevada’s Reese River Valley, the remnants of the Hess Ranch headquarters stand as a testament to a bygone era. Despite its dilapidated state, this ranch serves as a key private "base property" for BTAZ Nevada, a company that has assembled a significant livestock operation spanning approximately 4,000 square miles of public lands, according to an analysis by the Western Watersheds Project. This expansive operation exemplifies the consolidation within the livestock industry, the subsidies that support it, and the associated environmental consequences. BTAZ, based in Fremont, Nebraska, is owned by the Barta family, which also owns Sav-Rx, an online prescription medication provider. The contact number BTAZ provided to the BLM leads to a Sav-Rx customer service line. The family patriarch, Jim Barta, was convicted in 2013 on felony bribery charges, though the conviction was later overturned due to entrapment. Barta has since passed away. The Barta family’s operation, now one of the largest beneficiaries of the public land grazing system, holds permits in Nevada, Oregon, and Nebraska. Last year, BTAZ paid the government $86,000, which was $679,000 below the market rate for forage, according to agency data. In Nevada’s Toiyabe Range, where BTAZ’s BLM and Forest Service grazing allotments converge, evidence of overgrazing is apparent. Cow feces litter the ground around a stock tank fed by mountain streams, and a dead raven was found floating in the water. The BLM identified allotments in this area as failing land-health standards due to grazing in both 2020 and 2024. Higher in the mountains, the impact of BTAZ’s grazing is even more pronounced: large areas of land are denuded and trampled, with discarded plastic piping, feces, and bones found in an unfenced creek. These streams were once vital habitat for the native Lahontan cutthroat trout, but degradation from activities like grazing and development has reduced the species’ historical range to just 12%, according to a 2023 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service survey. Paul Ruprecht, Nevada director for the Western Watersheds Project, described the situation as "completely unnecessary," noting that the operation provides little economic benefit, insignificant food production, is heavily subsidized by taxpayers, and offers no discernible enhancement to scenery or wildlife. BTAZ did not respond to requests for comment.

Smaller ranchers, while eligible for many of the same subsidies as their wealthier counterparts, face significant economic challenges. Approximately 18,000 permittees graze livestock on BLM or Forest Service land. However, the bottom half of these permittees manage less than 4% of AUMs on BLM land and under 10% on Forest Service land, an analysis of agency data reveals. Smaller operations lack the economies of scale enjoyed by larger corporations, making it difficult to operate profitably within agriculture’s thin margins. They are also more vulnerable to environmental changes, with climate change straining water supplies and over 70,000 wild horses and burros competing for forage. Consolidation in the meatpacking industry, where the four largest companies control over 80% of the market, further pressures ranchers by allowing them to dictate lower prices. Burgess argues that the federal government should cease supporting ranchers who would otherwise fail, stating, "They refuse to face the reality that a lot of people aren’t going to be able to raise cattle profitably, so they’re just throwing money at it," labeling the system "a vestige of the past."

The potential collapse of smaller operations could have cascading effects on rural communities and local economies. It might force these ranchers to sell their private land, potentially to developers or to larger, well-funded entities like Kroenke or BTAZ. Mike and Danna Camblin operate a modest cattle ranch in northwest Colorado, impacted by years of drought that have necessitated herd downsizing. Despite record beef prices, they find profitability elusive without government support, including subsidized drought insurance and affordable federal land grazing. "Most of these BLM leases have been in the family for years and years, and, if you take care of it, the BLM will allow you to continue to stay," Mike Camblin stated. The loss of federal grazing permits or the inability to sustain the economics of their operation could force the Camblins to sell their private land. Camblin expresses mixed feelings about the industry’s reliance on government assistance, acknowledging that it "tethers us to those subsidies." He criticizes the historical practice of subsidizing larger ranches, suggesting that wealthier operators who don’t require government aid exploit the system. He views income-based limitations on certain agricultural subsidies as a positive step toward curbing this imbalance. The precarious financial state of smaller ranchers can sometimes lead to environmental compromises, as they may feel compelled to overgraze federal lands where costs are lower. The Camblins prioritize environmental stewardship, monitoring soil and plant health and implementing pasture rotation for their several hundred head of cattle to allow land to recover, though this adds to their operational costs. "A cow turd will tell you more than anything else," Camblin remarked, explaining how its condition indicates the cow’s nutritional intake and the land’s health. He emphasizes his focus on ecological indicators, stating, "I spend more time looking down than at the cattle."

Technological advancements aid the Camblins in managing their herd rotation. Danna Camblin utilizes a smartphone application displaying a satellite view of their land, overlaid with virtual fences represented by purple cow icons within red polygons. These virtual fences deliver a mild shock via collars if cattle stray, preventing them from entering sensitive areas. Unlike physical fences, virtual fences do not impede wildlife migration, and the Camblins can rapidly redraw them to move their cattle to less-grazed pastures. The cost of leasing these collars alone amounted to nearly $18,000 last year. Silvia Secchi, an economist at the University of Iowa specializing in agriculture, advocates for reimagining federal grazing subsidies to benefit the public rather than solely enriching the wealthiest ranchers. She proposes solutions such as subsidizing cooperatives to provide smaller ranchers with economies of scale, capping the size of operations receiving below-market forage rates, and eliminating disaster payments for climate change-induced droughts, which are becoming increasingly persistent. "We have baseline subsidies that are going up and up and up because we are not telling farmers to change the way you do things to adapt," Secchi noted. Both Secchi and the Camblins acknowledge that the complete removal of public support could have detrimental consequences for rural communities and the landscapes they manage. Mike Camblin concedes that such a change could jeopardize their own operation, stating, "You’re going to lose your small rancher."