As the former Trump administration actively promoted a pro-ranching agenda, a comprehensive investigation embarked upon by High Country News and ProPublica meticulously examined the evolving nature of public lands ranching. This extensive journalistic endeavor involved filing over 100 public record requests, including litigation against the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to compel the release of critical documents and data. Researchers engaged in wide-ranging interviews, speaking with individuals from seasoned ranchers to dedicated conservationists, and personally toured ranching operations across Arizona, Colorado, Montana, and Nevada to gain firsthand insights.

The resulting three-part investigation delved deeply into the intricate web of subsidies underpinning the ranching industry, the far-reaching environmental consequences stemming from livestock presence, and the formidable political influence that steadfastly preserves this established order. The findings illuminate a system that has largely transformed into a robust subsidy program for ranchers, diverting from its original conservationist intent. The public lands grazing system underwent modernization in the 1930s, primarily as a direct response to the unchecked exploitation of natural resources that culminated in the devastating Dust Bowl—a period characterized by colossal dust storms triggered by unsustainable agricultural practices, notably widespread overgrazing. Today, the system’s primary focus has shifted to financially supporting the continuous grazing of these federal lands.

The Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service, the two preeminent federal agencies tasked with managing vast tracts of public land, oversee the majority of this system. In 2024, these agencies collectively charged ranchers a mere $21 million in grazing fees. Analysis reveals this figure represents, on average, an approximate 93% discount compared to the prevailing market rates for forage on private land. Beyond these reduced fees, the federal government injected at least $2.5 billion into various subsidy programs accessible to public lands ranchers in 2024 alone. These financial lifelines encompass critical disaster assistance following extreme weather events like droughts and floods, as well as compensation for livestock lost to predators, effectively insulating ranchers from many of the inherent risks of their enterprise.

A striking aspect of the current system is the significant consolidation of ranching operations into the hands of a relatively small number of wealthy individuals and powerful corporations. The investigation uncovered that roughly two-thirds of all grazing on BLM acreage is controlled by just 10% of ranchers. Similarly, on Forest Service land, the top 10% of permittees manage more than 50% of the authorized grazing. Among these dominant players are billionaires such as Stan Kroenke and Rupert Murdoch, alongside large-scale mining companies and public utility corporations. The financial advantages of holding permits to graze herds on public lands extend well beyond the immediate proceeds from cattle sales. Even non-commercial hobby ranches often qualify for substantial property tax breaks in numerous regions; ranching business expenses can be strategically deducted from federal taxes; and private property associated with these grazing permits constitutes a remarkably stable, long-term investment vehicle. Representatives for Mr. Kroenke did not respond to inquiries, while Mr. Murdoch’s representative declined to comment on these findings.

The Trump administration aggressively pursued policies designed to "supercharge" this existing system, including proposals for further increasing subsidies. In October of an unspecified year, the administration unveiled a "plan to fortify the American Beef Industry," which specifically directed the BLM and Forest Service to undertake the first amendments to grazing regulations since the 1990s. This strategic plan advocated for taxpayers to provide even greater support to ranching operations through expanded subsidies for drought and wildfire relief, compensation for livestock fatalities caused by predators, and government-backed insurance schemes. When questioned, the White House redirected inquiries to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which issued a statement asserting 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." While approximately 18,000 permittees graze livestock on BLM or Forest Service land, with many being small-scale operations, these ranchers often argue that sustained government support and reduced grazing fees are essential for their economic survival and to prevent insolvency.

Simultaneously, the administration facilitated the loosening of already lax oversight mechanisms within the public lands grazing framework. Ranchers typically must renew their permits to utilize public lands every 10 years, a process that traditionally mandates a thorough environmental review. However, a law passed by Congress in 2014 introduced a critical loophole, allowing permits to be automatically renewed if federal agencies fail to complete these environmental reviews within the stipulated timeframe. This legislative change has had profound consequences. In 2013, the BLM approved grazing on 47% of its land designated for livestock without conducting an environmental review, according to an analysis of agency data (the status of an additional 10% of BLM land remained unclear that year). A decade later, the BLM authorized grazing on approximately 75% of its acreage without such a review, demonstrating a significant erosion of environmental scrutiny. This decline in oversight largely correlates with a shrinking workforce dedicated to rangeland management within the BLM. The number of these critical employees experienced a 39% reduction between 2020 and 2024, based on Office of Personnel Management data. Furthermore, approximately one in 10 rangeland staff departed the agency between Trump’s election victory and June of a recent year, according to BLM records, indicating a substantial loss of institutional knowledge and capacity.

This systemic weakening of oversight contributes directly to widespread environmental harm across the West. The BLM manages 155 million acres of public lands open to grazing. Its own assessments on the health of these environments have determined that grazing activities have degraded at least 38 million acres—an area roughly half the size of New Mexico. Alarmingly, the agency possesses no record of land health assessments for an additional 35 million acres, leaving a significant portion of these vital ecosystems unmonitored. The investigative teams personally witnessed pervasive overgrazing across multiple states, observing streambeds severely trampled by cattle, grasslands denuded of vegetation, and creeks fouled by animal carcasses, underscoring the tangible impact on delicate ecosystems.

Ranchers, however, present a counter-narrative, arguing that public lands grazing offers distinct ecological benefits, such as preventing nearby private lands from being sold off for development and subsequently paved over. Bill Fales, whose family has run cattle in western Colorado for over a century, articulates this perspective. "The wildlife here is dependent on these ranches staying as open ranch land," he stated. While unchecked development has ravaged habitat in adjacent areas, Fales notes that the lands his cattle graze are increasingly shared by diverse wildlife, including elk, bears, and mountain lions, suggesting a complex interplay between traditional ranching and wildlife preservation. This argument often frames ranching as a bulwark against urban sprawl, preserving open space and migration corridors in an increasingly fragmented landscape, though the intensity and management of grazing remain crucial to realizing such benefits without causing degradation.

Regulators themselves concede that significant systemic change is exceedingly difficult to implement due to the powerful political influence wielded by the industry. Interviews with 10 current and former BLM employees, ranging from upper management to rank-and-file rangeland managers, consistently revealed pervasive political pressure to handle ranchers with leniency. "If we do anything anti-grazing, there’s at least a decent chance of politicians being involved," one BLM employee candidly admitted. "We want to avoid that, so we don’t do anything that would bring that about." A BLM spokesperson, in a formal statement, maintained that "any policy decisions are made in accordance with federal law and are designed to balance economic opportunity with conservation responsibilities across the nation’s public lands."

The industry maintains formidable connections within the highest echelons of government. The Trump administration, for instance, appointed to a high-level post at the U.S. Department of the Interior a lawyer known for representing ranchers in legal disputes against the government, who also held a stake in a Wyoming cattle operation. Similarly, the administration placed a tech entrepreneur with ranching interests in Idaho into a position overseeing the Forest Service, illustrating a pattern of appointing individuals with direct ties to the industry they are meant to regulate. Moreover, politicians from both major parties consistently demonstrate a readiness to intervene swiftly if they perceive ranchers are facing burdensome oversight. Since 2020, members of Congress from across the political spectrum have collectively sent more than 20 letters to the BLM and Forest Service concerning grazing issues, according to logs of agency communications obtained through public records requests. This bipartisan attention underscores the enduring political leverage of the ranching industry and its capacity to shape federal land management policies, often at the expense of environmental accountability.