Liquidating public lands finance sovereign fund

[Rideback]

https://substack.com/home/post/p-157611647

[mister_coffee]

The question in my mind is, "if you wreck everything, what exactly do you have power over and what exactly do you have left to exercise power with?"

On a "sovereign wealth fund", who here thinks it won't ever be anything than a personal slush fund for Trump and possibly his cronies?

[Rideback]

The absurdity of doing this is perhaps beside the point. The firehosing of these firings and absurd actions are overcoming any and perhaps all institutional guardrails. It's all about power now.

Creating a sovereign fund is no small thing for a President to sign an EO about, just as finding the trillions it would take is no small undertaking.
But this is where we are.

[mister_coffee]

"still need to pay state property taxes on that land". Are you kidding? They will be exempt. But I do like that you say the idea is doubtful. Let's hope it is.

I'm not kidding. They wouldn't have the power to make it exempt and make it stick. Once it becomes privately held land it is subject to state and local taxes. For that matter, the Federal Government makes "offset payments" to state and local governments to make up for the lost property taxes of so much land in federal hands.

Trump could just declare that it wasn't subject to state and local property taxes. But they'd have to make it stick in state courts which is unlikely to work. I just don't see any state court agreeing to that.

[PAL]

"still need to pay state property taxes on that land". Are you kidding? They will be exempt. But I do like that you say the idea is doubtful. Let's hope it is.

[mister_coffee]

I'm honestly doubtful about this idea being possible. It is a good distraction for them though.

For one thing, unless Congress and the Courts green light it the whole thing is questionable. Nobody is going to put $10 billion down for Yosemite without being reasonably certain they can keep it. If they were bypassing Congress or defying court orders to make the sale it would basically be like buying stolen property, where it doesn't matter how much money you paid for it you have to give it back to the rightful owner.

On the other end of it, I have to question how much demand there is for that much and that kind of real estate and if selling a whole bunch all at once is a good way to get a decent price for all of it, or even most of it.

It is also very questionable to me whether a private enterprise could run something, anything, with all of a place like Yosemite National Park and make a profit at it. Yes, there are private hotels in national parks that probably can make some good money. But you still need to pay state property taxes on all that land (which might be north of $100MM per year). Maybe you could clearcut it but most national parks in the West had their boundaries carefully drawn to exclude most marketable timber.

[Rideback]

https://www.americanprogress.org/articl ... alth-fund/

My first thought was what happens when Saudi Arabia buys Yosemite and Yellowstone and monetizes them.

"On February 3, 2025, President Donald Trump signed an executive order to create a sovereign wealth fund (SWF), saying the United States will have one of the largest funds in the world. That requires raising trillions of dollars very quickly. For context, Norway’s fund is currently worth $1.8 trillion U.S. dollars. Sovereign wealth funds are typically financed with surplus revenue from trade or natural resource development. Given that the United States is roughly $36 trillion in debt, experts question where the money would come from. The Trump administration seems to be signaling that selling out and selling off the nation’s public lands to the highest bidder might provide the necessary funding. Selling federal public lands would turn America’s treasured places into a financial asset for the Trump administration without the need for surplus revenue, making it a potentially enticing idea for the administration.

What is a sovereign wealth fund and how would it be funded?
An SWF is a state-owned investment fund made up of money generated by the government, often derived from a nation’s natural resource revenues, budget surpluses, or foreign currency reserves. President Trump’s order charges the secretaries of the treasury and commerce departments with developing a plan for finding the money needed within 90 days of its signing. At the signing ceremony, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent explained where some of the money might come from: “We are going to monetize the asset side of the U.S. balance sheet for the American people. We are going to put the assets to work.”

What exactly does this mean? Doug Burgum, President Trump’s secretary of the interior, explained that the nation’s parks, public lands, and natural resources—including timber, fossil fuels, and minerals—are assets on “the nation’s balance sheet.” Burgum speculated in his confirmation hearing that federal lands could be worth as much as $200 trillion. He argued that the U.S. government, run like a business, should know the value of the corporation’s assets and use those assets “to get a return for the American people.” Under Trump’s proposal, the value of public lands would be determined by their potential market value to grow an SWF, and not by their value to hunters and fishermen; family ranchers; and communities that rely on clean water and air as well as jobs and income that come from natural resource development, recreation, and tourism.

Selling off America’s public lands
Simply increasing the leasing of natural resources will not be enough to seed an SWF. Leasing for oil and gas, timber, mining, and grazing brought in less than $17 billion in 2024. Oil and gas production is already at record levels, and the oil and gas industry has said it will not increase drilling substantially to avoid hurting its profit margins. To generate hundreds of billions or trillions of dollars, the Treasury Department may find that selling public lands to the highest bidders is the only way to raise that kind of money quickly.

Selling public lands has long been on the agenda of the antiparks caucus, and some Republicans in Congress and in states have worked to undermine federal ownership of lands. For example, Utah’s governor asked the Supreme Court to rule federal land ownership unconstitutional; the court declined to hear the case in January 2025. The Republican Party platform includes selling federal lands for housing development. The U.S. House of Representatives adopted new rules that free it from having to consider the value of public lands if they are sold. These rules would make it easier for the Trump administration to give public lands over to the Treasury and Commerce departments to see how much money they could make to grow the SWF.

Land sell-off and the privatization of public lands to this extent would deprive Americans and local economies of the access to nature and resources that sustain them. Giving money managers and financiers control over land management is more than just a land grab; it is an attack on the democratic and meritocratic ideals that make America great. The future of U.S. public lands—and the values they represent—depends on the willingness of Congress and the American public to stand up and defend public ownership and multiple uses, including for conservation, recreation, and wonder.

An investment risk waiting to happen
Once an SWF has accumulated wealth, that wealth is invested in stocks, bonds, real estate, and other financial instruments to earn even more money. Without proper sideboards between politicians and investment decisions, the SWF would likely serve to enrich Trump and his allies—not the American public. For example, David Sacks, Trump’s White House crypto czar, suggested that the SWF could buy bitcoin, which would reward campaign donors by inflating asset values and exerting ever more control over the nation’s economy. The secretaries of the treasury and commerce departments have yet to demonstrate that they would constrain the president’s or their own political influence over the SWF by setting up independent fund managers, auditors, or appropriate firewalls between government and private interests.

A better way
Creating an SWF to use as a tool is not an inherently bad idea. In fact, it could be designed to solve the real problems rural and energy-dependent communities face. A lot has changed since the 1970s, when timber harvests, coal mines, and grazing permits sustained family wage jobs; taxes and royalties from those activities paid for good local schools and improved public safety; and local businesses thrived. Today, even where natural resource activity is booming, a basic social contract has been broken: Tax cuts, automation, and increasing corporate ownership mean leasing on federal lands does not deliver the same benefits to local workers, businesses, and schools as it used to.

An SWF could be part of the solution for communities left behind by changes in the United States and the global economy. For example, the Center for American Progress has suggested that the federal government establish an energy SWF modeled after the ones in Norway and New Mexico. This proposal would end direct oil and gas revenue-sharing payments and replace them with a permanent solution. A one-time, up-front endowment to capture and save fossil fuel revenue and provide stable and permanent distributions to communities. The ultimate result would be an immediate, predictable, and permanent source of income for resource-dependent communities as they transition—and it would not cost U.S. taxpayers anything.

These funds are designed to build intergenerational wealth and provide stable and permanent revenue that state and local governments depend on to fund schools, sheriff’s departments, public libraries, parks, and emergency services. With proper firewalls between land managers and fund managers, an SWF could be designed to build wealth when resources are extracted from public lands and keep public lands in public hands.

With proper firewalls between land managers and fund managers, an SWF could be designed to build wealth when resources are extracted from public lands and keep public lands in public hands.
In New Mexico, the state controls two permanent funds built up from oil royalties and taxes; these SWFs will fully decouple the state’s budgets from annual oil and gas revenue by 2039. That means New Mexico would be the only oil-producing state in the United States that could transition away from fossil fuels without affecting the budget of local schools and other state services. Stable and predictable revenue from the permanent funds allows the state to reposition its lands to benefit the economy in multiple ways by taking a portfolio approach to land management. The state lands could be used for conservation; recreation; access to hunting, fishing, and bird watching; and energy development. The federal government would benefit from a similar management structure. Federal public lands have multiple values, and protecting multiple uses creates a more diverse and resilient—and larger—economy.

Conclusion
President Trump’s proposed SWF has opened the doors to the idea of reforming the fiscal relationship between public lands and the states and communities who rely on them for revenue, jobs, recreation, clean air and water, resilience against natural disasters, and much more. The secretaries of the treasury and interior have stated clearly that public lands would be monetized—including selling out and selling off to the highest bidder—to raise substantial new revenue. Handing over public lands to an SWF may also change who benefits. To grow an SWF, royalties that currently are shared with state and local governments could be redirected into the SWF. A better approach would keep public lands in public hands and work on solutions that deliver the predictable and fair compensation state and local governments deserve. An energy and natural resources SWF could achieve these goals in a way that works for industry, state and local governments, and all Americans who use and love public lands.