Following Backlash, Mike Lee Backtracks on National Parks Proposal

Earlier this week, Utah Republican Senator Mike Lee proposed an amendment to the Senate appropriations bill that critics said would pave the way for the sale of national parks. After widespread outcry, Lee has backed down, his office confirmed to Outside.

If passed, his measure would have removed language from an upcoming spending bill that requires the federal government to protect and maintain the current boundaries of national parks as federal lands. In a statement sent to Outside on December 19, Lee’s office said that he had withdrawn the plan.

But Lee’s office said that he never intended the change to allow for the sale of national park land.

“I categorically oppose selling national parks,” he said. Lee added that such a freeze on boundaries would block routine land exchanges approved by Congress, such as the return of sacred lands to indigenous groups.

“Selling national parks was never on the table,” he added.

Opponents of Lee say otherwise. The National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA), a vocal opponent of the proposal, said support for Lee’s amendment is “a vote to sell America’s national parks.”

“If the Senate passes this dangerous amendment, it sends a green-light message to the White House that it’s ok to sell off America’s national park legacy,” wrote NPCA president Theresa Pierno in a statement.

The conservation group Center for Western Priorities argued the amendment would “send a message to the White House that downsizing America’s national park system is acceptable.” The proposal, they added, was a “blatant and tone-deaf attack on America’s public lands.”

Democratic lawmakers, including Colorado Senator John Hickenlooper, also took issue with Lee’s plan.

“Right before the holidays, Republicans keep looking for sneaky ways to sell off our public lands and national parks – this time as an amendment to the Interior appropriations bill,” Hickenlooper said in a December 18 statement. “We stopped them before, and we’re ready to do it again. OUR PUBLIC LANDS ARE NOT FOR SALE.”

Lee, the chairman of the Senate’s Energy and Natural Resources Committee, was also the architect of a controversial proposal earlier this year to sell off millions of acres of public land. It was withdrawn after significant backlash from across the political spectrum.

His most recent amendment, proposed on December 15, called to strike four sections, including Section 130, from the 2026 budget. Section 130 read:

“The Department of the Interior shall maintain all Federal lands designated as, or as a part of, a national park unit, a national scenic or national historic trail, or a wild and scenic river as of May 2, 2025 as Federal land and continue to operate such unit, trail, or river as an entity of the National Park Service including for such purposes as Federal employee staffing and entry, permit, and other fee collections.”

Removal of this language, organizations like the NPCA and Center for Western Priorities argue, could make it easier to downsize national parks.

Others, like Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski, a Republican, pushed back at this characterization.

“Senator Mike Lee is not trying to sell Park Service lands or ‘end the Park Service as we know it,’” Murkowski wrote on X. “Those who are claiming that should know better and need to knock it off. He filed an amendment to strike a well-meaning provision of the Interior Appropriations bill that would have unintended consequences for routine Park Service actions. There is enough to debate in our Interior bill, but mischaracterizations of issues don’t help.”

Although Lee has withdrawn the controversial proposal, the bill’s text hasn’t been finalized, and the Senate has yet to vote on it. Some conservation organizations, like The Outdoor Alliance, a group of outdoor recreationists, characterized the situation as a ceasefire, not a victory, for public lands.

“While the immediate threat is lessened,” the organization said in an update published December 19, “it continues to be important for constituents to reach out to the lawmakers and communicate their support for keeping public lands public.”