Should Federal Land Be Used to Create Trump’s Freedom Cities?

Does the US federal government own too much land?

If one-third of all US land sounds like too much, then the answer is “yes.”

Our government owns 640 million acres of the 2.27 billion acres of US land, equating to 28% of all land. Several government agencies manage the land with three distinct goals (preservation, recreation, and development of natural resources):

• Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

• Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)

• National Park Service (NPS)

• Department of the Interior (DOI)

• Forest Service (FS) in the Department of Agriculture

• The Department of Defense administers 8.8 million acres, consisting of military bases, training ranges, and more.

Land Mismanagement

A proposal to sell portions of federal public land was removed from the Big Beautiful Bill after strong pushback from hunters, fishermen and outdoor recreationists. The common argument is always this emotional plea: “America’s public lands belong to all of us.”

Yes, it does belong to all of us, but are we truly all benefiting? As usual, the answer is no. Utah Senator Mike Lee has been a strong proponent of selling federal lands. Lee says that the federal government has not only done a terrible job of managing the land, but also says that massive swaths of land are being locked away from the people who live nearby. Lee says the land is vastly underutilized and he wants to put it to work for American families.

One example of land mismanagement involves the Nebraska land of the Santee Sioux Nation. The tribe owns the land, but it is managed by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The government hasn’t properly managed the 2,000 acres in years. Corn fields have been occupied by invasive cedar trees, and reeds and willows now fill the grazing pastures. In 2019, it flooded, and is now largely unusable – productive land is now a wasteland. The land also has not yielded any rent or reimbursement funds. The government has not compensated the tribe for flooding, but they have compensated nearby white landowners. The tribe might get some money out if it if they place the land in a flowage easement with the US Army Corps of Engineers, but the land is worth pennies on the dollar since the BLM took over management in the late 1880s. Over that period, the government has taken back some of the land tracts to pay for the tribe’s back taxes, and some of the families had to sell the land so they could buy groceries.

The government owns 80.1% of land in Nevada and 61% of the land in Alaska. Federal ownership is concentrated in 11 other western states where the government owns about 46% of the land compared to 4% in all other states.

Senator Lee’s idea to dispose of (sell) some federal land is not new and in fact crops up throughout our country’s history. After all, settlement of the west was encouraged, and the main driver was disposal of federal land to encourage that settlement. More recently, emphasis has shifted to retention of federal lands, but all the above agencies still retain the right to dispose of federal lands. From 1990 to 2018, federal land was reduced by about 5%, or 31.5 million acres. Much of that came in Alaska as well as the DoD exchanging ownership of land with other legal agreements. National Park Service has increased its ownership over this same period.

State vs. Federal

As in many arguments such as abortion rights and other high profile topics, there has long been an argument over whether land should belong to the federal government or to the state, and legislation generally kept as an option land transfer to the states. Western states in particular feel they should own land within their borders.

In 1976, in the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) Congress expressly declared that current federal land would remain in federal ownership. Subsequently, the Sagebrush Rebellion ensued, and was an effort to strengthen state or local control over federal land management decisions.

One of the most famous standoffs with the federal government was the Bundy Ranch standoff in 2014 in Nevada, where the federal government owns the majority of the state land. The Bundy family for decades had been grazing cattle on land owned by the BLM, an agency that required grazing fees. Bundy refused to pay the fees, arguing no federal authority over the land, and saying that the state of Nevada was the sole entity that could regulate grazing. He also stated that his ancestors owned the land before the federal government did. By 2014, Bundy had amassed over $1 million in unpaid fees, and the BLM moved in to seize his cattle. When federal agents attempted to move in, hundreds of armed supporters gathered at the ranch, and the incident became an armed standoff. 
The BLM backed off and released the cattle before any shootout incurred. Bundy and his sons were arrested and charged with multiple offenses in 2016, but all charges were dismissed in 2018.

Mismanagement

There are always land management issues in front of Congress, such as the argument of acquiring new land or properly managing what they currently own. Apparently, we have a nearly $20 BILLION backlog on maintenance with the four agencies above (excluding the DoD). Border control of federal lands always seems to be an issue as well. Federal land proceeds are supposed to provide a source of revenue for “schools, transportation, national defense, and other national, state, and local needs.” Where is this money going? Is it properly managed? Has anyone DOGEd it? Apparently it is not going into maintenance if we have a $20B backlog.

One of the biggest battles in Congress is the debate over land protection versus land use, meaning recreation, livestock grazing and energy development.

Wider Use of Federal Land

The creation of national parks and forest reserves laid the foundation for the current federal agencies that manage natural resources on federal lands. Those in the government, including President Trump, who say the federal land is underutilized have pushed for better use of the land.

Fracking is one controversial area. Supporters say that hydraulic fracking on federal land boosts domestic energy production, creates jobs, and increases revenue. In fact, they view it as essential for national energy independence. Critics are concerned about environmental and public-health risks because fracking done incorrectly can contaminate groundwater, increase methane emissions, and trigger small earthquakes. Many critics are also opposed to industrial activity on public lands meant for conservation, recreation, and wildlife habitat. And again, the federal versus state control argument certainly is at play here too.

When Trump came back into office in 2025, one part of his dizzying array of policies was a proposal for 10 “freedom cities.” He wants to build 10 new cities on federal land, and create innovation infrastructure around the cities so that young Americans can work in the fields of AI, aerospace, construction, and manufacturing.

The topic of freedom cities came to the surface again shortly after Trump’s November 2025 visit with Crown Prince Mohammad Bin Salman. Did they discuss the freedom cities in Saudi Arabia? The country has created special economic zones (SEZ) to attract global investment and foreign ownership. These areas have advanced technology infrastructure, and “innovation-friendly governance” which means less regulation. The “freedom cities” do draw criticism in Saudi, given that the country still maintains very strict political and social controls in these areas. Critics also say that local tribes like the Howeitat have been displaced.

Shenzhen, China also has freedom cities, started by Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping four decades ago. They’re also SEZs designed to establish new markets. The first SEZ was placed not in an established urban center, but in an unassuming backwater town north of Hong Kong.

Trump says America has a byzantine approach to infrastructure development. It is overregulated with lengthy impact assessments for every aspect of construction.

And who is a better judge than Trump, arguably one of the world’s great developers? Trump also has “backwater” sites in mind, and has targeted federal land in Oregon and Nevada, and specific sites near Grand Junction, Colorado and Boise, Idaho for freedom cities. Trump’s proposal is in line with the Department of the Interior’s recent push to privatize some public lands. Secretary Doug Burgum proposes to sell 625 square miles of BLM land near existing cities to build affordable new homes to remedy the housing crisis. Called Homesteading 2.0, the proposal calls for three million new homes to be built by 2035. In the fine print was a call for 20 new Freedom Cities. Each city requires 50,000 acres of federal land.

The end result? Freedom cities will be high-tech new “company towns” free from state laws and most federal rules. These zones won’t be taxed by the IRS or subject to major environmental laws. The cities would not suffer from the government overreach of our current large cities. Congress has broad powers to use federal lands as it sees fit, and the Constitution allows the government to own the land and set the rules, but companies and individuals could still hold the title.

Proponents of these cities see public land as an untapped resource. They say this is what our country is all about…we experimented with the Gold Rush and settlement of the west. They say it is time to experiment again, and the plan is to build these experiments in governance. Law professor Tom W. Bell perhaps said it best: “Freedom is better than gold. When you turn people loose to create and give them incentives to satisfy market demand—wow—that’s what we want to tap.” Each city would focus on a specific kind of tech development, such as semiconductors, nuclear energy and defense. Proponents say the government is too cautious, and nuclear energy is an example. The government waited over a generation after Three Mile Island to approve new nuclear power plants, whereas a Freedom City could serve as a testing ground for advanced reactors.

Opponents fear that the Freedom Cities would tap into a long-simmering anti-government attitude in the West. But maybe that is just what we need. After all, draining the swamp doesn’t just mean Washington, DC.