Senate Parliamentarian Blocks Federal Land Sales from Republican Budget Bill

WASHINGTON — A controversial proposal to sell more than 3,200 square miles of federal lands in the West has been ruled out of the Republican budget reconciliation package after the Senate parliamentarian determined it violates chamber rules governing the legislative process.

The proposal, championed by Senate Energy Committee Chairman Mike Lee (R-Utah), would have mandated the sale of 2-3 million acres of public lands across 11 Western states to help fund housing development and generate revenue as part of the larger "One Big Beautiful Bill Act."

Parliamentarian's Ruling

Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough ruled Monday that Lee's land sale provision, along with numerous other Republican proposals, violates the Byrd Rule. This Senate rule requires that provisions in budget reconciliation bills be directly related to fiscal matters rather than broader policy changes.

The decision stems from the Byrd Rule, which prevents extraneous matter from being added to budget reconciliation bills. Under reconciliation rules, Republicans can pass legislation with a simple majority of 51 votes rather than the typical 60-vote threshold needed to overcome a filibuster.

While the parliamentarian's rulings are advisory, they are rarely, if ever, ignored. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) indicated Monday that Republicans would not move to override the ruling.

The Land Sale Proposal

Lee's plan would have made more than 250 million acres of public land across 11 Western states, where most of the nation's federal land is found, eligible for sale, with the BLM and Forest Service mandated to sell off somewhere between two and three million acres.

The proposal specifically targeted lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service, with Montana carved out of the proposal after lawmakers there objected. In states like Utah and Nevada, the federal government controls vast majorities of land.

Lee justified the proposal as a housing solution, arguing that "Washington has proven time and again it can't manage this land. This bill puts it in better hands."

Political Reactions and Opposition

The ruling drew mixed reactions from lawmakers and advocacy groups. Democrats and environmental groups roundly oppose both plans as giveaways to private interests that will threaten clean water and wildlife and block recreation on public lands.

Senate Budget Committee Ranking Member Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) said "Democrats will not stand idly by while Republicans attempt to circumvent the rules of (budget) reconciliation in order to sell off public lands to fund tax breaks for billionaires."

Environmental advocates celebrated the decision while remaining cautious. "This is a victory for the American public, who were loud and clear: Public lands belong in public hands, for current and future generations alike," said Tracy Stone-Manning, president of The Wilderness Society.

Lee's Response and Revised Proposal

Despite the setback, Lee indicated he would continue pursuing the initiative. Lee, in a post on X Monday night, said he would keep trying.

The Utah senator announced plans for a revised version that would remove all U.S. Forest Service land from possible sale. Sales of sites controlled by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management would be significantly reduced, Lee said, so that only land within 5 miles of population centers could be sold.

Housing and Development Concerns

The proposal was framed as addressing Western housing shortages, with Lee writing that "Housing prices are crushing families and keeping young Americans from living where they grew up. We need to change that."

However, housing advocates have raised questions about the plan's effectiveness. Housing advocates have cautioned that federal land is not universally suitable for affordable housing. Some of the parcels up for sale in Utah and Nevada under a House proposal were many miles from developed areas.

Western Governors' Mixed Reception

The proposal received varied reactions from Western state governors at their recent association meeting in Santa Fe, New Mexico. Democratic New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham called it problematic in her state because of the close relationship residents have with public lands.

Republican Wyoming Gov. Mark Gordon offered qualified support, saying "On a piece-by-piece basis … we can actually allow for some responsible growth in areas with communities that are landlocked at this point."

Broader Budget Bill Context and Other Rejected Provisions

The land sale proposal was part of the larger Republican reconciliation package aimed at extending Trump-era tax cuts while making spending reductions. Republicans chose to use the reconciliation process, which allows them to avoid the 60-vote Senate filibuster (since they hold 53 seats out of 100 in the Senate).

MacDonough's ruling on the federal lands proposal was part of a sweeping series of decisions that significantly narrowed the scope of the Republican bill. The parliamentarian ruled out numerous other provisions across multiple policy areas:

Federal Worker and Civil Service Provisions

Most provisions targeting federal workers and their unions were found to violate the Byrd Rule, including:

Plans requiring all new federal employees to pay 9.4% toward the Federal Employees Retirement System and to choose between paying an additional 5 percentage points toward FERS or serving as at-will employees
A requirement that federal employees challenging an adverse action before the Merit Systems Protection Board pay a $350 filing fee
A proposal to charge federal employee unions for use of agency property and official time on a quarterly basis
A provision giving the Trump administration authority to reorganize federal agencies and lay off thousands of federal workers

Immigration and Border Security

Several immigration-related provisions were ruled out, including:

Provisions that would reimburse states for border security and immigration costs
Language that would make it harder to challenge U.S. government actions in court by requiring plaintiffs to post security bonds

Financial and Regulatory Provisions

The parliamentarian struck provisions that would have:

Cut $6.4 billion by reducing the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's maximum funding to 0% of Federal Reserve operating expenses, effectively eliminating the agency
Cut $1.4 billion by reducing Federal Reserve staff pay
Cut $293 million by reducing Office of Financial Research funding
Eliminated the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board and transferred its authority to the Securities and Exchange Commission

Energy and Environmental Provisions

Beyond the federal lands proposal, other energy-related provisions were ruled out, including:

Construction of a mining road in Alaska
Changes to speed permitting of oil and gas leases on federal lands
Requirements for yearly geothermal lease sales and changes to how geothermal royalties are calculated
Creation of a "pay-to-play" regime for natural gas exports

Other Policy Areas

The parliamentarian also struck:

A 10-year ban on state-level AI regulations
Language limiting federal courts' power to enforce contempt of court citations
Provisions to end a tax on manufacturing of gun silencers
Language to defund Planned Parenthood
Provisions banning Medicaid from funding gender-affirming care

Remaining Provisions

However, some controversial provisions survived the Byrd Rule review, including:

A requirement for the Office of Personnel Management to audit enrollees in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program
A requirement that the government charge a 10% fee on deductions from federal workers' paychecks going to nonprofit organizations and unions
Core tax provisions extending the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act

Political Impact

The extensive cuts forced by the Byrd Rule represent a significant setback for Republican priorities. Senate Budget Committee Ranking Member Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) said "Democrats are making sure those rules are enforced" and called the bill a "Great Betrayal."

Republicans face a self-imposed July 4 deadline to pass their budget package, which would then return to the House for final approval if the Senate makes changes to the original legislation. The substantial changes may complicate passage in both chambers, as House Republicans had crafted a delicate coalition to pass the original version.

SIDEBAR: Who Is Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough?

She wasn't elected and she doesn't cast votes. But over the past week, Elizabeth MacDonough, the quietly powerful Senate parliamentarian, may have had more influence over Donald Trump's legislative agenda than anyone else in Washington.

Background: Elizabeth MacDonough (born February 16, 1966) is an American lawyer and the Parliamentarian of the United States Senate since 2012. She is the first woman to hold the position.

Education and Early Career: MacDonough grew up near Washington DC, graduating from Greens Farms Academy in 1984 and earning her bachelor's degree from George Washington University in 1988. MacDonough began her career in 1990 as a legislative reference assistant in the Senate library and later as assistant morning business editor to the Congressional Record.

Legal Education: She left in 1995 to attend Vermont Law School, graduating with a JD in 1998. During law school, MacDonough interned with Judge Royce C. Lamberth (United States District Court for the District of Columbia) and the Immigration and Naturalization Service in Burlington, Vermont.

Justice Department Experience: After graduating, MacDonough worked as a trial attorney for the United States Department of Justice handling immigration cases in New Jersey. Prior to her work in the parliamentarian's office, MacDonough served as an assistant district counsel for the former Department of Justice Immigration and Naturalization Service, having been selected for that position through the Attorney General's Honor Graduate program.

Rise to Parliamentarian: MacDonough joined the office of the Senate Parliamentarian in May 1999 as an assistant parliamentarian and was promoted to senior assistant parliamentarian in 2002. Incumbent parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough has held the office since 2012, appointed by then-Senate majority leader Harry Reid.

How She Got the Job: The parliamentarian is appointed by and serves at the pleasure of the Senate majority leader. Traditionally, the parliamentarian is chosen from senior staff in the parliamentarian office, which helps ensure consistency in the application of the Senate's complex rules. Traditionally, the title of parliamentarian has gone to the most senior member of the parliamentarian's office, without interference from the Secretary of the Senate or Senate leaders.

Bipartisan Praise: At her appointment to Parliamentarian in 2012, she was praised by outgoing Parliamentarian Alan Frumin as "down-to-earth," describing her personal knowledge of Capitol staffers; and by Senator Richard Shelby (R-AL) as "smart, diligent ... and she's got integrity." Sen. John Thune (R-SD) said "she's very steeped in the traditions of the Senate and understands how it works here"

Career Highlights: MacDonough guided the Senate through the first and second impeachment trials of Donald Trump, and she and her staff brought the Electoral College certificates to safety during the January 6 Capitol attack. She advised then-Vice President Al Gore on the procedure for counting ballots following Bush v. Gore.

Notable Rulings: MacDonough has made high-profile decisions under both parties, including striking provisions from Republican Obamacare repeal efforts in 2017 and ruling against a $15 minimum wage in Democrats' COVID relief package in 2021.

Role and Authority: MacDonough, a former Justice Department trial attorney and the first woman to ever serve as Senate parliamentarian, is Washington's ultimate rules enforcer. She was appointed in 2012 and has struck prohibited measures from reconciliation bills several times under both Republicans and Democrats.

Current Salary: The parliamentarian's salary was $216,591.63 for the 2024 fiscal year, which ran through September 2024.

MacDonough's career represent the archetypal Washington insider trajectory - starting as a young staffer in 1990, working her way up through various government positions over three decades, and ultimately becoming one of the most powerful unelected officials in the legislative process.

Her path from Senate library assistant to parliamentarian is very much the classic "creature of the institution" story - someone who has spent virtually her entire professional life within the Capitol ecosystem, deeply steeped in its traditions, rules, and culture.

What's particularly notable is how she's managed to maintain credibility across party lines despite this insider status. The bipartisan praise she's received suggests that even in our polarized era, there's still some respect for institutional expertise and procedural neutrality - at least when it comes to the Senate's arcane rules.

It's also worth noting that her role as "ultimate rules enforcer" puts her in the position of frequently telling powerful people "no" - which takes a certain kind of institutional confidence that probably only comes from decades of experience navigating Senate politics.

Whether one sees this as valuable institutional knowledge or entrenched swamp behavior probably depends a lot on one's view of Washington's permanent bureaucracy and whether procedural expertise is seen as a virtue or a barrier to change.

The fact that she can significantly reshape a president's legislative agenda without being elected does raise interesting questions about democratic accountability versus technocratic expertise in governance.

SIDEBAR: Understanding the Byrd Rule

The Byrd Rule is a crucial Senate procedure that significantly constrains what can be included in budget reconciliation legislation like the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act."

What is it? The Byrd Rule, named for Senator Robert Byrd, was adopted in 1985 and amended in 1990. It requires reconciliation bills in the Senate remain focused on fiscal issues, subjecting nonbudgetary provisions to a point of order.

Why does it exist? During the early 1980s, Congress passed reconciliation bills containing provisions that did not directly relate to the budget; for example, one reconciliation bill decreased the number of individuals on the Federal Communications Commission. In response, Senator Robert Byrd led passage of an amendment to strike "extraneous" amendments from reconciliation bills.

The six criteria for "extraneous" provisions:

No budgetary effect (doesn't change outlays or revenues)
Worsens deficit when committee missed target
Wrong jurisdiction (outside the submitting committee's scope)
Merely incidental budgetary effect (policy change outweighs budget impact)
Increases deficits outside the 10-year budget window
Changes to Social Security

How it works: The Senate Budget Committee is required to analyze the entire bill and identify any provisions that could potentially break the Byrd rule. This behind-the-scenes period, where provisions are scrutinized for compliance with the Byrd rule, is referred to as the "Byrd bath".

Override options:

60-vote waiver: Byrd rule points of order can be waived by a vote of 60 Senators
Majority override: Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) could opt to override the Byrd Rule with a majority vote on the floor. However that would break precedent and so far, Senator Thune has not indicated any plans to do that
Ignoring the parliamentarian: Rarely used since 1975
Firing the parliamentarian: Last done in 2001

Current status: Earlier this month, Senate Majority Leader John Thune told reporters that he would not consider overruling the parliamentarian for the current reconciliation package.

SIDEBAR: Where Senate Rules Are Encoded and How to Change Them

The Senate operates under a complex hierarchy of procedural authorities with different requirements for change:

Five sources of Senate rules:

Constitutional Foundation - Article I, Section 5: "Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings"
Standing Rules - Currently 44 formal rules, last revised in 2013
Statutory Rules - Created when rule provisions are added to bills signed into law (like the Byrd Rule in the Congressional Budget Act)
Standing Orders - Created by simple resolution, can be permanent or temporary
Precedents - Established by presiding officer rulings and Senate votes

Difficulty of changing rules varies dramatically:

Most Difficult - Standing Rules: Require two-thirds vote (67 senators) to invoke cloture on any resolution to change Senate rules. This creates a "Catch-22" - you need a supermajority to change the rule that requires supermajorities.

Easier but Controversial - Nuclear Option: Simple majority can establish new precedent by overturning a presiding officer's ruling. Used in 2013 (nominations) and 2017 (Supreme Court).

Regular Process - Statutory Rules: Can be changed through normal legislation (typically requires 60 votes to overcome filibuster).

Simplest - Standing Orders/Unanimous Consent: Simple majority for standing orders; no objections needed for temporary unanimous consent agreements.

Key difference from House: Senate is a "continuing body" - only one-third of seats change every two years, so rules remain in effect from Congress to Congress unless specifically changed. This makes the Senate more resistant to rules changes than the House, which adopts new rules each Congress.

This story includes reporting from the Associated Press.

GOP plan to sell federal lands is found to violate Senate rules

Search This Blog

State of The Nation

Senate Parliamentarian Guts Key Provisions from Republican Budget Bill