A new bill from Utah Republican Sen. Mike Lee is stirring controversy by proposing to open millions of acres of federal land, including pristine wilderness areas, to development under the guise of border security.
As reported by High Country News, Lee's Border Lands Conservation Act, introduced on Oct. 2, would allow the Department of Homeland Security to bypass key environmental laws, including the 1964 Wilderness Act, to build roads, fences, surveillance systems, and other tactical infrastructure on federal lands along both U.S. borders. The scope is staggering, covering not just border-adjacent parcels but entire units like Joshua Tree and Glacier National Parks if they touch a border line.
Lee frames this as a necessary response to what he calls environmental destruction caused by lax border policies, stating, “Biden’s open-border chaos is destroying America’s crown jewels.” Let’s unpack that claim with a clear eye: while border crossings can strain local ecosystems, data shows apprehensions at the southern border have plummeted to historic lows, under 250,000 this year compared to 1.5 million last year. The urgency of Lee's rhetoric seems to outpace the reality on the ground.
The legislation’s reach extends far beyond the U.S.-Mexico line, encompassing vast areas along the Canadian border as well, such as Flathead National Forest in Montana, which spans 2.4 million acres. If a single edge of a national park or forest touches a border, the entire area falls under the bill’s jurisdiction, no matter how distant from actual crossings.
This isn’t just about a few fences; the bill permits motorized patrols, timber harvesting, and wildfire management initiatives on lands previously shielded from such activities. Critics argue this could turn sensitive landscapes into sprawling surveillance zones, a concern not easily dismissed when you consider the irreversible damage roads and barriers can inflict on wilderness.
Neal Clark of the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance didn’t mince words, telling High Country News, “The big picture is Mike Lee will use any pretext to undermine public lands and conservation.” That stings, but it’s hard to ignore the pattern after Lee’s earlier push to sell off millions of federal acres for housing, a plan he abandoned amid fierce opposition just months ago.
Adding fuel to the skepticism, experts note that Homeland Security already wields significant authority to act on border lands under laws like the 2005 Real ID Act, which allows waivers of environmental protections for security projects. A 2006 agreement between DHS and other federal agencies also mandates consultation to balance security with conservation, a safeguard this bill would effectively erase.
Bob Krumenaker, a retired National Park Service superintendent with decades of experience, including at Big Bend National Park, pointed out this overlap in an analysis shared with High Country News. He argues the bill’s blanket exceptions for nonconforming uses in wilderness areas could lead to “unnecessary and often irreversible impacts,” a warning that should make any lover of open spaces pause.
The bill’s cosponsors, including Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas and several others from non-border states, suggest a broader ideological push rather than a localized border concern. With apprehensions dropping sharply, one has to wonder if the real aim here is less about migrants and more about reshaping how we manage our shared lands.
On Oct. 6, Lee introduced a separate trio of bills under the banner of improving access to federal lands for Americans with disabilities, proposing expanded off-road vehicle use in national parks and beyond. He pitched this as a matter of fairness, stating, “Access to them should not depend on whether someone can hike ten miles or climb a ridge.”
While the goal sounds noble, critics see a familiar tactic at play, accusing Lee of using a sympathetic cause to justify broader development on protected lands. Syren Nagakyrie of Disabled Hikers called it a “shameful” move to exploit the disability community for political ends, a critique that cuts deep when you consider the potential for these bills to prioritize roads over true accessibility solutions.
Support from off-road vehicle groups for these access bills only heightens the suspicion that conservation might be taking a back seat to special interests. The parallel to the border security legislation is striking: both seem to leverage pressing issues to chip away at protections many hold dear.
At its core, Lee’s legislative flurry forces a tough question: how do we secure borders without sacrificing the wild places that define so much of our national identity? While no one disputes the need for safety, the sweeping scope of these proposals risks turning vast swaths of public land into something unrecognizable.
The data on declining border crossings, combined with existing DHS powers, suggests there’s room for a more measured approach that doesn’t throw open the gates to development across millions of acres. Americans deserve both secure borders and unspoiled landscapes, not a false choice between the two.
Lee’s bills, whether framed as border protection or disability access, appear to share a common thread of prioritizing infrastructure over preservation, a stance that demands scrutiny from anyone who values the quiet beauty of a wilderness trail. As this debate unfolds, the challenge will be finding solutions that protect both our sovereignty and our heritage without letting one become a pretext to dismantle the other.
