JD Vance Made It Pretty Clear What A Trump Administration Would Mean For Federal Lands

A back-and-forth about federal lands during Tuesday night’s vice presidential debate shined light on how a future Trump administration — much like the first — would treat publicly owned acres as little more than landscapes to be exploited and developed.

Asked about the Republican Party platform’s proposal to pawn off federal lands to address housing affordability , former President Donald Trump’s running mate, Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio), effectively argued that undeveloped acres are serving little, if any, purpose.

“Well, what Donald Trump has said is we have a lot of federal lands that are not being used for anything,” he said. “They’re not being used for a national park … and they could be places where we build a lot of housing.”

“We have a lot of land that could be used,” he added.

To be clear, many of the landscapes Vance is talking about are being used — for hunting, fishing, recreation, habitat protection and grazing, among other things. Also, it’s important to point out that keeping natural landscapes intact provides myriad public benefits, from safeguarding clean air, water and wildlife habitat to mitigating the mounting impacts of global climate change, a threat that Trump has dismissed as a “hoax.”

Under Trump and Vance, safeguarding federal lands for what they provide naturally would be an afterthought. Their idea of “use” appears narrow and exploitative.

“What would immediately change the equation for American citizens? If you lower energy prices. As Donald Trump says, ‘Drill, baby, drill,’” Vance said Tuesday, going on to blame the Biden administration for fuel prices. “If we open up American energy, you will get immediate pricing relief for American citizens, not by the way just in housing, but in a whole