Private interests get more of the value.
The same principle appears elsewhere. The administration has proposed eliminating the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, which restricts development on nearly 59 million acres of national forest.⁹ Federal coal royalties were capped at no more than 7 percent through 2034, while new federal onshore oil and gas leases reverted from the 16.67 percent minimum set under the Inflation Reduction Act to a minimum of 12.5 percent.¹⁰
Again, there are legitimate arguments for all of this. America needs energy and critical minerals. Western communities need jobs. Forests need management. Wild-horse populations cannot simply double forever.
Roosevelt would have understood that.
The question is not development versus no development.
It is who gets the benefit, who absorbs the cost, and whether public ownership still means anything once the economic value is steadily transferred elsewhere.
The politics of that transfer make the question harder to ignore. During the 2024 campaign, Trump reportedly told oil executives at a Mar-a-Lago dinner that raising $1 billion for his campaign would be a bargain given the regulatory and tax changes he intended to make. He discussed more drilling, faster permitting and reversals of Biden environmental policies.¹¹
That is not proof that any particular policy was bought with a campaign contribution, and there is no need to pretend it is.
The facts are plenty interesting without help: an industry was asked for enormous political support while Trump discussed policy changes that would materially benefit it.¹¹
Trump also deserves credit for signing the Great American Outdoors Act during his first term. The law permanently funded the Land and Water Conservation Fund at $900 million a year and created a major program to tackle deferred maintenance on public lands.¹² That belongs in the record too.
But there is a difference between repairing the trail and deciding what happens to the mountain beside it.
Public ownership means very little if the government keeps the title while steadily transferring the value to private interests. Roosevelt’s idea of stewardship did not require leaving everything untouched. It required remembering that profit is only one measure of value.
A forest can be worth more standing, a canyon more undrilled, and a wild horse more than $25.
Perhaps those 68 Oregon mustangs are alive somewhere. I hope they are.
The federal government that once protected them no longer knows.
Bibliography
1. • Dave Philipps and Erin Schaff, The New York Times , August 2026 investigation into BLM wild-horse sales, including 68 South Steens mustangs sold for $25 each to Ohio livestock trader Brandon Jones, their shipment east and their unresolved fate.
2. • Bureau of Land Management, “Wild Horse and Burro Sale Program,” and BLM announcement, January 12, 2026, “BLM Highlights Individual and Group Sales of Wild Horses and Burros.” At the time, sale fees started at $25 and approved purchasers received immediate ownership through a bill of sale. BLM has since raised its standard sale price to $125.
3. • ProPublica, “Missing: What Happened to Wild Horses Tom Davis Bought From the Government?” Investigation into more than 1,700 federally sold horses linked to the Mexican slaughter trade.
4. • Bureau of Land Management, “Wild Horse and Burro Program Data.” BLM reports sales of 2,387 horses and 1,331 burros in fiscal 2025, compared with 793 horses and 716 burros in fiscal 2024. As of March 1, 2026, BLM estimated 85,466 animals on-range against a maximum Appropriate Management Level of 25,592; 58,025 animals were held off-range as of May 2026.
5. • U.S. Congress, Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971 , 16 U.S.C. §1331. Congress declared wild free-roaming horses and burros “living symbols of the historic and pioneer spirit of the West.”