On February 3, 2025, President Donald Trump signed an executive order to establish a sovereign wealth fund (SWF), calling it a pivotal moment for America’s economic future.

He vowed that the U.S. would develop one of the most powerful SWFs globally, competing with economic giants like Norway and the United Arab Emirates. However, there’s a major hurdle—the nation is already burdened with $36 trillion in debt.

So, where will the funding come from? Analysts caution that America’s vast public lands could soon be on the auction block.

A sovereign wealth fund is a government-owned investment fund that gathers revenue from national resources, including oil, minerals, and trade surpluses.

Nations like Norway have leveraged their SWFs to ensure long-term economic security, investing in international stocks, real estate, and infrastructure projects.

However, unlike these countries, the U.S. lacks budget surpluses or state-controlled oil reserves to sustain such a fund. Instead, Trump’s executive order instructs the Treasury and Commerce Departments to locate untapped financial assets within 90 days.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent shed light on the administration’s plan, stating, “We’re going to monetize America’s balance sheet.”

That balance sheet includes vast federal lands—millions of acres spread across the country.

While selling public land has been proposed before, it has never been attempted on such a massive scale. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum estimates that federal lands could be valued at a staggering $200 trillion.

If Trump’s initiative advances, national parks, forests, and protected lands may be appraised at market value and sold to private investors.

Lands abundant in oil, gas, timber, and minerals would likely be the first to hit the market. While leasing public lands for resource extraction generated just $17 billion in 2024, outright sales could generate exponentially higher sums—enough to kickstart the SWF.

But at what cost?

The Political Push to Privatize Public Lands

Republican leaders have long maintained that federal land ownership hampers economic growth. Their 2024 platform endorsed transferring federal lands to state governments and private developers.

At the start of 2025, Utah’s governor launched a legal battle against federal land control, but the Supreme Court ultimately rejected the challenge.

Meanwhile, with a new House majority in place, lawmakers have revised regulations to streamline federal land sales. As a result, vast portions of national parks, wildlife refuges, and recreational areas could soon be on the market—without public input.

A sovereign wealth fund could provide long-term financial security, but only if managed with strict oversight. Without proper safeguards, political leaders could manipulate the fund for personal or partisan gain.

White House crypto advisor David Sacks has already suggested investing SWF capital in Bitcoin—a decision that could benefit wealthy donors while exposing taxpayers to the risks of volatile markets.

Historically, mismanaged SWFs have led to corruption and financial instability.

By contrast, Norway shields its $1.8 trillion fund from political interference, ensuring responsible long-term investments. For the U.S. to succeed, similar protections would be necessary to prevent financial mismanagement and self-dealing.

Instead of selling public lands, the U.S. could adopt a model similar to Norway or New Mexico, where funds generate revenue through resource royalties rather than land sales.

New Mexico’s SWF, for instance, utilizes oil and gas revenues to build a permanent fund for education and public services.

By 2039, the state aims to be financially independent of fossil fuel revenue, transitioning toward a diversified economy without depleting its natural resources.

A national SWF could follow this approach, ensuring financial security while preserving America’s natural heritage.

Trump’s proposal raises an essential question: Should national parks and protected lands be treated as financial assets, or do they carry a deeper, irreplaceable value?

Selling off public lands might generate quick revenue, but it could have irreversible consequences. It would transform rural economies, disrupt conservation efforts, and permanently alter America’s landscape.

If the administration proceeds with this plan, both Congress and the American people must decide—will the U.S. sacrifice its treasured public lands for short-term gains, or will it choose a more sustainable path forward?

Last modified: February 27, 2025