Victory for Property Rights: How Conservatives Defeated a 700,000-Acre Federal Land Grab in Muleshoe, TX

In a landmark win for private property rights, local Texans, led by landowners, policy advocates, and Representative Jodey Arrington (TX-19), have stopped one of the most aggressive federal land expansion schemes in recent history. The Biden administration’s Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) had planned to increase the Muleshoe National Wildlife Refuge footprint by over 700,000 acres—without congressional approval and without informing affected landowners. But thanks to grassroots resistance, legislative oversight, and courage from the Trump administration, the plan has now been rescinded.

This is more than a local dispute—it’s a national model for resisting regulatory overreach, opaque land deals, and unconstitutional land grabs in the name of environmentalism. And it reaffirms a simple principle: land belongs to the people who live on it—not bureaucrats in Washington or third-party nonprofits.

What Happened in Muleshoe?

Muleshoe National Wildlife Refuge originally encompassed 6,440 acres. During the Biden administration, FWS quietly drafted a plan to expand the refuge more than 100-fold across 15 Texas counties and 5 in New Mexico—targeting over 700,000 acres of private land. Even more shocking, the land acquisition zone covered a staggering seven million acres, giving the agency unprecedented flexibility to selectively acquire parcels—many with oil, gas, and agricultural value.

And they almost pulled it off—without a single act of Congress.

FWS claimed the plan would be “voluntary” and executed via “willing seller” purchases or conservation easements. But Margaret Byfield, Executive Director of American Stewards of Liberty, knew better. As she explained to Andrew Langer in an upcoming Federal Newswire Lunch Hour Special, these voluntary deals often occur under intense duress. The federal government or its partners—like the Nature Conservancy—create what’s known as “condemnation blight.” 

First, they quietly label land as “critical habitat” due to endangered species listings (in this case, the lesser prairie chicken and the dune sagebrush lizard).

Then, they restrict land use—blocking grazing, drilling, or farming. Property value collapses.

And finally, a nonprofit swoops in with a lowball offer for a conservation easement.

That’s not “voluntary.” That’s engineered dispossession.

The Regulatory End-Around

Under the law, only Congress can authorize new federal land acquisitions of this scale. The Wilderness Act, the National Parks Act, and the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) all require congressional input. But instead of following the law, FWS created an internal policy memo that gave itself the power to act unilaterally.

This regulatory end-around set off alarm bells. As Byfield noted, this wasn’t just about conservation—it was about establishing a federal beachhead in a state where 96% of land is privately owned. Texas has historically resisted federal land control. The Muleshoe expansion was a Trojan horse to secure administrative control under the guise of habitat restoration.

But Texans fought back.

How the Battle Was Won

Representative Jodey Arrington, Chairman of the Budget Committee (CPAC lifetime rating: 93%), whose district includes Muleshoe, was immediately engaged. “We need more federal lands like we need a hole in the head,” he said. As Chairman of the House Budget Committee, Arrington rightly pointed out that the federal government already owns 640 million acres—nearly 30% of the country—and has no business acquiring more, especially when it cannot manage what it already controls.

Arrington demanded transparency and accountability. He pushed FWS and the Department of the Interior to walk back the plan, and under pressure, they did. The Trump administration formally rescinded the Muleshoe land acquisition.

This victory wasn’t just a win for Texas—it’s a roadmap for how other states can protect their lands, economies, and sovereignty.

AEI’s Research: A Blueprint for Federal Land Reform

The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) has offered critical intellectual ammunition for this fight. In a series of reports, AEI scholars argue that the federal government should dispose of unneeded land, not hoard more.

In one op-ed, AEI’s Edward Pinto and Arthur Gailes lay out the case: by divesting excess federal lands—especially isolated, low-value tracts in the West—the government could unlock housing potential and reduce the national debt. Their analysis estimates that selling just 5% of BLM lands could support over a million new homes.

In another report, AEI highlights Senator Mike Lee’s bill, the Helping Open Underutilized Space to Ensure Shelter (HOUSES) Act, which would empower states and tribes to lease or purchase federal lands for housing and infrastructure. The HOUSES Act reflects a growing recognition that retaining land simply for control or conservation theater is bad policy—especially when Americans face skyrocketing housing costs and federal mismanagement of wildlands (see: wildfire mismanagement, crumbling park infrastructure, and inaccessible public lands).

This shift—from “retain at all costs” to “dispose and decentralize”—is both constitutional and economically smart.

No Net Gain of Federal Lands

To prevent future Muleshoe-like overreaches, policymakers should support a “no net gain” policy for federal lands. As Byfield noted, Rep. Harriet Hageman’s legislation would do just that—capping federal land ownership unless equivalent acreage is disposed of. Similarly, Rep. Arrington has filed legislation that would prohibit private acquisitions using the LWCF unless authorized by Congress.

These bills restore congressional authority over federal land policy and provide a statutory check on executive agencies working with activist nonprofits to expand their footprint.

Time to Restore the Duty to Dispose

Federal land policy took a wrong turn with the 1976 Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), which created a so-called “duty to retain.” Before FLPMA, the United States followed a duty to dispose of public lands—fulfilling promises made to states upon their admission to the Union.

In many Western states, those promises were broken. Nevada is 87% federally owned. Utah: 66%. Idaho: 62%. The result? Depressed economies, limited tax bases, and stifled development.

Contrast that with Texas, which owns and controls nearly all its land. Texas counties flourish with robust energy sectors, agriculture, and local control. That’s what the Muleshoe fight was about—keeping Texas Texas.

It’s time to revisit FLPMA. AEI’s research and the lived experience of states like Texas, show that decentralizing land ownership works. Reforming federal land law to restore the duty to dispose would return land to productive use and respect the Constitution.

Conclusion: Lessons from Muleshoe

The Muleshoe victory proves what’s possible when local stakeholders, committed legislators, and think tanks work together. It also underscores how fragile private property rights can be under a bureaucracy empowered by executive fiat and backed by well-funded land trusts.

Here’s what we need going forward:

1. Codify “no net gain” of federal lands to stop bureaucratic sprawl.

2. Audit and inventory federal land holdings to assess what can be returned to the private sector.

3. Revise FLPMA to reinstate the federal duty to dispose.

4. Support local and state sovereignty, particularly in the West, where federal ownership often exceeds 50% of the land.

   
   

CPAC applauds the citizens, ranchers, and leaders like Rep. Jodey Arrington who stood firm. The Muleshoe fight may be over, but the broader battle for land liberty is just getting started.