Looking Back, Looking Ahead

This is my last column for RE:PUBLIC in the year 2025. Like the rest of the country, we're going into a brief hibernation for the holidays, returning to normal business the week of January 5th.

And also like the rest of the country, I am feeling reflective as the year comes to a close. Ever since we debuted our website and newsletter in September, we have been overwhelmed by the reception to our mission from readers, energized by the many offers of help and support, and immensely grateful for the thousands of encouraging words we've received in emails and comments and texts. It's abundantly clear our readers are not just passionate about the future of public lands, but also invested in the success of our four-month-old start-up. It only seems appropriate, then, to share a little bit about where we're at as an organization heading into 2026—and to thank some of the people who have been critical to getting us to where we are today.

First and foremost, I want to thank Utah Senator Mike Lee.

I'm serious! About a month after I filed for articles of incorporation, Lee introduced his now infamous proposal to sell off millions of acres of America's public lands. That one bad idea helped clarify exactly what's at stake with the future of our common trust—and lodged that concern firmly into the national consciousness in a way that hasn't really happened since the Bears Ears battles of 2017. Frankly, for a start-up journalism nonprofit with a mission to raise awareness about public lands management and keep our elected representatives accountable, we couldn't have asked for a better fundraising environment.

Which is fun way of saying that, in a short time, thanks in no small part to Senator Lee, we've been able to achieve financial viability. As we stated when we launched our web site, RE:PUBLIC is committed to fiercely guarding our editorial independence and to providing overall financial transparency. As part of that, we promised to disclose our major donors. You can find a list here of all the individuals and foundations that committed significant support in 2025. We are particularly grateful for the major grants we received in the last six weeks from the Mighty Arrow Foundation, the Gates Family Foundation, the New Land Foundation, and the Children's Trust Foundation. We still have a long way to go to reach our goals as an organization, but these recent commitments have created breathing room and a solid foundation to begin building from, which includes making some key initial hires.

I should note that we are also incredibly grateful to the hundreds of readers who have made donations to RE:PUBLIC through our funding site. To date, through pledges ranging from $5 to $500, you all contributed over $25,000 to our 2025 revenue. If you don't count yourself among those contributors yet, now is a great time to make a donation that is tax deductible on your 2025 taxes. 😊

Need a more inspiring reason to give? On the digital payment form, we ask donors to tell us why they're contributing to RE:PUBLIC. Reading those comments has become one of my favorite new pastimes. Here are some recent gems from your fellow readers.

• "I want to be aware of what's going on with public lands and I feel I can trust your reporting."
• "Honesty and relevance!"
• "Public lands are critical to my well-being, and to that of all, whether they realize it or not."
• "I would be a very different (not good) person if it weren’t for public lands. To say I was shaped by them is an understatement."
• "I love our public lands as a former national park ranger and am so grateful for your recent reporting in making the public aware of the dismantling of our national parks!"
• "We need good, independent journalism on public lands in this country. The problems, successes, and the b.s. of the federal and Utah governments." [Ed note: Thanks again, Senator Lee!]

[So I will now pause for 90 seconds to allow each of you to make your own donation. It really only takes that long!]

[Or, if a donation isn't possible at this time, follow us on Instagram or LinkedIn or Facebook—or all three!]

[Or, if you can't stand social media, forward this newsletter to a friend who you think should subscribe to our newsletter. Better yet, send them directly to this link.]

OK, we're back. Forgive the interruption; as anyone in the nonprofit world will tell you, fundraising and audience building never really stops. But it's also important to acknowledge our wins and how our fundraising is performing. We're happy to share with all of you that, for year one, at least, we are on schedule with our financial goals and have achieved a modest level of stability. I was worried that would not be possible back in the spring when all of this was just an idea, and I am incredibly grateful.

That stability is enabling us to build. We've used this newsletter recently to introduce some of the initial hires we've made and board members who have joined, and we will continue to do so. I'm especially excited about growing our staff and capacity in 2026. After tinkering on my own throughout the summer and early fall, it has been a somewhat surreal experience to suddenly have weekly editorial meetings with our small-but-mighty team, plotting our next moves with editorial director, Elizabeth Hightower Allen, and social media manager, Julianna Abuzzahab. We look forward to introducing additional team members early next year.

And lately, we've been doing a lot of behind-the-scenes table setting for 2026. Since our launch in September, we published one major feature on the gutting of America's national parks. We had a minor, uh, hiccup with the second planned feature. And our third feature comes out next week. The rest of our content this year has mainly consisted of this newsletter.

Note: me being the main editorial voice of RE:PUBLIC was never the vision. Our goal is to flood the zone with high-quality, informative public lands journalism from lots of award-winning writers. So this fall we've been focused on just that: making meaty assignments to gifted scribes, and giving them long lead times to develop their reporting on topics we know are going to make an impact. We can hardly wait to publish these pieces. Beginning in the first week of January, you can expect to see us pushing out more stories week in and week out. This newsletter will continue, of course, but it will be soon be surrounded by lots of other storytelling, voices, and perspectives.

What else can you expect in 2026? More deep-dive investigative reporting. More diverse points of view and conversation starters. More FOIA requests. More timely and breaking news. A new podcast that is deep in the development phase. And, as is inevitable, some merch. By this time next year, I hope all of you are wearing RE:PUBLIC trucker hats and carrying RE:PUBLIC tote bags. More on that next month.

Until then, have a wonderful holiday season and THANK YOU for being founding readers of RE:PUBLIC.

BREAKING! An FAQ about Utah Senator Mike Lee's Latest Anti-Public-Lands Maneuver

Wait, you just got done telling us how much Senator Mike Lee's unpopular policies have helped fundraising. What's he up to this time?
Yesterday, December 17, Lee introduced Amendment #3972 to the Senate’s Interior and Environment appropriations bill, part of the larger Fiscal Year 2026 appropriations package that funds the Department of the Interior and related agencies. His language would strike longstanding statutory text that directs the federal government to keep all existing national parks and related lands under federal ownership and operation.

Uh, what does that mean, exactly?
It means he's created a potential pathway to selling off or transferring parts of—or all of—some of our national parks in the future.

Yikes!!!
Exactly. While Lee’s office insists the amendment does not itself authorize sales, critics argue removing these explicit protections sends a permissive message to the White House and future Congresses that such sales are on the table—especially in light of long-running efforts Lee has led to open up public lands for private use.

If Lee's office says this isn't about selling parks, what do they say it IS about?
They have framed his latest move as part of a broader belief that the federal government owns too much land and mismanages it. His reason is rooted in a larger philosophy of reducing federal control over land and expanding local decision-making and development opportunities. He hasn't made an explicit statement that he intends to sell national parks, but opponents are nonetheless panicked. Coupled with the massive cuts to the Interior budget proposed by the Trump administration (cuts that could eliminate an estimated 350 national park sites), this amendment—if enacted—undoubtedly sets the stage for future land sales.

"If enacted"—so it's not a done deal? What happens next?
No, there is still time to stop this idea from taking hold. What happens next is rooted in the Congressional appropriations process. Like Lee's land-sale poison pill that was inserted into the Big Beautiful Bill last summer, his current amendment must survive committee consideration, then be approved by the full Senate when the appropriations bill is brought to the floor. If the Senate passes the bill with Lee’s language included, it then moves to the House of Representatives, which must pass a version of the appropriations bill that is identical or reconciled with the Senate’s, before it can go to the President’s desk to be signed into law.

This really makes me mad. What can I do?
Call you Senators' offices and tell them how you feel. From what I understand, the massive public pressure campaign is what eventually forced Lee to drop his land sale proposal in June.

UPDATE

Earlier this week I wrote about the problematic Brian Head Town Land Conveyance Act. Written by Mik—[checks notes]—yep, written by Utah Senator Mike Lee (again with this guy!) and his colleague, Utah Senator John Curtis, the proposed bill would have transferred 24 acres of National Forest land to the town of Brian Head, a small ski resort in Utah with a big plans for expansion, and all for free, with no strings attached. But during a Senate Energy and Natural Resources committee hearing this week, amendments were added during markup that prevent the land from being sold off to private developers and specify that the land must be used to "expand public recreational access." But the town would still get the land for free, setting a dangerous precedent. The bill has now moved out of committee and can be taken to the Senate for a full vote.

The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

Every Friday, our team shares critical stories about public lands from around the internet. This list could be exhaustive and exhausting, but our intent is to inform, not overwhelm. Instead, we choose three to five important stories you should be aware of—including at least one piece of good news.

The Good: This National Park Just Got Bigger—and Conservationists Are Calling It a Win for Wildlife “In a win for public lands, Arizona’s Saguaro National Park has increased in size by about 20 acres, following the acquisition of private land. On December 11, the nonprofit Trust for Public Land (TPL) announced in a news statement that it had purchased the parcel bordering Saguaro from a landscape photographer named Thomas Wiewandt. According to the organization, the purchase will connect two areas through a vital wildlife corridor.”

The Bad: House Passes Bill To Remove Gray Wolves From Endangered Species Act “This bill directs the Department of the Interior to remove protections for the gray wolf under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA). Specifically, the bill requires Interior to reissue the final rule titled Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removing the Gray Wolf (Canis lupus) From the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and published on November 3, 2020."

The Ugly: The Oilman Who Pushed Trump to Go All In on Fossil Fuels “Mr. Hamm is a wildcatter, an oil prospector who drills wells in unproven areas, taking big bets that can turn into black gold or financial ruin. Not long ago, it seemed as if Mr. Hamm and his allies in the oil industry were losing. They were deeply out of favor in Washington — and on Wall Street — shunned for contributing to climate change and failing to deliver the returns investors wanted.
But with Mr. Trump back in power, Mr. Hamm is, too. The alliance between the two — a soft-spoken oilman with no college degree and a onetime New York real estate developer — is now playing a big role in American energy. Together, they have remade federal policy to benefit oil and gas companies, including Mr. Hamm’s Continental, and put off the transition to greener alternatives like solar power and batteries.”