On February 3, 2025, President Donald Trump signed an executive order to create a sovereign wealth fund (SWF), saying the United States will have one of the largest funds in the world. That requires raising trillions of dollars very quickly. For context, Norway’s fund is currently worth $1.8 trillion U.S. dollars. Sovereign wealth funds are typically financed with surplus revenue from trade or natural resource development. Given that the United States is roughly $36 trillion in debt, experts question where the money would come from. The Trump administration seems to be signaling that selling out and selling off the nation’s public lands to the highest bidder might provide the necessary funding. Selling federal public lands would turn America’s treasured places into a financial asset for the Trump administration without the need for surplus revenue, making it a potentially enticing idea for the administration. What is a sovereign wealth fund and how would it be funded?

An SWF is a state-owned investment fund made up of money generated by the government, often derived from a nation’s natural resource revenues, budget surpluses, or foreign currency reserves. President Trump’s order charges the secretaries of the treasury and commerce departments with developing a plan for finding the money needed within 90 days of its signing. At the signing ceremony, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent explained where some of the money might come from: “We are going to monetize the asset side of the U.S. balance sheet for the American people. We are going to put the assets to work.”

What exactly does this mean? Doug Burgum, President Trump’s secretary of the interior, explained that the nation’s parks, public lands, and natural resources—including timber, fossil fuels, and minerals—are assets on “the nation’s balance sheet.” Burgum speculated in his confirmation hearing that federal lands could be worth as much as $200 trillion. He argued that the U.S. government, run like a business, should know the value of the corporation’s assets and use those assets “to get a return for the American people.” Under Trump’s proposal, the value of public lands would be determined by their potential market value to grow an SWF, and not by their value to hunters and fishermen; family ranchers; and communities that rely on clean water and air as well as jobs and income that come from natural resource development, recreation, and tourism. Selling off America’s public lands

Simply increasing the leasing of natural resources will not be enough to seed an SWF. Leasing for oil and gas, timber, mining, and grazing brought in less than $17 billion in 2024. Oil and gas production is already at record levels, and the oil and gas industry has said it will not increase drilling substantially to avoid hurting its profit margins. To generate hundreds of billions or trillions of dollars, the Treasury Department may find that selling public lands to the highest bidders is the only way to raise that kind of money quickly.

Selling public lands has long been on the agenda of the antiparks caucus, and some Republicans in Congress and in states have worked to undermine federal ownership of lands. For example, Utah’s governor asked the Supreme Court to rule federal land ownership unconstitutional; the court declined to hear the case in January 2025. The Republican Party platform includes selling federal lands for housing development. The U.S. House of Representatives adopted new rules that free it from having to consider the value of public lands if they are sold. These rules would make it easier for the Trump administration to give public lands over to the Treasury and Commerce departments to see how much money they could make to grow the SWF.

Land sell-off and the privatization of public lands to this extent would deprive Americans and local economies of the access to nature and resources that sustain them. Giving money managers and financiers control over land management is more than just a land grab; it is an attack on the democratic and meritocratic ideals that make America great. The future of U.S. public lands—and the values they represent—depends on the willingness of Congress and the American public to stand up and defend public ownership and multiple uses, including for conservation, recreation, and wonder. An investment risk waiting to happen

Once an SWF has accumulated wealth, that wealth is invested in stocks, bonds, real estate, and other financial instruments to earn even more money. Without proper sideboards between politicians and investment decisions, the SWF would likely serve to enrich Trump and his allies—not the American public. For example, David Sacks, Trump’s White House crypto czar, suggested that the SWF could buy bitcoin, which would reward campaign donors by inflating asset values and exerting ever more control over the nation’s economy. The secretaries of the treasury and commerce departments have yet to demonstrate that they would constrain the president’s or their own political influence over the SWF by setting up independent fund managers, auditors, or appropriate firewalls between government and private interests. A better way

Creating an SWF to use as a tool is not an inherently bad idea. In fact, it could be designed to solve the real problems rural and energy-dependent communities face. A lot has changed since the 1970s, when timber harvests, coal mines, and grazing permits sustained family wage jobs; taxes and royalties from those activities paid for good local schools and improved public safety; and local businesses thrived. Today, even where natural resource activity is booming, a basic social contract has been broken: Tax cuts, automation, and increasing corporate ownership mean leasing on federal lands does not deliver the same benefits to local workers, businesses, and schools as it used to.

An SWF could be part of the solution for communities left behind by changes in the United States and the global economy. For example, the Center for American Progress has suggested that the federal government establish an energy SWF modeled after the ones in Norway and New Mexico. This proposal would end direct oil and gas revenue-sharing payments and replace them with a permanent solution. A one-time, up-front endowment to capture and save fossil fuel revenue and provide stable and permanent distributions to communities. The ultimate result would be an immediate, predictable, and permanent source of income for resource-dependent communities as they transition—and it would not cost U.S. taxpayers anything.

These funds are designed to build intergenerational wealth and provide stable and permanent revenue that state and local governments depend on to fund schools, sheriff’s departments, public libraries, parks, and emergency services. With proper firewalls between land managers and fund managers, an SWF could be designed to build wealth when resources are extracted from public lands and keep public lands in public hands.

In New Mexico, the state controls two permanent funds built up from oil royalties and taxes; these SWFs will fully decouple the state’s budgets from annual oil and gas revenue by 2039. That means New Mexico would be the only oil-producing state in the United States that could transition away from fossil fuels without affecting the budget of local schools and other state services. Stable and predictable revenue from the permanent funds allows the state to reposition its lands to benefit the economy in multiple ways by taking a portfolio approach to land management. The state lands could be used for conservation; recreation; access to hunting, fishing, and bird watching; and energy development. The federal government would benefit from a similar management structure. Federal public lands have multiple values, and protecting multiple uses creates a more diverse and resilient—and larger—economy. Conclusion

President Trump’s proposed SWF has opened the doors to the idea of reforming the fiscal relationship between public lands and the states and communities who rely on them for revenue, jobs, recreation, clean air and water, resilience against natural disasters, and much more. The secretaries of the treasury and interior have stated clearly that public lands would be monetized—including selling out and selling off to the highest bidder—to raise substantial new revenue. Handing over public lands to an SWF may also change who benefits. To grow an SWF, royalties that currently are shared with state and local governments could be redirected into the SWF. A better approach would keep public lands in public hands and work on solutions that deliver the predictable and fair compensation state and local governments deserve. An energy and natural resources SWF could achieve these goals in a way that works for industry, state and local governments, and all Americans who use and love public lands.