Key Takeaways
- • The Center for American Progress argues that President Trump's February 3, 2025 executive order creating a sovereign wealth fund (SWF) could be financed by selling or monetizing federal public lands, according to the publication's analysis.
- • The order directs the secretaries of the Treasury and Commerce departments to develop a funding plan within 90 days of signing.
- • Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said the administration would "monetize the asset side of the U.S. balance sheet," while Interior Secretary Doug Burgum suggested federal lands could be worth as much as $200 trillion.
- • Leasing for oil and gas, timber, mining, and grazing brought in less than $17 billion in 2024, which the authors say is far short of the scale needed to seed an SWF.
- • The authors warn of insufficient firewalls between political influence and fund investment decisions, citing White House crypto czar David Sacks's suggestion that the SWF could buy bitcoin.
Summary
The Center for American Progress contends that President Trump's executive order of February 3, 2025, establishing a sovereign wealth fund, may rely on the sale of federal public lands to raise the trillions of dollars the fund would require. The publication notes that Norway's fund is currently worth $1.8 trillion, and that sovereign wealth funds are typically financed by surplus revenue from trade, natural resources, or budget surpluses. Against a backdrop of roughly $36 trillion in U.S. federal debt, the authors question where the money would come from.
The order charges the Treasury and Commerce secretaries with producing a funding plan within 90 days. At the signing, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said the administration would "monetize the asset side of the U.S. balance sheet for the American people." Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, according to the article, described parks, public lands, and natural resources, including timber, fossil fuels, and minerals, as assets on the national balance sheet, and speculated during his confirmation hearing that federal lands could be worth as much as $200 trillion. The authors argue that valuing these lands by their market potential, rather than by their value to hunters, ranchers, and communities that depend on clean water and air, would fundamentally change land management.
The article argues that expanded leasing alone cannot generate sufficient capital, noting that leasing for oil and gas, timber, mining, and grazing brought in less than $17 billion in 2024. It also cites Republican efforts to undermine federal land ownership, including a Utah governor's request that the Supreme Court declare federal land ownership unconstitutional, which the court declined to hear in January 2025, and a platform provision supporting sales of federal land for housing. The authors also reference new House rules that they say would remove the need to consider the value of public lands when they are sold.
On governance, the authors warn that an SWF's investments in stocks, bonds, real estate, and other instruments could benefit the president and allies without independent fund managers, auditors, or firewalls. They cite David Sacks's suggestion that the fund could buy bitcoin. The article's authors, while critical of the current proposal, say a well-designed energy SWF modeled on Norway's and New Mexico's permanent funds could support resource-dependent communities without cost to taxpayers. The Treasury and Commerce plan due within 90 days will be the first concrete indicator of how the administration intends to fund the fund.
The order charges the Treasury and Commerce secretaries with producing a funding plan within 90 days. At the signing, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said the administration would "monetize the asset side of the U.S. balance sheet for the American people." Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, according to the article, described parks, public lands, and natural resources, including timber, fossil fuels, and minerals, as assets on the national balance sheet, and speculated during his confirmation hearing that federal lands could be worth as much as $200 trillion. The authors argue that valuing these lands by their market potential, rather than by their value to hunters, ranchers, and communities that depend on clean water and air, would fundamentally change land management.
The article argues that expanded leasing alone cannot generate sufficient capital, noting that leasing for oil and gas, timber, mining, and grazing brought in less than $17 billion in 2024. It also cites Republican efforts to undermine federal land ownership, including a Utah governor's request that the Supreme Court declare federal land ownership unconstitutional, which the court declined to hear in January 2025, and a platform provision supporting sales of federal land for housing. The authors also reference new House rules that they say would remove the need to consider the value of public lands when they are sold.
On governance, the authors warn that an SWF's investments in stocks, bonds, real estate, and other instruments could benefit the president and allies without independent fund managers, auditors, or firewalls. They cite David Sacks's suggestion that the fund could buy bitcoin. The article's authors, while critical of the current proposal, say a well-designed energy SWF modeled on Norway's and New Mexico's permanent funds could support resource-dependent communities without cost to taxpayers. The Treasury and Commerce plan due within 90 days will be the first concrete indicator of how the administration intends to fund the fund.
Go deeper than the headline
Research every firm in this story, track the ones that matter and get the daily briefing — free for 7 days.