These entities, according to the Intrinsic Exchange Group, would focus on the protection, restoration, and growth of natural assets. However, the plan faced immediate backlash over fears that it could compromise national security and lead to foreign control over American land, as FOX News reported.

Concerns over national security and environmental impact

Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes was among the most vocal opponents of the proposal.

He, along with other state attorneys, expressed deep concerns about the potential national security threats posed by allowing foreign entities to manage and own U.S. lands.

The concept of NACs, they argued, could subordinate American interests to those of international environmental activists and policies set by organizations like the United Nations.

Reyes's criticism was not isolated.

A coalition of 25 state attorneys general, led by Reyes and Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach, formally opposed the SEC's proposal.

They argued that the introduction of NACs could lead to a significant shift in how public lands are managed, potentially prioritizing environmental activism over national interests and the well-being of American citizens.

Political and public backlash leads to withdrawal

The backlash was not limited to state officials.

House Republicans, spearheaded by Natural Resources Committee Chairman Bruce Westerman, launched an investigation into the SEC's rulemaking process concerning NACs.

They expressed grave concerns about the potential for private investment interests to gain unprecedented control over national parks and other public lands, a move they viewed as a significant overreach of federal authority.

This collective opposition led to the SEC's decision to withdraw the proposal.

The move was seen as a victory for those concerned about the potential for foreign entities to gain control over American natural resources and for those who advocate for a more measured approach to environmental conservation and land management.

The debate over environmental conservation and economic interests

While the withdrawal of the proposal has been welcomed by many, it also reignites the debate over how best to balance environmental conservation with economic interests.

Proponents of the NACs argued that these entities could play a crucial role in combating climate change and protecting natural assets. They envisioned a system where the intrinsic value of nature is recognized and preserved through innovative financial structures.

On the other side, critics argue that the concept of NACs, while noble in its intentions, could lead to unintended consequences, including the restriction of public access to land, the jeopardization of U.S. energy independence, and the potential for foreign exploitation of American natural resources.

Looking forward: The future of public land management

The controversy surrounding the SEC's proposal highlights the complex and often contentious nature of public land management in the United States.

As the nation grapples with the challenges of climate change, energy independence, and national security, the debate over how best to manage and protect its natural assets is likely to continue.

For now, the Biden administration's decision to withdraw the proposal marks a significant moment in this ongoing debate.

It underscores the need for a careful, balanced approach to environmental conservation, one that takes into account the diverse interests and concerns of all stakeholders involved.

Conclusion

• The SEC's proposal for Natural Asset Companies aimed to allow foreign ownership of U.S. public lands but faced significant opposition due to national security concerns and potential foreign control.
• State attorneys and House Republicans played a crucial role in opposing the proposal, highlighting the risks it posed to national security and the management of public lands.
• The withdrawal of the proposal underscores the need for a balanced approach to environmental conservation and land management, taking into account the diverse interests of all stakeholders.