LASSO Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Gosar, Paul A. [R-AZ-9]
- Committees
- Natural Resources Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Feb 10, 2026
Bottom line
This bill seeks to bolster the Social Security Trust Fund by redirecting a portion of federal public land revenues, without increasing fees or reducing existing allocations to states and local governments.
What it actually does
The bill mandates that 10% of all revenue generated from federal public lands managed by the Department of the Interior and the Forest Service (Department of Agriculture) be deposited annually into the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Trust Fund. This includes revenue from submerged lands on the Outer Continental Shelf, and explicitly states it will not reduce existing allocations to states, Indian Tribes, territories, or local governments.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that this bill provides a novel and sustainable funding stream for Social Security, leveraging existing federal assets without raising taxes or cutting benefits. They contend it diversifies the trust fund's revenue sources and ensures the long-term solvency of a critical program for seniors and survivors, offering a politically palatable solution to a pressing national issue.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that while the intent to support Social Security is laudable, redirecting these funds could potentially diminish resources for public land management, conservation efforts, or other federal programs that currently rely on these revenues. They may also question the sufficiency of a 10% allocation to make a significant impact on Social Security's long-term solvency challenges, suggesting it is more symbolic than substantive.
The bill is exceptionally short and clear, making it very accessible for any reader to understand its core mechanism quickly and thoroughly.
Section 2(a)
Public Land Revenue Allocation to Social Security Trust Fund
This provision directs 10% of all revenue collected by the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture (specifically the Forest Service) from activities on federal public lands to be deposited into the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Trust Fund. This includes revenue from oil and gas leases, timber sales, grazing fees, recreation permits, and other activities on lands managed by these agencies, including the Outer Continental Shelf. The transfer occurs annually based on the preceding fiscal year's collections.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision creates a new, dedicated, and sustainable funding source for Social Security without raising taxes or cutting benefits. They highlight that it utilizes existing federal assets (public lands) to address a critical national financial challenge, enhancing the long-term viability of the trust fund and offering a responsible fiscal solution.
Critics contend
Critics might contend that while the goal is laudable, diverting 10% of public land revenues could strain the budgets of federal land management agencies, potentially impacting their ability to maintain infrastructure, conduct conservation, or manage resources effectively, even if existing allocations to states are protected. They may also argue that the amount redirected might be insufficient to address Social Security's long-term solvency issues meaningfully.
Tradeoffs
The bill attempts to balance the pressing need for Social Security funding with the existing uses and beneficiaries of public land revenues. The tension lies in whether a 10% diversion can be absorbed without negatively impacting public land management or other federal programs, despite the explicit rule of construction protecting state and local shares.
This rule of construction clarifies that the Act shall not be construed as reducing amounts made available to States, Indian Tribes, territories, or local governments from revenue generated by covered public lands.
Section 2(b)(2)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to address potential concerns or misinterpretations directly within the bill, ensuring clarity and preventing unintended negative consequences for sub-federal entities. It is not an evasive tactic.
Case for: Proponents would argue this provision ensures that the bill's primary goal of funding Social Security does not inadvertently harm state, tribal, or local government budgets that rely on public land revenue sharing. It maintains existing partnerships and revenue streams, making the bill more politically viable.
Case against: Opponents might argue that while it protects existing allocations, it implicitly means that the 10% diverted to Social Security cannot be used for future increases in those allocations, or that the overall federal pot for public lands is still reduced, potentially impacting federal support for shared projects or new initiatives.
Estimated impact: This provision ensures that billions of dollars currently shared with states and local entities remain unaffected by the new Social Security allocation, preserving a significant revenue stream for these governments.