DOJ: Trump can abolish protected monuments set aside by past presidents
President Trump can abolish national monuments that were protected from energy development and other activities by past presidents, the Justice Department (DOJ) has determined.
The department issued a legal opinion this week that Trump can shrink or eliminate national monuments, overturning a 1938 opinion saying presidents did not have the power to abolish them.
'The Antiquities Act of 1906 permits a President to alter a prior declaration of a national monument, including by finding that the 'landmarks,' 'structures,' or 'objects' identified in the prior declaration either never were or no longer are deserving of the Act's Protections,' the new DOJ opinion states.
While this opinion does not in itself overturn any national monument boundaries, it sets the stage for doing so in the future.
The document specifically names two national monuments set aside by the Biden administration, the Chuckwalla National Monument and the Sáttítla Highlands National Monument.
These monuments, located in California, encompass a combined 848,000 acres of particular significance to Native American tribes in the region.
The White House told The Washington Post that it planned to eliminate them after saying in a later-scrubbed fact sheet that it was 'terminating proclamations declaring nearly a million acres constitute new national monuments that lock up vast amounts of land.'
President Trump has, in the past, sought to shrink monuments designated by past presidents, including Utah's Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante monuments.
The legal opinion issued Tuesday said the prior 1938 opinion, named for monument Castle Pinckney, made reducing the size of those monuments more complicated.
'The ongoing existence of Castle Pinckney has needlessly complicated litigation challenging the President's authority to alter the declarations of his predecessors,' it stated. 'Following President Trump's 2017 decision to substantially reduce but not eliminate the Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monuments, the parties spent considerable resources litigating whether those actions should be considered revocations … in no small part because Castle Pinckney opined that reduction but not elimination of a parcel was permissible.'
Environmental advocates criticized the new opinion.
'The Trump administration can come to whatever conclusion it likes, but the courts have upheld monuments established under the Antiquities Act for over a century. This opinion is just that, an opinion. It does not mean presidents can legally shrink or eliminate monuments at will,' Jennifer Rokala, executive director of The Center for Western Priorities, said in a written statement.
'Once again the Trump administration finds itself on the wrong side of history and at odds with Western voters,' she added.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
13 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
The gift Trump never meant to give: the spotlight to Democratic adversary Gavin Newsom
SACRAMENTO — President Trump craves attention and will stoop to any depth to grab it — even pour gasoline on a kindling fire in Los Angeles. But this time he unwittingly provided priceless attention for an adversary. Because Trump needlessly deployed National Guard troops and — more ridiculous, a Marine battalion to L.A. — California Gov. Gavin Newsom was granted a prime-time speaking slot on national cable television to respond. 'We honor their service. We honor their bravery,' Newsom said of the troops. 'But we do not want our streets militarized by our own armed forces. Not in L.A. Not in California. Not anywhere … . 'California may be first — but it clearly won't end here. Other states are next. Democracy is next. Democracy is under assault right before our eyes. The moment we've feared has arrived.' I'm not sure the 'democracy is under assault' message has much traction, but keeping armed combat forces off our streets must be a salable pitch. Regardless, governors almost never get national TV time to deliver entire speeches, even as brief as Newsom's. You've practically got to be nominated for president. But the publicity-thirsty sitting president provided the cameras for California's governor. Newsom's strong address probably boosted his stock within the Democrat Party and revived dormant speculation about a 2028 presidential bid. No longer was the Democratic governor playing respectful nice guy and tempering criticism of the Republican president. Now he was standing up to the bully who loves to use California, Newsom and our progressive politics as a punching bag. Trump's red-state supporters love every swipe at this 'left coast' state. Newsom rose to the occasion, using his greatest asset: invaluable communication skills coupled with telegenic looks. He laid out his version of what happened to turn relatively peaceful protests against federal immigration raids into destructive street violence. And it's the correct version by objective accounts. On Saturday, Newsom said, federal immigration agents 'jumped out of an unmarked van' near a Home Depot parking lot and 'began grabbing people. A deliberate targeting of a heavily Latino suburb … . In response, everyday Angelenos' exercised their constitutional right to protest. Police were dispatched to keep the peace and mostly were successful, the governor continued. But then tear gas, rubber bullets and flash-bang grenades were used — by federal agents, Newsom implied. Then Trump deployed 2,000 California National Guard troops 'illegally and for no reason,' the governor asserted. 'This brazen abuse of power by a sitting president inflamed a combustible situation … . Anxiety for families and friends ramped up. Protests started again … . Several dozen lawbreakers became violent and destructive.' Newsom warned: 'That kind of criminal behavior will not be tolerated. Full stop.' And hundreds have been arrested. But he emphasized: 'This situation was winding down and was concentrated in just a few square blocks downtown. But that's not what Donald Trump wanted … . He chose theatrics over public safety.' In Trump's twisted view, if he hadn't sent in the National Guard, 'Los Angeles would be completely obliterated.' Never mind that the violence was confined to a few downtown blocks, a fraction of a city that spreads over 500 square miles. 'We will liberate Los Angeles and make it free and clean again,' the president promised. Veteran Republican strategist Mike Murphy had it right, telling CNN: 'He's lighting the fire as an arsonist, then claiming to be the fireman.' It reminded me of President Lyndon B. Johnson's manufactured Gulf of Tonkin resolution in 1964 that Congress passed, enabling him to vastly escalate U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War. Johnson reported a North Vietnamese attack on U.S. destroyers that many experts later concluded never happened. But I think Trump mainly is obsessed with attracting attention. He knows he'll get it by being provocative. Never mind the accuracy of his words or the wisdom of his actions. Sending in the Marines certainly was an eye-opener. So is staging a military parade on his birthday — an abuse of troops for attention, personal glorification and exercise of his own power. He'll say anything provocative without thinking it through: Tariffs one day, suspended the next. He'll boast of sending San Joaquin Valley water to L.A. for fighting fires when it's physically impossible to deliver it. While Trump was playing politics with immigrants and L.A. turmoil, a poll finding was released that should have pleased him. Californians no longer support providing public healthcare for immigrants living here illegally, the independent Public Policy Institute of California reported. Adult state residents were opposed by 58% to 41% in a survey taken before the L.A. trouble erupted. By contrast, a PPIC poll in 2021 found that Californians favored providing state healthcare for undocumented immigrants by 66% to 31%. Polling director Mark Baldassare concluded the public opposition stems mostly from the view that California taxpayers can't afford the costly program — not that they agree with Trump's anti-immigrant demagoguery. In fact, Newson has proposed paring back the state's multibillion-dollar program of providing Medi-Cal coverage for undocumented immigrants because the state budget has been spewing red ink. Given all the rhetoric about the L.A. protests, the statement that particularly impressed me came from freshman Assemblyman Mark Gonzalez (D-Los Angeles), whose downtown district stretches from Koreatown to Chinatown. 'Rocks thrown at officers, CHP cars and Waymo vehicles set on fire, arson on the 101 freeway — have nothing to do with immigration, justice or the values of our communities,' he said in a statement Sunday. 'These are not protesters — they were agitators. Their actions are reckless, dangerous and playing into exactly what Trump wants.' Gonzalez is a liberal former chairman of the L.A. County Democratic Party who stuck to his point: Hoodlums can't be tolerated. And, thanks to Trump, Newsom was able to make a similar point about the president on national TV: His dangerous, self-serving actions can't be tolerated either.
New York Post
19 minutes ago
- New York Post
Federal judge questions constitutionality of Trump sending National Guard to LA riots: ‘President is, of course, limited'
WASHINGTON — A federal judge expressed skepticism Thursday about the constitutionality of President Trump's order to deploy thousands of National Guard troops to Los Angeles to quell anti-ICE riots. Senior San Francisco US District Judge Charles Breyer heard arguments from attorneys for Trump's Justice Department and California Gov. Gavin Newsom after the Democrat had sued the feds over dispatching roughly 4,000 Guard members to protect officers carrying out immigration enforcement operations. 'We're talking about the president exercising his authority, and the president is, of course, limited,' Breyer, the younger brother of liberal former Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, said at one point in the hearing. Advertisement 3 AP 'That's the difference between a constitutional government and King George.' Brett Shumate, the head of the DOJ's Civil Division, disputed Breyer's characterization of the president's order throughout the hour-long hearing, arguing that the commander-in-chief had 'delegated' the federalizing of the Guard through California's adjutant general, as legally required. Advertisement Shumate also claimed that Newsom was merely a 'conduit' for that order as it passed through the chain of command from Trump to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to the state Guard. 'There's no consultation requirement, pre-approval requirement,' he argued. 'There's one commander-in-chief of the armed forces.' The California attorney general's office countered that allowing Trump's action to stand implied there would be 'no guardrails' for further abuse by the executive branch. 3 Clashes have erupted in LA over the last several days sparked by ICE raids. Barbara Davidson/NYPost Advertisement 3 A demonstrator points his finger towards members of the California National Guard during a protest against federal immigration sweeps in downtown Los Angeles. REUTERS 'The president, by fiat, can federalize the National Guard and deploy it,' an attorney for Newsom said, 'whenever there is disobedience to an order.' While Breyer took issue with the deployment of the National Guard, he appeared more inclined to let stand Trump's order sending around 700 US Marines to the Golden State to assist with the federal immigration crackdown. 'I don't understand how I'm supposed to do anything with the Marines, to tell you the truth,' the judge responded, quibbling with Newsom's legal team over whether their involvement violated the Posse Comitatus Act. Advertisement Breyer did not immediately issue a ruling, but said he hoped to put one out 'very soon.' This is a developing story. Please check back for more information.
The Hill
19 minutes ago
- The Hill
The post-Trump tax cliff
The Big Story While Republicans push to make expiring provisions in President Trump's 2017 tax law permanent, additional measures geared toward working-class Americans are being slated for expiration at the end of 2028. © The Associated Press 'It means that's going to be an issue in the next presidential race,' House Freedom Caucus Chair Andy Harris (R-Md.) said. The major expiring tax breaks in the House-passed version of Trump's 'big beautiful bill' are boosts in the standard deduction, the deduction for seniors, and the child tax credit, along with the cancellation of taxes on tips, overtime pay, and car loan interest. Budget hawks are saying this sets up a tax cliff in the legislation similar to the one Republicans are now trying to surmount, since most of the 2017 Trump tax cuts expire at the end of this year. 'There's a total tax cliff in there. There's about $1.5 trillion worth of taxes that expire in four years, five years, which means what? In five years, they'll just keep them going. This is why we end up with the same problem,' Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) said last week. 'It is 100 percent a gimmick to have tax cuts that you're putting in place for four or five years,' he added. The legislation is likely to undergo substantial changes in the Senate, including a change in the accounting baseline that will allow trillions of dollars worth of deficit additions coming from the extension of previous tax cuts to be ignored. But senators are sounding open to maintaining the split between making the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) permanent and allowing the additional cuts for workers, families, retirees and consumers to expire. The Hill's Tobias Burns and Aris Folley have more here. Welcome to The Hill's Business & Economy newsletter, I'm Aris Folley — covering the intersection of Wall Street and Pennsylvania Avenue. Did someone forward you this newsletter? Subscribe here. Essential Reads Key business and economic news with implications this week and beyond: Top earners to receive lion's share of income boost from GOP bill: CBO The top one-tenth of the U.S. income spectrum is set to receive the biggest annual boost to its wealth as a result of the House-passed Republican tax cut and spending bill, according to a new analysis from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), while the bottom three deciles are set to lose wealth and the fourth lowest decile will break even. House GOP approves first batch of DOGE cuts House Republicans voted on Thursday to claw back billions of dollars in federal funding for public broadcasting and foreign aid, locking in the first set of slashes made by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Senate votes to end debate on stablecoin bill, teeing up final vote The Senate voted Thursday to wrap up debate on a stablecoin bill, teeing up a final vote on the legislation that would establish regulatory rules of the road for the dollar-backed cryptocurrencies. Walmart heiress funds anti-Trump ad A billionaire Walmart heiress has again taken aim at President Trump — this time encouraging people to participate in protests against his second presidency while Trump holds a military parade in Washington on Saturday. The Ticker Upcoming news themes and events we're watching: In Other News Branch out with more stories from the day: Wall Street ticks closer to its record after Oracle rallies NEW YORK (AP) — U.S. stock indexes ticked higher on Thursday following another encouraging update … Good to Know Business and economic news we've flagged from other outlets: What Others are Reading Top stories on The Hill right now: Padilla forcibly removed from Noem press conference, handcuffed Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) was forcibly removed and then handcuffed after he interrupted a press conference Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem held in Los Angeles. Read more Republicans lay groundwork for 'total tax cliff' at end of Trump's term Congressional Republicans are laying the groundwork for a tax cliff at the end of President Trump's term in office. Read more What People Think Opinions related to business and economic issues submitted to The Hill: You're all caught up. See you tomorrow! Thank you for signing up! Subscribe to more newsletters here
