logo
Trump can abolish national monuments, US Justice Department says

Trump can abolish national monuments, US Justice Department says

The Stara day ago

FILE PHOTO: A vehicle rides on a highway past a pair of buttes known as the Bears Ears in Bears Ears National Monument outside Blanding, Utah, U.S., October 22, 2023. REUTERS/Jim Urquhart/File Photo
(Reuters) -President Donald Trump has the power to abolish two national monuments in California established by his Democratic predecessor Joe Biden, as well as any others created by past presidents, according to a newly released legal opinion from a key adviser within the U.S. Department of Justice.
The May 27 document, which was released on Tuesday, reversed a 1938 legal opinion and sets the stage for the Republican president to eliminate federal protections for potentially millions of acres of land previously designated as national monuments.
National monuments are created by presidents in recognition of a site's cultural, historical or scientific importance, while national parks are created by Congress largely to protect outstanding scenic features or natural phenomena.
Lanora Pettit, who heads the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, was asked by the White House to provide a new opinion as Trump considered whether to reverse Biden's decision in January in his final days in office to designate two California sites that hold significance to Native American tribes as national monuments.
The Chuckwalla National Monument preserves more than 624,000 acres just south of Joshua Tree National Park. The Sattitla Highlands National Monument protects 224,000 acres where the dormant Medicine Lake volcano carved craters and lava tubes.
Biden had relied on the Antiquities Act of 1906, a law that has been invoked by numerous presidents to designate over 100 national monuments.
A 1938 opinion by Attorney General Homer Cummings, who served under Democratic President Franklin Roosevelt, has been long cited as constraining the ability of presidents to undo past designations.
But in a 50-page legal opinion, Pettit concluded that the Antiquities Act gives presidents not only the power to establish national monuments on federal lands but also to determine that they never were or no longer are deserving of those protections.
The White House has also asked Pettit to consider whether the Justice Department should disavow Cummings' prior opinion. She said it should, writing that the law's silence about whether a president could revoke a predecessor's designation of a monument should be understood as meaning he has such authority.
"Thus, for the Antiquities Act, the power to declare carries with it the power to revoke," Pettit wrote.
The legal opinion did note that since the earliest days of the Antiquities Act, presidents have 'from time to time diminished' the land set aside to protect monuments.
Trump, in his first term, had reduced the size of the Bears Ears National Monument by 85% and the Grand Staircase-Escalante monument by half, both in Utah. Biden restored both monuments to their former size.
But no president has abolished a national monument.
It was unclear if and when Trump would revoke the monument status for the two California sites or any other monuments.
Asked about the new legal opinion, White House spokesperson Harrison Fields in a statement cited the need to "liberate our federal lands and waters to oil, gas, coal, geothermal, and mineral leasing."
(Reporting by Nate Raymond in Boston; Editing by Leigh Jones and Leslie Adler)

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Thai panel upholds suspension of doctors who helped ex-PM Thaksin dodge jail
Thai panel upholds suspension of doctors who helped ex-PM Thaksin dodge jail

The Star

timean hour ago

  • The Star

Thai panel upholds suspension of doctors who helped ex-PM Thaksin dodge jail

FILE PHOTO: Former Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra speaks with businessmen ahead of the "Vision for Thailand" event in Bangkok, Thailand, August 22, 2024. Picture taken through glass. REUTERS/Athit Perawongmetha/File Photo BANGKOK (Reuters) -Thailand's medical council on Thursday upheld its suspension of two doctors who enabled influential politician Thaksin Shinawatra to spend his prison sentence in hospital, a day ahead of the start of a Supreme Court case that could see him jailed. Thaksin, the driving force behind the current government, returned from 15 years of self-exile in 2023 to serve a prison term for abuse of power and conflicts of interest, but was sent to hospital after only a few hours in jail complaining of chest problems. The polarising billionaire, whose daughter Paetongtarn Shinawatra is prime minister, stayed in a VIP wing of the hospital for six months until his release on parole without a single night in jail, prompting public outrage and deep scepticism about the extent of his ailments. "More than two-thirds of the council voted to uphold the punishments," Medical Council of Thailand vice president, Prasit Watanapa, told reporters. "Members made the decision based on medical principles, evidence and reason." The suspensions could impact a case at the Supreme Court that begins on Friday in which the legality of Thaksin's hospital stay has been challenged, with the possibility the tycoon could be made to serve that time again, in prison. Thaksin, 75, remains a towering figure in Thai politics and though he holds no formal government role, he is highly influential. His lawyer declined to comment on Thursday on the council's decision. The revival of the controversy over Thaksin's hospital stay comes at a challenging time for Paetongtarn's government, which is seeing its popularity dwindle amid a prolonged struggle to spur economic growth and domestic pressure to take a tougher stance on an ongoing border dispute with Cambodia. Thaksin's sentence was originally eight years, but it was commuted to a year by the king and he became eligible for parole after six months. The medical council's vote overrides a veto of its earlier decision by Health Minister Somsak Thapsutin, a Thaksin ally. The council had yet to confirm the duration of the suspension of the two doctors, who it found had issued documents that contained false medical information. They had denied wrongdoing and stood by their medical assessments. Another doctor with the corrections department received a warning for failing to meet medical standards in a referral notice for Thaksin. (Reporting by Panarat Thepgumpanat, Panu Wongcha-um and Chayut Setboonsarng; Editing by Martin Petty)

Democratic governors embrace border security, reject Trump immigrant 'abuses'
Democratic governors embrace border security, reject Trump immigrant 'abuses'

The Star

timean hour ago

  • The Star

Democratic governors embrace border security, reject Trump immigrant 'abuses'

FILE PHOTO: Women dressed in traditional Mexican attire take part in a protest against federal immigration sweeps, in downtown Los Angeles, California, U.S., June 11, 2025. REUTERS/David Swanson/File Photo WASHINGTON (Reuters) -Three prominent Democratic U.S. governors face a grilling on Thursday from a Republican-led U.S. House of Representatives panel over immigration policy, as President Donald Trump steps up a crackdown on people living in the country illegally. The governors of New York, Illinois and Minnesota are due to testify to the House Oversight Committee following days of protests in downtown Los Angeles over the Trump administration's aggressive ramping up of arrests of migrants. Tensions escalated as Trump ordered the National Guard and Marines into California to provide additional security. Trump's immigration crackdown has become a major political flashpoint between the White House and national Democrats. California's Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom, seen as a contender for the party's presidential nomination in 2028, in a Tuesday night video speech accused Trump of choosing "theatrics over public safety." Minnesota's Tim Walz, who ran unsuccessfully for vice president last year; Illinois' JB Pritzker, also seen a 2028 hopeful, and New York's Kathy Hochul, walked a careful line in their prepared testimony for Thursday's hearing, voicing support for immigration enforcement, if not Trump's tactics. "If they are undocumented, we want them out of Illinois and out of our country," Pritzker said. At the same time, Pritzker lashed out against "any violations of the law or abuses of power" and said, "Law-abiding, hardworking, tax-paying people who have been in this country for years should have a path to citizenship." Reuters/Ipsos polls show Trump getting more support for his handling of immigration than any other policy area. "Minnesota is not a sanctuary state," Walz proclaimed, adding that state officials cooperate with federal immigration authorities, while noting that it offers "respect" to cities and counties that choose to give no more than the legal minimum support to the Department of Homeland Security. (Reporting by Richard Cowan; editing by Scott Malone and Sandra Maler)

Donald Trump and the 'rhetoric of emergency'
Donald Trump and the 'rhetoric of emergency'

New Straits Times

time2 hours ago

  • New Straits Times

Donald Trump and the 'rhetoric of emergency'

TARIFFS, immigration, energy: In all these areas, Donald Trump has granted himself exceptional and broad presidential powers by declaring "emergency" situations that his critics insist do not exist. "In the United States, there is no tradition of emergency powers (granted to the president) under the Constitution," New York University professor Noah Rosenblum told AFP. But various laws allow the commander-in-chief's powers to be expanded on an exceptional – and usually temporary – basis. Historically such emergency powers have been invoked to deal with natural disasters, to deploy responders or troops, and to unlock critical funding. "But that, of course, is not how Donald Trump is using it," Rosenblum said. Since returning to the White House on January 20, the Republican president has repeatedly invoked states of emergency in a variety of areas – eight times in all, according to National Public Radio – thus green-lighting swift and forceful intervention on his administration's part. They have had little to do with hurricanes, floods or earthquakes. On his first day in office, Trump declared a "national energy emergency" in the United States – the world's leading oil producer. By early April, frustrated by the trade deficits the United States had with many countries, including some imbalances going back decades, Trump declared a national emergency, among other reasons, "to increase our competitive edge," the White House said. The result? Tariffs slapped on adversaries and allies alike. The flow of migrants arriving from Mexico has prompted Trump to declare a state of emergency at the US southern border, and he apparently feels empowered to respond with massive import duties, or forced deportations of undocumented migrants. Now, Trump has sent the US military into Los Angeles to quell protests, invoking a seldom-used law that allows the president to deploy National Guard units if there is a "rebellion or danger of rebellion." The move countered the wishes of local authorities and California Governor Gavin Newsom, who accused Trump of a "dictatorial" drift. "The president is simply announcing emergencies when there aren't any," said Frank Bowman, a law professor at the University of Missouri, noting how local police have said they are capable of handling clashes with protesters opposed to raids by immigration agents. "All of these grants of potential emergency powers really don't account for the election of a president like Mr. Trump, who is not entirely rational, who is not dedicated to the rule of law, who is, in fact, an aspiring autocrat who is looking... to exercise extraordinary power," Bowman told AFP. Trump is not the first US leader to invoke exceptional circumstances to justify such moves, even if he does so in a way without precedent. His Democratic predecessor Joe Biden, for example, decided to forgive student debt given the "emergency" created by the Covid pandemic. The conservative-leaning Supreme Court was not convinced, however, and blocked the plan. In Trump's case, will the courts, which have been flooded by lawsuits, affirm the legality of actions taken in the name of imminent peril? The tendency of judges "in these kinds of things is to defer pretty heavily to the president," Bowman said. On Thursday, a California court will consider a request by Governor Newsom to suspend Trump's troop deployment. In a filing to the court, the administration said Trump's judgment has historical precedent. Courts did not interfere when President Dwight Eisenhower sent troops to protect school desegregation or when Richard Nixon deployed the military to deliver the mail during a postal workers' strike, "and courts should not interfere here either," it said. Beyond the legal tussles, the relentless use of the language of urgency, of imminent threat or national peril, is part of a broader strategy, professor Rosenblum stressed. Trump, he said, "is using the perpetual rhetoric of emergency to keep us perpetually riled up and either on the defensive and so increasingly exhausted or scared and aggressive – and so demanding government intervention."

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store