Headquarters of the U.S. BLM belongs in the seat of government, as Founders envisioned
A view of oil and gas development on Bureau of Land Management lands in Colorado, on Jan. 3, 2015. (Bob Wick/BLM/Public domain)
For over a decade I have helped lead an annual trip of community leaders from western Colorado to meet with federal agencies and our members of Congress. We travel to Washington, D.C., because the U.S. Constitution established the need for a compact and independent seat for the federal government.
In contrast, Project 2025 — the current administration's top-down blueprint to dismantle government and inspire 'trauma' in its workforce — undermines this critical foundation of our republic.
Project 2025 attacks many things, including America's public lands. It would open up our national estate to increased privatization, industrialization and outright liquidation. In its section on the Department of Interior, Project 2025 specifically states: '(The Bureau of Land Management) headquarters belongs in the American West.' But my own experience has led me to think otherwise, and to conclude that America's Founders who debated, drafted and then agreed on our Constitution, are instead the ones who are correct.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Each year, we travel from our valley to meet with leadership at agencies and with all our federal elected officials or offices. In just a few days we can meet with the Interior Department and its agencies like the bureaus of Land Management and of Reclamation to talk about public lands and irrigation projects.
Our rural delegation, which includes farmers, can meet with U.S. Department of Agriculture, and agencies such as the Natural Resources Conservation Service to talk about soil health funding and program priorities, and with the Forest Service to talk about managing the local watersheds. Within a few days we bring concerns and questions directly to top leaders of several agencies and to our representatives only because we are able to visit a single seat of government.
I feel confident that this is as the Founders intended.
The rationale for relocating BLM headquarters — to better serve public lands stakeholders — is dubious. Project 2025 itself admits that the agency is already highly decentralized, writing that '97 percent of BLM employees are located in the American West.' These state and field offices, and agency employees who staff them, are indeed critical. But Project 2025 also demands vast federal workforce reductions. This transparent bad-faith argument made by Project 2025 should be a warning to any and all who want to see the efficient and proper management of our public lands.
BLM headquarters belongs with its department, which belongs with fellow federal departments in the independent and compact seat of government. This most efficiently allows states, citizens and stakeholders from across a far-flung nation the opportunity to petition the government for redress. And it better meets other purposes for which businesses, states and localities, and citizens might have to meet, share information, and work with the variety of agencies that make up our national government.
Like most of the parts of our Constitution, the idea and particulars of a federal seat of government and its agencies was discussed and debated. In the Federalist Papers, James Madison emphasized the necessity of complete authority at the seat of government to ensure its independence and effectiveness. '… but a dependence of the general government on the State (that holds the seat of authority) … for protection in the exercise of their duty, might bring on the national councils an imputation of awe or influence, equally dishonorable to the (federal government) and dissatisfactory to the other (states).'
The American republic is a union of free and sovereign states. As Madison and the Founders rightfully concluded, a functional federal government protects the individual sovereignty of all the states and of all its citizens. States, and the people, serve to check overreach by the federal government. And the federal government is also sovereign, as a necessary force to provide balance among the needs and perspectives of the varied states.
Madison saw a federal seat of government and its agencies as key to protecting the republic's own independence, which in turn best guards the equal footing of the states. One can suppose that the Constitution's authors wanted to ensure that the presence of the federal government in any of the various states could not compromise the nation's ability to perform its duties with impartiality.
That federal functions not be paired closely with particular states 'has the more weight, as the gradual accumulation of public improvements at the stationary residence of the government would be both too great a public pledge to be left in the hands of a single State,' Madison wrote.
Project 2025 does not seek to create more efficiency, but to deconstruct the federal government and to privatize public lands and resources so that a narrow set of wealthy interests can take an even greater share. Madison correctly saw peril in a weak federal government and intended for the national capital to serve as its 'stationary residence.' The establishment of major national agencies outside of this seat runs contrary to that purpose and need.
Project 2025 stands contrary to the shared American project. Project 2025 is not interested in better management for our public lands, more public engagement in decision-making, or even that these lands, or much of the government, remain public at all. Moving the BLM headquarters away from its department and all its sister agencies is part and parcel of the Project 2025 plan.
And no one who cherishes our national public lands ought to be fooled one bit, or for one moment, otherwise.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
24 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump is under water on some of his top issues — including immigration, poll shows
President Donald Trump is under water on some of his most favorable issues — immigration and the economy — according to a new Quinnipiac University poll released Wednesday. The poll shows Trump's approval rating at 38 percent among registered voters, a three point drop from April. He's also losing support on subjects that were crucial to his November victory. On immigration — an issue that the president hammered on the campaign trail — Trump's approval rating dropped five points from April, to 43 percent. His already low approval rating on the economy did not budge, remaining at 40 percent. The results show a majority of voters, 54 percent, disapprove of Trump's handling of the issue. The poll surveyed 1,265 self-identified registered voters from June 5-9, and has a margin of error of plus or minus 2.8 percent. The results come as Trump's approval has been steadily picking up since it dropped significantly in April, according to RealClearPolitics' polling average. The negative polling did not stop at the president himself. A majority of the voters polled also had objections to his premier piece of legislation, the 'big, beautiful bill' making its way through Congress. Fifty-three percent of the voters polled did not support the legislation. Divided among party lines, 67 percent of Republicans supported, while 89 percent of Democrats and 57 percent of independents opposed it. On Medicaid funding, an issue that has become Democratic messaging priority, 47 percent of those surveyed thought funding should increase, while 40 percent think it should stay about the same, and just 10 percent think federal funding should decrease. The bill as passed by the House is estimated to end Medicaid coverage for millions of people. Quinnipiac also asked voters what they think of billionaire Elon Musk, and his approval rating is crashing among Republicans following his very public breakup with Trump. Among Republicans, 62 percent had a favorable view of Musk, a 16 point drop from April. But while Trump's approval languishes, it's not clear Democrats will be able to take advantage of it. A vast majority of voters — 70 percent — disapprove of the way Democrats in Congress are doing their jobs, while 20 percent approved. That's 12 points lower than how voters viewed Republicans in the survey.
Yahoo
24 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Lawmakers get theatrical at annual ‘Will on the Hill' show
Several lawmakers took a break from debating legislation on Capitol Hill to instead recite William Shakespeare at Harman Hall on Tuesday evening. The Shakespeare Theatre Company (STC) hosted its annual 'Will on the Hill,' welcoming members of Congress, journalists and students to perform popular Shakespeare scenes to fund its youth arts education programs, which reach nearly 20,000 students and teachers across the region. The more than 20-year long tradition also seeks to promote bipartisanship, bringing together lawmakers and political strategists from across the aisle to bolster support for theatre and the arts. Rep. Dina Titus's (D-Nev.) performance of the last scene of 'A Midsummer Night's Dream' was the hit of the night. Her interpretation of old-English Shakespeare, which included a Southern accent, made the crowd roar in laughter. Another notable performance was the standoff between the Capulets and Montagues, two enemy families, in the opening scene of 'Romeo and Juliet.' As Atlantic journalist Steve Clemons, Republican political strategist Grover Norquist, Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-Calif.) and Fox News correspondent Rich Edson bit their thumbs at each other on stage, the producers noted that giving them foam swords was the safest amid a tense political climate. The crowd then commended Sen. Chris Coons's (D-Del.) impersonation of Brutus plotting the assassination of Julius Caesar in the Shakespeare play of the same name. With political tensions rattling the country, seeing lawmakers fumbling over their words and trying to remember their lines proved to be refreshing entertainment. The elected officials were accompanied on stage by Holly Twyford, a pillar of D.C. theatre, and Renea Brown, an award winning actor. The show also included a stage combat demonstration by STC students. An elementary school student brilliantly played King Oberon in 'A Midsummer Night's Dream,' and two high school students performed 'All's Well That Ends Well.' STC Executive Director Angela Lee Gieras praised the event as an opportunity for children to express themselves, highlighting the courage it takes to perform in front of an audience. This year's performance was presented by Michael Evans, former Democratic chief counsel and deputy staff director for the U.S. Senate Finance Committee, who is an avid Shakespeare enthusiast. Samantha Wyer Bello, STC's senior director of learning, returned to direct her sixth production of 'Will on the Hill.' The STC also honored the memory of the late Democratic Reps. Gerry Connolly (Va.) and Charles Rangel (N.Y.) for their dedication to public service and their year-after-year support of 'Will on the Hill.' Other notable cast members included Rep. Gabe Amo (D-RI), D.C. Council chairman Phil Mendelson, DC councilmember Brooke Pinto, D.C. Commission on the Arts and Humanities executive director Aaron Myers, Washington Post columnist James Hohmann and Politico journalist Olivia Beavers. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
24 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - Trump gutted the National Climate Assessment. America will suffer as a result.
The National Climate Assessment is more than just a report. Aside from its unique status as the authoritative statement on the state of climate change in America, it is also an expression of service and passion from the national climate community to our fellow citizens. The National Climate Assessment is developed through an incredibly rigorous process, which includes exacting deadlines and multiple rounds of scientific, technical and public review. This is all followed by closely monitored and recorded revisions and thoughtful consideration given by the author teams of each chapter. By law, an updated report is delivered to Congress and released to the public every four years. The Fifth National Climate Assessment, published in 2023, was late getting started. Authors — all of whom volunteer their time to contribute to the report — faced truncated draft deadlines that challenged even seasoned academic writers. For someone like me, it meant long nights pouring over reports and academic papers, seeking to bolster my understanding and expert perspective of climate change in the Midwest, and then pour out that expertise into a brief, unbiased, well-cited sentences. I cried — some nights, I cried a lot. Despite the challenging timeline, the director of the Fifth National Climate Assessment didn't choose the easy path of doing what's always been done before. Instead, she further challenged us to seek out lived expertise, traditional ecological knowledge and credible, non-peer reviewed sources of information that would explain the changes that are occurring, what the risks are if we do not adapt and what options or strategies are there for taking action. We were, in my opinion, asked to write the closest thing the U.S. has ever had to a national climate adaptation report. The Fifth National Climate Assessment didn't stop there. Authors of the report and the team at the U.S. Global Change Research Program recognized that sharing the story of climate change needed to happen through many mediums. Dedicated, insightful colleagues launched the Art x Climate project, soliciting art from across the country, showcasing what climate means to people — young and old, rural and urban, from all races and genders. The results of the competition were integrated into the report and have made the report itself a beautiful work of art. Finally, a poetry anthology titled 'Dear Human at the Edge of Time' was published ahead of the report. It features the voices of many authors of the assessment and gave an opportunity for these scholars, activists and practitioners to transform their climate passion into climate poetry. Contributing to the National Climate Assessment and attending the in-person meeting of over 400 authors, technical reviewers and editors was the most meaningful thing I have done in my climate career. I remember standing in the room and feeling overwhelmed at the magnitude of the effort and selflessness of people who were volunteering their time, expertise, knowledge and passion to this national resource. But on April 29 of this year, the authors of the Sixth National Climate Assessment, due out in 2027, received a brief and unexpected message: 'Thank you for your participation in the 6th National Climate Assessment. At this time, the scope of the NCA6 is currently being reevaluated in accordance with the Global Change Research Act of 1990. We are now releasing all current assessment participants from their roles.' The dismissal of the 400 authors followed closely on the heels of the firing of the majority of the Global Change Research Program staff and contractors who provided the leadership, coordination and technical support for the report and other direction across 15 federal agencies. The Trump administration is already acting to seed any future version of the assessment with climate denialism. These actions ignore decades of science and, more importantly, they put American communities at increasing risk in a rapidly changing climate. I am beside myself at losing this resource. I don't want to become immune to feeling pain, shame, loss, sadness just because this awful administration continues committing unlawful, unethical and despicable acts. I don't want the erasure of my work — and the work of my colleagues and friends — to be normalized, when it is not normal and not acceptable. I am tired of trying to be okay when I am not okay. And I'm not okay because these are not remotely okay times. The National Climate Assessment is more than a report. It is a selfless contribution that the climate community painstakingly compiles, expertly reviews and earnestly delivers to the American people. It is only one of the many meaningful, necessary and useful acts of human creation that are being erased by a small group of lawless ideologues who are undermining what truly makes this country great. Beth Gibbons is the inaugural director of the Resiliency Office in Washtenaw County, Mich. She is a former executive director of the American Society of Adaptation Professionals. She served on the Federal Advisory Council on Climate Change Adaptation under President Biden and was a contributing author to the Fifth National Climate Assessment. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
