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


Axios
18 minutes ago
- Axios
Black Caucus chair says Trump's actions on L.A. are impeachable
Congressional Black Caucus chair Yvette Clarke (D-N.Y.) said Tuesday she believes President Trump mobilizing the National Guard and deploying Marines to Los Angeles rises to the level of an impeachable offense. Why it matters: It's a break with House Democrats' general aversion towards impeachment from the head of one of their most powerful groups. The comment comes amid growing animosity between Democrats and the Trump administration over the president's use of law enforcement to carry out a campaign of mass deportations. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Driving the news: During a press conference, Clarke was asked if Trump's actions to quell protests in L.A. rise to the level of an impeachable offense "I definitely believe it is," she responded, "But we'll cross that bridge when we get to it." Clarke and other Democrats have argued that Trump has violated the U.S. Constitution by mobilizing the National Guard over Newsom's objections. Reality check: Democrats are highly unlikely to pursue an organized impeachment effort against Trump any time soon. Two rank-and-file members, Reps. Shri Thanedar (D-Mich.) and Al Green (D-Texas), have spearheaded their own rogue impeachment initiatives, but most Democrats have dissociated themselves with those efforts. Most Democrats are clear-eyed that impeachment would be doomed to failure with Republicans in control of Congress — and they often note that Trump won in 2024 despite previously being impeached twice. What they're saying: House Democratic Caucus chair Pete Aguilar (D-Calif.) told reporters at a subsequent press conference, "I've said before that ... House Democrats aren't focused on impeachment today."


CBS News
20 minutes ago
- CBS News
Colorado town orders organizers to cancel "No Kings" anti-Trump rally citing event conflict
This Saturday, June 14, hundreds of "No Kings" rallies are expected to take place across the country, including in Colorado, protesting authoritarianism and coinciding with President Trump's birthday, the U.S. Army's 250th birthday, and Flag Day. But in Douglas County, one woman says the Town of Parker stopped her from organizing the event because it coincided with the Parker Days festival a half-mile away. Town officials cite safety as the reason the rally can't occur at the same time as its largest festival, but organizers say it violates their free speech rights. Signs inside Carolyn Williamson's Parker home make it clear how she feels about the Trump administration. "The evil, evil terrifying king," Williamson said, while gesturing to a papier-mâché Trump head she made, before moving to a pile of homemade signs. "I try to make more than one of each kind of theme." Carolyn Williamson, of Parker, Colorado, discusss her efforts to organize a protest in town and being denied a permit by town officials, which she says is a violation of her free speech rights. CBS "He claims to love the Constitution, but he only picks and chooses the things that he likes," Williamson said, citing concerns over recent immigration policy under Trump's leadership. When she learned of plans for "No Kings" rallies across the country on Trump's birthday, she decided to organize one in her community. "We need one in Parker," Williamson said. "We have to use our White privilege and speak up for those who can't while we can." Soon, nearly 400 people had signed up to attend, and Williamson began planning for their safety. "I took some safety and de-escalation training online," Williamson said. "The Boulder thing is at the forefront of everybody's mind. So I reached out to the Parker police." After initially being told she'd need a permit for an event of more than 100 people and would not be able to get one due to Parker Days, Williamson changed plans to host several small gatherings Saturday at intersections across town. But then Williamson says the town's attorney and police chief called to say the rally would need to be canceled because the town didn't have the resources to ensure its safety during Parker Days. "I said, 'well, what about our First Amendment rights?' And they said, 'Well, you're welcome to say anything you want, but you cannot be on public sidewalks that day. You can do it on another weekend,'" Williamson said. "I don't think that they have the constitutional right to deny us the right to protest." "In general, you don't need a permit to demonstrate on a public sidewalk," said Philip Chen, associate professor of political science at the University of Denver. "It's public land." Chen says governments can place some restrictions on the time, place, and manner of speech, as long as those restrictions are content-neutral. "The Supreme Court has said it has to be not subject to the content of the speech. It has to be very narrowly tailored to what the government's sort of interest is, and they have to provide some sort of alternative way for that message to be communicated," said Chen. "Content neutrality is going to be the important thing," he continued. "If somebody stood on the sidewalk with a sign for the rally and was told to leave, and another person stood there with a sign saying, 'I love Parker Days,' they would have to also tell that person to leave, or else it wouldn't be what would be considered sort of content-neutral enforcement." While Chen says restricting the time and place of the demonstration for safety reasons likely does not violate First Amendment protections, he says the idea that even a small rally would not be allowed could be an overly restrictive use of time, place and manner allowances, especially if the gathering was small enough to not require a permit. According to the ACLU, "you don't need a permit to march in the streets or on sidewalks, as long as marchers don't obstruct car or pedestrian traffic. If you don't have a permit, police officers can ask you to move to the side of a street or sidewalk to let others pass or for safety reasons." The organization also says, "police may not break up a gathering unless there is a clear and present danger of riot, disorder, interference with traffic, or other immediate threat to public safety." The Town of Parker said in a statement: "The Town of Parker became aware of a rally that had been scheduled to occur within the Town on June 14, 2025, during the same time the Parker Days Festival is being held in the Town. Based on the considerable resources that the Town provides to ensure the safety of Parker Days attendees and event organizers, the remaining resources available to serve the rest of the Town and all residents and visitors is extremely limited. The Town would be unable to allocate sufficient staff and resources to ensure the safety and needs of the rally participants along with the residents and other visitors to the Town. The Town takes very seriously the safety and well-being of all residents and visitors and wants to ensure that everyone in the Town has the best possible resources available to them. While the Town is supportive of individuals' First Amendment rights, those rights must be balanced with the rights and safety of all other individuals and may be limited under the law if there are concerns related to things such as the timing of events. The Town is truly unable to accommodate another event during the weekend of Parker Days, as it will negatively impact the Town's ability to safely and properly respond to the routine matters within the Town. The Town did offer the rally organizer the ability to work with the Town to determine another possible date to hold the rally." O'Brien Park in Parker, Colorado is seen on Monday, June 9, 2025. CBS The town offered to find another date for the No Kings rally, but Williamson says the message can't wait. "Civil disobedience doesn't always align conveniently with current events," Williamson said. Other No Kings rallies will be held across the metro area, including in Castle Rock, Littleton, and Denver. Monday night, after her interview with CBS News Colorado, Williamson said she decided to still host the event. She says it will be a block-by-block rally Saturday from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. Williamson plans to organize peaceful demonstrators along Parker Road intersections from Lincoln Avenue to Hess Road. They will skip Mainstreet so as not to interfere with Parker Days.

Wall Street Journal
21 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
The Presidency Has Become a Trump Card
Concerns about executive power go back to the beginning of our republic—but the controversies of the Trump era are also new. Writing in defense of the Constitution in 1788, James Madison observed that 'the legislative department is everywhere extending the sphere of its activity, and drawing all power into its impetuous vortex.' Powerful legislatures came with risks: 'Legislative usurpations . . . must lead to the same tyranny as is threatened by executive usurpations.'