DOJ argues Trump may cancel Biden-era national monuments
The Justice Department says President Donald Trump has the right to abolish national monuments established by former President Joe Biden at the request of Native American tribes.
In the final days of his presidency, Biden established the Chuckwalla National Monument and the Sáttítla Highlands National Monument to protect hundreds of thousands of acres of land in California. According to Reuters, the Chuckwalla National Monument protects over 624,000 acres, while the Sáttítla Highlands National Monument protects 224,000 acres.
Trump Doj Investigating Biden-era Pardons Amid Concerns Over State Of Mind
The monuments could lose their status after a Trump DOJ legal opinion reversed a 1938 determination that presidents did not have the power to abolish monuments designated by previous presidents under the Antiquities Act of 1906.
Deputy Assistant Attorney General Lanora Pettit argued in the opinion that "for the Antiquities Act, the power to declare carries with it the power to revoke."
In his first term, Trump reduced the size of Bears Ears and Grand Staircase Escalante National Monuments in Utah, according to the Associated Press. The outlet noted that Trump claimed the monuments were a "massive land grab." However, Biden later restored them during his term in office.
Read On The Fox News App
Biden Says He's Been Carrying Out 'Most Aggressive Climate Agenda' In History As He Designates Ca Monuments
The DOJ's opinion, which was released on Tuesday, has already drawn backlash as Sen. Martin Heinrich, D-N.M., slammed the Trump administration.
"At Donald Trump's order, his Justice Department is attempting to clear a path to erase national monuments," said Heinrich, who serves as the ranking member of the Senate Natural Resources Committee. "Here's what they don't understand: Our national monuments are about who we are. They tell the story of our ancestors, support jobs and our rural economies, and connect Americans to our history and the land itself. No president can erase that."
Heinrich also vowed to oppose Republican efforts "to rip away our national monuments."
In the legal opinion, Pettit wrote that Biden's designation of the new monuments was part of a larger effort to create an environmental legacy for himself. She also appeared to discredit Biden's reasons for designating the sites as national monuments, including the creation of more places for outdoor recreational activities, like biking, hiking, hunting and camping.
"Such activities are entirely expected in a park, but they are wholly unrelated to (if not outright incompatible with) the protection of scientific or historical monuments," Pettit wrote.
There is no clear indication if or when Trump would revoke the status of the two sites established by Biden—or the status of any other monuments. However, according to Reuters, White House spokesperson Harrison Fields spoke about the need to "liberate our federal lands and waters to oil, gas, coal, geothermal, and mineral leasing" when asked about the opinion.Original article source: DOJ argues Trump may cancel Biden-era national monuments
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Associated Press
34 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Trump moves to merge wildland firefighting into single force, despite ex-officials warning of chaos
BILLINGS, Mont. (AP) — President Donald Trump on Thursday ordered government agencies to consolidate their wildland firefighting into a single program, despite warnings from former federal officials that it could be costly and increase the risk of catastrophic blazes. The order aims to centralize firefighting efforts now split among five agencies and two Cabinet departments. Trump's proposed budget for next year calls for the creation of a new Federal Wildland Fire Service under the U.S. Interior Department. That would mean shifting thousands of personnel from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Forest Service — where most federal firefighters now work — with fire season already underway. The administration has not disclosed how much the change could cost or save. Trump in his order cited the devastating Los Angeles wildfires in January as highlighting a need for a quicker response to wildfires. 'Wildfires threaten every region, yet many local government entities continue to disregard commonsense preventive measures,' the order said. The Trump administration in its first months temporarily cut off money for wildfire prevention work and reduced the ranks of federal government firefighters through layoffs and retirement. The order makes no mention of climate change, which Trump has downplayed even as warming temperatures help stoke bigger and more destructive wildfires that churn out massive amounts of harmful pollution. More than 65,000 wildfires across the U.S. burned almost 9 million acres (3.6 million hectares) last year. Organizations representing firefighters and former Forest Service officials say it would be costly to restructure firefighting efforts and cause major disruptions in the midst of fire season. A group that includes several former Forest Service chiefs said in a recent letter to lawmakers that consolidation of firefighting work could 'actually increase the likelihood of more large catastrophic fires, putting more communities, firefighters and resources at risk.' Another destructive fire season is expected this year, driven by above-normal temperatures for most of the country, according to federal officials. A prior proposal to merge the Forest Service and Interior to improve firefighting was found to have significant drawbacks by the Congressional Research Service in a 2008 report. But the idea more recently got bipartisan support, with California Democratic Sen. Alex Padilla and Montana Republican Sen. Tim Sheehy sponsoring legislation that is similar to Trump's plan. Before his election last year, Sheehy founded an aerial firefighting company that relies heavily on federal contracts. In a separate action aimed at wildfires, the Trump administration last month rolled back environmental safeguards around future logging projects on more than half U.S. national forests. The emergency designation covers 176,000 square miles (455,000 square kilometers) of terrain primarily in the West but also in the South, around the Great Lakes and in New England. Most of those forests are considered to have high wildfire risk, and many are in decline because of insects and disease.
CNBC
39 minutes ago
- CNBC
An Israeli attack on Iran could send oil prices above $100 as tensions mount
Beset by near-universal bearish outlooks just a month ago, oil prices could spike to more than $100 a barrel in the event of an Israeli attack on Iran, some analysts are warning. Crude prices spiked as much as 5% overnight — before paring gains — on fears of military escalation between Iran and Israel as President Donald Trump announced the withdrawal of some U.S. personnel from embassies and bases across the Middle East. The front-month August contract for global benchmark Brent crude was trading at $69 per barrel at 3:20 p.m. ET on Thursday, while the front-month July U.S. WTI contract was at $67.7 per barrel. "They [U.S. military personnel] are being moved out because it could be a dangerous place and we will see what happens... We have given notice to move out," Trump told reporters on Wednesday. The Pentagon has ordered the withdrawal of troops and non-essential staff from embassies in Baghdad, Kuwait and Bahrain. The jury is still out as to whether the moves are a pressure play ahead of upcoming U.S.-Iran nuclear talks, or whether the U.S., Israel and Iran are truly on the verge of conflict. The geopolitical risk premium is "already at least partially reflected in current oil prices," according to J.P. Morgan's global commodities research team, citing Brent crude trading at just under $70 a barrel, already above its model-derived fair value figure of $66 for June. "This suggests an elevated 7% probability of a worst-case scenario, where the price reaction is exponential rather than linear, with the impact on supply potentially extending beyond a 2.1 mbd (million barrels per day) reduction in Iranian oil exports," the bank's research team wrote in a note published Thursday. Iran is OPEC's third-largest crude producer. Israel appears ready to attack Iran, according to reports citing U.S. and European officials, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been pressing Trump to allow strikes. But the American president said in late May that he had warned Netanyahu against attacking Iran while negotiations with Washington were under way. U.S. Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff is currently set to meet with Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi in Oman on Sunday for a sixth round of negotiations. Strait of Hormuz in focus Oil traders are focusing on the potential of a wider conflict shutting down the Strait of Hormuz, a critical chokepoint through which 20% of the volume of the world's total oil consumption passes daily. The British Navy on Wednesday issued a rare warning to ships in the region, saying it had "been made aware of increased tensions within the region which could lead to an escalation of military activity having a direct impact on mariners." It urged caution for vessels transiting "the Arabian Gulf, Gulf of Oman and Straits of Hormuz." Beyond that, J.P. Morgan warned, "a more general Middle East conflagration could ignite retaliatory responses from major oil producing countries in the region responsible for a third of global oil output." "Under this severe outcome," the bank's analysts wrote, "we estimate oil prices could surge to the $120-130/bbl range." Even before the latest uptick in tensions, some oil industry watchers were already making bullish calls despite a flood of announced OPEC+ supply coming onto the market, and lower global growth and demand forecasts due to trade and tariff tensions. Josh Young, founder and chief investment officer at Houston-based Bison Interests, told CNBC in late May that physical markets are more tightly supplied than previously thought, and with several oil rigs in the U.S. shale patch coming offline just as the U.S. summer driving season begins, markets should be preparing for Brent crude at $85 a barrel. "The pure inventory versus consumption would indicate $85 [per barrel], which is way higher than where we are right now. It's almost uncomfortable to say that, but that's the current price implied by inventories," Young told CNBC's Access Middle East. He cited his forecast figure as "fair value," arguing that "typically, you go from too cheap to too expensive. So I don't think we should be ruling out $100 oil this year. And I think if there is a geopolitical risk, it could get even higher." Without the geopolitical risk premium — namely, a conflict with Iran — Young still sees crude coming up to the $80 to $85 per barrel range, particularly in the event of trade deals being reached and Trump's tariffs being lowered. The outlook is boosted by this month's forecast from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, which sees a decline in U.S. oil production for the first time since the Covid-19 pandemic due to slower drilling activity and a declining rig count. Such bullish forecasts are certainly not the norm, however. Without a military attack on Iran, J.P. Morgan's base case for oil "remains in the low-to-mid $60s oil for the remainder of 2025, and $60 in 2026." Goldman Sachs also maintains an oil price forecast in the $50 to $60 per barrel range for this and next year, despite noting an improving demand picture, downside risks to U.S. supply and geopolitical tensions. The recent rise in inventories due to OPEC+ output increases, "supports our cautious oil price forecast, with Brent expected to average $60 for the rest of 2025 and $56 in 2026," the bank's commodities team wrote. "However, small misses in OPEC+ supply suggest that lower-than-anticipated spare capacity represents an upside risk to our price forecast."
Yahoo
40 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The Rare Earth Trap: How China Could Cripple America's Tech and Defense in One Move
China may not have Silicon Valley, but it controls the minerals that make Silicon Valley run. From electric motors to missile systems, rare earth elements are the silent backbone of modern techand Beijing owns the playbook. In 2024, China produced 270,000 tons of rare earthsabout six times more than the it dominates global refining. When trade tensions flared again, Beijing didn't just talk tough. It added seven rare earths to its export control list, causing headaches for American manufacturers. Tesla (TSLA) flagged rare-earth magnet shortages as a bottleneck for its humanoid robot, while Ford was forced to idle a major Chicago plant due to supply disruptions. Warning! GuruFocus has detected 6 Warning Sign with MP. The pressure doesn't stop at consumer goods. The F-35 fighter jet alone requires over 900 pounds of rare earths. And yet, the U.S. has just one major rare-earth mineMP Materials' (NYSE:MP) Mountain Passand almost no refining capacity. Trump, aiming to break China's chokehold, invoked emergency powers in March to accelerate domestic mining and processing. He followed up with an investigation into the national security risks of mineral imports, with recommendations expected within 270 days. Still, even fast-tracked projects could take years, and in the meantime, tariffs could drive up prices for the very materials U.S. companies depend on. China's control runs deep. It can approveor delayexport licenses without explanation, leaving global supply chains exposed. The message is clear: if the U.S. wants to restrict chip exports, China can slow-roll the magnets that drive EVs and missiles. Trump has floated Greenland and Ukraine as alternative sources, but neither has proven, scalable capacity. Rare earths aren't rarebut reliable supply chains are. And as the trade war evolves, the world is learning that dominance in materials might be more powerful than dominance in manufacturing. This article first appeared on GuruFocus.
