DOJ tells Trump he can wipe out national monuments
Lanora Pettit, who helms the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), overturned a nearly 90-year-old precedent governing national monuments in a new legal opinion published Tuesday but dated May 27.
The opinion, authored by Pettit, declares that the Antiquities Act of 1906 not only allows presidents to create national monuments from federal lands, but also says they can declare that existing monuments 'either never were or no longer are deserving of the Act's protections.'
Advertisement
Pettit said in her opinion that the White House asked the office to examine whether Trump could revoke former President Joe Biden's proclamations creating the Chuckwalla and Sáttítla Highlands national monuments in California.
'We think that the President can, and we should,' wrote Pettit in the opinion, which covers monuments broadly. There are more than 100 monuments established by prior presidents that have not been altered by Congress in some way, including converting the lands into national parks.
Pettit also wrote that she was asked to review a 1938 opinion issued by then-Attorney General Homer Cummings to then-President Franklin Roosevelt, which has long guided interpretations of the Antiquities Act.
In that opinion, Cummings determined that one president could not abolish a monument created by predecessors, ruling that because the designations are equivalent to an act of Congress, only lawmakers could abolish a monument.
But Pettit criticized the 1938 ruling, writing that 'presidents have long been understood to have the power to come to a different factual decision regarding whether particular objects within a previously reserved monument merit protection.'
'For large parcels with multiple monuments (like Chuckwalla and Sáttítla Highlands), there is no principled distinction between determining that one object is not worth protecting or all of them — and, by operation of law, no reasoned distinction between reducing and eliminating the parcel,' she added.
In addition to the two California sites, the Trump administration has been weighing reductions to four other monuments: Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante national monuments in Utah, Baaj Nwaavjo I'tah Kukveni-Ancestral Footprints of the Grand Canyon and the Ironwood Forest monuments in Arizona, and the Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks monument in New Mexico.
Justin Pidot, a law professor at the University of Arizona who previously worked at White House's Council on Environmental Quality, said the OLC opinion marks a 'radical shift' that could potential impact dozens of monuments now and into the future.
'This will go down as one of the most significant rollbacks in conservation in history,' Pidot said.
Pettit's interpretation of the Antiquities Act would effectively reduce protections for monuments to just the length of a presidential term, he said.
'It means that national monuments exist only at the pleasure of the current president who is in power,' Pidot said. 'It protects the resources, but there's no permanence.
'That's a big difference from where we've been for more than 100 years where the president protects monuments and they stay unless Congress acts,' he added.
But Margaret Byfield, executive director of American Stewards of Liberty, which advocates for private property rights, praised the change and views it as an avenue to roll back a monument process that critics argue have enshrined too much federal acreage.
'The legislative record shows Congress never authorized Presidents to use the Antiquities Act to protect millions of acres of land across America,' Byfield said. 'The new legal opinion from the Counsel to the President makes this clear and our hope is that President Trump will immediately begin eliminating, or at the very least, drastically shrink the massive National Monuments created by the Clinton, Bush, Obama and Biden administrations. These lands need to be opened back up to the people for recreation and productive uses.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NBC News
27 minutes ago
- NBC News
U.S. trans woman challenges Dutch asylum rejection
AMSTERDAM — A 28-year-old transgender woman from the U.S. began a legal challenge on Wednesday to the rejection of her asylum application in the Netherlands where she had sought political asylum saying she no longer felt safe in the United States. Veronica Clifford-Carlos, a visual artist from California, came to the Netherlands — the first country to legalize same-sex marriage and known for its strong protections of LGBTQ rights — because the Trump administration's policies towards transgender people made her feel unsafe, her lawyer's office said. The case, the first of its kind in the Netherlands, will be heard in a court in Amsterdam starting Wednesday, with a ruling expected in four to six weeks. Since taking office in January, President Donald Trump has issued executive orders limiting transgender rights, banned transgender people from serving in the armed forces, and rescinded anti-discrimination policies for LGBTQ people. Dutch advocacy group LGBT Asylum Support, which backs the lawsuit, is currently assisting around 20 U.S. trans individuals with pending asylum claims. According to data from the Immigration and Naturalisation Service (IND), 29 Americans applied for asylum in the Netherlands during the first half of this year. In previous years there were between nine and 18 applicants per year, an IND spokesperson said. 'The IND generally states that discrimination by authorities and fellow citizens can be considered an act of persecution if it is so severe that victims can no longer function socially and societally,' LGBT Asylum Support said in a statement. 'But the IND maintains that there are no grounds for exceptional treatment of transgender and queer refugees from the U.S.'
The Hill
28 minutes ago
- The Hill
Almost 6 in 10 say UN members should recognize Palestinian state: Survey
Nearly 6 in 10 Americans said that the United Nations (U.N.) countries should recognize the Palestinian state, according to a new survey that was published on Wednesday morning. The new Reuters/Ipsos poll found that 58 percent of U.S. adults think that every country in the U.N. should recognize Palestine as a nation. About a third of respondents, 33 percent, disagreed, while another 9 percent didn't answer when asked. The survey comes as the United Kingdom, France and Canada — all close U.S. allies — have recently expressed their intentions to recognize the Palestinian state. In late July, when asked about UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer's intention, President Trump said he had 'no view on that.' The president said French President Emmanuel Macron's decision was not 'going to change anything.' The decisions from all three nations come as Israel is facing international pressure over the humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip, with starvation spreading and some aid organizations warning that Palestinians are on the brink of famine. Israel has denied the accusation of facilitating the growing hunger in the war-torn enclave, stating that the Palestinian militant group Hamas is stealing humanitarian aid. Hamas, designated as a foreign terrorist organization by the U.S., has denied the accusation by Israel. The majority of Americans in the survey, 65 percent, said that the Trump administration should spring into action to aid Palestinians when it comes to food delivery. About 28 percent disagreed, including 41 percent of Trump-aligned GOP voters. Nearly 6 in 10 Americans, 59 percent, argued that the Israeli military's actions in Gaza, which kicked off following Hamas's Oct. 7, 2023, attack on southern Israel, have been excessive. About a third, 33 percent, disagreed, according to the poll. In February last year, 53 percent of Americans said Israeli military response in the enclave was excessive, while 42 percent said otherwise. The survey was conducted from Aug. 13-18 among 4,446 U.S. adults. The margin of error was around 2 percentage points.
The Hill
28 minutes ago
- The Hill
The news media has lost control
It has been said that journalists provide the conversation of democracy. That old adage is losing steam in this era, however, as the news agenda for the nation's rhetorical sphere is increasingly being framed by many and varied new voices. For decades, the journalism establishment exercised great power in deciding the topics and issues that Americans reflected over at the kitchen table or water cooler, and eventually at the voting booth. 'The news' was what primary gatekeepers such as The Associated Press, The New York Times and CBS said was news. Americans assumed that journalists brought particular and professional expertise to the agenda-setting function. Citizens also believed these reporters were representative of the nation's population, and therefore committed to creating a sensible, fair and wide-ranging news marketplace. News consumers respected journalists and trusted that the news industry was trying to serve a greater societal purpose. Long-time and legendary CBS news anchor Walter Cronkite was once widely considered the most trusted person in the nation. But the media establishment has largely squandered this lofty role and lost the confidence of news consumers. The news agenda has become infected with activism, hyperpartisanship and, at times, superficiality. The AllSides Media Bias Chart tracks the ideological leanings of a wide range of news outlets. Precious few achieve a centrist rating. Some receive a 'leans right' label, but most establishment news outlets receive a 'leans left.' Credibility ratings for the journalism industry have suffered as a result, and news consumers are looking elsewhere for information. Perhaps even worse, some citizens are just becoming news bystanders who no longer care about being informed. This void is being increasingly filled by all kinds of other voices, including podcasters, bloggers, social media provocateurs and even fringe, bombastic miscreants. On one level, this could actually be considered a good development. It is certainly the American way that everybody gets to have their say. The constitutional framers, indeed, intended that free press and free speech rights applied broadly to the wise and even the less than wise. The marketplace of news content need not be left any more to the machinations of a handful of elite, detached editors and producers in corporate media towers. The warping of the news agenda by supposedly professional journalists no doubt opened the door for the other players to emerge. And the old-time media have not yet figured out that squeezing the agenda won't work in the wide-open marketplace of the internet. The major broadcast networks provided minimal coverage last month of Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard's press briefing about a possible role of the Obama administration in the Trump-Russia collusion hoax. CNN dumped out of its coverage with a correspondent questioning whether the story deserved any time at all. Gabbard's comments deserved to be scrutinized, of course, but a DNI's pointed remarks are news. However, there are risks associated with having the nation's news agenda set by the rough and tumble atmosphere of social media, podcasters, influencers and zany characters. These actors are often more interested in buzz and vibe than deliberation and rational thinking. And now, in turn, traditional media cruise the internet looking for 'news,' trying to capitalize on the buzz of alternative agenda setters. There is little other way to explain the Coldplay concert couple or Sydney Sweeney's advertisement. And who would have figured a time when a key factor in a presidential election was which candidate did or did not go on Joe Rogan's podcast? Establishment journalism being influenced by the grassroots surely indicates a surrender by the news industry of its long-established responsibility to set an agenda of substance. Perhaps G.K. Chesterton had it right a hundred years ago when he mused, 'I am a journalist and so am vastly ignorant of many things, but because I am a journalist, I write and talk about them all.' But there should still be a key role for professional agenda-setters even in today's cluttered public sphere. Democracy and rational decision-making need an agenda based on deliberate and measured judgement, rather than chasing buzz and vibe. Professional editors and producers owe the nation a national dialogue based on relevance, high impact and perspective. A nation distracted by a shrill and superficial news agenda is unable to effectively address the serious challenges the nation faces.
