Latest news with #AntiquitiesAct
The Star
18-05-2025
- Business
- The Star
Law to streamline, regulate museums to be tabled by year-end, says minister
KUALA LUMPUR: The National Unity Ministry will table a specific Act by the end of this year to regulate the setting up of museums nationwide. Its Minister Datuk Aaron Ago Dagang said the Act will provide a clear legal framework for museums and to ensure these are managed effectively and sustainably. "The Act will hopefully be tabled in November or December at Dewan Rakyat. "We need to hold a lot of engagements with the states too, because in Malaysia we have many state museums as well as private museums. We have 22 federal museums," he told a press conference after officiating the Malaysia International Museum Day seminar 2025 themed "Future of Museums in Rapidly Changing Communities" here on Sunday (May 18). Aaron said apart from regulating museums in Malaysia, the Act will ensure that the museums are built for their intended purpose. "Some museums are not museums; these are sometimes warehouses. "We need to adhere to international standards," he said. Department of Museums Malaysia director-general and International Council of Museums Malaysia chair Datuk Kamarul Baharin A. Kasim said the Act will also include the establishment of museum councils to advise on policies, and ensuring museums do not conflict with local community norms. "Some states like Penang and Sarawak have their own enactments, so the Act will streamline all these. "Malaysia had the Antiquities Act which was abolished after the government introduced the National Heritage Act in 2006. "The Antiquities Act focused more on nature as well as tangible and intangible monuments and sites. "The new Act will focus on museum policy control, and establishing a new rating system for museums," said Kamarul. Earlier in his speech, Aaron said Malaysia is home to 232 museums, encompassing federal level museums, state-run institutions, private collections, and personal museums. "As we celebrate this rich tapestry of museums, we must also acknowledge the challenges they face. Rapid societal changes, technological advancements, and the forces of globalisation present new hurdles for these institutions. The key question now is: how can museums stay relevant in this ever-evolving landscape?"
Yahoo
14-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
In the name of efficiency, Navajo president calls on Trump administration to preserve Bears Ears
The Newspaper Rock Petroglyphs are pictured along Indian Creek in Bears Ears National Monument near Monticello on Wednesday, Jan. 29, 2025. (Photo by Spenser Heaps for Utah News Dispatch) As an anticipated reduction to the size of Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante national monuments by the Trump administration looms, Navajo Nation President Buu Nygren is calling for the monuments to be kept at their current sizes in the name of efficiency. 'In light of the current administration's stated priorities on efficiency and reducing waste, we believe that maintaining the integrity of established monument boundaries supports those goals,' Nygren wrote in a letter to Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum, according to a post by the Navajo leader on X. 'Changing the boundaries and reopening finalized planning processes would not only risk the loss of valuable progress but may also lead to inefficiencies, duplicative expenditures, and delays in implementing conservation strategies.' The letter asks that no changes to the monuments' sizes be made without a meaningful dialogue with 'all tribal nations with ancestral ties to these lands.' Poll: Utah voters, regardless of political party, support Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante In his confirmation hearing, Burgum hinted at support for reducing the monuments and echoed Utah leaders' criticism of use of the Antiquities Act to put protections on large areas of land. Bears Ears has deep spiritual and cultural importance to a number of Indigenous peoples, including the Diné, or Navajo, Nygren said in his post, noting that like neighboring Grand Staircase it is a 'revered landscape.' The monuments in southeastern Utah have been a political football for multiple presidential administrations, starting with the establishment of Grand Staircase in 1996 by President Bill Clinton who used his power under the Antiquities Act, a law passed in 1906 that gives the president authority to declare national monuments to protect areas of cultural, historical and scientific significance. President Barack Obama then used the Antiquities Act at the end of his term in 2016 to give monument status to Bears Ears, an area tribes had long lobbied to protect. Both monuments were scaled back by President Donald Trump when he took office in 2017, cutting Bears Ears from 1.36 million acres to 1 million acres, and Grand Staircase-Escalante from 1.35 million acres to 229,000 acres. In 2021, President Joe Biden restored the monuments to their original sizes, a decision Utah is challenging in court. Meanwhile, polling indicates that 71% of voters favor maintaining Bears Ears as a national monument, while 74% support keeping Grand Staircase-Escalante as a national monument. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
12-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Opinion: Why a 1906 law keeps angering Utahns
Back near the turn of the 20th century, the United States faced a crisis of disappearing Native American artifacts. So-called 'pot hunters' were ravaging ancient sites across the West. On July 29, 1903, the New York Times recounted a disturbing observation from the Chicago World's Fair that had taken place 10 years earlier. 'From the Utah cliff dwellings, seven tons of most valuable relics were taken away for exhibition purpose at the World's Fair, and were afterward auctioned off for curios in a Chicago shop.' You can imagine the furor that would erupt today if someone came across tons of items stolen from an ancient Native American site at a shop in Chicago. But in 1903, the penalty for such a thing was … nothing. It wasn't a crime. Today it is. And yet, things have become much more complicated. Many in the West now see the law as symbolic of presidential overreach, not marauding bands of mercenaries who pillage ruins for profit. Put in the context of the early 20th century and an expanding American civilization, it's easy to see why Congress decided, in 1906, to pass the Antiquities Act, and why President Roosevelt was quick to sign it. In recent years, however, the law has become an example of why government decisions are best when they involve elected representatives, public input and the tug-and-pull of democracy. In 1906, with relics and sacred sites dotting the vast and mostly uninhabited Western United States, there was a perceived need to be nimble in protecting these sites, so the law gave presidents the rare authority to act alone, by fiat. Presidents, the law said, shall have power 'to declare by public proclamation historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, and other objects of historic or scientific interest that are situated upon the lands owned or controlled by the government of the United States to be a national monument.' Those words remain today. But presidents are political by nature. And so, within a few decades, the law became about politics as much as antiquities. Wyoming got itself an exemption. Back in 1943, President Franklin D. Roosevelt declared a monument at Jackson Hole. John D. Rockefeller Jr. had offered the government a gift of 30,000 private acres he owned if it were included in an expansion of Grant Teton National Park. Congress refused to expand the park, so the president declared the area a monument, effectively expanding it anyway. That angered ranchers and politicians, and eventually led Congress to act. Alaska also has an exemption. President Carter declared 56 million acres a monument there in 1978, which angered Alaskans and led Congress to act again. The law specifically says monuments are to 'be confined to the smallest area compatible with proper care and management of the objects to be protected…' But it doesn't specify what that means. During his first term, President Trump shrank both Bears Ears and the Grand Staircase-Escalante Monuments in Utah. When President Biden took office, he expanded them again. Now, Trump is considering another contraction. Critics say that would be illegal, but courts have never decided the issue. Conservatives want businesses to extract minerals from land near monuments. I can't imagine who would want to try, knowing the next administration might revoke leases and re-monument the land. Utah Rep. Celeste Maloy has a bill that would strip presidents of this monumental power. 'Unfortunately, presidents have continued to abuse that narrow authority to designate millions of acres of land in Utah and across the West without proper congressional oversight,' she told the Deseret News earlier this year. Others have suggested keeping the presidential power, but requiring Congress to ratify it within a certain time. Back in 1903, the Times lamented, 'Today there is nothing to prevent anyone in this country from tearing down a ruin, gathering together the ancient objects which are found therein, and selling them to the highest bidder.' That was an awful circumstance. The need to prohibit it was clear. One hundred and twenty-two years later, however, the remedy no longer works.
Newsweek
09-05-2025
- Politics
- Newsweek
Texas Conservatives Want a California Monument Gone
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Plaintiffs represented by a Texas-based conservative think tank are suing the federal government to undo the establishment of a California monument. The lawsuit against Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum, the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Department of the Interior challenges a proclamation issued by then-President Joe Biden on January 14. The proclamation set aside approximately 624,000 acres to establish the Chuckwalla National Monument in Southern California. Texas Public Policy Foundation is representing Daniel Torongo, whose family has mined in the region since 1978, and BlueRibbon Coalition, a non-profit that works to protect recreational access to public lands, in the lawsuit filed May 1. Why It Matters The plaintiffs allege that Biden's proclamation violates the Antiquities Act, a 1906 law authorizing the president to declare historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures and other objects of historic or scientific interest as national monuments. A sign is set up ahead of President Joe Biden's visit to the Chuckwalla National Monument, Tuesday, Jan. 7, 2025, to the Coachella Valley, Calif. A sign is set up ahead of President Joe Biden's visit to the Chuckwalla National Monument, Tuesday, Jan. 7, 2025, to the Coachella Valley, Calif. AP Photo/Damian Dovarganes The plaintiffs argue that the Chuckwalla region is not an object, so it cannot be designated as a monument. "An object cannot be understood to be a region based on the ordinary meaning of the word 'object' in the context of the Act or the legislative history of the Act," Texas Public Policy Foundation attorneys wrote in the lawsuit. What To Know The Antiquities Act also states that the president can reserve parcels of land as part of the national monuments, but the parcels "shall be confined to the smallest area compatible with the proper care and management of the objects to be protected." "The Chuckwalla National Monument also exceeds the President's authority under the Antiquities Act because neither Chuckwalla, nor the items listed as objects within the monument, are confined to the 'smallest area compatible,'" Texas Public Policy Foundation attorneys wrote. The lawsuit alleges that the plaintiffs "have suffered and will continue to suffer irreparable injury as a result of the establishment of the Chuckwalla National Monument that can be redressed by the court." The attorneys claim that the proclamation interferes with Torongo's ability to mine in the region, and he has a "significant financial interest" in mining. The proclamation also interferes with the ability of BlueRibbon Coalition members to drive, hike and explore trails within the region, according to the complaint. "Besides preventing enjoyment of the land, the designation may also harm BRC members financially, as many of them have invested significant amounts of money in off-roading vehicles and equipment," the lawsuit states. The plaintiffs ask the court to declare that the proclamation violates the Antiquities Act and the Constitution. It also asks the court to set aside the creation and establishment of the monument and issue a permanent injunction preventing the enforcement of the proclamation and future monument planning activities. What People Are Saying Texas Public Policy Foundation attorneys, in a May 1 complaint: "The Chuckwalla National Monument exceeds presidential authority by attempting to protect indiscriminate objects; objects not expressly listed in the proclamation; and objects 'yet to be discovered.'" Janessa Goldbeck, chief executive of Vet Voice Foundation, a nonprofit representing veterans, in comments to the Los Angeles Times: "We have a Texas special interest group representing a guy from Michigan trying to undo something that Californians love and fought for. So I think it's important that we see it for what it is, which is an ideological attempt by out-of-state special interests to sell off our public lands here in California." What Happens Next Summons were issued for the defendants. They will have 60 days to respond after service of the summons is completed. Do you have a story that Newsweek should be covering? Do you have any questions about this story? Contact LiveNews@
Yahoo
09-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Biden created Chuckwalla monument in the California desert. A lawsuit aims to undo it
A lawsuit filed in federal court is seeking to undo the 624,000-acre Chuckwalla National Monument in the Southern California desert, claiming President Biden overstepped his authority by setting aside such a vast swath of land days before leaving office. Plaintiffs represented by an Austin, Texas-based conservative think tank claim Biden abused the Antiquities Act, a 1906 law that allows presidents to create national monuments. The suit brought against the Interior Department highlights that the law mandates monuments be limited to the "smallest area compatible with proper care and management of the objects to be protected." 'If you look at the history, it was supposed to be limited to, let's say, 100 acres, maybe 1,000 acres. But it certainly wasn't the kind of expansion that we've seen in recent years,' said Matt Miller, senior attorney for the Texas Public Policy Foundation, which filed the suit. Supporters of Chuckwalla, which sits south of Joshua Tree National Park, point out that the law has long been used by presidents to protect large land masses — including the designation of the Grand Canyon by Theodore Roosevelt in 1908. On Jan. 14, Biden created Chuckwalla to safeguard land sacred to tribes as well as important wildlife habitat and military sites. On May 1, the foundation filed the suit against the U.S. Department of the Interior in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on behalf of a resident of the state with mining claims in the footprint of the monument and the BlueRibbon Coalition, a nonprofit that advocates for recreation access. According to the lawsuit, Daniel Torongo, whose family began mining in the region in 1978, and members of the BlueRibbon Coalition, will be prevented from using the land in ways they previously enjoyed because of the monument designation. Torongo, of Brighton, Mich., will face onerous restrictions to maintaining his claim and will not be able to expand it as he planned, potentially threatening his retirement plan to spend more time mining there with his family, according to the suit. "Although Mr. Torongo and his family have invested time and money in acquiring claims, equipment and relevant knowledge, the dream of expanding their operation beyond its current size is no longer possible," the suit states. BlueRibbon Coalition members, meanwhile, which include off-roaders and dirt bikers, fear they'll also face restrictions because of the 'goal of maintaining the undeveloped character of the land,' according to the suit. Read more: Biden creates two vast national monuments in California during final week in office The Interior Department hasn't yet responded to the suit and spokeswoman J. Elizabeth Peace said department policy is not to comment on litigation. In a statement, she said the department 'reaffirms its unwavering commitment to conserving and managing the nation's natural and cultural resources, upholding tribal trust responsibilities and overseeing public lands and waters for the benefit of all Americans, while prioritizing fiscal responsibility for the American people.' Janessa Goldbeck, chief executive of Vet Voice Foundation, a nonprofit representing veterans, said the suit makes numerous false claims. "We have a Texas special interest group representing a guy from Michigan trying to undo something that Californians love and fought for," she said. "So I think it's important that we see it for what it is, which is an ideological attempt by out-of-state special interests to sell off our public lands here in California." Goldbeck, a former U.S. Marine, pushed back on the suit's description of military sites protected by the designation, which includes a World War II-era training site established by Gen. George Patton to prepare troops to fight in the deserts of North Africa. The suit reports that "all that remains of that facility is tank tracks and remnants of concrete fountains and rock-lined walkways." According to Goldbeck, you can still see the roads and foundations — including one bearing the handprint of the captain who built it. There's also a chapel with a pulpit that's still standing, she said. "They clearly have not been out on the landscape," she said. 'They don't understand why veterans and military families from across the political spectrum got together to advocate for the creation of the Chuckwalla National Monument." She added that the notion that recreation will be stymied is similarly untrue, and that hiking, authorized hunting, camping and more will still be allowed. Read more: Interior Secretary Burgum eyes national monuments for energy resources During his final week in office, Biden designated Chuckwalla along with Sáttítla Highlands National Monument, spanning more than 224,000 acres of pristine lakes and unique geological features near the Oregon border. Even before the monuments were designated, there were fears they could be rolled back by the Trump administration. During his first term, Trump sharply reduced the boundaries of two monuments in Utah — Bear's Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante — and stripped protections from a marine monument off the coast of New England to allow commercial fishing. The Biden administration reversed the changes. In early February, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum issued an order that many saw as opening the door to potentially eliminating or shrinking monuments. He directed his assistant secretaries to 'review and, as appropriate, revise all withdrawn public lands,' citing a federal statute corresponding to the law that allows presidents to create monuments. Some believed California's young monuments were at most risk of being targeted, in part because Trump might seek to undo his predecessor's actions. Then, a little over a month later, the Trump administration caused confusion when it issued and then appeared to roll back an announcement implying the president had rescinded his predecessor's orders creating Chuckwalla and Sáttítla. Whether presidents have the authority to alter monuments is unclear and hotly contested. Litigation challenging Trump's previous monument reductions was still pending when Biden reversed them and the matter was never settled. Read more: Confusion clouds the fate of two new California monuments Miller, the attorney leading the recent litigation, said he believed it was possible the administration would not defend the suit brought against it. The suit argues that the designation of Chuckwalla was an invalid use of the Antiquities Act, and also claims the Antiquities Act itself is unconstitutional. Congress has the right to decide how federal property is used and disposed of, Miller said, citing what's known as the Property Clause of the Constitution. Congress can't give that right to the executive branch, according to the suit. If the plaintiffs prevail, Chuckwalla's monument status will be nullified, Miller said. In any case, Miller believes the losing side will appeal — and said it could end up before the Supreme Court. In 2021, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. questioned how presidents have implemented the Antiquities Act to designate sprawling monuments and signaled the court might revisit the law in a future case. "If it goes up that high, we hope this is that case," Miller said. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
