Latest news with #AntiquitiesActof1906
Yahoo
13-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Two national monuments in California may lose federal designation
( — Two relatively new national monuments in California might lose their federal designation. The Trump administration is seeking to reverse the official reservation of Chuckwalla in southern California and the Sáttítla Highlands in Siskiyou County as national monuments, which former President Joe Biden established days before leaving office. Video: Trump blocks California's ban on the sale of gas powered cars Late last month, the Department of Justice issued a memo in which it determined that the Trump administration had the ability to revoke previously granted national monument status. The memo overrides a 1938 opinion by then-Attorney General Homer Cummings, who said presidents did not have the power to abolish national monuments. The DOJ argued in part that the president's power to grant national monuments, which was established by the Antiquities Act of 1906, should be treated as reversible by the president, as many other executive powers are. The department cited several examples in which presidents reduced the size of previous national monument designations. The Trump administration also said that Biden did not adhere to a requirement that the reservation of land be kept to the 'smallest area compatible with the proper care and management of the objects to be protected.' 'I would do it': Trump says he would arrest Newsom 'It is vital to preserve this unique geologic landscape that holds sites and objects of historical, traditional, cultural, and spiritual significance for Tribal Nations and Indigenous peoples who have gathered Indigenous Knowledge and practiced and shaped their cultures linked integrally to this area over countless generations,' Biden declared in his proclamation establishing the Sáttítla Highlands National Monument. 'In addition to containing numerous objects of historic and scientific interest as described above, this area also provides exceptional outdoor recreational opportunities, including hiking, biking, snowmobiling, camping, hunting, scenic driving and canoeing.' The Biden administration cited similar reasons for seeking to protect Chuckwalla. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
12-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Opinion: Testing the limits of monuments in the West
If only the people who write laws would be more specific. For instance, did those who drafted the Antiquities Act of 1906 mean for it to allow presidents to 'un-declare' national monuments a predecessor had declared? I mean, they didn't say so, but … they also didn't say a president couldn't do such a thing. Or maybe it just never occurred to them that it might happen. You knew this was coming, right? When President Trump served his first term in the White House, he decided to shrink two monuments in Utah — Bears Ears and the Grand Staircase-Escalante. That resulted in a lawsuit, but before the courts could settle anything, Joe Biden became president and expanded them again. So, naturally, Trump's next move, in his second term, might be to un-declare monuments altogether. Whether that includes the ones in Utah remains to be seen. Frankly, if you're an environmentalist, you should be loving this. No oil well driller or miner would want to come near investing money in a project on land that will probably be declared a monument again the next time a Democrat takes office. The extraction business, like any other business, thrives on certainty. The never-ending Hatfield-McCoy-like feud over public lands and monuments in the West has been anything but certain in recent years. Even if this shrink-and-expand yo-yo never happened in the past, does anyone believe it won't go on in the future? Controversy is pretty much all that is certain in the Antiquities Act. Even the much-cited part that requires those monuments to 'be confined to the smallest area compatible with proper care and management of the objects to be protected' means nothing. It all depends on the definition of 'smallest,' which is up to the president. At the start, President Theodore Roosevelt used the act to declare Wyoming's Devils Tower as a monument, which was relatively small. But not long after, he made a monument of the Grand Canyon, which, other than the Titanic, may be the most often-used metaphor for large things. I doubt anyone would suggest doing away with either of those (the Grand Canyon has since been made a national park, which did require Congress to act). But not all large monuments are created equal. Earlier this week, Donald Trump's Justice Department released a 50-page opinion that determined presidents do indeed retain the power to dissolve monuments into thin air. That supersedes a 1938 Justice Department opinion that said the opposite. If one part of the newer opinion rings true, it is the section, near the top, that explains how the act has 'stirred controversy from the start.' 'In total, three different Congresses considered 14 separate versions of the Antiquities Act,' it says, later adding, 'Western lawmakers were particularly vocal critics. For example, in 1905, (territorial) Rep. (Bernard Shandon) Rodey of New Mexico complained that 'if all the ruins in northern New Mexico were withdrawn from entry there would be a tract of country withdrawn as big as the State of New York.'' The opinion then cites several instances in which it says previous presidents have diminished monuments. None, however, has tried to make one disappear. Stay tuned. If nothing else, this illustrates what happens when you don't require a democratic, public process; in other words, when a big decision doesn't have to pass through the people's representatives in Congress. Maybe, as some would argue, the preservation of cultural artifacts, precious landscapes, sacred Native American sites and more can't wait for hearings and a compromise solution. That was certainly the case in 1906, only a few years after many ancient artifacts from ruins in Utah turned up at the World's Fair, to later end up in curio shops around Chicago. But we don't really know because, as with so many other things, the act has become a divider, not a uniter. All Congress has really done to the act since its passage is to exempt Wyoming and Alaska, in various ways, because they were angered by monuments declared in their states. Congress could do much more, of course. It could expressly forbid presidents to do away with monuments. More realistically, it could require Congress to ratify any declaration of a monument within a certain period — say, three years. That would give people enough time to decide if they like what was done. Or it could support Utah Rep. Celeste Maloy's bill that would take away the power of presidents to declare monuments altogether. You can decide which of these has the best chance of passing today's House and Senate. My guess is that now, as in 1906, lawmakers are likely to avoid being too specific. Which means this will be punted to the courts.
Yahoo
11-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Trump gets the OK to end protections for national monuments, from the Statue of Liberty to the Grand Canyon
President Donald Trump has the authority to abolish national monuments protected by his predecessors, the Justice Department recently said. In a legal document dated to May 27, the department overturned a nearly 90-year-old opinion that said presidents did not have that ability, saying that its conclusions were 'wrong' and 'can no longer be relied upon.' 'The Antiquities Act of 1906 permits a president to alter a prior declaration of a national monument, including by finding that the 'landmarks,' 'structures,' or 'objects' identified in the prior declaration either never were or no longer are deserving of the act's protections; and such an alteration can have the effect of eliminating entirely the reservation of the parcel of land previously associated with a national monument,' the Office of Legal Counsel's Deputy Assistant Attorney General Lanora Pettit wrote. ' The contrary conclusion of the Attorney General in Proposed Abolishment of Castle Pinckney National Monument, 39 Op. Att'y Gen. 185 (1938), was incorrect.' The document specifically refers to former President Joe Biden establishing California's Chuckwalla and Sáttítla Highlands National Monuments. The monuments, that have particular significance to Native American tribes and extend over some 848,000 acres of land, barred oil and natural gas drilling and mining there. The Trump administration told The Washington Post in March that it has plans to eliminate them. In April, the paper reported that Interior Department Officials were studying whether to scale back at least six national monuments, and a person briefed on the matter said the aim was to free up land for drilling and mining. Biden established 10 new monuments during his tenure. 'America's energy infrastructure was on life-support when President Trump got into office; and in nearly six months, the administration has shocked this critical industry back into life, making good on another promise to the American people,' the White House's Harrison Fields, principal deputy press secretary, told The Independent in an emailed statement responding to question about the Justice Department's opinion. 'It's imperative that the Senate passes OBBB to completely end Biden's war on American energy, and will liberate our federal lands and waters to oil, gas, coal, geothermal, and mineral leasing.' The Justice Department did not immediately respond to The Independent's request for comment on the matter. While this opinion does not overturn any national monument, it hints at future action. Trump has taken steps to shrink monuments in the past. During his first administration, he moved to slash Utah's Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante national monuments: the first such move of its kind in more than 50 years. Biden reversed Trump's decision before the courts could make a final ruling on the matter. Earlier this year, Trump opened the Pacific Islands Heritage Marine national monument to commercial fishing while leaving the monument in place. The Interior Department is weighing changes to monuments across the country as part of the push to 'restore American energy dominance.' The National Park Service alone manages more than 100 national monuments established under the authority of the Antiquities Act. Some are also co-managed by the U.S. and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Army, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Some of those include the Statue of Liberty, the Stonewall Inn, the Grand Canyon, Sequoia National Forest, and the Lincoln Memorial. While Congress must approve the designation of national parks, a national monument is designated by a president via the Antiquities Act. Around half of the nation's national parks were first designated monuments, and all except three presidents have used the act to protect areas both offshore and on land. Presidents, including Dwight Eisenhower, have also diminished monuments. Responding to the document, environmental advocate groups have asserted there might not be much legal standing and that moves to eliminate or shrink monuments would be less than popular. "There's no reason to think the OLC opinion should make much difference to the White House. National monuments have broad public and political support, and shrinking or revoking them will only damage the Trump Administration's popularity,' Aaron Paul, the staff attorney for the Grand Canyon Trust, told The Independent in an emailed statement. 'Besides, if the president tries to shrink or eliminate monuments, it would send the question to the courts, which is the real test of whether the OLC's views have any validity or not." 'The Trump administration can come to whatever conclusion it likes, but the courts have upheld monuments established under the Antiquities Act for over a century. This opinion is just that, an opinion. It does not mean presidents can legally shrink or eliminate monuments at will,' Jennifer Rokala, executive director of The Center for Western Priorities, said in a written statement. 'Once again the Trump administration finds itself on the wrong side of history and at odds with Western voters,' she said. With reporting from The Associated Press
San Francisco Chronicle
11-06-2025
- Politics
- San Francisco Chronicle
Trump seeks to undo California's two newest national monuments
The Trump administration is moving forward with plans to abolish California's two newest national monuments, Sáttítla Highlands National Monument in the state's far north and Chuckwalla National Monument near Joshua Tree. The push to eliminate the designations, issued earlier this year by former President Joe Biden, was revealed in a U.S. Justice Department memo this week, responding to legal questions from the administration about rolling back the California monuments. Sáttítla Highlands monument was established in January to protect a remote 224,000-acre volcanic landscape northeast of Mount Shasta, known for lava beds and caves. The designation was sought by Northern California's Pit River Tribe to prevent geothermal power production at tribally sacred sites. The Chuckwalla monument safeguards 624,000 acres of desert that was similarly under threat of energy development. The Trump administration did not directly respond to questions from the Chronicle about the California monuments. However, in a statement, White House spokesperson Harrison Fields cited the president's pledge to 'liberate our federal lands and waters to oil, gas, coal, geothermal and mineral leasing.' National monuments, under the Antiquities Act of 1906, have long been a way for presidents to unilaterally set aside ecologically or culturally important lands for protection. Less common and legally debatable is a president's authority to roll back the designations. The Justice Department, led by appointees of President Donald Trump, said in Tuesday's memo requested by the White House that the president could proceed with the elimination of California's monuments. The opinion, however, is certain to be challenged if and when the administration follows through on any repeals. Media reports in March suggested that plans to eliminate or reduce the size of several national monuments established by Biden were imminent, but the moves never came to pass. During Trump's first term, he drastically shrank two national monuments in southern Utah, Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante. The actions were reversed by the Biden administration. Legal action challenging those reductions was never resolved. The Justice Department's new 50-page legal memo, prepared by Deputy Assistant Attorney General Lanora C. Pettit, concludes that the Antiquities Act gives the president the power to determine that national monuments have become, or never were, worthy of the designation. While the act doesn't explicitly address rollbacks of monuments, Pettit says its silence on the subject implies such authority. While the opinion was prepared in response to questions about Sáttítla Highlands and Chuckwalla, it could apply to any national monument. The opinion reverses prior legal opinion by the federal government that monuments cannot be altered. The Center for Biological Diversity, which fought the shrinking of the Utah monuments, says the Department of Justice opinion is wrong. The environmental organization says it's committed to going to court to protect California's monuments or any others that Trump might target. 'It's remarkable to see the DOJ trying to manufacture legal rationale to undo monuments that the American public cherishes,' said Taylor McKinnon, southwest director for the Center for Biological Diversity. 'These are some of our most important public lands.' National monuments have often been upgraded by Congress to national parks.
Yahoo
11-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
DOJ: Trump can abolish protected monuments set aside by past presidents
President Trump can abolish national monuments that were protected from energy development and other activities by past presidents, the Justice Department (DOJ) has determined. The department issued a legal opinion this week that Trump can shrink or eliminate national monuments, overturning a 1938 opinion saying presidents did not have the power to abolish them. 'The Antiquities Act of 1906 permits a President to alter a prior declaration of a national monument, including by finding that the 'landmarks,' 'structures,' or 'objects' identified in the prior declaration either never were or no longer are deserving of the Act's Protections,' the new DOJ opinion states. While this opinion does not in itself overturn any national monument boundaries, it sets the stage for doing so in the future. The document specifically names two national monuments set aside by the Biden administration, the Chuckwalla National Monument and the Sáttítla Highlands National Monument. These monuments, located in California, encompass a combined 848,000 acres of particular significance to Native American tribes in the region. The White House told The Washington Post that it planned to eliminate them after saying in a later-scrubbed fact sheet that it was 'terminating proclamations declaring nearly a million acres constitute new national monuments that lock up vast amounts of land.' President Trump has, in the past, sought to shrink monuments designated by past presidents, including Utah's Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante monuments. The legal opinion issued Tuesday said the prior 1938 opinion, named for monument Castle Pinckney, made reducing the size of those monuments more complicated. 'The ongoing existence of Castle Pinckney has needlessly complicated litigation challenging the President's authority to alter the declarations of his predecessors,' it stated. 'Following President Trump's 2017 decision to substantially reduce but not eliminate the Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monuments, the parties spent considerable resources litigating whether those actions should be considered revocations … in no small part because Castle Pinckney opined that reduction but not elimination of a parcel was permissible.' Environmental advocates criticized the new opinion. 'The Trump administration can come to whatever conclusion it likes, but the courts have upheld monuments established under the Antiquities Act for over a century. This opinion is just that, an opinion. It does not mean presidents can legally shrink or eliminate monuments at will,' Jennifer Rokala, executive director of The Center for Western Priorities, said in a written statement. 'Once again the Trump administration finds itself on the wrong side of history and at odds with Western voters,' she added. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
