Latest news with #NationalMonuments
Newsweek
04-07-2025
- Politics
- Newsweek
Map Shows States Where Wildlife Is Under Threat
A number of Western states have vulnerable wildlife that would be threatened by possible land protection rollbacks, according to the conservation group the Wilderness Society. Government documents have indicated that President Donald Trump and the Department of the Interior Secretary Doug Burgum may roll back national monument designations and leasing withdrawals. Last month, a Department of Justice official determined that the president had the power to carry out the move. Newsweek has contacted the Wilderness Society for comment via email. The Department of the Interior told Newsweek it did not have any update on the discussions or further comment to share at this time. Why It Matters In his first term as president, Trump tried to edge toward a similar rollback. He reduced the size of two national monuments in Utah, deeming them a "massive land grab." He also lifted fishing restrictions within a marine monument off the New England coast, protections that his successor restored. The West is filled with various national monuments—areas of land that help to preserve vital wildlife habitats, according to conservation groups and ecologists who argue that rolling back protections would have wide-ranging effects on the American people and the country as a whole. What To Know No order or official policy has been set out to rescind the protections for national monuments. However, a leaked draft of an Interior Department document showed that the president sought to reduce the boundaries of six national monuments for resource extraction, the San Francisco news outlet SFGate reported. Per the outlet, the listed national monuments cover 5.4 million acres of land. Trump also requested that the Justice Department find out whether he had the power to "revoke President Biden's proclamations creating the Chuckwalla and the Sáttítla Highlands National Monuments," a May DOJ memo showed. Per the memo, the president also asked "whether we should disavow the opinion of Attorney General Homer Cummings titled Proposed Abolishment of Castle Pinckney National Monument, ... which has long been cited as a reason for treating the declaration of a monument under the Antiquities Act as irrevocable." Responding to these points, the DOJ wrote in the report, "We think that the President can, and we should." The response suggests that a rollback of the protections of the monuments—which provide critical habitat and migration corridors, according to the Wilderness Society—is looming. "Trump once again is targeting these protected areas, aiming to open them to oil and gas drilling, mining, logging, and road construction—this reflects a broader disregard for the conservation value of public lands," Peter Marra, the dean of the Earth Commons and a professor of biology and the environment at Georgetown University, told Newsweek. "These lands protect endangered species, stunning natural landscapes, and sacred Native American sites," he added. "We, as a nation—and especially our leaders—have a responsibility to safeguard these places for both their current significance and their value to future generations." Many of these protected areas spread across California, Arizona and New Mexico, with some in Washington, Oregon, Nevada, Utah and Colorado. Monuments in Florida, Alaska, Maine and Minnesota could also be affected by a rollback of protections. "Because there is much more public land in the Western U.S. than the Eastern U.S., species conservation in the West relies hugely on wise management of public lands," Taylor H. Ricketts, the director of the Gund Institute for Environment at the University of Vermont, told Newsweek. "That is why federal action in the West is so consequential for wildlife. It represents a big part of the total habitat available for many species," he said, adding that for the wildlife in these areas, the habitats are "crucial and irreplaceable." What People Are Saying Taylor H. Ricketts, the director of the Gund Institute for Environment at the University of Vermont, told Newsweek: "Morally, allowing any species to vanish from the earth on our watch is an ethical failure. All species have an equal right to persist on earth, and we have a moral responsibility to avoid extinctions due to our growing activities. Practically, wildlife supports our economies and lives in countless ways. Bats consume millions of mosquitoes per night. Wild bees pollinate crops across the U.S., contributing billions annually to our agricultural sector. Millions of Americans of both parties enjoy hunting, fishing, hiking, and bird-watching. These contributions to our economy are based on wildlife and wild places that are increasingly threatened. This means everyone, whether they are a wildlife enthusiast or not, has a stake in maintaining America's wild places and the species that depend on them." Shahid Naeem, a professor of ecology at Columbia University, told Newsweek: "As an ecologist, the removal of any protection in favor of harmful exploitation is a bad thing as all species, all nature, provide for our citizens, and our national security and prosperity depend on retaining at least 30 percent of the U.S. as healthy ecosystems. The loss of some species, like top predators, tells us how the environment is degraded much more so than the loss of charismatic species or endangered species. To remove or weaken current protections is an affront to the American people and an assault on our national environmental well-being. He added: "What's protected is already too small an area. Many ecologists believe that a minimum of 50 percent of our nation needs to be protected or managed with ecosystem services or nature-based solutions in mind. If the administration is for the people it represents, it would increase and strengthen—not decrease and weaken—environmental protections designed to protect nature, which includes wildlife." Peter Marra, the dean of the Earth Commons and a professor of biology and the environment at Georgetown University, told Newsweek: "Many of the species inhabiting these threatened areas are already in decline. The Desert Tortoise, Mexican Spotted Owl, and Canada Lynx—among others—are struggling to survive amid shrinking habitats and intensifying climate pressures. Removing remaining protections and introducing industrial development only accelerates their path toward extinction. While the spotlight is often on the West, similar threats are emerging in protected areas across the East as well. This is not just about one region—it's a nationwide unraveling of environmental safeguards." He added: "When we lose species, we also lose ecological integrity—the balance and resilience of natural systems that not only sustain wildlife but support human life as well. These ecosystems regulate our climate, filter our water, and maintain the biodiversity that underpins food security and public health. But it's more than that. These lands represent our natural heritage. Each site holds something irreplaceable—whether it's a physical monument, a sacred cultural landscape, or a biologically unique habitat. The loss isn't just environmental; it's moral and ethical." Noah Charney, a professor of conservation biology at the University of Maine, told Newsweek: "When companies come in and fence off land, drive heavy machinery, build roads, and divert water, these cause major changes to the local ecosystems and the ability of the species to persist. There's direct mortality from equipment, earthmoving vehicles—such as turtles and cactuses getting crushed. Then, there are a variety of indirect mortality sources—such as runoff into streams from oil or equipment; sediment and pollution runoff from roadways that gets flushed downstream out in monsoons; nighttime lighting associated with equipment that can cause birds, most of which migrate at night, to crash and die; and the spread of non-native species often associated with development that can push out endemic species or spread disease. Finally, there are the long-term consequences of the fences and habitat fragmentation—even if species are able to survive in isolated patches, over time, all species need to be able to move between habitat patches to find resources, adjust to shifting weather patterns and find mates for long-term population persistence." What Happens Next Now that the DOJ has confirmed that the president has the power to roll back protections of national monuments, it seems likely that the White House and the Department of the Interior will move to finalize an order to open those lands for resource extraction.
The Hill
11-06-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
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 has determined. The department issued a legal opinion this week that Trump can shrink or eliminate national monuments, overturning 1938 opinion saying that presidents did not have this power. '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 and the Sáttítla Highlands National Monuments. 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 that 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,' said Jennifer Rokala, executive director of The Center for Western Priorities, 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.
