Trump can abolish national monuments, says DOJ opinion

In a significant legal shift, the U.S. Department of Justice released an opinion on May 27, clarifying the powers of the president regarding national monuments. This opinion overrules a 1938 legal interpretation that limited presidential authority to revoke national monument designations. The Antiquities Act of 1906, as stated by Lanora Pettit, head of the DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel, allows presidents not only to designate but also to diminish or abolish monuments. This change highlights ongoing debates over land use and protection in the United States, particularly amid changes in administration policies towards natural resource exploitation. During the Trump presidency, notable actions were taken to reduce the size of national monuments in Utah, specifically the Bears Ears National Monument, which was reduced by 85%, and the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, which saw a reduction of 50%. These moves sparked considerable backlash from environmental groups and local communities who viewed these reductions as detrimental to ecological and cultural preservation. President Biden, upon assuming office, aimed to restore the original protections for these monuments, illustrating the contentious nature of land management in the country. The recent opinion does not in itself alter any existing national monument statuses, but it indicates a potential for future revisions. Trump’s administration has indicated intentions to evaluate several monuments across the country, including those established by Biden, for possible reductions. The DOJ's position has raised concerns among activists, who argue that while the opinion grants the president more power, it does not eliminate legal challenges that could arise from such actions. Environmental advocates suggest that the opinion is simply a viewpoint and not an absolute directive, emphasizing that many monuments have historically been upheld by courts. This legal decision resonates with ongoing discussions about the balance between conservation efforts and resource development. With energy policies at the forefront, any moves to rescind or weaken protections for national monuments could substantially affect regions long deemed worthy of safeguarding under presidential authority. The public will likely observe how these legal changes will play out in practical terms under the current administration and future ones, especially considering the critically important ecological and cultural narratives associated with national monuments.