logo
National monuments have grown and shrunk under US presidents for over a century thanks to one law

National monuments have grown and shrunk under US presidents for over a century thanks to one law

Yahoo11-06-2025

America's public lands, from its majestic national parks to its vast national forests, are at the heart of the country's identity.
They cover more than a quarter of the nation and large parts of the West. Some are crisscrossed by hiking trails and used by hunters and fishermen. Ranchers graze cattle on others. In many areas, the government earns money through oil, gas, timber and mining leases.
These federally managed public lands have long enjoyed broad bipartisan support, as have moves to turn them into protected national parks and monuments. Research consistently shows that a majority of Americans want their congressional representatives to protect public access to these lands for recreation. One avenue for protection is the creation of national monuments.
But the status of national monuments can change.
Presidents have expanded and contracted national monuments, as the U.S. saw with Bears Ears National Monument in Utah over the course of the past three presidencies. The rules for the use and maintenance of various public lands can also change, and that can affect surrounding communities and their economies.
The U.S. is likely to see changes to public lands again under the second Trump administration. One of the new administration's early orders was for the Department of Interior to review all national monuments for potential oil and gas drilling and mining. At least two national monuments that President Joe Biden created in California are among the new administration's targets.
The avenue for many of these changes is rooted in one century-old law.
The Antiquities Act of 1906, signed into law by President Theodore Roosevelt, gave Congress or the president the authority to establish national monuments on federal land as a means of protecting areas for ecological, cultural, historical or scientific purposes.
From Theodore Roosevelt on, 18 of the 21 presidents have used the Antiquities Act to create, expand or contract national monuments through a presidential proclamation.
By using the Antiquities Act to create, expand or reduce national monuments, presidents can avoid an environmental impact statement, normally required under the National Environmental Policy Act, which also allows for public input. Supporters argue that forgoing the environmental impact statement helps expedite monument creation and expansion. Critics say bypassing the review means potential impacts of the monument designations can be overlooked.
The Antiquities Act also offers no clarity on whether a president can reduce the amount of area protected by prior presidents. The act simply states that a president designates 'the smallest area compatible with the proper care and management of the objects to be protected.' This has led to the shifting of national monument boundaries based on the priorities of each administration.
An example is Bears Ears, an area of Utah that is considered significant to several tribes but also has uranium, gas and oil resources. In 2016, President Barack Obama designated Bears Ears a national monument. In 2017, President Donald Trump signed a proclamation reducing Bears Ears by 80% of its total designated size. The monument's size and scope shifted a third time when President Joe Biden reestablished Bears Ears to the boundaries designated by Obama.
In the span of just over five years, the monument was created, reduced, then restored to the original monument designation.
The uncertainty about the long-term reliability of a designation makes it challenging for federal agencies to manage the land or assure Indigenous communities that the government will protect cultural, historical and ecological heritage.
National parks and monuments can help fuel local economies.
A 2017 study by Headwaters Economics, a nonprofit research group, found that Western rural counties with more public land have had greater economic growth, including in jobs and personal income, than those with little public land. National monuments can also benefit neighboring counties by increasing population, income and employment opportunities.
While many counties adjacent to public lands may be dependent on natural resource extraction, the establishment of a national monument can open up new opportunities by expanding tourism and recreation. For example, four national parks and monuments in southeastern Utah, including Natural Bridges, drew about 2.4 million visitors who spent nearly US$400 million in surrounding communities.
However, when there is uncertainty over whether public lands will remain protected, communities may be hesitant to invest in that future, not knowing whether it will soon change.
There are a few ways to increase the certainty around the future of national monuments.
First, lawsuits could push the courts to determine whether the president has the authority to reduce national monuments. Since the Antiquities Act doesn't directly address presidential authority to reduce monument size, that's an open question.
Advocacy groups sued the government over Trump's authority to shrink Bears Ears National Monument, but their cases were put on hold after Biden expanded the monument again. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear other cases in 2024 that argued that a president's authority to declare and expand national monuments should be far more limited under the law.
Second, Congress could permanently protect designated national monuments through legislation. That would require presidential approval, and the process would likely be slow and cumbersome. Creating White Clouds Wilderness in Idaho, for example, took decades and a public campaign to have it designated a national monument before Congress approved its wilderness designation.
Third, Congress could take new steps to protect public lands. For example, a bipartisan bill titled Public Lands in Public Hands Act could block privatization of public lands and increase and maintain access for recreation. One of the bill's lead sponsors is U.S. Rep. Ryan Zinke, a Republican from Montana who served as Interior secretary during the first Trump administration. Whether the bill will pass and gain the president's approval remains to be seen.
The Antiquities Act has led to the creation of 163 terrestrial and marine monuments and subsequently the protection of land and waters that hold cultural, scientific or historic significance.
These monuments tend to have broad support. During the first Trump administration, there were over 650,000 public comments on Trump's review of national monument creation. An analysis found that 98% of the comments expressed broad support for both the creation and expansion of national monuments.
Public lands are more than just physical places. They are spaces where our ideals and values around public land unify us as Americans. They are quintessentially American – and in many ways define and shape the American identity.
This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Monica Hubbard, Boise State University and Erika Allen Wolters, Oregon State University
Read more:
Yellowstone is losing its snow as the climate warms, and that means widespread problems for water and wildlife
In America, national parks are more than scenic − they're sacred. But they were created at a cost to Native Americans
FDR's forest army: How the New Deal helped seed the modern environmental movement 85 years ago
The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trump cancels U.S.-Canadian trade talks over tech taxes
Trump cancels U.S.-Canadian trade talks over tech taxes

UPI

time3 minutes ago

  • UPI

Trump cancels U.S.-Canadian trade talks over tech taxes

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney meets with President Donald Trump in the Oval Office at the White House on May 6. Trump on Friday suspended trade talks due to Canada's new Digital Services Tax. File Photo by Francis Chung/UPI | License Photo June 28 (UPI) -- President Donald Trump cited potential Canadian taxes on U.S. tech companies as his reason for ending trade talks with Canada on Friday. The tech taxes on Amazon, Google, Meta and other U.S. tech firms are due on Monday, and Trump said it is a deal-breaker. "We have just been informed that Canada ... has just announced that they are putting a Digital Services Tax on our American technology companies," Trump said in a Truth Social post on Friday. He called the tax a "direct and blatant attack on our country" and accused Canada of "copying the European Union, which has done the same thing." "We are hereby terminating all discussions on trade with Canada, effective immediately," Trump said. His administration in the coming week will notify Canadian officials of the tariff that it will have to pay to do business in the United States, Trump added. Trump last week attended the G7 economic trade summit hosted by Canada and Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney and sought common ground on trade talks, The Washington Post reported. Officials at U.S. tech firms oppose the Canadian tax, the amount of which is based on the revenues generated by Canadians' use of e-commerce sites, social media and the sales of data. All tech companies that generate more than $14.59 million from such services would be subject to the new 3% Digital Services Tax. The tax is retroactive to 2022 and could cost U.S.-based tech firms up to $3 billion, NBC News reported. Upon learning of Trump halting trade talks, Canadian officials on Friday limited U.S. steel imports and placed a 50% surcharge on steel imports that surpass the quota. Canadian Finance Minister Francois-Philippe Champagne said the surcharge will help to protect Canadian steel against what he called "unjust U.S. tariffs." He said the Canadian government is prepared to take additional actions, if necessary.

Democrats will force out-loud reading of 940-page megabill
Democrats will force out-loud reading of 940-page megabill

Politico

time17 minutes ago

  • Politico

Democrats will force out-loud reading of 940-page megabill

Senate Republicans released updated megabill text late Friday that would make sharp cuts to the Inflation Reduction Act's solar and wind tax credits after a late-stage push by President Donald Trump to crack down further on the incentives. The text would require solar and wind generation projects seeking to qualify for the law's clean electricity production and investment tax credits to be placed in service by the end of 2027 — significantly more restrictive than an earlier proposal by the Senate Finance Committee that tied eligibility to when a project begins construction. The changes came after Trump urged Senate Majority Leader John Thune to crack down on the wind and solar credits and align the measure more closely with reconciliation text, H.R.1, that passed the House, as POLITICO reported earlier on Friday. The changes are likely to put some moderate GOP senators, who have backed a slower schedule for sunsetting those incentives, in a tough position. They'll be forced to choose between rejecting Trump's agenda or allowing the gutting of tax credits that could lead to canceled projects and job losses in their states — something renewable energy advocates are also warning about. 'We are literally going to have not enough electricity because Trump is killing solar. It's that serious,' Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) responded on X early Saturday. 'We need a bunch of new power on the grid, and nothing is as available as solar. Everything else takes a while. Meantime, expect shortages and high prices. Stupid.' The revised text would retain the investment and production tax credits for baseload sources, such as nuclear, geothermal, hydropower or energy storage, as proposed in the Finance Committee's earlier proposal. But it would make other significant changes, including extending a tax credit for clean hydrogen production until 2028. The panel's earlier proposal would have eliminated the credit after this year. And despite vocal lobbying by the solar industry, the proposal would maintain an abrupt cut to the tax incentive supporting residential solar power. The committee's earlier proposal would have eliminated that credit six months after the enactment of the bill; now the updated draft proposes repealing it at the end of this year. It would also deny certain wind and solar leasing arrangements from accessing the climate law's clean electricity investment and production tax credits, but, in a notable change, removed earlier language specifically disallowing rooftop solar. And it would move up the timeline for certain rules barring foreign entities of concern from accessing those credits. The bill would move up the termination date for electric vehicle tax credits to Sept. 30, compared to six months after enactment in the earlier Finance text. The credit for EV chargers would extend through June 2026. The new text also provides a bonus incentive for advanced nuclear facilities built in communities with high levels of employment in the nuclear industry. And the bill makes metallurgical coal eligible for the advanced manufacturing production tax credit through 2029. Sam Ricketts, co-founder of S2 Strategies, a clean energy policy consulting group, said the new draft is going to 'screw' ratepayers, kill jobs and undermine U.S. economic competitiveness. 'All just to give fossil fuel executives more profits,' he said. 'Or to own the libs. Insanity.' Josh Siegel contributed to this report.

What's in the Senate's version of Trump's budget bill — and who stands to benefit
What's in the Senate's version of Trump's budget bill — and who stands to benefit

CNBC

time28 minutes ago

  • CNBC

What's in the Senate's version of Trump's budget bill — and who stands to benefit

After weeks of sparring over the specifics of the "one big, beautiful bill," the package is poised to soon head to the Senate floor, where lawmakers are pushing to get it across the finish line and on President Donald Trump's desk before July 4. Questions remain over whether the House will ultimately accept the Senate version of the bill, which was finalized just before midnight on Friday, as 11th-hour changes brought victories — and some losses — for lawmakers, businesses and special interest groups. The changes underscored the behind-the-scenes jockeying that went on to get the 940-page bill finished. One major sticking point for fiscal hawks is the megabill's proposed $5 trillion debt ceiling increase, a figure some Senate Republicans continue to bristle at, raising questions about Senate Majority Leader John Thune's ability to align his chamber. Thune has said he wants to bring the bill to the floor for a key procedural vote as soon as Saturday afternoon, while acknowledging that he may not have the votes. The uncertainty speaks to the reality of the Republicans' razor-thin majority. Here are some of the key elements of the Senate's "big, beautiful bill," and who stands to benefit from them: If enacted, the Senate bill would codify several of Trump's campaign promises, including extensions for his 2017 tax cuts, such as lower income-tax brackets, higher standard deductions, a bigger child tax credit and other provisions. The Senate bill also includes new policy proposals, such as tax breaks for tip income, overtime pay, auto loans and a bonus deduction for older Americans to help offset Social Security income taxes. Notably, several of the new tax breaks are only temporary boosts from 2025 through 2028, which could impact taxpayers as early as the 2026 filing season. An earlier Senate draft would have slashed household taxes by an average of roughly $2,600 in 2026, slightly less than the House bill, according to the Tax Policy Center. However, the organization found that the benefits from both versions would skew to upper-income families. Republicans and the Treasury Department on agreed this week to scrap the so-called revenge tax provision — formally known as Section 899 — bringing a sigh of relief to investors on Wall Street who feared it could make the U.S. a less attractive place for investments. The tax is aimed at retaliating against any countries whose taxes were deemed "discriminatory" or unfair against the U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said that he would roll out a "joint understanding among G7 countries that defends American interests," as he asked Congress to remove the provision from the tax bill. "Great concern had been expressed by Wall Street and affected stakeholders about the enactment of Section 899 and its impact on foreign investment in the United States, particularly in view of its complexity, potential scope of application and compliance obligations," attorneys at law firm Holland & Knight said in a note of the tax, CNN reports. The Senate text also includes a tentative deal with House Republicans on the limit on the federal deduction for state and local taxes, known as SALT. Passed via Trump's 2017 tax cuts, the $10,000 cap has been a sticking point for certain lawmakers in blue states. Senate Republicans would raise the cap to $40,000 starting in 2025, with the phaseout beginning after $500,000 of income. Both figures would increase by 1% each year through 2029 and the cap would revert to $10,000 in 2030. However, in a win for industry groups, the legislation would leave intact a SALT cap workaround for pass-through businesses, which allows owners to sidestep the $10,000 cap. By contrast, the House-approved bill would have ended the strategy for certain white-collar professionals. "This is nonsensical approach to tax policy," Chye-Ching Huang, executive director of the Tax Law Center at New York University Law, said in a tweet on Saturday. "It preserves (and lessens) a limit on deductions for wealthy taxpayers while ignoring a loophole that allows the wealthiest of those taxpayers to avoid the limit entirely," she said. One point of contention in the package is the proposed deep cuts to Medicaid, the insurance program for low-income and disabled Americans that provides coverage for more than 70 million people. The Senate parliamentarian nixed some Medicaid cuts late this week, but kept others, including work requirements of 80 hours a month, which could threaten millions of Americans' ability to receive health insurance, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Some lawmakers and industry groups notched last-minute wins that could benefit their state's constituents, underscoring the negotiating that likely took place until the bitter end to sway skeptical Republicans. For instance, a provision in the bill would raise the deduction for whale-hunting-related expenses to $50,000 from $10,000, delivering a win for Alaska Republican Sens. Lisa Murkowski and Dan Sullivan, Politico reports. And, in a significant blow to renewable energy advocates, car manufacturers and some consumers, the Senate bill would eliminate the $7,500 tax credit on electric vehicle sales and leases on Sept. 30, moving up the timeline proposed in an earlier version of the text.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store