
Trump gets the OK to end protections for national monuments, from the Statue of Liberty to the Grand Canyon
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.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Independent
8 minutes ago
- The Independent
Trump to sign order punishing banks that discriminate against conservatives: report
President Donald Trump is set to crack down on Wall Street banks accused of dropping customers over their conservative beliefs and shutting out cryptocurrency companies, a new report states. Trump, the self-professed first ' crypto-president,' is expected to sign an executive order as soon as this week that threatens financial penalties in response to so-called politically motivated 'debanking,' sources told the Wall Street Journal. A draft of the order viewed by the Journal directs bank regulators to investigate whether financial institutions have violated the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, a federal law that bars discrimination in access to credit. Investigators are reportedly also directed to look into whether antitrust or consumer financial protection laws have been breached. In some cases, the newspaper said, violations are to be reported by regulators to the attorney general, according to the order. The draft is said to urge regulators to strike any policies that might have contributed to banks dropping certain customers. The Small Business Administration is directed to review bank practices that guarantee the agency's loans. The directive also criticizes the role that some banks played in an investigation into the riots at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., on January 6, 2021, according to the newspaper. The draft reportedly states that violating lenders could be slapped with fines and consent decrees, among other disciplinary measures. While the order doesn't explicitly name any offenders, the Journal said it appears to refer to an instance where a Christian organization operating in Uganda had its accounts shut down by the Bank of America, citing religious beliefs. The bank contested that it does not serve small businesses operating outside the U.S. Conservatives have long accused banks of denying them services on the grounds of their political or religious beliefs. In January, Trump said the CEOs Bank of America and JPMorgan Chase – Brian Moynihan and Jamie Dimon respectively – did not provide banking services to conservatives. While speaking to Fox Business last week, Senate Banking Committee Chairman Tim Scott pointed fingers at regulators for shutting down bank accounts of Americans they 'just don't like.' Regulators operate under an 'alphabet soup' of federal agencies, sources told the news station, while Scott called the situation in D.C. a 'financial swamp.' Meanwhile, crypto firms have repeatedly complained they were denied access to banking services while former President Joe Biden was in office. Financial institutions have cited legal, regulatory and financial risks and blamed pressure from regulators for their previous decisions to largely avoid the cryptocurrency industry. A Bank of America spokesperson on Monday welcomed efforts to provide regulatory clarity. They told the Journal that the bank is committed to working with the Trump administration and supporting Congress to 'improve the regulatory framework.' In late April, the Justice Department said it was launching a task force in Virginia to 'combat illegal debanking.' The task force was set to review allegations of banks refusing customers access to credit or other services based on 'impermissible factors.'


BreakingNews.ie
9 minutes ago
- BreakingNews.ie
Rupert Murdoch's new tabloid to bring New York Post attitude to California
"Headless body in topless bar"- type headlines made famous by the iconic New York Post tabloid could soon greet Californians as Rupert Murdoch's News Corp prepares to expand to the West Coast with its biggest US daily newspaper launch in nearly 15 years. The California Post will be headquartered in Los Angeles and is set to launch in early 2026, said Sean Giancola, CEO and publisher of the New York Post Media Group, which will include the new publication. Advertisement California news industry experts said the tabloid would seek to capitalise on the struggles of the incumbent Los Angeles Times, which has shed subscribers and staff. The California Post will offer a familiar mix of what it calls "common-sense journalism," celebrity and entertainment news and sports reporting across multiple platforms, including mobile and desktop, audio, social media and print, Mr Giancola said in an interview. "We already reach 3 million people in the LA (market) and over 7 million in California, so there is a base of audience there that already engages in our brand," Mr Giancola said. Mr Murdoch, the company's chairman emeritus, recognised California as a market opportunity and gave the venture his blessing, said one source with knowledge of the matter. Advertisement "You don't launch a newspaper without getting feedback from one of the best guys in the business," the source added. The last daily newspaper launched in the US by News Corp, owner of the New York Post and the Wall Street Journal, was the Daily, a digital newspaper for Apple's then-new iPad tablet, in 2011. It folded the following year. A Los Angeles Times spokesperson did not respond immediately to a request for comment on the California Post. Populist approach California news industry veteran Jonathan Weber said the state's newspapers adhere to a mainstream approach to journalism, which could present an opportunity for a different kind of voice that reflects this moment in the country's evolution. "Maybe there is room for a sort of pugilistic, more right-wing, kind of sensationalist sort of approach," said Mr Weber, a former Reuters editor and serial entrepreneur who founded the San Francisco Standard and the tech business-focused Industry Standard. Advertisement "There might be an opening for that." But he said the California Post also faces challenges. The New York Post is popular with readers who buy the tabloid at a newsstand before jumping on the subway, whereas Californians tend to drive to work, Mr Weber said. Mr Giancola said the New York Post Media Group has a much broader reach online than through its print edition, via a trio of digital brands including celebrity-focused Page Six, an entertainment and pop-culture guide, the Decider and its main website. These sites attracted a combined 90 million monthly unique visitors in June, the company said. 'News deserts' The Post achieved profitability in 2022 by monetizing these audiences, and running a "lean" news operation, Mr Giancola said. It also has expanded into new formats, including podcasts, video and e-commerce. "LA and California - like a lot of geographical areas in the country - are news deserts," said Mr Giancola. "We think we can come into LA with the same formula and really cover California in a bespoke way." Advertisement Ken Doctor, the California-based CEO of Lookout Local, a community journalism organisation, said the New York Post could simply rebrand the tabloid for California and boost its readership and advertising. It could also fill a void for a niche set of readers in a state that is dominated by left-wing politicians but where 38 per cent voted for president Donald Trump in the last election. "There is a place for a culturally conservative publication, and one that is populist and fits the populist times," said Mr Doctor. Los Angeles Times owner Patrick Soon-Shiong has said he plans to bring in more conservative voices as he seeks "balance" to correct what he perceives as a left-leaning bias ahead of an initial public offering of the publication within the next year. The loss-making 143-year-old newspaper laid off more than 20 per cent of its newsroom staff in January 2024.


The Guardian
9 minutes ago
- The Guardian
US environmental agency freezing $3bn in climate funds is ‘capricious', court to hear
The Trump administration's decision to abruptly terminate a $3bn program helping hundreds of communities prepare for climate disasters and environmental hazards is unconstitutional and should be overturned, a court will hear on Tuesday. A coalition of non-profits, tribes and local governments is suing the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the agency's administrator Lee Zeldin for terminating the entire Environmental and Climate Justice (ECJ) block grant program – despite a legally binding mandate from Congress to fund the Biden-era initiative. It's the first-of-a-kind proposed class action lawsuit that would force the EPA and Zeldin to reinstate the program and each individual grant, rather than forcing the recipients to sue individually. The $3bn ECJ program was created by Congress through the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) – a long standing source for ire for Trump and his polluting industry allies – to help historically disadvantaged communities come up with local solutions to improve resilience in the face of worsening climate shocks and environmental degradation. It was intended by Congress to fund community-based projects across the country to tackle longstanding and pressing environmental harms that cause death and ill health from hazards including industrial pollution, lead pipes, flooding and urban heat islands. Almost 350 rural and urban groups, towns and tribes were selected by the EPA from 2,700 applicants, through a rigorous process that included longterm accountability and oversight over the funds. In February, Zeldin's EPA, under the direction of the Trump administration, began terminating the entire ECJ program, as part of a broader assault on climate science, climate action and environmental justice measures. In June, 23 grant recipients sued after the entire block grant was terminated and the funds frozen overnight. The plaintiffs come from every region of the country and include the Indigenous village of Pipnuk in Alaska, the Deep South Centre for Environmental Justice in New Orleans, Appalachian Voices which works with legacy coal communities and Kalamazoo county in Michigan. Several non-profit legal advocacy groups – EarthJustice, Southern Environmental Law Center, Public Rights Project and Lawyers for Good Government – filed the proposed class action lawsuit alleging that the wholesale termination violated the separation of powers and is therefore unconstitutional. They also argue that the Trump administration's decision was both 'arbitrary and capricious' – in other words, made without proper reasoning or consideration of the consequences, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. On Tuesday, attorneys representing the coalition will argue for preliminary relief at the US district court for the District of Columbia (DDC), to force the EPA to immediately reinstate the ECJ program and unfreeze the funds. 'This was an unlawful action that went against the will of Congress and violated the separation of powers,' said , senior attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center. 'The administration terminated the entire program simply because they don't like it, without any reasoned decision making or consideration of the impacts. The decision was both arbitrary and capricious, and unconstitutional, and should be overturned.' The Trump administration has filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the DDC does not have jurisdiction, and this is a contractural case for the US court of federal claims. Under contract law, the 349 grant recipients would be forced to sue individually for breach of contract and damages, but with no possibility of the ECJ program being reinstated as Congress intended. A ruling on if and where the case continues is expected later this month. The judge will rule separately on the plaintiffs' motion for the case to proceed as a class action. The EPA said it did not comment on pending litigation.