Latest news with #AntiquitiesAct
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.
Black America Web
26-06-2025
- Politics
- Black America Web
Emmett Till National Monument Could Lose Designation Due To DOJ Opinion
Source: Scott Olson / Getty Last week, the Department of Justice issued a legal opinion reversing nearly 100 years of legal precedent by allowing the president to revoke national monument designations if he feels the protection isn't warranted. There's growing concern among activists and former national parks officials that this ruling, along with proposed budget cuts and an executive order targeting 'improper ideology' in national parks and museums, could result in the closure of the Emmett Till and Mamie Till-Mobley National Monument along with several other monuments dedicated to the civil rights movement. According to CBS News, the opinion comes as the Trump administration also seeks to cut nearly $1 billion in funding for the national parks and monuments. The opinion reverses a 1938 determination that monuments created by previous presidents under the Antiquities Act can't be revoked. As a result of the ruling and proposed budget cuts, there's concern that the Emmett Till and Mamie Till-Mobley National Monuments could be at risk of closure should the monument designation be revoked or its funding be cut. The Emmett Till monument is still fairly recent, having only been given the national monument designation in 2023 during the Biden administration. The designation came after a years-long fight by Alan Spears, senior director of cultural resources and government affairs for the National Parks Conservation Association, and several other community leaders. 'His badly decomposed body was taken from the water, and officials in this area wanted to have him buried immediately to sort of get rid of the evidence,' Spears explained to CBS. 'His mother insisted that he'd be sent back to Chicago, where they had an open casket funeral. And images of Till's badly decomposed body in that open casket really sparked the modern civil rights movement.' The monument consists of three sites: Graball Landing in Mississippi where Emmett's body was found; Sumner, Mississippi, where Till's confessed killers were tried and found not guilty in the local courthouse; and Chicago's Roberts Temple Church of God in Christ in Illinois, where Till's open casket funeral was held. Spears told CBS News the monument was necessary to 'make sure it doesn't happen to anybody else's son ever again.' Source: Scott Olson / Getty This new ruling allows Trump to close and remove any monument that he feels doesn't present America in the best light. Given the Trump administration's tendency to use diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) as a catchall term to assault anything that celebrates Black people, concerns around national monuments dedicated to Black history are more than warranted. It doesn't help that White House spokesperson Anne Kelly basically confirmed that this was the plan in a statement sent to CBS News. 'Under President Trump's leadership, Secretary [Doug] Burgum is keeping our parks ready for peak season, ensuring they are in pristine condition for visitors, and restoring truth and sanity to depictions of American history in line with the President's Executive Order,' Kelly wrote. 'Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History,' the executive order Kelly made reference to, demands the removal of 'improper ideology' from national museums. It also ordered a review to 'determine whether, since January 1, 2020, public monuments, memorials, statues, markers, or similar properties within the Department of the Interior's jurisdiction have been removed or changed to perpetuate a false reconstruction of American history, inappropriately minimize the value of certain historical events or figures, or include any other improper partisan ideology.' Given that the designation for the Emmett Till National Monument was given in 2023, it would be included in that review. Source: Scott Olson / Getty The order has already spurred concerns about the removal of several exhibits at the National Museum of African American History and Culture. 'We are seeing this effort to erase and reverse history and historic preservation,' Spears told CBS News. 'This is turning quickly into a dream deferred.' Former National Park Service Director Chuck Sams was involved in the designation of five national monuments under the Biden administration, including the Emmett Till monument. He strongly disagrees with the Trump administration's approach and believes that the potential closure of the Till monument would be 'very sad and egregious.' 'People don't like to look at their past when it shows a negative light of who we are, and I can understand that nobody likes to look at their own personal past that may have a negative light, but we also know that in order to learn from our own history, we also have to learn from our past mistakes,' Sams told CBS News. In addition to the Till monuments, quite a few of our national monuments are designed specifically to spotlight the sins of America's past. The Carlisle Indian Industrial School was made into a national monument in 2024 and is used to teach about America's questionable methods of assimilating Native Americans. In that same year, President Biden also designated the site of the 1908 Springfield Race Riot, where a group of white people burned down apartment homes in a predominantly Black neighborhood, as a national monument. Work is still in progress on the monument, and with the proposed budget cuts and executive order, it's unclear if that work will be finished. SEE ALSO: Jackie Robinson's Army History Erased In Trump's DEI Purge Poll Shows Companies Maintaing DEI Intiatives Have Better Reputations SEE ALSO Emmett Till National Monument Could Lose Designation Due To DOJ Opinion was originally published on
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
12-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Justice Department says Trump can undo national monuments; California areas could be on list
President Trump has the authority to abolish national monuments set aside by past presidents to protect areas of historic and scientific interest, the Justice Department said in an opinion this week, potentially laying the groundwork to dismantle California's two newest monuments — Chuckwalla and Sáttítla Highlands. The May 27 legal opinion released Tuesday overturns a more than 80-year-old Justice Department determination that presidents can't revoke national monuments created by their predecessors under the Antiquities Act. The finding follows an Interior Department effort to explore altering monuments as part of a push to expand U.S. energy production, a move that set off alarm bells among conservationists that certain public lands could be on the chopping block. Then-President Biden signed proclamations designating Chuckwalla and Sáttítla Highlands national monuments in California's desert and far north shortly before leaving office early this year. The Justice Department, in its new opinion, said it was asked to look into whether the Antiquities Act — the 1906 law permitting presidents to create monuments — can be used to revoke them. The opinion, titled, "Revocation of Prior Monument Designations," says it can. In the 50-page document, Deputy Assistant Atty. Gen. Lanora Pettit wrote that presidents can find "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.' Since its passage, the Antiquities Act has been used by 18 presidents — split evenly between Republicans and Democrats — to designate monuments. California is home to 21 national monuments, more than any other state. Read more: Interior Secretary Burgum eyes national monuments for energy resources During a Wednesday hearing in Washington, U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) questioned Interior Secretary Doug Burgum about the opinion, which he called "extremely dangerous." He specifically asked what the secretary's intentions were with regard to the Golden State's newest monuments, which he described as enjoying strong bipartisan support. 'We have a responsibility and direction to take a look at the recently created ones,' Burgum replied. "There are people in communities, when we create restrictions on land use, that does restrict some of their economic opportunity, and we want to listen to those as well,' he said, adding that the department is seeking "a balanced approach" and would be open to further dialogue. Padilla and fellow Sen. Adam Schiff were among the federal lawmakers from California who pushed for the creation of the monuments. "The Trump administration is seeking to rewrite the Antiquities Act without the approval of Congress and erase all precedent prohibiting the elimination of lands designated as a national monument,' Schiff said in a statement. "And, continuing his assault on the Golden State, the president seems to have at least two California treasures in mind: Chuckwalla and Sáttítla national monuments.' 'But the law is clear: Congress did not intend for the Antiquities Act to give Donald Trump or any other president the power to reverse the decades of hard work undertaken by conservationists, tribal leaders, and local California communities to safeguard precious lands and cultural sites,' he added. Chuckwalla spans 624,000 acres of dramatic canyons and rugged land adjacent to Joshua Tree National Park in Southern California, while Sáttítla encompasses 224,000 acres of pristine forests and unique geological features near the Oregon border. Native Americans led the charge to safeguard the land they consider sacred. Critics of the way the Antiquities Act has been used to set aside vast tracts of land often point to a mandate for monuments to be limited to the "smallest area compatible with proper care and management of the objects to be protected." But public lands advocates note that the law has long been used by presidents to protect large landmasses — including the designation of the Grand Canyon by Theodore Roosevelt in 1908. Padilla said that Western states skew large relative to their Eastern counterparts, "so the appropriateness and size of monuments and other areas of designation tend to be larger." John Leshy, an emeritus professor at UC College of the Law, San Francisco, and a former solicitor at the Interior Department, sees the new opinion as a largely symbolic gesture being made by the Trump administration on behalf of a faction of the Republican Party that "hates public lands." 'I think they're throwing that out to try to placate them and say, 'We're on your side,'' he said. 'But will that quiet them down until the president actually takes some sort of action? I don't know.' Even before California's youngest monuments were designated, there were fears they could be rolled back by the Trump administration. During his first term, Trump sharply reduced the boundaries of two monuments in Utah — Bear's Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante — and stripped protections from a marine monument off the coast of New England to allow commercial fishing. The Biden administration reversed the changes. In February, Burgum issued an order that many saw as opening the door to potentially eliminating or shrinking monuments. He directed his assistant secretaries to 'review and, as appropriate, revise all withdrawn public lands,' citing a federal statute corresponding to the law that allows presidents to create monuments. Then, a little over a month later, the Trump administration caused confusion when it issued and then appeared to roll back an announcement implying the president had rescinded his predecessor's orders creating Chuckwalla and Sáttítla. Last month, a federal suit was filed by a Texas-based conservative think tank on behalf of plaintiffs to invalidate the Chuckwalla monument, arguing Biden had overstepped his authority when he created it. Some believed California's new monuments were at most risk of being targeted, in part because Trump might seek to undo his predecessor's actions. Read more: Biden created Chuckwalla monument in the California desert. A lawsuit aims to undo it Whether presidents have the authority to alter monuments is hotly contested. Litigation challenging Trump's previous monument reductions was still pending when Biden reversed them and the matter was never settled. "Courts have never ruled on this issue one way or another," Leshy said. "They've just been silent on whether one president can undo another president's proclamation." If Trump moves to undo monuments in California, litigation is likely. Krystian Lahage of the Mojave Desert Land Trust, a nonprofit dedicated to protecting the California desert, said his group is trying to raise awareness of the broad support for Chuckwalla. Sunday marked the 119th anniversary of the Antiquities Act, and to celebrate the group co-hosted an event that Lahage said drew more than 100 people. There was an off-roading tour, an exploration of the geology and wildlife, stargazing and a community BBQ. 'Our goal there was to show folks all the different things they can do in the national monument — and what it's protecting,' he said. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Los Angeles Times
12-06-2025
- Politics
- Los Angeles Times
Justice Department says Trump can undo national monuments; California areas could be on list
President Trump has the authority to abolish national monuments set aside by past presidents to protect areas of historic and scientific interest, the Justice Department said in an opinion this week, potentially laying the groundwork to dismantle California's two newest monuments — Chuckwalla and Sáttítla Highlands. The May 27 legal opinion released Tuesday overturns a more than 80-year-old Justice Department determination that presidents can't revoke national monuments created by their predecessors under the Antiquities Act. The finding follows an Interior Department effort to explore altering monuments as part of a push to expand U.S. energy production, a move that set off alarm bells among conservationists that certain public lands could be on the chopping block. Then-President Biden signed proclamations designating Chuckwalla and Sáttítla Highlands national monuments in California's desert and far north shortly before leaving office early this year. The Justice Department, in its new opinion, said it was asked to look into whether the Antiquities Act — the 1906 law permitting presidents to create monuments — can be used to revoke them. The opinion, titled, 'Revocation of Prior Monument Designations,' says it can. In the 50-page document, Deputy Assistant Atty. Gen. Lanora Pettit wrote that presidents can find '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.' Since its passage, the Antiquities Act has been used by 18 presidents — split evenly between Republicans and Democrats — to designate monuments. California is home to 21 national monuments, more than any other state. During a Wednesday hearing in Washington, U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) questioned Interior Secretary Doug Burgum about the opinion, which he called 'extremely dangerous.' He specifically asked what the secretary's intentions were with regard to the Golden State's newest monuments, which he described as enjoying strong bipartisan support. 'We have a responsibility and direction to take a look at the recently created ones,' Burgum replied. 'There are people in communities, when we create restrictions on land use, that does restrict some of their economic opportunity, and we want to listen to those as well,' he said, adding that the department is seeking 'a balanced approach' and would be open to further dialogue. Padilla and fellow Sen. Adam Schiff were among the federal lawmakers from California who pushed for the creation of the monuments. 'The Trump administration is seeking to rewrite the Antiquities Act without the approval of Congress and erase all precedent prohibiting the elimination of lands designated as a national monument,' Schiff said in a statement. 'And, continuing his assault on the Golden State, the president seems to have at least two California treasures in mind: Chuckwalla and Sáttítla national monuments.' 'But the law is clear: Congress did not intend for the Antiquities Act to give Donald Trump or any other president the power to reverse the decades of hard work undertaken by conservationists, tribal leaders, and local California communities to safeguard precious lands and cultural sites,' he added. Chuckwalla spans 624,000 acres of dramatic canyons and rugged land adjacent to Joshua Tree National Park in Southern California, while Sáttítla encompasses 224,000 acres of pristine forests and unique geological features near the Oregon border. Native Americans led the charge to safeguard the land they consider sacred. Critics of the way the Antiquities Act has been used to set aside vast tracts of land often point to a mandate for monuments to be limited to the 'smallest area compatible with proper care and management of the objects to be protected.' But public lands advocates note that the law has long been used by presidents to protect large landmasses — including the designation of the Grand Canyon by Theodore Roosevelt in 1908. Padilla said that Western states skew large relative to their Eastern counterparts, 'so the appropriateness and size of monuments and other areas of designation tend to be larger.' John Leshy, an emeritus professor at UC College of the Law, San Francisco, and a former solicitor at the Interior Department, sees the new opinion as a largely symbolic gesture being made by the Trump administration on behalf of a faction of the Republican Party that 'hates public lands.' 'I think they're throwing that out to try to placate them and say, 'We're on your side,'' he said. 'But will that quiet them down until the president actually takes some sort of action? I don't know.' Even before California's youngest monuments were designated, there were fears they could be rolled back by the Trump administration. During his first term, Trump sharply reduced the boundaries of two monuments in Utah — Bear's Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante — and stripped protections from a marine monument off the coast of New England to allow commercial fishing. The Biden administration reversed the changes. In February, Burgum issued an order that many saw as opening the door to potentially eliminating or shrinking monuments. He directed his assistant secretaries to 'review and, as appropriate, revise all withdrawn public lands,' citing a federal statute corresponding to the law that allows presidents to create monuments. Then, a little over a month later, the Trump administration caused confusion when it issued and then appeared to roll back an announcement implying the president had rescinded his predecessor's orders creating Chuckwalla and Sáttítla. Last month, a federal suit was filed by a Texas-based conservative think tank on behalf of plaintiffs to invalidate the Chuckwalla monument, arguing Biden had overstepped his authority when he created it. Some believed California's new monuments were at most risk of being targeted, in part because Trump might seek to undo his predecessor's actions. Whether presidents have the authority to alter monuments is hotly contested. Litigation challenging Trump's previous monument reductions was still pending when Biden reversed them and the matter was never settled. 'Courts have never ruled on this issue one way or another,' Leshy said. 'They've just been silent on whether one president can undo another president's proclamation.' If Trump moves to undo monuments in California, litigation is likely. Krystian Lahage of the Mojave Desert Land Trust, a nonprofit dedicated to protecting the California desert, said his group is trying to raise awareness of the broad support for Chuckwalla. Sunday marked the 119th anniversary of the Antiquities Act, and to celebrate the group co-hosted an event that Lahage said drew more than 100 people. There was an off-roading tour, an exploration of the geology and wildlife, stargazing and a community BBQ. 'Our goal there was to show folks all the different things they can do in the national monument — and what it's protecting,' he said.
