President Donald Trump’s order for the government to review national monuments created by several of his predecessors sets up a legal showdown over whether one chief executive has the power to undo another’s decisions
President Donald Trump’s order for the government to review national monuments created by several of his predecessors sets up a legal showdown over whether one chief executive has the power to undo another’s decisions. At stake are federal lands revered for their natural beauty and historical significance.
The review goes well beyond a few declarations made in the waning months of Barack Obama’s term. It covers 24 monuments established by three former presidents over more than two decades. A closer look:
What is a national monument?
The 1906 Antiquities Act, enacted under President Theodore Roosevelt, empowers the president to declare as national monuments any landmarks, structures and other “objects of historic or scientific interest” on land owned or controlled by the federal government. Roosevelt established 18 monuments, including the Grand Canyon in Arizona, Olympic National Park in Washington and Devil’s Tower in Wyoming. Most presidents since then have designated additional monuments. Congress has created others. The law was enacted originally to prevent looting of Indian artifacts from archaeological sites. According to data from the National Park Service, 15 other presidents from both parties have designated a total of 170 national monuments, including marine monuments.
The president can make national monuments only from land already controlled by the federal government, and the act generally does not change how the land is used.
Most Read Nation & World Stories
- Analysis: French anger shifts from pension law to focus on Macron
- Lentils are just waiting for their 'hummus moment'
- ‘We’ve lost the aqueduct’: How severe flooding threatens a Los Angeles water lifeline
- Sports on TV & radio: Local listings for Seattle games and events
- 5 planets will line up in a row above the Earth. Here’s how to view the rare event
Most monuments are overseen by the National Park Service. Some are cared for by the federal Bureau of Land Management, the Fish and Wildlife Service or the Forest Service. Each agency has policies for protecting the land while also allowing some public use. For instance, some policies include limits on mining, timber cutting and recreational activities such as riding off-road vehicles.
Many national-monument proclamations have enjoyed broad support. Others have been contested in Congress and the courts, including designations by Franklin D. Roosevelt (Jackson Hole National Monument, now Grand Teton National Park); Jimmy Carter (vast lands in Alaska); and George W. Bush (Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument northwest of Hawaii).
Trump’s choice of Jan. 1, 1996, as the starting date for his review was prompted by lingering resentment among Utah conservatives of Bill Clinton’s designation of the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument that year.
Critics say presidents increasingly are protecting areas that are too large and do not fit the law’s original purpose of shielding particular historical or archaeological sites. Designating millions of acres for scientific observation or sheltering rare species, they contend, is a “federal land grab” that ignores the wishes of local residents, although the lands already belonged to the government or were under federal control. Supporters say the designations are essential to protect sensitive areas from looting and damage. Complaints about people getting kicked off the land are exaggerated, they say, and opposition fades as nearby communities benefit from tourism the monuments attract.
Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke said the pendulum has swung too far toward protecting public lands and away from the “multiple-use” concept advanced by Gifford Pinchot, the first chief of the Forest Service and a leader in the conservation movement.
Some monuments have been reduced in size over the years, either by presidential order or by Congress, while others have been enlarged. But no president has tried to eliminate a predecessor’s monument. If Trump does so, his move will likely be challenged in court.
The Antiquities Act does not explicitly say whether a president can nullify a monument proclamation. A legal analysis commissioned by the National Parks Conservation Association says no, pointing to a 1938 opinion by then-Attorney General Homer Cummings that a monument designation has the force of law and can be reversed only by Congress. A House report accompanying the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 agrees.
But a study for the conservative American Enterprise Institute released in March argues that when Congress authorizes the executive branch to write regulations, the power to repeal them generally can be assumed. That’s especially so, it says, when a president is correcting a predecessor’s act that exceeded what a law intended, such as creating vast monuments when the Antiquities Act says they should consist of “the smallest area compatible with the proper care and management of the objects to be protected.”
Trump’s order directs Zinke to review monument designations involving 100,000 acres or more. The interior secretary will submit an interim report within 45 days focusing on the Bears Ears National Monument in Utah, which Obama established last year. A final report is due in 120 days.
Zinke said the report will recommend whether any monuments should be abolished or resized. He promised an open-minded approach and said he remains opposed to selling any federal land or transferring it to state or local control.