On February 2nd, 2018, President Trump decided to drastically reduce the size of two national monuments in Utah, Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante. This legislation calls for the decrease in the area of the Bears Ears National Park by 85 percent and the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument by almost 50 percent. While his decision in regards to these two monuments have drawn the most attention, President Trump has also asked Ryan Zinke, the Secretary of the Interior, to review 27 other monuments for possible reduction in scale. This decision is an unprecedented shrinkage of federal land, and has provoked strong reactions on both sides of the aisle. This decision is extremely controversial not only because of its potential environmental and economic impacts, but also because of its questionable legality.
Supporters of the president’s decision argue that having large federally-controlled areas dispersed throughout the country impose a massive strain on the federal government's budget and a considerable financial burden on the National Park Service (NPS). In August 2017, the NPS’s maintenance backlog was estimated at just over 11 billion dollars, so a reduction in the area of national monuments would likely allow the federal government to allocate more money to conduct maintenance projects in other national parks. Proponents of this decision also argue that shrinking the size of national monuments could stimulate local and state economies by opening up more land for individuals to fish, hunt, camp or participate in other outdoor activities. Increased engagement in the aforementioned activities would not only expand the tourism industry, but would also free up land for resource extraction, leading to job creation in rural communities. Lastly, Utah would get more sovereignty over its own land, thus returning power to the states and reducing the power of the federal government. For those who believe that the creation of the Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monuments was a gross overreach of federal power in the first place, this move is long overdue.
While some have been in favor of President Trump’s decision, there has also been substantial backlash, specifically from environmentalists, Native Americans and members of the Democratic Party. These groups argue that President Trump has ordered the downsizing in order to free up more land for exploitation by fossil fuel industry groups that tend to donate large sums of money to Republican candidates. In addition, this move will impair the work that scientists have been conducting in these protected areas, since such work relies on studying wildlife and ecosystems in a relatively unaltered state. A host of other environmental concerns come with this decision as well, from the damage that resource extraction could have on bodies of water and soil, to the fear that overuse by tourists could endanger plant and animal species living on the land. Finally, many Native American tribes have joined the fight against President Trump’s executive action. Not only are these parks home to many sacred Native American sites and artifacts, but Bears Ears was designated as a national monument at the request of a coalition of tribes because its land is extremely important to many local Native American communities. Five tribes in Utah have filed a lawsuit against the administration, arguing that President Trump has no legal authority to shrink the size of national monuments.
The courts have not come back with a decision on the legality of President Trump’s action yet, in part, because the wording of the Antiquities Act (the legislation that President Trump has used to justify his actions) is somewhat vague. Passed by President Roosevelt in 1906, the Act was meant to protect Native American artifacts from those who wanted to exploit the land. The exact language of the legislation only gives the president authority to create national monuments, not reduce them in size. However, supporters of President Trump’s decision argue that the ability to create inherently implies the ability to destroy, and therefore the executive order is completely constitutional. In addition, the Act states that the president may designate land as a national monument but that it “shall be confined to the smallest area compatible with proper care and management.” Therefore, supporters also argue that previous administrations’ creation of huge federal monuments was unconstitutional in the first place. However, there is also a strong case for the illegality of President Trump’s decision. In addition to the fact that the Antiquities Act does not explicitly give the president the power to reduce national monuments, Congress passed legislation in the 1970s that exclusively gave the right to reduce or modify national monuments to Congress. This bill, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, not only gives Congress power to control the size of federal monuments but also grants them the power of review over the uses of federal land.
Over three months after the president announced his decision to reduce the size of the two national monuments, little has changed. Before action can be taken, the various lawsuits against the administration in regards to the monuments must be settled, and Native American tribes are not the only groups suing President Trump. Patagonia, for example, a company known for its eco-friendly practices, has also filed a lawsuit against the President with the hope of preventing the order from going into effect. As this issue of whether or not to shrink Bears Ears and Grand-Escalante Staircase National Monuments continues to make its way through the courts, supporters and opponents alike have no choice but to be patient and await a decision.