-
Click here to listen to this article - Share via
See more from the L.A. Times in Google Search. Set us as preferred
The Utah congressional delegation stood behind the Resolute Desk, an offensive line protecting their quarterback. They nodded along as President Trump issued executive orders last month that virtually abolished Utah’s Grand Staircase-Escalante and Bears Ears national monuments, reducing their protected acres by 90% and opening up more than 3 million acres of public land to mining claims, oil and gas leasing, and destructive development.
But the opposing team consists of most everyone else. A stunning 91% of Western voters say national monuments should retain existing boundaries.
That Oval Office ceremony was a heartbreaking parade of lies and misrepresentations. Rep. Celeste Malloy (R-Utah) praised the president, saying he was “listening to the people of Utah.” And yet, even in this stronghold of conservative capitalism, 75% of Utah voters want the delegation to prioritize conservation on public lands over energy production.
Trump’s regime sees public lands as real estate — assets on a balance sheet — not national treasures. Retribution further motivates the president: The two monuments were created by two Democratic presidents (Clinton and Obama) and restored by a third (Biden). “They” did it. “They” must be reversed.
Trump said “they took the land away from the people,” as he mused about “giving more than we did the first time back to the people of Utah,” referencing his evisceration of the two monuments in 2017, at the behest of then-Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah).
But in establishing national monuments, no land is actually “taken away.” No land can be “given back.” All the Bureau of Land Management land in both designated monuments was and remains federal land, owned by all Americans. This has never been state land.
Trump spoke only of “certain monuments,” without naming them. He surely did not read these two proclamations or the much longer and more detailed science and culture-based proclamations he was nullifying.
Deputy Interior Secretary Kate MacGregor joined the Oval Office event to describe how presidents use the Antiquities Act to legally establish national monuments. She jumped abruptly from the first 1,200-acre monument created in 1906 by Teddy Roosevelt to President Clinton’s Grand Staircase-Escalante proclamation in 1996. She neglected Roosevelt’s 17 other monuments — along with dozens of others established by nearly every president.
The law that Roosevelt signed 120 years ago decrees that reservations be “confined to the smallest area compatible with the proper care and management of the objects to be protected.”
So that first monument, Devils Tower in Wyoming, need be no bigger than 1,200 acres. But Roosevelt also understood that preservation of big landscapes requires coherence and continuity. That’s why he also used his Supreme Court-verified power to declare large reserves: a 800,000-acre Grand Canyon National Monument, the first act of conservation in this iconic Western landscape, and a 600,000-acre Mount Olympus National Monument, core of what became Washington’s Olympic National Park.
Ignoring this inconvenient history, McGregor used the timeworn lie that monuments “locked those acres up.”
Trump expounded on this lie: “For nobody to use. You can’t do anything. You can’t go hunting. You can’t go fishing. You can’t do anything. You can virtually not even walk on it.”
The deputy secretary nodded and said, “That’s exactly right, sir.”
But it’s exactly wrong. The proclamations creating these monuments clearly stated that grazing, hunting and fishing would continue. No existing rights were withdrawn. Hundreds of thousands of visitors come every year to walk in both monuments.
The smiling line of federal officials and Utah politicians knew this. But no one corrected the president’s outrageous ignorance.
As the president itemized his misconceptions, Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) smirked. Utah Gov. Spencer Cox leaned in to agree with the president that this is “even better than the first time” Trump gutted the monuments — this time not only shattering legal protections but also disrespecting five Native nations by eliminating the Bears Ears Commission that mandated historic co-stewardship with Indigenous peoples on their sacred lands.
Biden’s Bears Ears proclamation spoke of protecting “lands and resources profoundly sacred to Tribal Nations.” His Grand Staircase proclamation described “one of the world’s great paleontological laboratories.”
After dismissing all of these resources, the new Trump proclamations speak only of minerals: “chromium, cobalt, copper, iron, lead, manganese, molybdenum, nickel, silver, thorium, titanium, uranium, vanadium, zinc, and zirconium.” And coal in Grand Staircase’s remote Kaiparowits Plateau.
Monument status prohibited additional mining leases on these Bureau of Land Management public lands. The Utah delegates (and donors to those politicians) are obsessed with boundary reduction because they want maximum access for corporate profit.
But they remain ensnared by a 19th century dream. Even though the claims have already begun, mining in these far-flung canyons has mostly proven impractical or uneconomical. Even so, losing protections for Bears Ears and Grand Staircase will lead to more roads that disrupt biodiversity, locked gates on corporate access roads that truly “lock up” the land, less staff to prevent cultural vandalism and less support for scientific discovery.
At the signing, Sen. John Curtis said local Utahns “manage these lands better than people 2,000 miles away.” But Utahns are not in charge of America’s public lands. These cynical politicians manipulating the president have created nothing more than a legal and management morass, ecological disruption, and spiritual and cultural chaos — the opposite of the Bears Ears tribes’ mantra: “Visit With Respect.”
Like so many retrograde policies of the Trump regime, these radical politicians have now imposed one more directive from their Project 2025 agenda on a country that doesn’t want it. Our best weapon to fight back remains the ballot box. On Nov. 3, Americans should make clear how they feel about their public lands being handed to the wealthy elite to destroy irreplaceable wildlands and Indigenous sacred places.
Stephen Trimble, a writer in Utah, has been exploring, photographing and advocating for southern Utah red rock country for 50 years. His most recent book is a new edition of “The Sagebrush Ocean: A Natural History of the Great Basin.”
Insights
L.A. Times Insights delivers AI-generated analysis on Voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear on any news articles.
Viewpoint
Perspectives
The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.
Ideas expressed in the piece
The article argues that President Trump’s 2026 proclamations gut Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante national monuments by roughly 90%, turning nearly 3 million acres from landscape-scale conservation into areas prioritized for mining and energy development, a change that conservation groups describe as the largest rollback of public-land protections in U.S. history.[1][5][7][13][14][15]
The article contends that claims about “taking land away” or “giving land back” misrepresent basic facts, because the affected acres were and remain federal public lands owned by all Americans, with monument cuts changing only the level of protection and management rather than transferring ownership.[11][14][13]
The article emphasizes that the Antiquities Act has long supported large monuments when necessary to protect entire landscapes, citing early designations such as Grand Canyon and Mount Olympus, and suggests that efforts to shrink Bears Ears and Grand Staircase ignore this historical precedent and the courts’ recognition of broad presidential authority to establish monuments.[1][2][10]
The article disputes assertions that monument status “locks up” land, noting that proclamations for Bears Ears and Grand Staircase explicitly allowed continued grazing, hunting, fishing and hiking, a point echoed by explainer pieces that stress the excluded acres remain open to recreation even as they become available for new mining claims and mineral leasing.[7][11][14]
The article highlights Bears Ears as profoundly sacred to Native nations and Grand Staircase as a globally significant paleontological landscape, warning that shrinking the monuments and dissolving tribal co-management bodies will expose cultural sites and fossil-rich areas to greater risk from roads, vandalism and development; Native organizations and conservation groups similarly describe the cuts as disrespectful to tribal sovereignty and harmful to irreplaceable heritage.[1][7][13][15]
The article portrays Utah’s delegation and allied donors as pursuing a dated extractive vision focused on coal and hardrock minerals in remote canyon country, arguing that past attempts to develop these resources have often proved impractical or uneconomical, while environmental groups caution that opening vast new areas to mining and infrastructure will fragment habitat and undermine decades of conservation progress.[1][5][7][13][15]
The article stresses that most Western and Utah voters strongly favor keeping national monument designations and prioritizing conservation over drilling and mining, citing bipartisan polling showing roughly nine in ten Western voters want monument protections maintained and large majorities oppose downsizing monuments or selling public lands.[3][4][6][8][9][12][15]
The article frames the monument reductions as part of a broader ideological push, including elements of the Project 2025 agenda, suggesting a minority is imposing radical anti-public-land policies on a public that consistently supports conservation; polling and advocacy reports reinforce this view by showing Westerners across party lines repeatedly reject proposals to weaken public-land protections.[3][4][6][8][9][12]
The article ultimately calls for political engagement, asserting that the ballot box is the strongest tool to reverse policies that favor wealthy interests over wild landscapes and Indigenous sacred places, a stance mirrored in statements from conservation organizations that urge legal challenges and civic action to defend the Antiquities Act and restore monument protections.[2][7][10][13][15]
Different views on the topic
Monument opponents argue that Bears Ears and Grand Staircase were drawn far beyond what the Antiquities Act allows, stressing that the statute requires reservations be confined to “the smallest area compatible” with protecting specific objects and maintaining that multi-million-acre monuments violate this limit and amount to executive overreach.[1][2][10][14]
Utah’s Republican leadership and some local governments contend that large federal monuments undermine local control and rural economies, arguing that residents closest to the land can manage it better than officials in Washington and that reducing boundaries helps restore a balance between conservation and economic use in communities dependent on grazing, mining and tourism.[1][2][14][15]
Trump and allied officials depict expansive monuments as “locking up” land, claiming that strict protections restrict traditional uses such as grazing, hunting and mineral development and asserting that shrinking the monuments “gives land back to the people” by reopening areas for multiple-use management and local benefit.[1][7][11][14][15]
State officials emphasize that lands removed from monument status remain federally owned public lands governed by environmental, archaeological and cultural-resource laws, arguing that management under standard Bureau of Land Management frameworks can adequately safeguard key sites while allowing a broader range of activities, including energy development, timber harvest and motorized recreation.[11][14][15]
Industry supporters and some politicians highlight the region’s mineral and energy potential, contending that opening excluded acres to uranium, vanadium, coal and other extraction could generate jobs, tax revenue and infrastructure investment in rural Utah, and present this as a way to support national energy needs while still maintaining basic environmental oversight.[1][5][7][13][14][15]
Legal critics of expansive monuments seek to narrow or test the Antiquities Act in court, arguing that presidents should not be able to lock up sweeping landscapes indefinitely and asserting that executive authority ought to include the power to reduce or modify monument boundaries to reflect changing economic conditions and local preferences.[1][2][10][7][15]
A minority of Western voters favor prioritizing oil and gas development or reducing certain protections on public lands, viewing increased access for drilling, mining and infrastructure as important for economic growth and expressing skepticism that large, federally designated monuments accurately reflect the interests of rural communities.[6][9][12]
More From the Los Angeles Times
Podcasts
The latest effort is coming from the L.A. County Board of Supervisors. They just announced a $3 million program in conjunction with some nonprofits groups to test and clean the soil at homes still standing in the areas impacted by the Eaton Fire.
California once bet big on offshore wind to help power its clean-energy future, but the Trump administration is now paying developers billions to walk away from their projects. As California’s remaining offshore-wind leases hang in the balance, the state is fighting back in court.
The Hillside Strangler murders terrorized Los Angeles in the late 1970s. The killers were a pair of sadistic cousins. One confessed. The other was set to stand trial—until L.A. prosecutors flinched.
