Congress has cut federal funding for public media — a $3.4 million loss for LAist. We count on readers like you to protect our nonprofit newsroom. Become a monthly member and sustain local journalism.
Was It 'Illegal' For Trump To Shrink Utah's Monuments? The Battle Begins

President Trump has dramatically scaled back two national land monuments in Utah. The administration and Republican leaders in Utah say taking the land out of the hands of the federal government will allow the state to decide what to do with it, including protecting some areas and possibly allowing development in others.
As expected, environmental and Native American groups were outraged. Patagonia, which sells outdoor clothing and gear, splashed a statement across its website reading "The President Stole Your Land" and calling Trump's move "illegal."
This is the largest elimination of protected land in American history.
— Patagonia (@patagonia) December 4, 2017
Take Action: https://t.co/biZPxo7PHh#BearsEars pic.twitter.com/OqW9FHPk3Q
The battle over Trump's authority to shrink monuments may be just beginning. Native American tribes and conservation groups are mounting legal challenges, even as the administration turns its focus to possibly shrinking half a dozen more in other states.
Before President Trump even finished his triumphal visit to Utah Monday, the first lawsuits were being filed.
At the center of this sage brush battle is a relatively obscure federal law called the Antiquities Act. Signed by President Teddy Roosevelt in 1906, it was intended to stop the pilfering of ancient Indian artifacts from public land. But it also gave presidents the authority to create national monuments on their own, without Congress.
Here in Utah, where about two-thirds of the entire state is federally owned and there are seven large monuments, the act is a household name, and in some rural areas, a dirty word.

"I've become an expert in monuments," Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke said at the Utah Capitol on Monday. "And the Antiquities Act was never intended to prevent, it was intended to protect."
When the administration began its controversial review of 27 large monuments, including Utah's Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante, it said the act needed to be tested.
Tribes and conservationists have been preparing lawsuits for months.
"There is nothing in the Antiquities Act that authorizes a president to modify a national monument once it's been designated." says Ethel Branch, attorney general for the Navajo Nation, one of the tribes that is suing the administration.
The tribes point to a federal lands law from the 1970s that says only Congress can actually reduce or nullify a national monument.
Previous presidents have made small reductions to monument boundaries, but never until Monday had one used the Antiquities Act to so dramatically shrink them.
But there's another tricky issue here. The Antiquities Act also expressly states that presidents should protect the important sites while using the smallest amount of land possible.
That's partly why there was so much opposition to Bears Ears, which originally was 1.3 million acres in size.

"It was more about control than it was about protection," says San Juan County Commission Chair Bruce Adams. He's ecstatic that President Trump is trying to shrink monuments across the rural West. He says these designations take everything off the table, like expanding cattle grazing or mining.
Trump, he says, "listened to the local people, even though they weren't millions of voters, only 15,000 people in our community. He understands what rural communities are about."
The administration is also considering shrinking national monuments in states like Nevada and Oregon. If it presses forward, more legal challenges are sure to follow.
Copyright 2024 NPR
As Editor-in-Chief of our newsroom, I’m extremely proud of the work our top-notch journalists are doing here at LAist. We’re doing more hard-hitting watchdog journalism than ever before — powerful reporting on the economy, elections, climate and the homelessness crisis that is making a difference in your lives. At the same time, it’s never been more difficult to maintain a paywall-free, independent news source that informs, inspires, and engages everyone.
Simply put, we cannot do this essential work without your help. Federal funding for public media has been clawed back by Congress and that means LAist has lost $3.4 million in federal funding over the next two years. So we’re asking for your help. LAist has been there for you and we’re asking you to be here for us.
We rely on donations from readers like you to stay independent, which keeps our nonprofit newsroom strong and accountable to you.
No matter where you stand on the political spectrum, press freedom is at the core of keeping our nation free and fair. And as the landscape of free press changes, LAist will remain a voice you know and trust, but the amount of reader support we receive will help determine how strong of a newsroom we are going forward to cover the important news from our community.
Please take action today to support your trusted source for local news with a donation that makes sense for your budget.
Thank you for your generous support and believing in independent news.

-
After rising for years, the number of residential installations in the city of Los Angeles began to drop in 2023. The city isn’t subject to recent changes in state incentives, but other factors may be contributing to the decline.
-
The L.A. City Council approved the venue change Wednesday, which organizers say will save $12 million in infrastructure costs.
-
Taxes on the sale of some newer apartment buildings would be lowered under a plan by Sacramento lawmakers to partially rein in city Measure ULA.
-
The union representing the restaurant's workers announced Tuesday that The Pantry will welcome back patrons after suddenly shutting down six months ago.
-
If approved, the more than 62-acre project would include 50 housing lots and a marina less than a mile from Jackie and Shadow's famous nest overlooking the lake.
-
The U.S. Supreme Court lifted limits on immigration sweeps in Southern California, overturning a lower court ruling that prohibited agents from stopping people based on their appearance.