It sounds like a plot point from a political thriller, but it’s actually the current reality of American land law. Most of us grew up thinking that once a place becomes a National Monument, it’s safe. Forever. Like, "hands off, this is history" level of safe. But the Trump administration says he can cancel national monuments entirely, and honestly, it’s turning over a century of legal tradition on its head.
The move is basically a massive "delete" button for federal land protections.
For nearly 90 years, the standing rule—backed by a 1938 Department of Justice (DOJ) opinion—was that a president can create a monument, but only Congress has the power to kill one. That's a huge distinction. But in 2025 and moving into 2026, the current DOJ has issued a new memo that flips the script. They’re arguing that if you have the power to say a place is special, you also have the power to say, "Actually, never mind."
💡 You might also like: Antitrust Competition Law News Today: Why the Big Tech Breakup is Finally Getting Real
The Legal Spark: Lanora Pettit’s Memo
The pivot point here is a legal memo signed by Lanora Pettit, the head of the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC). It basically says the 1938 opinion was "wrong" and shouldn't be relied on anymore. Her logic? The power to declare naturally carries the power to revoke.
Think about the Antiquities Act of 1906. It’s a short, punchy law. It gives the president the authority to protect "objects of historic or scientific interest" by making them monuments. It says nothing about un-protecting them.
The administration’s argument relies on a few things:
- Historical Precedent: Presidents have shrunk monuments before (though rarely to this degree).
- The "Smallest Area" Clause: The law says monuments should be the smallest size possible to protect the stuff inside. The administration argues many current monuments are way too big.
- Executive Discretion: They believe the president needs the flexibility to fix "mistakes" made by previous administrations that "locked up" land from drilling or mining.
Which Places Are on the Chopping Block?
This isn't just about abstract legal theory. Real places are in the crosshairs. We’re talking about millions of acres that tribes, hikers, and scientists have fought for.
Currently, the administration is eyeing at least six major sites. Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante in Utah are back in the news (again). They were shrunk during Trump’s first term, restored by Biden, and now might be completely abolished. Then there's the Chuckwalla National Monument and the Sáttítla Highlands in California. These were recently designated, and the administration sees them as barriers to energy production.
It’s a bit of a whiplash effect. One year it’s a protected sanctuary; the next, it’s open for business.
👉 See also: Is El Chapo in Jail? What Really Happened to the King of Tunnels
The Counter-Argument: Why Critics Say This Is Illegal
Naturally, environmental groups and Tribal nations aren't just sitting back. Earthjustice and the Sierra Club have already started the engine on lawsuits. Their main point is pretty simple: The Constitution gives Congress, not the President, the power to manage federal property.
When Congress passed the Antiquities Act, they gave the President a very specific "one-way" power. They didn't give him a "reverse" gear.
Critics also point to the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA). This law was basically Congress saying, "Okay, we’re taking back the reins on land management." It specifically stated that the Secretary of the Interior can't modify or revoke monument designations. While it didn't explicitly name the President, legal scholars like John Ruple argue the intent was crystal clear: monuments are meant to be permanent.
It’s Not Just Land; It’s the History Too
There is a weird, quieter side to this "canceling" effort. It’s not just about the borders of the land. It’s about the signage and the stories.
The administration has issued orders to review "improper ideology" on public lands. This has led to the removal of mentions of climate change, LGBTQ+ history, and certain aspects of Native American history from websites and visitor centers. For example, at the Stonewall National Monument, references to "transgender" history were reportedly scrubbed from the official site.
It’s sorta like a digital and physical "whitewashing" that happens alongside the land-use changes.
What Happens Next?
If you're wondering if your favorite park is going to disappear tomorrow, the answer is: probably not yet. These things move through the courts like molasses. But the Trump administration says he can cancel national monuments, and they are actively trying to prove it in court.
Here is what to keep an eye on:
- The "Energy Emergency" Declaration: The administration has used this to fast-track reviews of monuments that might sit on oil or mineral deposits.
- The "Garden of American Heroes": While canceling some monuments, the president is pushing for a new one—a massive statue park in West Potomac Park. It shows he’s not against monuments; he just wants his monuments.
- The Supreme Court: This will almost certainly end up at the highest court. With the current conservative majority, there is a real chance they could side with the administration’s view of executive power.
Actionable Insights for You
If you care about these lands, "waiting and seeing" might not be the best strategy.
- Check the Maps: Look up the current boundaries of monuments like Bears Ears or Baaj Nwaavjo I’tah Kukveni. If the administration succeeds, those boundaries could shrink or vanish.
- Follow the FOIA Lawsuits: Groups like the Sierra Club are suing just to get the administration to release the memos and data they’re using to justify these cancellations. Following these cases gives you the raw info before it hits the filters of cable news.
- Support Tribal Stewardship: Many of these monuments, especially in the West, are co-managed with Tribes. Their legal standing and historical claims are often the strongest defense against federal overreach.
- Vocalize Locally: National monuments often bring in huge tourism dollars to local towns. If you live near one, local economic arguments often carry more weight with politicians than purely "environmental" ones.
The status of our public lands is in a state of "unstable equilibrium" right now. The idea that a president can unilaterally erase a century of conservation is a massive shift in how we think about the American landscape. It’s no longer just about protecting the land; it’s about defending the very idea of a permanent legacy.