The Case for Presidential Authority to Rescind National Monuments: Balancing Federal Power and Local Interests
By Editor
May 27th Decision
On May 27, 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a legal opinion stating that the President has the authority to revoke national monument designations made under the Antiquities Act of 1906. The key statement from the DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel, authored by Lanora Pettit, is:
“For the Antiquities Act, the power to declare carries with it the power to revoke. … If the President can declare that his predecessor was wrong regarding the value of preserving one such object on a given parcel, there is nothing preventing him from declaring that his predecessor was wrong about all such objects on a given parcel.”
This opinion reverses a 1938 determination by then-Attorney General Homer Cummings, which argued that monuments created under the Antiquities Act could not be rescinded. The 2025 memo asserts that the Act’s silence on revocation implies the President has the authority to abolish or modify monument designations, particularly when determining that the protected areas no longer merit such status. The opinion specifically references two California national monuments designated by former President Joe Biden—Chuckwalla National Monument and Sattitla Highlands National Monument—as potential targets for review.
What the President Giveth, the President can Taketh Away
The Antiquities Act of 1906 grants the President sweeping authority to designate national monuments, protecting historic landmarks, structures, and objects of scientific interest on federal lands. However, a recent memorandum opinion from the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), dated May 27, 2025, affirms that this authority also includes the power to revoke or modify prior monument designations when the objects or lands no longer merit protection. This interpretation is critical for states like Utah, California, and New Mexico, where large-scale monument designations, such as Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante in Utah, have sparked significant local opposition due to their economic and cultural impacts. The ability to rescind such designations offers a mechanism to address the concerns of local stakeholders, restore economic vitality, and ensure public access to lands, particularly when federal overreach has stifled communities.
The Antiquities Act and Local Opposition
The Antiquities Act was originally intended to protect specific archaeological sites from vandalism, such as the Pueblo ruins in the Southwest. However, its application has expanded dramatically, with Presidents designating vast tracts of land—sometimes millions of acres—as national monuments without congressional approval or robust local input. The OLC opinion notes that the Act’s text allows the President to declare monuments and reserve the “smallest area compatible” with their protection (54 U.S.C. § 320301). Yet, designations like the 1.35 million-acre Bears Ears National Monument (2016) and the 1.7 million-acre Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument (1996) in Utah have far exceeded this scope, encompassing entire landscapes rather than discrete objects. These actions have often ignored the voices of local communities, who rely on these lands for their livelihoods and cultural practices.
In Utah, both Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante faced fierce opposition from local stakeholders, including ranchers, miners, and outdoor enthusiasts. Residents, local governments, and Native American groups with differing views argued that the designations restricted economic activities like grazing, mining, and energy development, while limiting motorized access for recreation. For example, in San Juan County, where Bears Ears is located, local Navajo residents and non-Native ranchers expressed concerns that the monument’s restrictions would choke off economic opportunities in an already impoverished region. Similarly, Garfield and Kane Counties, home to Grand Staircase-Escalante, saw the monument’s designation as a federal imposition that curtailed their ability to manage local resources.
Economic Impacts on Local Communities
The economic fallout from these designations has been profound. In Garfield County, Utah, the creation of Grand Staircase-Escalante led to significant restrictions on grazing and mineral extraction, industries that form the backbone of the region’s economy. In 1996, the county declared an economic state of emergency, citing the monument’s impact on local jobs and tax revenues. The designation halted potential coal mining projects, such as the Andalex mine, which could have employed hundreds and generated millions in local revenue. Grazing allotments were reduced, forcing ranchers to scale back operations or sell off livestock, further straining small communities like Escalante and Kanab. The loss of motorized access also impacted tourism, as hunters, off-road vehicle users, and other recreationalists faced new restrictions, reducing visitor spending in local businesses.
Bears Ears has similarly strained San Juan County’s economy. The monument’s restrictions on energy development, including potential oil and gas leases, have limited job creation in a county with high poverty rates. Local stakeholders argue that the designation prioritizes environmental preservation over human welfare, ignoring the needs of communities dependent on resource-based industries. The OLC opinion highlights that Presidents have historically reduced monument parcels when they deemed lands unnecessary for protection, as seen in President Eisenhower’s reduction of the Great Sand Dunes National Monument in 1956. This precedent underscores the importance of presidential authority to revisit designations that harm local economies.
The Case for Rescission
The OLC’s conclusion that the President can revoke monument designations is a vital tool for addressing these local grievances. The opinion overturns the 1938 Castle Pinckney ruling, which erroneously claimed that monument designations were irrevocable absent congressional action. By clarifying that the President can de-designate objects or reduce reserved parcels, the OLC empowers future administrations to correct overreaching designations that fail to balance preservation with economic and cultural needs.
For states like Utah, California, and New Mexico, this authority is particularly significant. In California, the 2025 designations of the Chuckwalla and Sáttitla Highlands National Monuments have raised similar concerns about federal overreach. Local stakeholders, including renewable energy developers and recreational users, worry that these monuments, spanning vast areas, will limit access and economic opportunities. In New Mexico, past designations like the Rio Grande del Norte National Monument (2013) have faced criticism for restricting grazing and energy development, echoing Utah’s experience. The ability to rescind or modify these designations allows Presidents to respond to local concerns, ensuring that federal land management aligns with the needs of affected communities.
Historical Precedent and Legal Clarity
The OLC opinion cites numerous instances where Presidents have modified monument boundaries, such as President Taft’s 1911 reduction of the Petrified Forest National Monument by over 25,000 acres and President Wilson’s reduction of the Mount Olympus National Monument to allow railroad construction. These actions reflect a long-standing understanding that the President can adjust monument designations to reflect new information or public needs. The opinion also notes that Congress has never explicitly barred such modifications, reinforcing the President’s implicit authority under the Antiquities Act.
The 2017 reduction of Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante by President Trump—though mired in litigation—demonstrates the practical need for this authority. Local communities supported these reductions, arguing that they restored access to lands for grazing, recreation, and potential resource development. However, the reductions were challenged, partly due to the lingering influence of Castle Pinckney, which created confusion about presidential powers. The OLC’s disavowal of this precedent clarifies that such actions are within the President’s purview, reducing legal uncertainty and empowering local stakeholders.
Balancing Preservation and Progress
The Antiquities Act’s original purpose was to protect specific cultural and scientific treasures, not to lock up vast landscapes at the expense of local communities. The OLC opinion restores balance by affirming the President’s ability to revisit designations that no longer serve their intended purpose or harm local economies. For rural communities in Utah, California, and New Mexico, this authority offers hope that their voices will be heard. By allowing Presidents to rescind or modify monuments like Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante, the federal government can better align land management with the needs of those who live, work, and recreate on these lands, ensuring that preservation does not come at the cost of prosperity.
