Trump Shrinks Two Utah National Monuments

What Happened

President Donald Trump issued two proclamations on July 13, 2026, sharply reducing the boundaries of Bears Ears National Monument and Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument in southern Utah. Both monuments protect federal land with cultural, archaeological, geological, and paleontological resources. The change reverses President Joe Biden’s 2021 restoration of boundaries that Trump had reduced during his first term.

The new Bears Ears proclamation leaves about 121,096 acres in two units, down from about 1.36 million acres. The new Grand Staircase-Escalante proclamation leaves about 181,541 acres in two units, down from about 1.87 million acres. The proclamations say that land removed from each monument will, after 60 days and subject to existing rights and other law, again be available for public-land dispositions, mineral and geothermal leasing, and mining claims.

The boundary change does not automatically approve a mine, drilling project, road, or other development. Separate laws, agency reviews, permits, and valid existing rights still apply. It does, however, change which lands are reserved as part of the two monuments and can make more uses legally possible than under the prior monument withdrawals.

Background

Congress enacted the Antiquities Act in 1906. The law allows a president to declare national monuments on federal land to protect historic landmarks, prehistoric structures, and other objects of historic or scientific interest. It also says that reserved land must be confined to the smallest area compatible with the proper care and management of the protected objects.

Grand Staircase-Escalante was established by President Bill Clinton in 1996. Bears Ears was established by President Barack Obama in 2016 after years of advocacy by five Tribal Nations with ancestral ties to the area. President Trump reduced both monuments in 2017. President Biden restored their boundaries in 2021. The new proclamations continue that cycle of presidential changes.

The new Bears Ears proclamation retains the Shash Jaa and Indian Creek units. It identifies cultural sites, rock art, dwellings, dinosaur tracks, fossils, and the Bears Ears buttes among the resources that remain protected. The Grand Staircase-Escalante proclamation retains the Canyons of the Escalante and Kaiparowits Horizon units, including named canyons, rock-art areas, and a fossil site.

What the Proclamations Change

The administration says the previous boundaries exceeded the Antiquities Act’s smallest-area requirement and that many resources have protections under other federal laws. It also says the reduction can support grazing, recreation, timber management, infrastructure, and access to critical minerals while retaining areas it considers most important for monument protection.

For Bears Ears, the proclamation disbands the Bears Ears Commission created by earlier proclamations. It says federal agencies must still consult Tribal Nations under other applicable authorities and establishes a different advisory committee with Tribal, local-government, and stakeholder representation. For both monuments, the proclamations direct agencies to prepare or maintain management plans and consider public involvement, Tribal consultation, grazing, recreation, and access.

These are presidential proclamations, not acts of Congress. The statutory text clearly authorizes presidents to create monuments and reserve land. Whether it also authorizes a president to substantially reduce a predecessor’s monument is a contested legal question. The administration says it does. Conservation groups argue it does not. A recent federal appeals-court decision held that courts can hear challenges to presidential monument actions, but it did not decide the merits of the new reductions.

What Different Sides Are Saying

The administration and supporters: The White House says the prior boundaries were larger than needed to protect qualifying objects and that other federal laws continue to protect many cultural, wildlife, and archaeological resources. Supporters say a smaller monument can preserve important sites while allowing more local access, grazing, recreation, and resource development. Utah officials and some industry and recreation groups have long argued that large monument designations restrict local decision-making and economic opportunities.

Tribal Nations, conservation groups, and other critics: They argue that Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante contain connected landscapes, not isolated objects, and that reducing the boundaries puts cultural sites, fossils, habitat, and scenery at greater risk. They also argue that the law lets presidents create monuments but does not expressly let them abolish or shrink them. The Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance says it expects the reductions to face legal challenges.

Local communities: Views are not uniform. Some residents and businesses favor greater access to land and potential development. Others depend on tourism, recreation, research, or conservation work and believe broad monument protections support the local economy. The outcome will depend not only on the new maps but also on agency planning, permitting, litigation, and market demand.

Fact Check

Claim: Nearly all land removed from the monuments is immediately open for mining and drilling.
Finding: Misleading. The proclamations set a 60-day effective date for specified public-land and leasing actions, subject to valid existing rights and applicable law. A separate proposal would still need to meet other legal, environmental, and permitting requirements.

Claim: The new proclamations eliminate all federal protection for cultural and natural resources outside the smaller monuments.
Finding: False. Federal laws that can protect archaeological, historic, wildlife, and other resources still apply. The scope and strength of those protections can differ from the protections that come with monument status.

Claim: The Antiquities Act clearly gives presidents power to shrink any existing national monument.
Finding: Not established. The statute expressly authorizes monument declarations and land reservations, but it does not expressly state a power to reduce monuments. The administration cites an implied power and historical practice. Critics dispute that interpretation, and the issue can be litigated.

Claim: The earlier monument boundaries were created without any Tribal role.
Finding: False. Bears Ears was established after advocacy by Tribal Nations, and its original proclamation created a Bears Ears Commission to advise federal agencies. Tribal consultation does not mean every Tribe or local resident agrees with every boundary or management choice.

Claim: Reducing the monuments guarantees major new mineral development.
Finding: Unsupported. The boundary change may allow applications that were previously barred by monument withdrawals, but it does not establish the size, economic viability, or approval of any future project.

What to Watch

The first question is legal. Environmental and Tribal groups may challenge the proclamations, and courts could be asked to decide how the Antiquities Act applies to reductions. A court could leave the proclamations in place, block parts of them, or require further proceedings. Until a court rules, claims that the reductions are certainly lawful or certainly invalid go beyond what has been decided.

The next question is administrative. Federal agencies will need to revise management plans, consult affected governments and Tribes, and process any applications under the laws that apply to lands removed from monument status. Public notices, lease sales, mining claims, and environmental reviews would provide more concrete evidence of how much the policy changes land use in practice.

The disagreement is therefore about more than acreage. It concerns how public land should be managed, whose knowledge should guide decisions, whether protecting a landscape requires protecting a large connected area, and how much discretion a president has under a law written more than a century ago.

Discussion Questions

What is the main purpose of a national monument?
Which change in the proclamations seems most important?
Should monument boundaries protect whole landscapes or specific sites?
How should Tribal knowledge shape public-land decisions?
What are the strongest arguments for more local land-use control?
What are the strongest arguments for broader federal protection?
Why might a smaller boundary change future land use?
How should courts interpret an older law with modern disputes?
Have protected lands affected your community or travel plans?
Imagine you manage the area. What would you protect first?

Trump Reduces Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante