Legal experts remain divided over the limits of presidential authority under the Antiquities Act of 1906, as recent rollbacks of federal land protections have reignited debates about executive power. During the summer of 2026, President Donald Trump invoked the statute to shrink protections across millions of acres of federal lands and waters, extending a pattern of reversals that began in his first term.
Changes to National Monuments
In June 2026, Trump altered proclamations for the Papahānaumokuākea, Mariana Trench, and Rose Atoll Marine National Monuments, permitting commercial fishing in portions of each area while maintaining some existing restrictions. The changes affected hundreds of thousands of square miles. The following month, President Trump reduced Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monuments in Utah by more than 90 percent, sparking federal lawsuits led by environmental conservation groups and tribal nations alike.
These actions followed Trump’s earlier reductions of the same Utah monuments, which President Biden had restored in 2021. The repeated reversals leave unresolved whether the Antiquities Act allows presidents to revoke or shrink monuments created by predecessors. The law permits designating federal lands with “objects of historic or scientific interest” as national monuments, but the statute does not expressly authorize presidents to revoke or reduce monuments established by their predecessors. The statute requires reservations to remain within the “smallest area compatible” with protection.
Interpretations differ. In a May 2025 opinion, the Office of Legal Counsel concluded that the Antiquities Act permits a President to alter prior monument designations, including eliminating land associated with a monument. In contrast, a 1938 Attorney General opinion reached the opposite conclusion. Most scholars align with the 1938 view, given its proximity to the law’s original passage.
Academic Views on Presidential Power
Chick Hallinan of Vanderbilt University Law School examined congressional intent regarding modification or revocation authority in a Vanderbilt Law Review article. Hallinan argues that while the Antiquities Act authorizes monument creation, its wording does not extend to alterations. Some scholars contend that Congress’s constitutional authority over public lands limits presidential power. Despite this, Hallinan notes that presidents have repeatedly adjusted monument boundaries without judicial intervention, undermining a strict reading of the statute.
Jordan Lofthouse of the Mercatus Center at George Mason University documented in the Journal of Institutional Economics how presidents from both parties have exercised broad discretion under the law since Theodore Roosevelt. Many have used the authority for political gain or legacy-building. A working paper by Michael C. Blumm, Tory Dille, and Reese Southworth of Lewis & Clark Law School traces environmental policy shifts during Trump’s two terms, highlighting rescissions of monument protections, streamlined permitting, agency budget cuts, and executive orders promoting drilling and logging. They describe these changes as an “unprecedented and astonishing” departure from prior environmental policy.
John Leshy of the University of California College of the Law, San Francisco, argues in a George Wright Society article that public land management enjoys broad bipartisan support but faces privatization risks. The Bureau of Land Management has increasingly prioritized conservation over the past 50 years. While both Trump administrations pushed industrial development on public lands, the second term largely avoided direct privatization efforts. Leshy warns that weakening the Bureau could reduce the agency’s effectiveness and public support.
Read Also: Volunteers and Companies Fill Pandemic Data Gaps
Nathalie Massip of Université Côte d’Azur analyzes Bears Ears in Transatlantica, calling it a model of collaborative conservation between the U.S. and tribal nations. Five tribes petitioned the Obama administration in 2015 to use the Antiquities Act to protect sacred lands, seeking an active management role. Massip argues that Trump’s reductions threaten this partnership, regardless of the monument’s final status.
Fishers argue for a stricter interpretation of the term “land [owned or controlled by the Federal Government]” that would preclude presidential authority to establish marine national monuments. Federal courts, however, have repeatedly concluded that marine national monuments fall within the Act.
Elliott Finn of the Bren School of Environmental Science & Management at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and coauthors explore public land policy attitudes in an upcoming Federalism in a Divided America chapter. Their research links decades of poor decision-making to rural resentment, which they term “governance nostalgia”—a longing for premodern relationships with public lands. They advocate for collaborative, locally grounded management approaches.
Maritime Disputes and Tribal Rights
President Trump’s June modification of the proclamations governing Papahānaumokuākea, Mariana Trench, and Rose Atoll Marine National Monuments reignites controversy over whether the Antiquities Act applies to ocean waters. Courts have repeatedly rejected this view, affirming that marine national monuments fall within the Act’s scope, including areas beyond the territorial sea. The proclamations opened hundreds of thousands of square miles to commercial fishing while maintaining protections for sensitive zones and culturally important sites.
Legal Challenges and Future Developments
Federal lawsuits over the 2026 monument reductions remain active in multiple districts. Environmental organizations and tribal nations have sued in Utah federal court, challenging the Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante reductions as exceeding presidential authority. Additional cases target the marine monument changes in Hawaii and the Northern Mariana Islands. These lawsuits raise new questions about standing, mootness, and whether prior judicial approvals constrain later reductions.
Courts have generally deferred to presidential judgments on monument boundaries, particularly when based on resource management claims. However, the scale of the reductions has prompted calls for closer scrutiny. Legal scholars note no prior president had reduced monuments by such margins, complicating reliance on past practice. As cases advance, lower courts may issue preliminary injunctions affecting resource extraction within modified boundaries. A few permits for mining or drilling have been issued since the proclamations took effect, though their validity remains unresolved pending litigation.
