Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

When Public Lands Become Real Estate

Opinion

Red rock formations in the "Valley of the Gods."

Red rock formations in the "Valley of the Gods" on April 22, 2026 in Bears Ears National Monument, Utah. Bears Ears has been a controversial Monument since it's creation in December of 2016.

George Frey / Getty Images

Last week, in his latest attempted liquidation of our shared heritage, President Trump signed two executive orders eviscerating protections for close to three million acres of our national monuments: Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante. From the Oval Office, a president who has never even seen these sacred sites reduced them by roughly 90%, dwarfing his 2017 attempt at a similar land grab by about a million acres, leaving only 300,000 acres of protected land. These cuts will directly threaten critical wildlife habitats, put nearly 100,000 irreplaceable archaeological sites at risk of destruction, and fracture an interconnected indigenous homeland that has been stewarded by Native tribes since time immemorial. To Trump, it’s just another real estate deal.

The Trump regime has tried to portray this set-up to sell off as an effort to restore public access. During the Oval Office photo op where the president signed the proclamations, he said of the monuments: “You can’t go hunting. You can’t go fishing. You can’t do anything. You can virtually not even walk on it.” That is, to put it mildly, a malicious lie. All your favorite forms of outdoor recreation—from hiking and camping to fishing and hunting—are allowed there, which Trump might know if he had ever visited the land he decided is not worth preserving. In fact, the Antiquities Act doesn’t limit ordinary public use but rather the extent to which an area can be subject to mining and drilling. So much for the land of the free. Trump wants to make it a whole lot easier for extractive industries and private development interests to privatize and pillage these sacred lands for financial gain. Home of the brave? Not an ounce of courage to refuse the fuel lobby when it comes to our public lands. At least the law is on our side. As the President of the National Parks Conservation Association put it, this is both “a betrayal to the American people and illegal.”


The Antiquities Act delegates to the president the power to create national monuments, but the power to diminish them belongs strictly to Congress. Trump’s attempt to slash these boundaries is an unlawful usurpation of legislative power that defies more than a century of legal precedent. But then, what else is new? Still, while Roosevelt explored the wild west and was inspired to designate lands worth protecting, Trump is stripping those protections, sight unseen, to harvest parts to sell to the highest bidder. He has already eliminated over 16 times more land than Teddy protected. It may be predictable, but it is despicable.

Perhaps Trump just has terrible taste when it comes to what is worth preserving for antiquity. His proclamations modifying the monuments, which condescendingly explain why 90% of the monuments were just not monument-worthy enough, are illuminating. He writes that the original designations as national monuments were “premised on the purported need to protect items that are not historic landmarks…or objects of historic or scientific interest.” He then mocks a list of what he calls “generic topographic and geologic features.” Of Grand Staircase-Escalante, they include: “‘vast and austere landscape[s],’ ‘sedimentary rock layers,’ and ‘bold plateaus and multihued cliffs.’” Of Bears Ears: “‘deep sandstone canyons, broad desert mesas, towering monoliths, forested mountaintops dotted with lush meadows’ and ‘low bluffs and high mesas.’” Trump concludes: “These generic features…do not become “landmarks,” “structures,” or “objects of historic or scientific interest” worthy of protection under the Antiquities Act simply because they are scenic.” It is the point of view one imagines ChatGPT, with its zero senses, might have.

To suggest that sedimentary rock layers are not objects of scientific interest is the mark of someone who has never cared for science. In reality, to quote the proclamation that Trump is reversing, the sedimentary rock layers are “unobscured by vegetation, offering a clear view to understanding the Earth’s geological development…[making it] one of the world’s great paleontological laboratories.” And to state there are no objects of historic interest is deeply dismissive, offensive, and inaccurate. These lands include a rich human history that begins with ancient indigenous people (documented even in petroglyphs and pictograph panels–another feature of these monuments). To imply otherwise is an erasure.

On that note, Trump’s desire to privatize these lands is merely the latest chapter in a legacy of American colonialism. Historically, treaties between the U.S. and sovereign Indian nations were routinely coercive, misleading, and signed under duress, and in several landmark cases, the Supreme Court invented loopholes in property law to diminish Native American land claims. Now, Trump tries once more to illegally claim land that is not his, turning to a tired trope. To add insult to injury, Bears Ears happens to be the very first national monument established at the request of a historic coalition of Tribal Nations. If we are not going to actively return this land through the “Land Back” movement, the absolute minimum we can do is treasure it and ensure it remains for future generations. Trump’s actions are unforgivable.

Fortunately, guess who supports protection for public lands: the public. Polling shows that 91% of Western voters support existing monument designations. Three in four Americans actively oppose expanded drilling and mining on our public lands (it’s bipartisan!). The fact is, nobody wants this except the beneficiaries of deals like these, who apparently can look upon “forested mountaintops dotted with lush meadows” and not see past the dollar signs. One of my favorite things about public lands is the spirit of equality in a place where everyone is sleeping in a tent and the campsites are first-come, first-served. Perhaps it is that exact spirit—or the distinct lack of thread count—which generates such contempt for the land among oligarchs.

It turns out, Trump may have only ever visited three national parks or monuments: Everglades, Mount Rushmore, and Gettysburg. He’s a billionaire and the leader of the free world, but with all that money and power, he’s never seen the sun rise at the Grand Canyon or a night sky peppered with stars in Joshua Tree. If he only looked into the bold plateaus and multihued cliffs of our planet, perhaps he would no longer find them generic and rather see the value in protecting them. Or not. In the meantime, he felt compelled to plaster his face on this year’s park passes, in violation of a federal requirement that the pass bear the winning wildlife scene from a national parks photo contest.

Still, this ongoing effort to loot the American commons begs the question: has anyone at the White House ever had a meaningful experience in nature? Been mesmerized watching a condor soar above a canyon? Or simply curious about the natural world? Pity for those people notwithstanding, given the evidence that they consider breathtaking natural wonders generic, at what point do they sell off the Grand Canyon, Yosemite, and Yellowstone for being mere scenery, too?

It should go without saying, but our grandest marvels are so much more than scenery. They are essential to our collective identity as a nation and to the health of our planet. They are also the backdrop for the history and culture of so many people in this country, from ancient tribes to college besties on a road trip. And they need our help. If we don’t want to see their destruction, we must sign petitions, support organizations like Veterans for Public Lands, and show up. It is exactly this kind of people-led advocacy that helped restore protections to these lands after 2017. We can do it again. We can also visit these vistas ourselves and share stories about the cactus wren and the Saguaro, or the wonder of watching a desert tortoise cross the road. We can spread the gospel: nature is worth protecting.


Julie Roland was a Naval Officer for ten years, deploying to both the South China Sea and the Persian Gulf as a helicopter pilot before separating in June 2025 as a Lieutenant Commander. She has a law degree from the University of San Diego, a Master of Laws from Columbia University, and is a member of the Truman National Security Project.


Read More

Michelle Martinez, University of Michigan (U-M)

Michelle Martinez, the inaugural director of the Tishman Center for Social Justice and the Environment at the University of Michigan (U-M)

At the University of Michigan, Environmental Justice Starts With Who Gets to Decide

When Michelle Martinez talks about climate change, she does not begin with temperatures, emissions, or models and projections.

She begins with people. For Martinez, the inaugural director of the Tishman Center for Social Justice and the Environment at the University of Michigan (U-M), climate change is already being experienced through the housing, economic, and political crises confronting communities today. And that makes climate justice inseparable from a more basic civic question: Who has the power to decide what happens to a community?

Keep ReadingShow less
 Cracked Dry Earth - stock photo A pair of worn brown boots stand on cracked, dry earth. Sparse green plants struggle to grow amidst the barren landscape, creating a stark contrast.

After the AfD’s historic wins in Saxony-Anhalt and Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, an analyst links climate migration to democratic decline and a possible fix.

Climate, Migration and the Far Right: Democracies Need a Short-Term Plan

On September 6, the far-right German party Alternative for Germany (AfD) made a historic breakthrough. 100 years after Hitler’s official reorganization of the Nazi Party, a group that has openly strategized and worked with neo-Nazis won a plurality of the vote in the state of Saxony-Anhalt and is on the precipice of forming a government there. 14 days later, they won a plurality again in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania. This is the AfD's strongest electoral result yet, and the closest a far-right party has come to a majority in postwar Germany.

In a country with numerous safeguards against right-wing co-option – from a 5% minimum threshold to enter the Bundestag to bans for undemocratic parties – this democratic victory of a far-right movement shook the country to its core. Whether AfD is able to make up the handful of seats it needs in coalition agreements to form governments in both states isn’t the point; AfD’s stock is on the rise, and at this rate, they will likely continue to win at both the state and federal level. Even if Chancellor Merz’s coalition government can start delivering for the increasingly underemployed and isolated German people, by all signs, far-right support will only continue to increase.

Keep ReadingShow less
Humans May Start Wildfires. Climate Change Makes Them Catastrophic.
A forest fire glowing with bright orange flames and smoke at night
Photo by Egor Vikhrev on Unsplash

Humans May Start Wildfires. Climate Change Makes Them Catastrophic.

The summer of 2026 once again saw wildfire smoke from the West Coast and Midwest blanketing East Coast skies. Smoke-filled summer skies now seem to be the norm across America, and wildfire season isn’t even close to over.

The public response is also becoming normal. When investigators determine that a person started a wildfire, online chatter usually centers on the idea that humans are the cause and that climate change could not have played a role. That argument confuses the ignition source with the complex conditions that contribute to wildfire. A spark may explain where a wildfire began. It cannot, on its own, explain why flames spread so far and devastate entire communities.

Keep ReadingShow less
Aerial view of a large Google Data Center

AI data centers consume huge amounts of water and power. Tucson’s Project Blue shows why communities need clearer, verifiable transparency from tech companies.

Getty images

The True Cost of AI: Are Tech Companies Reducing the Damage?

Ever since the AI boom of 2022 with the release of OpenAI’s large language model “ChatGPT” to the public, we have seen the exponential rise of AI being seemingly forced into our daily lives. It makes sense after all; who doesn’t like an uncanny Will Smith eating spaghetti, making funny faces?

Fast forward 4 years, and that same technology is being used to create almost undetectable videos of posthumous celebrities doing things they never did. High school teachers and college professors must worry daily about the effects AI is having on both the work turned in and the brains of those submitting it.

Keep ReadingShow less