After four years of the Biden administration doing everything in its power to keep our natural resources in the ground, President Trump and Congressional Republicans have made a concerted effort to get the most out of our federal lands and waters.
The One Big Beautiful Bill Act marked an important step in this regard by mandating increased lease sales and reducing royalty rates for natural gas, oil, and coal. Following suit, the Bureau of Land Management overturned Biden’s Public Lands rule—a regulation that effectively treated “no use” as a legitimate option for federal land, in direct conflict with the multiple-use mandate established by the 1976 Federal Land Policy and Management Act.
Growing electricity demand from artificial intelligence (AI), electrification, and data centers requires increased reliable energy production so that we can meet these needs without increasing prices for consumers. Federal lands and water play an important role in this production, supplying 24% of total domestic oil and 11% of total domestic natural gas production, according to a 2022 calculation by the American Petroleum Institute, while also holding critical minerals needed for key technologies.
Expanding access to federal lands for energy production positions the U.S. to meet future energy demands, and President Trump and Congressional Republicans deserve credit for the progress made so far. The greater challenge lies in ensuring this progress endures. If Republicans lose the White House in 2028, a Democratic successor could swiftly block energy development on vast areas of federal land by declaring them national monuments.
This authority stems from the Antiquities Act of 1906, signed by President Teddy Roosevelt, which grants presidents unilateral power to designate federal land as national monuments with limited oversight. Under this law, administrations have restricted production and development without approval from Congress or input from local communities.
The Antiquities Act was established with the intention of closing off small areas of historic or scientific interest in the West from desecration and looting; however, presidents have continuously gone beyond its “smallest area compatible with proper care and management of the objects to be protected” requirement to close off federal lands with the intention of foreclosing commercial activity.
The first of these instances came only two years after the Act was established: in 1908, Roosevelt proclaimed 818,560 acres of Arizona Territory as the Grand Canyon National Monument to prevent a trolley line from being built. Although the territory had been a forest reserve since 1893, the monument declaration restricted the land further by banning new mines on the territory.
Many uses of the Antiquities Act have drawn the ire of local politicians and communities in Western states, ranging from Wyoming and Utah to Alaska and Hawaii. In 2010, the New York Times commented on the “vitriol [unleashed] among Western conservatives” by the word “monument.”
The vitriol Westerners have against monument designations aligns with their economic impact; a 2013 study on President Bill Clinton’s establishment of the 1.7 million acre Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument in southern Utah found that its creation led to a $146 million reduction in decade-to-decade growth in total nonfarm payrolls for nearby Kane and Garfield counties, largely due to losing access to large coal and oil deposits. Another study examined the impact of President Obama’s 2016 expansion of the Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument from 89,600,00 acres to 372,849,920 acres on Hawaii’s longline fishing industry, finding that it led to a 9% decrease in revenue per trip for boats that used to use the area.
In his first term, President Trump recognized the Antiquities Act’s harm and shrank Grand Staircase and Utah’s Bears Ears National Monument, later opening both up to mining and drilling. However, the Biden administration was quick to reinstate these boundaries a year into his term. Overall, Biden closed off over 674 million acres of federal lands and waters from production during his presidency, bolstering his self-proclaimed “legacy of conservation.” It’s easy to see how a future Democratic administration could go even further, using the Antiquities Act to score the political points that come with the conservationist label without any input from locals or votes in Congress.
The Antiquities Act, in its current form, leaves communities vulnerable to sweeping land-use restrictions and injects dangerous uncertainty into America’s energy future. It empowers presidents to shut down access to vital resources with the stroke of a pen, undermining jobs, local economies, and the nation’s ability to meet rising energy demand.
To secure the progress already made in opening land to energy production, Congress must act. Reforms like those proposed by Utah Senators Mike Lee and John Curtis would restore balance by requiring congressional approval for monument designations. Congressional approval wouldn’t be a kill switch against federal overreach in land-use decisions, but it would make monument designations dependent on more steps than the whim of a president.
If the U.S. is to meet the challenges of the future, powering AI, electrification, data centers, and beyond, we cannot allow unchecked executive authority to lock away the resources needed to get there. Permanently unleashing America’s federal lands will require Congress to reform the Antiquities Act.
William Rampe is a Policy Analyst at the Institute for Energy Research.
This article was originally published by RealClearEnergy and made available via RealClearWire.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Except for very limited exceptions, e.g. military/national security uses, or national parks voted on by congress, the federal government should not own any land. It should be the States’ land and the feds should butt out.
Sagebrush Rebellion, 1960-1982.
It’s not over.
It’s a simmering pot, getting ready to boil over.
The Department of Defense (excluding the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers), administers 8.8 million acres in the United States (as of September 30, 2017), consisting of military bases, training ranges, and more.
Thats larger than than 8 smallest individual states, just a bit larger than Maryland
NPS has 80 million acres which roughly the size of new mexico
61% of ALL Federal lands are in Alaska The state with highest % of its territory Federal is Nevada 80%
I dont see the smaller populated states wanting the Feds to hand over the land for them to manage at their cost
Several valid points for discussion.
One not so valid. The proposal does not entail handing over the land for the States to manage at their own cost, although that is a possibility. States are represented in Congress so those points can be made during debates on the issues.
There are those at the state level who are easily corrupted, and by eroding protections, we could see public lands disappear into private holding, as with the island of Lanai, which is 98% owned by Larry Ellison (Oracle.com) and off limits to the people.
If we’re not adamant about toeing the line, we will be picked apart piecemeal and end up with little to no public lands for the people.
Politicians at every level are easily corrupted. The closer the politician is to the people who voted for them, the easier they are to monitor. Also with fewer voters, it’s easier to get rid of them when they do become corrupt.
Yes, just as we the people monitor the California Legislature, the Governor, and all the appointed boards.
Nope. The constitution gives the people elections to approve or not their representatives. For the House gerrymandering means it’s pretty impossible for the peoples vote to change it’s representative
William Rampe,
Well done for highlighting these land use impediments.
Some might say that the community has been split into 2 big parts, for and against mining, with a small “don’t know”. Sadly, the vast majority of these opinionated people know next to nothing about mining. It is treated as a vague concept, with people seeming to feel that they have to be anti or pro something as a requirement to be classed as proper citizens.
When such a proper citizen reaches a position with power to make or to vote for laws and regulations, unsafe outcomes can and do happen.
In my Australia, for example, my employer mineral company lost granted access to a huge area of prime mineral exploration potential next to the important Ranger Uranium mines. Our federal government connived with the United Nations world heritage people, when neither of them had adequate relevant experience to affect legislation.
Governments are often good at propaganda. Right now, most people have little-questioned cherished opinions that concepts like antiquities, world heritage selections, some artefacts from earlier settlers have to be protected. There are known examples where they do not need protection, or that continued protection is costly, yet the public is not told this. They are told over and over to believe in “protection of the environment” as the trendy way to be.
Geoff S
Much of what is transpiring in the world day falls into that category, “the trendy way to be.”
And along the way how about showing and explaining the ridiculously inefficient checkerboard land ownership pattern in NV, AZ, and other western states.
Longterm Federal Gov. land ownership is constitutional, but the founders never intended for the Feds to own so much for so long.
The founders also never envisions the government turning into a bureaucracy.
The founders also never envisioned representatives genuflecting to the party at the expense of those they were elected to represent.
That’s not ridiculous at all. The government wanted a trans-continental railroad. The government had neither the money, nor the wherewithal to accomplish that task. The solution was to offer two private companies 50% of a ten mile wide swath of land in exchange for building the railroad. Instead of allowing either side to cherry-pick the best and give up the worst, the checkerboard approach was used.
The trans-continental railroad was built in four years with hand labor.
If you begin to think a government could do this kind of thing, consider California spent $11,000,000,000—yes eleven billion— to build a 1,600 foot long bridge over a dry river on flat land.
And that super-duper train? How many billions per mile of track laid?
False claim. Its not just a 1600 ft viaduct, as anybody with a faint idea of construction costs would know. That’s total spending over 17 yrs
https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-has-california-spent-11-billion-high-speed-rail-stretch-1901106
Thanks for the correction. $2 Billion is still too much for bridge over flat land. Its Twelve million per foot.
The Chinese just opened the world’s highest bridge. It spans China’s Grand Canyon at 2,051 feet. It is 9,482 feet long, almost six times longer than the Fresno River bridge. The Chinese bridge cost about 290 Million dollars, about 14% of the cost of the longer Fresno River bridge.
So not only did he steal your gold, he stole your land. This guy really is the worst president you’ve ever had.
It was President Franklin Roosevelt who grabbed the gold via executive order in 1933.
Gold yes, money in general.
The European recession hit the US east coast.
Roosevelt’s actions caused it to become a full blown depression.
In California, back then, they used Canadian currency since is was unlawful to have and use US currency;.
The depression began in US in 1929, Roosevelt didn’t become President till 1933 so US had almost 3 1/2 years on continuous negative growth with 30% reduction in GDP before he took office, which from 1934 grew at 7% per yr till the downturn in 38
Thank you. I should have looked it up rather than going by memory. Hoover, not Roosevelt.
I would argue the moniker of “worst president you’ve ever had.”
I can think of some that would easily compete for that title.
Several of them are during our lifetimes: Johnson, both Bushes, Obama, and Biden. Others did their best to achieve that title.
Some of those, no, all of those crossed my mind as I posted.
Careful people, this seems to be advancing Utah Senator Mike Lee’s federal land grab. He’s working for corporations to grab up public land which would permanently exclude the people from our birthright public lands.
Resist these measures at all cost.
So, your position is, if you are not my friend, you are my enemy.
What happened to give and take, meeting in the middle, compromise, balance?
Senator Lee is my opponent on this topic. He’s trying to take public lands out of the hands of the public. This is a one way proposal. Once that land it out of public access, it will never come back. Don’t yield one inch. It would never be ‘give & take’ its only give-give-give, with zero return.
Its like the story in the book Life Of Pi, where an Indian woman wearing a wrap-around dress stood too close to the monkey cage. Once the monkey had a corner of her dress, it was no longer a matter of if, but when she would be stripped naked by the apes.
I did not have that background and as usual, being pressed for time, I did not look it up.
“There’s one thing I want you to do for me, Rocky… WIN! WIN!”
The Antiquity left the White House on January 20th of this year.