Monumental Debate: The Antiquities Act of 1906

Posted January 16, 2025

Susan C. Ryan, Executive Vice President of the Crow Canyon Research Institute

Signed into law in 1906 by President Theodore Roosevelt, the Antiquities Act authorizes presidents to declare national monuments on federal lands to protect landmarks, structures, and other “objects of historic or scientific interest.” The Act grants the president broad authority to determine which aspects of the nation’s heritage are valuable and worthy of preservation. Since 1906, all but three presidents (Nixon, Reagan, and G. H. W. Bush) have designated national monuments under the Act. Today, there are 129 national monuments across the country, the first, Devil’s Tower (a.k.a. Bear Lodge), was designated by Roosevelt in 1906, and the Chuckwalla and Sáttítla National Monuments are the most recent designations by Biden in 2025. Although protected for their cultural, historical, natural, and/or scientific significance, the number of national monuments has changed over time as new ones are designated and existing ones are modified or revoked.

While the Act has played a crucial role in conservation and preservation policies for almost 120 years, it is not without controversy for three primary reasons:

1) The act does not specify whether national monuments can be subsequently modified, diminished, or revoked.

2) The Act allows for unilateral decision making by the President of the United States—congressional approval is not required (yet is for National Parks).

3) The Act does not specify a cap on the area that may be set aside for preservation. These areas include land, archaeological sites, historical and modern cultural sites, wildlife and biodiversity habitats, waterways, marine and ocean areas, and geological features. For the past decade, the most controversial issue surrounding the Antiquities Act is the first.

To illustrate the debate over the Act’s authority/lack of authority to modify, diminish, or revoke an existing national monument, let’s examine the Bears Ears National Monument, located in southeastern Utah. President Obama designated the Bears Ears National Monument on December 28, 2016, to protect the area’s rich cultural, historical, and natural resources. The designation, comprised of 1.35 million acres, was created to recognize and preserve the uniqueness of the region, particularly its cultural significance to Indigenous peoples in the past, present, and future as well as its diverse ecosystems. Archaeologists have recorded more than 100,000 ancestral and historic sites across the Monument.

Multiple stakeholder communities voiced their opinions for or against the Monument. The Bears Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition, comprised of Navajo Nation, Hopi Tribe, Pueblo of Zuni, Ute Tribe, and Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, supported the Monument and played a central role in its management and stewardship by emphasizing the importance of Traditional Ecological Knowledge and cultural practices. Environmental advocates viewed the monument as a way to protect the area from potential threats such as mining, oil, and gas extraction, as well as disturbance caused by development, all having the potential to harm environmental and cultural assets. On the other hand, local community members in southeast Utah felt the Monument restricted their ability to utilize the land for activities such as ranching, recreation, and economic development including resource extraction.

A little more than a year after its designation, President Trump reduced the size of the Bears Ears National Monument by approximately 85%, from 1.35 million acres to roughly 228,000 acres. The reason for the reduction, according to Trump and his administration, was to return public land to local control and make it more accessible for activities such as ranching, energy development, and mining. Trump and his team argued the original designation was an overreach by the Federal Government and that the Monument had limited economic growth opportunities for local communities.

This decision sparked significant controversy from Indigenous communities, conservation groups, and environmental advocates who argued the Monument’s reduction would harm the preservation of culturally significant areas and natural wildlife habitats. Not surprisingly, Trump’s reduction was immediately challenged in the courts. At the heart of the controversy is not only whether the president has unilateral authority to modify or terminate previously designated national monuments, but how do national monuments constitute “appropriate” use of public lands?

The Bears Ears National Monument was restored to its original size (1.35 million acres) on October 8, 2021, when President Biden signed a proclamation reversing the reductions made by the Trump administration in 2017. In particular, environmental groups and the Bears Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition played a pivotal role in advocating for the monument’s restoration.

As the second Trump administration takes office in January 2025, should we expect another reduction in the Bears Ears National Monument (as well as Grand Staircase-Escalante and other national monuments)? This will, once again, ignite opposition and legal disputes from many stakeholders and reignite discussions of how to appropriately designate land use activities on federal lands.

How long will national monuments be subject to this yo-yo effect? They will continue to undergo alterations until challenges reach the Supreme Court. If the Justices were to determine the Act does or does not permit the president to modify, diminish, or revoke a prior designation, many broader questions about conservation policy on federal lands will remain—questions that will take decades to address due to our ever-shifting values, priorities, and needs as a nation. For example, if the Justices continue to grant presidents the ability to revoke or modify existing national monuments, it will substantially limit a prior administration’s ability to carry out long-term conservation policies. However, if not granted the ability to revoke or modify monuments, substantial portions of federal lands may be excluded from domestic economic policy, such as the development of oil, gas, mineral, and other natural resources. And this, in a nutshell, is one monumental debate we continue to face as a nation as we head towards America’s 250th birthday.