Public Comment

The Antiquities Act lets presidents protect federal land as national monuments. Presidents of both parties have used it to create or expand monuments, and later administrations have tried to shrink or modify some boundaries. Those changes affect conservation, grazing, mining, recreation, cultural sites, nearby communities, and possible co-management arrangements. The legal and political dispute is whether a president who can create a monument may also reduce it, whether only Congress has that power, and how Tribal governments and local residents should participate before culturally or economically important land changes status. Land decisions last far longer than one administration. The process should respect conservation and Tribal history while giving ranchers, towns, and other local users a predictable way to be heard.

Who should have the final word over national-monument boundaries?

Overall results

1
55% support · excluded by 9%
1

Presidents can respond to new information and management problems, but a formal record would make boundary changes less abrupt and easier to review.

2
54% support · excluded by 6%
7

Because the statute expressly authorizes creation but not presidential repeal, lasting reductions should require the branch that writes federal land law.

3
53% support · excluded by 6%
7

Clear acreage and evidence rules would preserve rapid protection for genuine sites while discouraging designations broader than the stated historic or scientific need.

4
45% support · excluded by 9%
7

Tribal nations should not merely be consulted when a reduction would expose sacred sites or cultural landscapes they have protected for generations.

5
43% support · excluded by 11%
1

States and counties live with the economic and access consequences and should control more of the land within their borders.

About the author