More than 3.2 million acres at Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante were cut Monday to less than 303,000 acres combined, a deeper rollback than Trump ordered in his first term.
Trump said the monuments' boundaries had grown too large and framed the move as returning land to the public, while supporters argued the cuts could free access to coal, uranium and other essential minerals.
Utah officials applauded the order and said lands removed from the monuments remain protected under other federal and state laws, but tribal leaders and conservationists said it disrespects co-stewardship and opens the door to mining.
Since 1912, presidents have issued more than a dozen proclamations shrinking monuments, though environmental groups argue the 1906 Antiquities Act lets presidents create monuments but not dismantle them fully.
The latest reversal extends a long back-and-forth over Utah public lands after Biden restored the monuments and made 10 new designations, underscoring how monument policy shifts with each administration.
Can a president legally shrink national monuments? A century-old law now faces its biggest test.
What specific cultural and natural resources are now at risk within the nearly 3 million acres of reduced monument lands?
Trump Shrinks Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante in 2026: Legal Showdown and Consequences for Public Lands
Overview
On July 13, 2026, President Donald Trump signed executive orders that drastically reduced the size of Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monuments, marking a major shift in federal land management. This move reversed protections restored by President Biden in 2021 and opened the lands to increased development and resource extraction. Native American tribes and conservation groups immediately expressed deep dismay, highlighting the cultural and environmental importance of these areas. The orders sparked intense legal challenges, centering on whether the Antiquities Act allows a president to reduce monuments, a question that remains unresolved and fuels ongoing debate over presidential authority and public land stewardship.