Two new national monuments in California are in jeopardy after the White House announced a plan to revoke them and then appeared to retreat.

On Saturday, the White House told the Washington Post President Donald Trump planned to rescind President Joe Biden's order creating the Chuckwalla National Monument near Palm Springs and the Sáttítla Highlands National Monument in Northern California. Then language about the moves disappeared from a White House fact sheet with no explanation.

Janessa Goldbeck, CEO of the Vet Voice Foundation, which advocated for the creation of the two new monuments, said the move was not unexpected.

"This administration has been pretty clear that they want to utilize federal public lands as a giveaway to corporate polluters and private developers," Goldbeck noted. "We are anticipating, whether it's these two monuments or others, that there will be some attempts to reverse federally protected public lands."

Trump claimed the monuments "lock up vast amounts of land from economic development and energy production." But Goldbeck pointed out Chuckwalla has not been targeted for oil and gas drilling or mining but rather is most valuable for outdoor recreation and wildlife habitat. The White House has yet to take concrete steps to rescind the monument designations.

Brandy McDaniels, national monument lead for the Pit River Nation, said the tribe has been fighting off geothermal development and other industrial uses for decades.

"This is not a Biden vs. Trump situation. It is a tribally led initiative that's been going on for a very long time," McDaniels explained. "This is a sacred landscape for our people. It is the actual place of the creation narrative of our people."

Sáttítla, also known as the Medicine Lake Highlands, is also home to the headwaters providing much of California's drinking water.


get more stories like this via email

Tax revenue from marijuana sales in Montana will now support a wider variety of conservation projects, since Gov. Greg Gianforte has signed House Bill 932 into law.

The new law will put about $12 million of annual tax revenue into a new "habitat legacy account." Three-quarters of the money is earmarked for state projects such as conservation easements, water storage and Wildlife Management Areas. The remaining funds will support wildlife habitat.

State Rep. Becky Edwards, D-Bozeman, executive director of Mountain Mamas, said the law cements conservation as a beneficiary of marijuana sales.

"It's not going to be up for negotiation every legislative session," Edwards said. "It provides certainty that those dollars will be there for state park creation, trails, wildlife habitat -- all the things that are so important to us as Montanans."

Montana conservation groups are also celebrating a win on the national stage. Many were concerned that public land sales in Nevada and Utah would be authorized in the Republican budget reconciliation bill, but those were removed through amendments announced Wednesday.

Around 86% of Montanans support the construction of wildlife crossing structures over the state's major roadways to prevent collisions, according to the latest State of the Rockies poll. Edwards said the new Montana law includes funding for that.

"As more and more folks move into Montana, we need to aid our wildlife in getting from point A to point B," she said. "So, 5% of the funds will go into an account that reduces that wildlife-vehicle collision possibility."

Under the new law, individual landowners, tribal governments and other entities can apply for funds to cover various habitat improvement projects.


get more stories like this via email

Hunters and anglers are voicing concerns regarding the possible sale of hundreds of thousands of acres in Nevada and Utah.

U.S. Rep. Mark Amodei, R-NV, and U.S. Rep. Celeste Maloy, R-UT, recently introduced a last-minute provision to the massive budget reconciliation package being considered in Washington - which would allow public lands in both states to be sold to local governments or private entities.

Backers say it could help address the housing shortage and grow industry presence.

But Devin O'Dea, Western Policy & Conservation Manager with Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, said the decision sets a negative precedent.

"This process, this way, and budget reconciliation is not the way to go about this," said O'Dea, "particularly because it circumvents established laws that dictate when public lands are sold, that money goes back into conservation and access through the Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act."

O'Dea said the current method will bypass that legislation and direct money straight into the general fund, which he said is concerning.

Amodei says Nevada's vast public lands could jeopardize the state's economic growth and adds the reconciliation process presented a "rare" opportunity to advance land disposal requests.

House Speaker Mike Johnson wants to pass the legislation out of his chamber by Memorial Day.

O'Dea added that because the amendment was introduced at the eleventh hour, there was no time for debate. He called that dangerous for democracy.

"Democracy is founded on having a difference of opinion and discussing it," said O'Dea, "and then voting and moving forward."

Dan Johnson, Nevada public lands manager for Trout Unlimited explained that, while some of these public lands had been previously identified for disposal in locally driven lands bills, they were balanced out with conservation.

He said that is not the case with this proposal.

"When there are threats to our public lands," said Johnson, "we step up, because while we might not all be scientists, there is a connection you build with these lands and you end up learning them through lived experience in a very intimate way."

According to recent polling, a majority of voters in both Nevada and Utah oppose giving up control over national public lands.




get more stories like this via email

Correction: An earlier version of this story attributed a quote to Rep. Zinke which was made by Alex Blackmer. (5:05 p.m MST., May 12, 2025)

Montana lawmakers this session voted down a bill supporting the transfer of federal public lands to states but a similar conversation is growing on the national stage.

Last year, Utah sued the United States, claiming the state is deprived of "sovereign powers" because the federal government owns public lands there. Rep. Tom Millett, R-Marion, brought a resolution to fellow lawmakers in support of Utah. It failed 66-34 and received no public comments in support.

Alex Blackmer, senior communications manager for the advocacy group Wild Montana, said such efforts point to a larger trend.

"All of this really goes hand-in-hand with what we're seeing at the federal level," Blackmer observed. "Which is this attempt to dismantle regulations, to dismantle the agencies, dismantle all of these things that have been the foundation of our way of life."

In Congress, the House Committee on Natural Resources has passed a Republican budget package including an amendment to authorize the sale of thousands of acres of public land in Nevada and Utah. Rep. Bruce Westerman, R-Ark., chair of the committee, said the package would "save billions and deliver American energy dominance." Rep. Jared Huffman, D-Calif., called it "breathtakingly reckless."

Also last week, Rep. Ryan Zinke, R-Mont., and more than a dozen other lawmakers launched the bipartisan Congressional Public Lands Caucus to help conserve and maintain access to public lands.

Blackmer noted Zinke has been "pretty outspoken" in support of public lands.

"We certainly appreciate any efforts of elected officials to take a stand to keep public lands in public hands," Blackmer acknowledged. "But I think time will tell how that actually shakes out."

Zinke served as U.S. Interior Secretary during the first Trump administration before stepping down amid allegations of misconduct. At a news conference launching the caucus, Zinke said land sales should not be in the federal reconciliation bill.


get more stories like this via email