Estimated reading time: 3 minutes
President Trump has shown little regard for federal public lands, and the same appears to be true for federal agencies under his administration. Rescinding Obama and Biden-era environmental rules is a pastime for them.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) proposes rescinding the Conservation and Landscape Health Rule, commonly known as the Public Lands Rule. Issued in May 2024, the rule established a new system that enables public lands to be leased for restoration and mitigation purposes. Nonprofit organizations, tribes, private organizations, and individuals can lease public land for conservation and restoration. It puts conservation on par with fossil fuel extraction, mining, and grazing.
“The previous administration’s Public Lands Rule had the potential to block access to hundreds of thousands of acres of multiple-use land – preventing energy and mineral production, timber management, grazing, and recreation across the West,” said Secretary Doug Burgum, in a statement.
On President Trump’s first day in office this year, he signed an executive order titled, Unleashing American Energy. It directed the heads of all federal agencies to “identify those agency actions that impose an undue burden on the identification, development, or use of domestic energy resources.”
Republican representatives and senators tried to insert amendments into the Big, Beautiful Bill. Both amendments were withdrawn. The Trump administration has already instituted actions that could weaken or eliminate protections from over 175 million acres of public land. That is larger than California, Florida, and Georgia combined.
“Eliminating this rule is a dangerous step backward that puts endangered wildlife, rural communities, and clean drinking water at risk.” Bobby McEnaney, director of land conservation at NRDC.
The Benefits of the Public Lands Rule
There is widespread support for the rule. In 2023, the Center for Western Priorities analyzed public comments on the rule. The analysis found that 92 percent of the comments supported the rule, while only 4.5 percent opposed it.
Recent public comments are not in favor of rescinding the BLM rule. Public comments opposing rescinding the rule include:
- “I do NOT agree with this rescission. I believe in the ecosystem resilience and habitat restoration identified in the original rule important for the long-term health of the nation’s public lands.”
- “I strongly oppose the proposed rescission of the Conservation and Landscape Health Rule.”
- “This rule is critical for the long-term health of our treasured public lands and the communities and economies that depend on them.”
There are plenty of reasons to support the rule. It’s economically sound. Keeping public lands in good condition means the American people have places for recreation. Data from the BEA Outdoor Recreation Satellite Account shows that recreation generated $1.2 trillion in 2023. That represents 2.3 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product. It’s also one and a half times what oil and gas development generates.
The BLM manages more fish, wildlife, and plant habitats than any other governmental agency in the U.S. There are more than 3,000 species on BLM-managed public lands. The rule helps protect those species. By protecting plant life, they continue to store carbon dioxide.
“The Bureau of Land Management is supposed to think about more than just mining, timber, and oil and gas development. By moving to dump the Public Lands Rule, it is trying to jettison a critical mechanism that helps to ensure that conservation is on equal footing.” Bobby McEnaney, director of land conservation at NRDC.
