Interior Secretary Doug Burgum has directed his staff to review and possibly alter national monuments as part of a push to expand U.S. energy production, a move that could further shake up public lands amid mass firings of national park and forest employees.

Conservationists fear that cherished landscapes — including two newly minted California monuments — will be stripped of protections for significant cultural and ecological resources. But conservatives have argued that public lands should remain open to oil drilling and coal mining, among other uses.

In a Feb. 3 order, Burgum directed his assistant secretaries to “review and, as appropriate, revise all withdrawn public lands,” citing a federal statute corresponding to the 1906 law that allows presidents to create national monuments.

The directive was part of a sweeping secretarial order, called “Unleashing American Energy,” that seeks to boost resource extraction on federal land and water. Burgum gave agency officials 15 days to submit plans on how to comply with his order, which are now under review.

“At this stage, we are assessing these reports to determine if any further action is warranted, and we remain dedicated to ensuring that all items are thoroughly evaluated as part of our internal management process,” said J. Elizabeth Peace, senior public affairs specialist for the Interior Department’s Office of the Secretary, in a statement.

Peace did not indicate when the review might conclude or what actions could be taken.

Critics see the move as opening the door to redraw or eliminate monuments.

During his first term, President Donald Trump sharply reduced the boundaries of two monuments in Utah — Bear’s Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante — and stripped protections from a marine monument off the coast of New England to allow commercial fishing.

Joe Biden reversed the changes, but some believe the review underway will pave the way for similar actions by the second Trump administration.

Whether presidents have the authority to alter existing monuments is unclear and hotly contested. Litigation challenging Trump’s previous monument reductions was still pending when Biden reversed them and the matter was never settled.

In recent weeks, thousands of recent hires at the U.S. Forest Service and National Park Service were laid off as part of a broader effort by Trump and advisor Elon Musk to slash the federal bureaucracy, which has sparked protests and backlash.

What is a national monument?

Most national monuments are created by presidents, but Congress can also establish them. The Antiquities Act of 1906 gives presidents the authority to designate monuments to protect “objects of historic and scientific interest” and can encompass geologic wonders, archaeological sites and wildlife habitat. Presidents on both sides of the political aisle have used the law to set aside land.

Monuments can be managed by the National Park Service, U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and other agencies. They typically exclude oil and gas drilling, coal mining and other forms of energy production.

What’s at stake in California?

California is home to 21 national monuments, more than any other state in the country — spanning rugged coastlines, stately sequoia groves and striking desert canyons. They include the San Gabriel Mountains National Monument near Los Angeles and the Sand to Snow National Monument east of the city, as well as the Lava Beds National Monument in the far northeastern part of the state.

Sean Hecht, managing attorney for the California regional office of Earthjustice, a nonprofit focused on litigating environmental issues, believes the state’s youngest monuments are most at risk of being rolled back, citing political reasons.

During his final days in office, former President Biden designated two national monuments in California’s desert and far north — Chuckwalla National Monument and the Sáttítla Highlands National Monument. Native Americans led the charge to safeguard the land they consider sacred.

“Older and more established monuments tend to be popular in California — while new monuments are often not as established with a wide constituency, and therefore are more vulnerable politically,” Hecht said in an email. He added that Trump may target the monuments as part of an effort to undo recent actions by Biden.

The new monuments are also home to natural resources that could make them a target, stakeholders said.

Sáttítla, which spans more than 224,000 acres of lush forests and pristine lakes near the Oregon border, has been explored for geothermal energy development.

Located south of Joshua Tree National Park, 640,000-acre Chuckwalla could be zeroed in on for water beneath the rugged desert floor, according to Donald Medart Jr., former councilman for the Fort Yuma Quechan Indian Tribe, which was among the tribes that led the push for the monument designation.

“To extract all that groundwater would leave a devastating effect on our area,” said Medart, now a tribal engagement specialist for Onoo Po Strategies, a consulting firm.

If it’s oil the Trump administration is after, the Carrizzo Plain National Monument— a renowned wildflower viewing destination in southeastern San Luis Obispo County — may be eyed. The grassland plain home to several vulnerable plants and animals historically had drilling and is the only monument in the state with oil potential, said Brendan Cummings, conservation director for the Center for Biological Diversity, a nonprofit focus on protecting endangered species.

Attempts to alter monuments in California and elsewhere would almost certainly be met with lawsuits, according to conservation and environmental groups.

Monument designations have divided recreationists. Anglers, hunters and hikers have said that ushering in resource extraction on public lands will cut off access to activities in breathtaking landscapes. But off-road vehicle enthusiasts and those who support dispersed camping say mining and drilling is typically compatible with their needs — and that monument designations can push out their preferred use of the land.

At stake is access to outings in nature that bring joy and mental health benefits — and big business. Outdoor recreation contributed $81.5 billion to California’s economy in 2023, according to figures from the Bureau of Economic Analysis.

Those who enjoy hunting and fishing on public lands “should be concerned about decision-making behind closed doors for the future of these wild places,” Joel Weltzien, California chapter coordinator for Backcountry Hunters & Anglers, said in a statement.

Ben Burr, executive director of the BlueRibbon Coalition, a nonprofit that advocates for off-highway vehicle access, voiced his support for reviewing the nation’s monuments — with the hope that changes will allow for more varied forms of recreation.

“Monuments tend to limit the kinds of recreation use that can happen and really give preferential access to certain user groups,” he said. Monuments typically limit camping to particular areas, he said as an example, while some people want to be able to hunker down far from other people.

Is Project 2025 in play?

Monument proponents fear Burgum’s order is part of the enactment of Project 2025, a controversial policy playbook written by conservatives as a guide for the Trump administration. Project 2025 calls for downsizing more monuments and repealing the Antiquities Act.

But some are skeptical about how far Burgum, the former governor of North Dakota and GOP presidential primary candidate, will go.

John Leshy, an emeritus professor at UC College of the Law, San Francisco and a former solicitor at the Interior Department, described Burgum as “kind of a conventional choice” to head the department that manages millions of acres of public land.

While Burgum is close to the oil and gas industry, he doesn’t appear to be a “real ideologue,” said Leshy, who is the author of“Our Common Ground: A History of America’s Public Lands.”

Burgum is also known for maintaining good relationships with tribes in North Dakota.

Native Americans “by and large, they’re quite supportive of the national monuments and the protective things that have been done,” Leshy said. “So does he want to take on that interest group and alienate them? I don’t know.”

©2025 Los Angeles Times. Visit at latimes.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.