Patagonia joins lawsuit challenging Trump's reduction of Utah national monuments
The outdoor retailer and conservation groups sued to block Trump's July proclamations that reduced Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante monuments by 90%, opening nearly 3 million acres to oil and gas extraction.
What happened
In July 2025, President Trump approved reductions of Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante national monuments in Utah by 90%, removing protections from nearly 3 million acres. Trump justified the cuts by arguing the land should be put to "higher-priority use" and contains critical minerals needed for "resource independence" and "national security." On Wednesday, Patagonia joined a federal lawsuit filed by the Natural Resources Defense Council and other conservation groups to challenge the reductions as illegal. The suit argues Trump lacks authority under the Antiquities Act to undo monuments established by previous presidents—Bears Ears was created by Barack Obama in 2016 and Grand Staircase-Escalante by Bill Clinton. Mining claims have already been filed in areas no longer protected, according to Patagonia CEO Ryan Gellert.
Context
The monuments are sacred to Indigenous American tribes and contain irreplaceable geological and archaeological features including ancient cliff dwellings and unique dinosaur fossils. The legal challenge hinges on whether presidential authority under the Antiquities Act extends to monument reduction or elimination—the plaintiffs argue it does not. Trump previously attempted to downsize these same monuments during his first term, which President Biden later overturned. The current reduction represents a more dramatic rollback than Trump's first-term effort. Conservation groups characterize this as one of the largest rollbacks of public land protections in U.S. history, with Patagonia noting that restoration of extracted resources would be impossible once mining and drilling commence.
What's disputed
Whether Trump possesses legal authority under the Antiquities Act to reduce or eliminate national monuments. Trump's proclamations assert the mineral resources and alternative land uses justify the reductions; plaintiffs argue the act does not grant the President power to undo monuments and that the environmental and cultural losses are irreversible.