Trump’s repeated attacks on environment, national parks and public lands must be met with firm resistance

It is sometimes exhausting to keep up with all of the destructive acts of the Trump administration, particularly with regard to environmental protection and the survival of America’s magnificent public lands.
Since Yellowstone became the first national park in the world during the administration of President Ulysses Grant, America has established a national parks system that is the envy of the rest of the world. We also enjoy a network of national monuments, forests and grasslands, which operate under somewhat different rules but all of which will hopefully be passed on to future generations as our national legacy. Most of our presidential administrations of both parties have added to that legacy.

Unfortunately, where we see beautiful and accessible public lands, Donald Trump sees an opportunity to clearcut, strip mine, or drill for oil. Or all of the above. Our new interior secretary, North Dakota’s recent billionaire Gov. Doug Burgum, has given his DOGE deputy Tyler Hassen instructions to “reorganize” the department under a strategic plan which calls for increasing “clean coal, oil, and gas production through faster permitting,” a policy which could devastate public lands but also add funds to the treasury.

Hassen was a longtime executive at Texas-based Basin Holdings, which is involved in the manufacture and sales of oil rigs. His title was abruptly changed from assistant secretary to deputy secretary to avoid the inconvenience of Senate confirmation. It doesn’t appear that Burgum is listening to voices that seek to protect and preserve our public lands.

The U.S. Supreme Court just handed Trump and Burgum a huge victory and severely undermined the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in the Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County case, holding that federal agencies can approve destructive projects without considering the likely environmental damage those projects may cause.

This involved a proposed rail project, hauling crude oil from the Uinta Basin in Utah to rail lines in Colorado, on its way to oil refineries in Texas and Louisiana along the Gulf of Mexico — excuse me, the Gulf of America.

Eagle County, Colo., (which includes Vail and Gypsum) sued to stop the project, arguing that its foreseeable environmental impacts, including oil spills into the Colorado River, should be thoroughly analyzed. Eagle County won its lawsuit in federal court in 2023, but our high court reversed that decision. There will be further litigation in that case, but the Supreme Court precedent undermines NEPA at a time when protectors of our public lands might seek to invoke its authority. 

Meanwhile, Congress is considering Trump’s “big, beautiful bill,” a monster with many frightening provisions. In its current form, that legislation would expedite many highly polluting projects without the environmental reviews that NEPA and other federal laws appear to require.

In the wrangling over that legislation, there was one positive development when Rep. Ryan Zinke (R-Mont.) succeeded in removing a provision which would have sold off 450,000 acres of public land. Zinke is the same man who served as Trump’s interior secretary for two years during his first term, but he is adamant about this issue.

“This was my San Juan Hill,” Zinke explained. “I do not support the widespread sale or transfer of public lands. Once the land is sold, we will never get it back. God isn’t creating more land … our entire Montanan way of life is connected to our public lands.”

A bleeding heart liberal could not have said it better. However, it seems clear that our shared legacy of public lands, and the protection of our environment generally, will remain in great peril for the remainder of the Trump presidency.

Jay Davis of Rapid City is a retired lawyer and a regular contributor to The South Dakota Standard.

Photo: Upper Geyser Basin, Yellowstone, public domain, wikimedia commons

The South Dakota Standard is offered freely and is supported by our readers. We have no political or commercial sponsorship. If you'd like to help us continue our mission to advance independent political and social commentary, you can do so by clicking on the "Donate" button that's on the sidebar to your right.