Proposal to Roll Back Public Lands Rule Misunderstands the Rule’s Basic Function

But the proposal revealed more than just how Trump’s DOI has misinterpreted the Public Land Rule’s basic functions — which, despite the agency’s claims otherwise, acknowledged preexisting grazing and mineral leases on BLM lands, left room for compatible extractive uses on lands entered into conservation leases, and stopped short of elevating conservation above other uses of BLM lands. It also revealed how the Trump administration seems to equate conserving public lands with not using them for any “legitimate” purpose at all, a massive departure from what has long been considered a bipartisan consensus on both the intrinsic and economic value of habitat conservation in a fast-developing America.

“The 2024 Public Lands Rule, formally known as the Conservation and Landscape Health Rule, made conservation (i.e., no use) an official use of public lands, putting it on the same level as BLM’s other uses of public lands,” a DOI press release announcing the proposal reads. “The previous administration had treated conservation as ‘no use,’ meaning the land was to be left idle rather than authorizing legitimate uses of the land like grazing, energy development or recreation.”

In an environmental context, the widely held definition of “conservation” — including the one the DOI cites in some of its own resources — is the protection of a natural resource through responsible, research-informed, and well-managed use of that resource. Federal law outlines many such uses, but the Trump administration’s list seems to stop after grazing, resource extraction, and recreation. (The DOI did not immediately reply to a request for comment clarifying their definition of “conservation.”)

The best place to find the list of lawful uses of federal public lands is in the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), which outlines the multiple-use and sustained yield framework that informs public land management in the United States. In addition to “recreation, range, timber, and minerals,” other lawful uses of public lands include “watershed, wildlife and fish, and natural scenic, scientific, and historical values.”

This section of FLPMA also calls for the “harmonious and coordinated management of the various resources without permanent impairment of the productivity of the land and the quality of the environment” and demands that the federal government consider “the relative values of the resources and not necessarily … the greatest economic return or the greatest unit output.”

And yet, economic return and unit output have been at the forefront of how the Trump administration views the role of public lands in the United States. When the Public Lands Rule passed in May 2024, it was quickly met with extreme distaste in some conservative circles that saw it as an attempt to take BLM lands out of production and, accordingly, put rural Western economies at risk. Perhaps the greatest proof of this dollar-driven dissent was a reactionary piece of legislation titled the Western Economic Security Today Act, which would have required the BLM to overturn the rule change. (It passed the House but got no further.)

Meanwhile, the language about the Public Lands Rule entered in the Federal Register on May 9 highlighted how the rule would avoid such issues in the first place.

“The rule does not prioritize conservation above other multiple uses,” reads the Federal Register entry. “It also does not preclude other uses where conservation use is occurring. Many uses are compatible with different types of conservation use, such as sustainable recreation, grazing, and habitat management. The rule also does not enable conservation use to occur in places where an existing, authorized, and incompatible use is occurring.”

In other words, not a single acre of land already supporting some sort of natural resource extraction lease would be lost to a habitat restoration lease purchased by, say, a conservation non-profit or philanthropist if such a lease were to mess with the preauthorized extractive practice. Additionally, acres entered into conservation leases would be fair game for other compatible uses at the same time.

Critics of the Public Lands Rule were ultimately drowned out by an overwhelming outpouring of approval. Some 92% of the 150,000 comments on the proposal supported it, according to an analysis conducted by the Center for Western Priorities.

​​“Americans know that public lands are central to the Western way of life, and that they will play a pivotal role in the nation’s response to the climate crisis,” CWP executive director Jennifer Rokala said at the time. “The support expressed during the comment period shows that the BLM is on the right track to restoring balance across the West.”

At the time the rule passed, policy experts pointed out that formally elevating conservation to equal footing with other uses was simply reiterating something that had been codified in FLPMA since it passed in 1976. This was also reflected in the Federal Register.

“FLPMA has always encompassed conservation as a land use,” the entry reads. “FLPMA authorizes and obligates the BLM to, within the multiple use framework, protect natural resources, preserve public lands, and provide habitat for fish and wildlife, among other conservation measures.”

But fast forward to Wednesday’s announcement, which insisted that the Public Lands Rule “exceeded the BLM’s statutory authority by placing an outsized priority on conservation or no-use at the expense of multiple-use access, threatening to curtail grazing, energy development, recreation and other traditional land uses.”

“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,” Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said in the press release. “The most effective caretakers of our federal lands are those whose livelihoods rely on its well-being.”

If supporters of the Public Lands Rule saw its emergence as an example of the BLM “restoring balance across the West,” opponents now see its reversal in the exact same light. This further proves that opposing sides of the fracture over the role of federal public lands use the exact same language to express different versions of parallel realities: mismanaged resources, rural economic drivers at risk, and priorities knocked off-kilter by the whims of greedy politicians. Whether the discussion is about one side decimating wildlife habitat and public access at risk to the recreation and tourism industries or the other side locking up timber, minerals, and grass at the risk of the extraction and ag industries, the blueprint is much the same.

The only difference might be that one version of reality is much more popular than the other. So far, it seems to be the one that respects conservation’s role as a lawful use of public lands, whether the Public Lands Rule exists or not.

“At a time when our lands and waters are facing immense and interconnected challenges, such as drought, invasive species, and unprecedented use, undercutting conservation goes against public opinion and common sense,” says David Willms, the National Wildlife Federation’s associate vice president for public lands.

The public comment period will remain open until November 10. Commenters can submit their materials through a portal on the Federal Register.