National Libertarian Party leaders are rallying members to oppose President Donald Trump’s reduction of Bears Ears National Monument, asking them to participate in public demonstrations and calling for amicus briefs in support of expected legal challenges.
Libertarian National Committee Vice Chair Amanda Griffiths and Region 9 Representative Alex Flores issued a July 28 call to action on the national party website, arguing that the Trump administration’s July 13 proclamation violated commitments made to the five tribal nations involved in managing the monument. The proclamation reduces Bears Ears from approximately 1.36 million acres to 121,096 acres, leaving less than nine percent of the monument within its new boundaries. It also terminates the Bears Ears Commission, composed of representatives from the Navajo Nation, Hopi Tribe, Pueblo of Zuni, Ute Indian Tribe, and Ute Mountain Ute Tribe.
The Bears Ears Commission came into existence under President Barack Obama in 2016, when he established the monument following advocacy from the five tribal nations. A 2022 agreement with the Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service later formalized a cooperative management relationship that included tribal consultation and the incorporation of tribal knowledge into federal decisions.
In justifying the reduction, the Trump administration says the previous boundaries exceeded what was necessary to protect historic and scientific resources under the Antiquities Act. It also points to federal management costs and the presence of uranium, copper, and other minerals considered important to the national economy and security. Lands removed from the monument are scheduled to reopen to mining claims, mineral leasing, and other uses 60 days after the proclamation.
This is also the second time Trump has reduced Bears Ears. He similarly scaled the monument back in 2017, a move later reversed by President Joe Biden in 2021 when he largely restored it to those boundaries first established under Obama. Trump’s latest proclamation leaves Bears Ears even smaller than it was following his first reduction.
While acknowledging the party’s historical opposition to federal control over large swaths of land, Griffiths and Flores called Trump’s action a “sign of an unaccountable government” exercising authority “over people who were never asked.” They said Libertarians should view the dispute through the principles of tribal sovereignty and voluntary agreements.
“No matter our thoughts on the underlying merits of large monument designations—no matter whether we believe the federal government should be involved in such designations at all—Trump’s action constitutes a direct violation of a contract between the U.S. national government and the people of the other nations who share American land,” they wrote. “No man should have the power to destroy a negotiated arrangement between sovereign peoples by the fiat of a single hand.”
The Bears Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition, which represents the five tribal nations that founded it in 2015, said the administration did not consult the nations before reducing the monument and terminating the commission. Conservation organizations have disputed the president’s authority to reduce monuments created under the Antiquities Act, and Earthjustice has vowed legal action in response to the latest proclamation.
In the meantime, Griffiths and Flores encouraged Libertarians in Utah and the surrounding region to participate in demonstrations and days of action, specifically referencing those events being coordinated by the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance. They also encouraged Libertarians to consider supporting anticipated legal challenges through the filing of amicus briefs, which they said would be “in the interest of the Party’s dearest principles.”
Their appeal follows the Libertarian National Committee’s 18-0 adoption of a resolution on tribal and national sovereignty earlier in July. The resolution, authored by Flores, acknowledges treaties between tribal nations and the United States as nation-to-nation agreements and recognizes the sovereignty of Native American tribal nations and the Hawaiian Kingdom. It also encourages party officers and members to explore pathways for their representation within the Libertarian Party in ways that reflect their unique tribal structures.
As adopted, the resolution did not commit the Libertarian Party to any specific dispute or course of action. However, in their joint statement, Griffiths and Flores called it “only the first step” toward more direct advocacy involving Indigenous rights and presented Bears Ears as an opportunity for the party to act on the principles of that new position.
“The Libertarian Party stands with the Navajo Nation, the Hopi Tribe, the Zuni Tribe, the Ute Indian Tribe, and the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe in demanding that any changes to how this land is managed happen through the process that was actually promised: real consultation and the consent of the people of the nations who have stewarded this land the longest,” the two concluded.
@SocraticGadfly… BTW, you do realize Madison was a federalist right? (He was a primary author of the Federalist Papers.) That is until he realized how much of a snake Hamilton was and then ditched to align with Jefferson.
@SocraticGadfly… All I’m doing is quoting the federalist papers, bud. Alexander Hamilton at the time of the writing and ratification process purposefully lied to everyone around him. He publicly agreed with the other Federalists on the enumerated powers and general welfare clause – the general welfare clause is limited by the enumerated powers. Hamilton weakly supported a national bank which was highly uncommon even among federalists. Hamilton bit his tongue during the ratification process, and then proceeded to – years later – make his true intentions known, so future generations could screw up the intentions of all the other founders, other than himself. In short, Hamilton was a snake. Take that for what you will. And I’m not sure how Madison could attack the general welfare clause when he was basically the one that wrote it; and every other founder, including Hamilton at the time of writing and ratification, AGREED with his intentions. Maybe you’re cherry picking “evidence” from a progressive who would have been thrilled by the courts rewriting of the enumerated powers in the 1930s? I’ll take the words of the authors of the constitution over somebody from 250 years later who was never present at the writing and ratification of the document; and whose livelihood is predicated on a broad reading of the enumerated powers (he’s an employment attorney; under a limited reading of the enumerated powers he wouldn’t have a job at the federal level).
And yes I am, like Jefferson and many other founders (and most libertarians), vehemently against a national bank.
(BTW, if this part of your comment “And, of course, Hamilton is a Federalist who disagrees with you” is referring to this part of my comment: “The Anti-Federalist and the Federalists both made that clear”, I am clearly referring to the enumerated powers – which again, at the time of writing, Hamilton agreed with – not a national bank, thanks for engaging in a straw man though)
Sorry you’re so infatuated with the perversion of the constitution by tyrants. I treat the constitution as a contract between the government and the governed; you know, consent of the governed and all. Sorry that I want the government to uphold their end of the contract, without changing the terms of said contract. If they want to change it, they can use the process they specifically laid out in the contract; the amendment process.
And I’m sorry I triggered you so much with the words of the people that wrote the constitution themselves that you feel you need to tuck tail and run.
P.S. Libertarians are the re-establishment of the Anti-Federalists, the Constitution Party is a re-establishment of the Federalists.
@Andrew, so, per your first link, you even oppose Hamiton’s national bank. And, of course, Hamilton is a Federalist who disagrees with you, so your blanket statement is wrong AND you knew it when you typed it. As for Madison, before you go there, there’s a number of legal analysis papers that talk about his “war” on the general welfare clause. Here’s one: https://lawreview.law.ucdavis.edu/sites/g/files/dgvnsk15026/files/media/documents/56-2_Schwartz.pdf
In other words, you treat the Constitution with the same mythos as fundagelicals treat the King James Version, I presume, and with as little intellectual standing.
Nuff ced and I won’t be around to argue with you again, for what should be obvious reasons.
@SocraticGadfly… ““Provide for the general welfare” is what I have to refute you.”
The general welfare “clause” is NOT an enumerated power. The Anti-Federalist and the Federalists both made that clear; if you ever read the Anti-Federalist papers or Federalist Papers you would know that. The general welfare clause was folded into the enumerated power by an activist court in the 1930s to legalize FDR’s new deal program which was blatantly unconstitutional; which of course many of the founders also saw as a potential problem (judges re-writing the constitution from the bench).
On judges re-writing the constitution:
https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2026/01/14/john-taylors-forgotten-warning-about-judges-rewriting-the-constitution/
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/founding-fathers-warned-us-about-judges-rewriting-constitution-142347
General Welfare Clause:
https://youtu.be/bf14XEs_bPQ
https://youtu.be/xI4rLqQKyFw
I know this is off topic, but now we got libertarians defending zoning, and violating the property (real estate) rights of owners. Actual libertarians are AGAINST zoning.
https://sjlp.org/snjlp-deny-american-tower-data-center-application/
Yes, the data center company has just as much property rights as the home owners. And this article completely ignores the reality of how data centers work (closed-loop direct-to-chip water cooling does not use municipal water, nor does it release it into the environment).
I’m 100% thoroughly done with the party; and I’m ditching association with the word too.
Andrew McCarrick: Really? Got statutory chapter and verse to support that off-the-wall claim?
“Provide for the general welfare” is what I have to refute you.
Kudos to the party for recognizing the legal issues involved.
Related? While he’s as much a nutter as five others in general, on Indian rights issues, Justice Gorsuch is the real deal.
@Andrew McCarrick
I don’t think it is even about group identity. While that might be what motivates some of the tribes, I think the goal of the LP is simply to create more sovereign entities. Another way to do this, which IMO, would benefit much more people, would be to create more states by dividing larger states into smaller ones.
The more, but still not, libertarian solution would be to divide Oklahoma in half (almost half the state is Native American), and take the northeastern area of Arizona and northwestern area of New Mexico and make them new states (or enclave independent nations).
@Walter Ziobro… Which I see as not libertarian. Why are they concerned with group identities? This just screams identity politics to me. Libertarianism is supposed to be sovereignty of the individual, not groups (which is inherently collectivist).
I don’t think that the LP has suddenly decided to support national parks. IMO, the real aim here is to transform the theoretical sovereignty of the Native American tribes into something tangible and real.
Well all national parks are unconstitutional, so the LP is off the mark here. There is no enumerated power for congress to create ANY national monument or park; certainly no power for the executive to act unilaterally to create one. So the entire thing should go. The Libertarian Party really has been consistently pushing me away for almost half a decade now. Reason Magazine has been doubling down on the effort over the past year.