The U.S. Department of the Interior is proposing to rescind the Bureau of Land Management’s Public Lands Rule, which received bipartisan support in 2024 for securing access to recreation and adding conservation as a land use purpose.

The news aligns with Interior Secretary Doug Burgum’s “commitment to restoring balance in federal land management by prioritizing multiple-use access, empowering local decision-making and supporting responsible energy development, ranching, grazing, timber production and recreation across America’s public lands,” the department announced last week. 

The 2024 Public Lands Rule made conservation an official use of public lands, putting it on the same level as BLM’s other uses of public lands.

“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,” Burgum’s press release reported.

Last week, U.S. Sens. John Barrasso and Cynthia Lummis, along with U.S. Rep. Harriet Hageman came together to applaud the order.

The Biden-era BLM rule, which was finalized in April 2024, had the potential to block access to hundreds of thousands of acres of multiple-use land, according to a statement made by all three Republicans.

“The people of Wyoming depend on access to public lands for our livelihoods — including energy and mineral production, grazing and recreation,” Sen. Barrasso said. “The Biden Public Lands Rule was a direct attack on our way of life. The Trump administration is right to rescind this outrageous rule.”

Sen. Lummis echoed his
approval, saying the rule was a direct hit to the West, threatening to shut down hundreds of thousands of acres of working land and hurt the livelihoods of hardworking Wyoming families who’ve depended on these lands for generations.

“Leftist Washington bureaucrats have worked overtime to lock up federal lands, block our energy production, hurt our timber industry, take away grazing rights, and shut out the ranchers, loggers and energy workers who actually live in these communities and know how to take care of the land,” she said. “Getting rid of this harmful rule brings back sensible federal land management and makes sure we can use our public lands for energy, ranching, timber and recreation like we always have.”

Meanwhile, Rep. Hageman said this order is a “huge win for Wyoming.”

“The Biden-era Public Lands Rule was designed to lock up hundreds of thousands of acres from multiple use and convert them to no-use,” Hageman said. “President Trump and Secretary Burgum are restoring common sense by returning management of the lands to the people who depend on them. This is a huge win for Wyoming, securing grazing rights, bolstering energy production, and protecting rural economies from overreaching, absurd mandates.”

Critics respond

However, critics of the order to rescind the rule point out that Burgum, an energy entrepreneur, is simply attempting to open core habitat to oil and gas companies, according to Center for Western Priorities Executive Director Jennifer Rokala.

“It’s fitting that Secretary Burgum made this announcement while jet-setting across Europe. If he spent more time with Westerners and less time pretending he’s an international man of mystery, he’d learn that conservation is one of the core uses of our public lands. That’s why 92% of public comments supported the public lands rule as it was being developed,” Rokala said Wednesday morning, adding “Hunters, anglers, hikers and backpackers all praised the public lands rule because it helps ensure access to public lands for future generations. Public lands management is a balancing act, and you just tipped the scales back to the 19th century, when robber barons ran the country, exploiting our lands for personal gain.”

Yet, the department said 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, possibly threatening to curtail grazing, energy development, recreation and other traditional land uses. Many rural communities depend on public lands for livelihoods tied to agriculture, mining and energy production. Rescinding the rule restores BLM to its legal mandate and protects these economic drivers from restrictive land-use policies.

One contentious addition to the rule may change how public land managers work with nongovernmental organizations (NGOs).

While the full scope of the order’s effect is yet to be seen, critics and conservation nonprofits have identified changes related to NGOs and conservation.

The measure would restrict public-private partnerships: According to Environment America, the order “prohibits some public-private partnerships with nonprofit organizations.” These partnerships often involve NGOs using private funding to supplement the Land and Water Conservation Fund to protect land. The order could limit the scope of these efforts and halt future collaborations.

They also say the proposal undermines conservation funding by restricting partnerships and adding new procedural hurdles. The organizations argue the order could delay or derail urgently needed conservation and public land access projects. The League of Conservation Voters stated that if the proposal passes it will result in the loss of access to “tens of thousands of acres of land due to be protected.” The proposal also affects land acquisition, they contend. The new order reportedly adds “additional restrictions on LWCF land protection projects.” Organizations like the LWCF Coalition claim the order hampers conservation tools by limiting the ability of private property owners to sell their land for public benefit.

Drill baby, drill

The proposal is consistent with Secretarial Order 3418, “Unleashing American Energy,” which directs the removal of impediments imposed on the development and use of the nation’s energy and natural resources. President Trump also rescinded a slew of executive orders from the Biden administration meant to slow the use of fossil fuels. Trump also rescinded several orders dealing with climate change and imposed procedural changes to the LWCF.

The LWCF was permanently authorized with bipartisan support when Trump signed the Great American Outdoors Act in 2020. The act was called a remarkable step forward in providing critically underserved communities with access to our nation’s parks, public lands and open spaces. Yet again, there are major concerns, especially the blocking of non-government organizations from participating in public outdoor recreation and wildlife habitat stewardship.

However, the Act pledges $900 million annually in permanent, mandatory funding for the LWCF. Yet, currently the administration is celebrating their authorizing of about $450 million — half of the mandatory amount. The Great American Outdoors Act also specifies that this $900 million is in addition to up to $125 million the LWCF may receive annually from the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act for outdoor recreation grants. 

From the date that the Federal Register notice publishes, a 60-day comment period will open on the proposed rule rescission. For more information: doi.gov/pressreleases/interior-proposes-rescind-public-lands-rule-restoring-balanced-multiple-use.