What to know: Why is Patagonia suing Trump over Utah’s national monuments?

Patagonia has joined a legal challenge against the Trump administration’s decision to reduce two national monuments in Utah, arguing that the move threatens public land protections, Tribal sovereignty and areas of environmental and cultural importance. The outdoor clothing brand announced the lawsuit on September 2, challenging President Donald Trump’s July proclamation reducing Bears Ears National Monument by around 91 percent, as well as also significantly cutting the size of Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument.

What has Trump changed?

On July 13, Trump signed proclamations reducing Bears Ears from approximately 1.36 million acres to 121,096 acres, while Grand Staircase-Escalante was reduced from around 1.87 million acres to 181,541 acres. The White House has described the move as “rightsizing”, arguing that the original boundaries were larger than necessary to protect the historic and scientific resources covered by the Antiquities Act.

Patagonia strongly disputes the decision, with CEO Ryan Gellert writing in an open letter published on the company’s website: “What is happening in Utah is tragic.” He said the proclamations “betray Tribal sovereignty” and “scrap years of work to create groundbreaking management plans” for culturally significant areas.

Why is Patagonia challenging the decision?

The legal dispute centres on the Antiquities Act of 1906, which allows presidents to establish national monuments. Patagonia argues that while the law provides this power, it does not give a president the authority to subsequently remove a monument’s protections.

“The Antiquities Act gives presidents the authority to establish national monuments,” Gellert stated. “What the act does not give a president is the power to undo a monument designation.”

Patagonia has been involved in the issue before, having sued the Trump administration in 2017 after the president reduced Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante during his first term. President Joe Biden then restored the boundaries in 2021. Gellert said the company was joining a wider coalition again because “Patagonia’s purpose as a business is to protect the planet and use every option to do so. Including litigation."

Why is mining part of the dispute?

Patagonia suggests that removing land from the monuments could expose previously protected areas to mining, drilling and other forms of resource extraction. Gellert described the reduction as “an attempt to force secession of federal land to the state and allow private companies to extract natural resources from that land". Patagonia further pointed to at least nine mining claims filed in areas removed from the monument boundaries since the July announcement.

The Trump administration takes a different position, arguing that the smaller boundaries will allow land outside the monuments to be managed for multiple uses, including resource development, while areas that remain within the monuments continue to receive protection.

Why are Tribal rights involved?

Bears Ears has particular significance for Indigenous communities and was established by President Barack Obama in 2016 following years of advocacy by five Tribal nations. The monument’s management included the Bears Ears Commission, giving Tribal nations a formal role in its management, with Trump’s latest proclamation ending that arrangement.

Patagonia says this undermines Tribal participation in decisions affecting the land, with Gellert claiming that the administration’s actions “betray Tribal sovereignty” and “disrespect Tribal nations".

What does Patagonia say about public access?

Patagonia has also challenged claims that the monuments are inaccessible to the public. Bears Ears attracted an estimated 416,000 visitors in 2024, while Grand Staircase-Escalante received approximately 936,000.

“These are singular landscapes people should experience for themselves—and many do,” Gellert wrote, before highlighting that activities including hiking, backpacking, mountain biking, rock climbing, canyoneering, hunting, rafting and fishing. He further states that tourism provides an important source of income for surrounding communities, while monument status helps protect the land from potentially irreversible development.

For Patagonia, the lawsuit forms part of its wider environmental activism and its identity as an outdoor business. “Public lands are vital to the millions employed by the $1.2 trillion outdoor industry,” Gellert wrote, adding that Patagonia would not “stand idly by” while the protections are challenged.