The federal Bureau of Land Management will formally rescind a Biden-era rule that had elevated conservation as a co-equal priority alongside energy development, grazing, and mining on more than 245 million acres of public land. The rollback, set to take effect June 11, marks a significant policy shift for Western states including Montana and Idaho, where the rule had already faced legal challenges.
Why It Matters
Public lands management directly affects Idaho and Montana communities that depend on grazing leases, energy production, recreation, and resource extraction for their livelihoods. The Biden-era rule had drawn opposition from Western state attorneys general, industry groups, and motorized recreation advocates who argued it created unnecessary bureaucratic barriers to productive land use.
Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Utah, and North Dakota had all filed legal challenges against the Biden policy, contending it threatened access to land long used for ranching, energy development, and outdoor recreation.
What Happened
Interior Secretary Doug Burgum announced the administration’s intent to repeal the Conservation and Landscape Health Rule last September, arguing the Biden regulation had the potential to restrict access to hundreds of thousands of acres of multiple-use land across the West. The official Federal Register notice was published May 12, with the rescission taking effect June 11.
The administration’s Federal Register announcement stated that eliminating the 2024 rule would remove mechanisms such as restoration and mitigation leasing that threatened productive land use and introduced “uncertainty and unnecessary burdens” in planning and permitting. Burgum said repealing the rule “protects our American way of life.”
The Trump administration’s position is that conservation is not a “use” as defined under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, the law that governs BLM operations, and that existing federal law already mandates extensive environmental protections without the additional layer created by the Biden rule.
By the Numbers
- 245 million acres of public land overseen by the BLM are affected by the policy change.
- 6 states — Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Utah, North Dakota, and others — filed legal challenges against the Biden rule.
- 9 state attorneys general opposed the rule shortly after it was promulgated.
- June 11 is the effective date of the rescission, following the May 12 Federal Register announcement.
Supporters and Critics
The Idaho and Montana-based Blue Ribbon Coalition, which represents motorized recreation users, praised the decision. In a statement published May 11, the group argued that federal public lands law already requires conservation and that the Biden rule had introduced an inappropriate thumb on the scale against productive use.
Tracy Stone-Manning, who served as BLM director under Former President Biden and now leads The Wilderness Society, offered sharp criticism of the direction. “This is not a pendulum swinging,” she said in remarks reported by a regional outlet. “What this administration is doing on public lands is unprecedented.” Stone-Manning also pointed to the U.S. Forest Service’s move to rescind the Roadless Rule as part of a broader pattern favoring energy extraction over multiple-use management.
Stone-Manning contended the Biden rule had been built on decades of career agency experience and broad public support across political and demographic lines. However, critics countered that public opinion surveys and the rulemaking process were dominated by environmental advocacy groups rather than the rural Western communities most directly affected by federal land decisions.
Zoom Out
The rescission is part of a broader Trump administration push to expand domestic energy production and ease regulatory burdens on Western land users — a priority that aligns with the concerns of many Idaho and Montana ranchers, energy companies, and recreation businesses. The move also reflects ongoing tension between federal conservation mandates and state-level demands for greater control over public land management.
Western land-use policy remains a flash point in the Mountain West, where federal ownership of large land shares shapes everything from local utility costs tied to energy development to property tax structures affecting rural residents.
What’s Next
With the June 11 effective date set, BLM will operate without the conservation co-equal framework. Ongoing litigation from environmental groups challenging the rescission remains possible. Meanwhile, the administration’s energy dominance agenda is expected to accelerate permitting for oil, gas, and mineral development on federal land across the Mountain West.
About the Author
