Executive Order 13792, signed on April 26, 2017, initiated a sweeping review of national monument designations made since 1996, directing the Secretary of the Interior to evaluate their legality and appropriateness. This administrative mechanism effectively reopened decisions made by previous presidents across two decades of conservation policy. The order functioned as a preliminary step that authorized the Interior Department to recommend modifications to existing protections, ultimately paving the way for subsequent actions that would fundamentally reshape federal land management.

The review process directly affected millions of acres of public land and the communities, ecosystems, and economic interests dependent on them. Utah residents, outdoor recreation industries reliant on protected landscapes, and environmental organizations found themselves at the center of contentious debates over land use. The Interior Department's subsequent recommendations led to the reduction of Bears Ears National Monument and Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument by approximately two million acres combined, removing federal protections that had governed resource extraction, development, and public access on these lands.

This action established a template for environmental rollbacks that would accelerate dramatically in subsequent years. The monument review fit within a broader pattern of dismantling conservation protections, evident in the later Forest Service regional office closures, EPA leadership changes that eliminated regulatory oversight, and the opening of Minnesota wilderness to mining operations. Each action progressively weakened the institutional capacity and legal frameworks designed to protect public resources. The invocation of the Defense Production Act for fossil fuel acceleration and payments to companies abandoning offshore wind projects represent the logical extension of this initial 2017 directive, showing how early administrative actions on public lands evolved into comprehensive fossil fuel prioritization.

Courts have intervened in disputes over monument reductions, with litigation challenging the authority to shrink designations rather than simply reviewing them. However, the long-term outcome remains contested terrain in the legal and political sphere.