Interior Secretary Doug Burgum announced on Wednesday a proposal to rescind a rule regarding public land management that was introduced during former President Joe Biden’s administration. The rule, which placed conservation on equal footing with development, was designed to allow public lands to be leased for environmental restoration purposes in a manner similar to how private companies lease land for drilling and other resource extraction. Burgum’s proposal signals the Trump administration’s intention to prioritize traditional uses of public lands, including oil and gas drilling, mining, logging, and grazing, over conservation-focused programs.

The Biden-era rule represented a significant shift in the management philosophy of the Interior Department’s Bureau of Land Management, which oversees roughly 10 percent of all land in the United States. The rule, finalized in April 2024, aimed to integrate conservation and environmental restoration into the framework of public land use.

Under its guidelines, federal lands could be leased for restoration projects, giving environmental initiatives a formal place alongside commercial development. While the bureau had previously allowed conservation leases on a limited basis, there had never been a dedicated program to treat conservation as an equal use of public lands.

Industry groups and agricultural interests were strongly opposed to the Biden rule from its inception, viewing it as a threat to their ability to access federal lands for resource extraction and other activities. These groups lobbied Republican lawmakers to reverse the regulation, arguing that it unfairly restricted economic opportunities on federal property.

In addition, several states, including North Dakota—where Burgum served as governor before joining the Trump Cabinet—filed lawsuits in hopes of blocking the rule from being implemented. The effort to repeal the rule reflects a broader political push to reduce regulatory barriers and expand commercial activity on federally managed lands.

Burgum’s announcement comes against the backdrop of multiple policy changes since Donald Trump assumed office, all aimed at increasing energy production and resource extraction from federal lands. These lands are predominantly located in Western states such as Alaska, California, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming, regions rich in minerals, fossil fuels, and other natural resources.

Interior officials argue that the Biden-era rule failed to account for the needs of local communities and workers who rely on public lands for their livelihoods. According to the Interior Department, no conservation leases had actually been issued under the Biden rule, prompting critics of the policy to characterize it as largely symbolic and restrictive.

In a statement, Burgum emphasized that the rule had the potential to hinder energy and mineral production, logging, grazing, and recreational activities across hundreds of thousands of acres. He framed the proposal to rescind the rule as a protective measure for the traditional uses of public lands and a way to ensure that communities retain a voice in decisions affecting lands on which they depend.

Environmental groups, however, had largely supported the Biden rule, noting that it addressed long-standing neglect of conservation within the Bureau of Land Management’s broader mandate under the 1976 Federal Lands Policy and Management Act. Alison Flint, senior legal director at The Wilderness Society, criticized the Trump administration’s approach, asserting that the statutory authority granted to the bureau could not simply be overturned to prioritize corporate interests.

Supporters of the Trump administration’s proposal argue that it restores balance to public land management by ensuring that natural resources remain available to meet rising energy demands and supply critical minerals. Rich Nolan, CEO of the National Mining Association, described the proposal as a welcome correction to what he perceived as a prior disregard for the Interior Department’s “multiple use” mandate, which requires federal lands to support diverse activities including energy production, recreation, and conservation. Critics of the Biden-era rule had contended that it elevated “non-use” of public lands, such as conservation and restoration projects, above the commercial and industrial uses traditionally associated with these lands.

In addition to its focus on leasing land for restoration purposes, the Biden rule also facilitated the designation of “areas of critical environmental concern,” a classification that can limit development in regions of historic, cultural, or ecological significance.

These areas are intended to protect wildlife habitats and preserve important environmental features, adding another layer of regulatory oversight aimed at conservation. While these provisions were welcomed by environmental advocates, industry representatives and some state governments argued that they unnecessarily restricted economic development.

The Bureau of Land Management manages not only surface lands but also underground mineral reserves across more than one million square miles, including coal, lithium, and other materials essential to both traditional and renewable energy sectors.

Historically, the bureau has maintained policies favorable to industry, issuing grazing permits, oil and gas leases, and other development rights for over a century. Burgum’s proposal to rescind the Biden-era conservation rule continues this longstanding approach by emphasizing access to resources and prioritizing multiple uses that support local economies.

The next step in the process is the pending publication of Burgum’s proposal, which will initiate a 60-day public comment period. During this time, stakeholders, including industry groups, environmental organizations, and private citizens, will have the opportunity to weigh in on the proposed rule change. This period is a standard component of federal regulatory revisions, allowing the government to gauge public opinion and gather feedback before finalizing any modifications.

The move to rescind the conservation rule is part of a broader trend among House Republicans and the Trump administration to reverse land management policies put in place by the Biden administration. Recently, Congress repealed several land management plans finalized in the final days of Biden’s presidency, which had restricted development across vast regions of Alaska, Montana, and North Dakota.

In addition, the Interior Department has announced proposals aimed at expanding mining and drilling in Western states inhabited by greater sage grouse populations, reversing restrictions that were intended to protect this sensitive species. These efforts collectively underscore the current administration’s focus on maximizing economic development, resource extraction, and energy production on public lands, while curtailing federal policies that emphasize conservation and environmental restoration.

Overall, the proposal to cancel the Biden-era rule represents a continuation of longstanding debates over the proper balance between conservation and development on publicly owned lands. While environmentalists view such measures as critical for protecting ecosystems and biodiversity, supporters of Burgum’s initiative argue that prioritizing traditional uses of these lands ensures economic growth, energy security, and local community engagement.

As the public comment period unfolds, it is likely that the conversation over the role of conservation on federal lands will remain contentious, reflecting the broader ideological divide over environmental regulation and resource management in the United States.