The Trump administration rescinded a number of Biden administration actions on March 14, 2025, in an action titled Additional Rescissions Of Harmful Executive Orders And Actions. Among those discarded was Executive Order 14112.
Executive Order 14112 emphasized the Biden administration’s dedication to recognizing tribal sovereignty and acknowledged the importance of federal support to tribal prosperity. The order promised to promote partnerships with Tribal Nations while upholding tribal dignity, to identify opportunities for reform that would make federal support more accessible to tribes, and to evaluate whether there are outstanding obligations to tribes that have not been met. Specifically, the Order called for agencies to “promote . . . co-management [and] co-stewardship” with tribes. Co-management means that a tribe would share legal decision-making authority with the federal government, whereas co-stewardship means that a tribe collaborates with the federal government in the management of the land. This article does not seek to evaluate which is better but rather recognizes that co-stewardship at minimum may be valuable for public lands.
Involving tribes in the co-management or co-stewardship of public lands is beneficial for a variety of reasons. First, tribes have an interest in the public lands themselves by way of the off-reservation treaty rights they help meet and their cultural significance. Second, the federal government has a trust responsibility to the tribes. This trust responsibility obligates the U.S. government to preserve resources on public lands that tribes have an interest in via its treaties, and to consult with tribal governments.
Additionally, some have recognized that tribal knowledge as to public land management is incredibly valuable. Indigenous tribes have been managing the lands of what is now the United States since time immemorial––and some think that tribes manage the lands better than the federal government. The Biden administration recognized this connection, making federal cooperation with tribes a priority, as evidenced by Executive Order 14112 and numerous other pro-tribe presidential actions.
The Trump administration may be taking a different approach to tribal sovereignty. The president rescinded Executive Order 14112 in an action dated March 14, 2025. This policy change could lead to several possible outcomes for tribal sovereignty, including in the context of public land management.
The language of the action (as well as the title itself) expresses a negative, and even hostile, attitude toward tribes. Not only does the title imply that Executive Order 14112 was harmful, but its purpose section aims to “restore common sense to the Federal Government,” suggesting that the actions and orders the president is overturning were lacking in common sense. This abrasive language might be foreshadowing more anti-tribal policy is to come out of this administration, perhaps even an end to the current Self-Determination Era. Federal policy around tribes has undergone phase changes for two centuries, so while a shift in policy would not be surprising, a negative policy shift could be detrimental for tribal sovereignty.
Executive Orders directly impact tribal ability to manage public lands. Even if the Executive Branch does not affirmatively begin to walk back from the Self-Determination Era, the implication of rescinding Executive Order 14112 is that tribes are unlikely to receive the sufficient federal funds they need to adequately or effectively co-steward public lands. This administration is also working to downsize federal agencies. While the Biden administration enabled federal agencies to administer federal funding to tribes via Executive Order 14112, the Trump administration is making budget, staffing, and program cuts to federal agencies, such as the U.S. Forest Service. These budget reductions, combined with the rescission of Executive Order 14112, may foreclose the possibility of federally endorsed funding specifically for tribal co-stewardship agreements under the Trump administration.
During the Biden administration, the Department of the Interior published guidance to help agencies “improve federal stewardship of public lands, waters and wildlife” by collaborating more closely with tribes in federal land management. In addition to removal of funding via Executive Order 14112’s repeal, the new administration could easily do the opposite; it could issue guidance preventing agencies from forming new co-stewardship agreements with tribes or even force them to cancel existing ones. Without the federal government’s support, tribes have not been very successful in setting up agreements to co-steward public lands with the land management agencies. Agencies themselves are also underfunded, so tribes and agencies will be increasingly challenged to find the resources to engage in collaboration. Whether this administration stops at the repeal of Executive Order 14112, or releases guidance opposite to that of the Biden administration’s guidance, it follows that it will be more difficult for the entities to work together than prior to Executive Order 14112.
Rescission of Executive Order 14112 could lead to setbacks for public land expansion and protection. Lack of tribal representation in public land co-stewardship or co-management means one less advocate for the protection of public lands. It could also lead to setbacks in some efforts to mitigate climate change, which is another area in which tribal interests lie.
On the other hand, the March 14 presidential action did not say anything specific about Executive Order 14112 other than to rescind it. It is possible, of course, that nothing more will come of it. Moreover, some of the Trump administration’s other policies are favorable for tribal sovereignty. For example, the current administration is communicating an intent to increase timber production, so for those tribal economies that depend on timber production, they may see an increase in their economic position. While overharvest of timber on public lands could lead to environmental problems, tribes may enjoy increased revenue from increased timber production on their lands.
Tribal Nations represent an important voice in the public land management and stewardship space. While the rescission of the order is problematic, hopefully it goes no deeper than that and does not bode poorly for tribes’ sovereignty as to public land management, nor for the management of public lands in general.
