How The Sun Goes To ‘Sleep’ Could Reveal Future Space Weather When It Wakes

 July 20, 2026 

By Eurasia Review

Key Takeaways:

• Scientists have developed a new method to predict the strength of the Sun’s next solar cycle (Cycle 26) up to seven years before its peak, by identifying the number of sunspots at a newly-discovered “switch-off” point when extreme space weather suddenly ends.

• The early prediction for Cycle 26 suggests a moderate cycle with a sunspot number of around 100–120 (similar to or weaker than Cycle 25), though a more accurate forecast will be possible in about two years once Cycle 25 reaches its switch-off point.

• The approach builds on the ‘sunclock’ mapping of solar cycles and successfully predicted that Cycle 25 would be stronger than many earlier forecasts, helping explain recent intense auroral displays and geomagnetic storms. It also offers new insights into the solar dynamo process.

Scientists have developed a new way to predict the strength of the Sun’s next activity cycle up to seven years before it reaches its peak.

The new method uses the number of sunspots at a newly-identified ‘switch-off’ point in the solar cycle, when the Sun’s most extreme space weather suddenly comes to an end. Using this approach, researchers have made an early prediction for the strength of Solar Cycle 26.

A very early prediction shows a moderate Cycle 26 with a sunspot number of around 100-120, similar to or weaker than the current Cycle 25. However, exact predictions won’t be possible for another two years, and a weaker or stronger cycle are both still theoretically possible.

The research is being presented this week at the Royal Astronomical Society’s National Astronomy Meeting in Birmingham.

Sandra Chapman, Professor of Physics and Director of the Centre for Fusion, Space and Astrophysics at the University of Warwick, said: “The Sun doesn’t gently go to sleep and then gently wake up again.

“Instead, we’ve discovered that the most extreme space weather switches off quite suddenly at a specific point in every solar cycle. By identifying that point, we’ve found a new way to predict how active the next solar cycle is likely to be.”

Professor Chapman expects to refine the prediction in around two years, once Solar Cycle 25 reaches the newly-identified ‘switch-off’ point and the forecast can be based on observations rather than projections.

The Sun follows an approximately 11-year cycle during which its magnetic field reverses polarity, and the number of sunspots rises and falls. Sunspots are regions of intense magnetic activity that can produce powerful solar flares and coronal mass ejections, creating space weather that can affect satellites, communications, navigation systems and power grids on Earth.

Although astronomers have monitored sunspots for centuries, no two solar cycles are exactly the same. They vary in both length and intensity, making it difficult to predict how active the next cycle will be.

The new prediction method builds on Professor Chapman’s previously developed ‘sunclock’, which maps the Sun’s irregular cycles onto a standard clock. This revealed that the most extreme space weather does not gradually fade away but instead switches off at a distinct point in each solar cycle.

Professor Chapman’s team has found that the number of sunspots present at this switch-off point is closely linked to the peak number of sunspots in the following solar cycle. This provides a new forecasting method that can predict the strength of the next solar cycle around six to seven years before it reaches its maximum, giving a longer lead time than current methods, which rely on waiting until the solar minimum.

The new method also identifies a specific stage in the solar cycle when the magnetic field that drives the next cycle should become established. The research team hopes this will help improve understanding of the solar dynamo, the process that generates the Sun’s magnetic field.

Professor Chapman said: “We’re about two years away from the switch-off point for the current Solar Cycle 25. At the moment, we have to estimate where that point will be, but once we reach it we can use observations alone to make a much more precise prediction for Solar Cycle 26.

“That will still give us around seven years’ warning of how strong the cycle is likely to be.”

The method successfully predicted that Solar Cycle 25 would be stronger than many previous forecasts suggested, resulting in the stunning displays of aurora in recent years.

The UK experienced several historic solar storms in 2024 as Cycle 25 reached its ‘solar maximum’, most notably a series of extreme geomagnetic events from 10 to 13 May.

Triggered by a cluster of massive sunspots approaching solar maximum, these events produced the most powerful geomagnetic storms to impact Earth in over two decades. These resulted in widespread, vivid auroral displays across the UK, with northern lights seen as far south as Devon and Cornwall.

\

US data center protests go national as backlash grows

By Valerie Volcovici and Lisa Baertlein
Sat, July 18, 2026 


A view of a "No Data Center Traffic" sign in Ann Arbor, Michigan, U.S. June 24, 2026. REUTERS/Rebecca Cook

July 18 (Reuters) - Opponents of the rapid buildout of data centers plan to hold protests on Saturday in at least 125 locations across the United States, the first coordinated national effort to channel anger at the AI infrastructure expansion ‌that has ramped up over the past year and roiled local politics.

The protests are coordinated by a grassroots group called HumansFirst, co-founded ‌by a former leader of the modern-day Tea Party who has compared growing opposition to data centers to the right-wing populist movement that emerged in 2009 to protest what it saw as excessive ​taxation and government overreach.

Protesters will rally against what HumansFirst calls the "unaccountable" buildout of data centers and "unacceptable infringement on our liberty."

Towns and counties have been at the forefront of opposition to data center projects that in some cases have been greenlit with local officials signing non-disclosure agreements with developers despite resident pushback or a lack of regulatory scrutiny. Now politicians at the state and national level are scrambling to keep pace with rising voter anger over the threat of higher power bills, the diversion of precious ‌water resources and pollution.

Data center opposition is among the few issues ⁠uniting Americans across ideological lines, with just a third of Americans approving of the pace of data-center construction in the U.S., according to a June Reuters/Ipsos poll. Only 14% of respondents would support a data center being built in their community ⁠to support artificial intelligence projects for technology firms such as Meta, Alphabet, Amazon, Microsoft and Elon Musk's xAI.

The Data Center Coalition, the industry's association and lobbying group, did not immediately comment on the protests. It previously told Reuters data centers are committed to being responsible neighbors in the communities where they operate.

Although ​HumansFirst ​co-founder Amy Kremer compared it to the conservative Tea Party movement's early days in 2009, ​she said the anger against data centers is nonpartisan.

"They just ‌woke up one day and found out they're going to have this monstrosity in their community, and they don't want it," said Kremer, who predicted data centers will be a defining issue in November's midterm elections and the 2028 presidential race.

Kremer has criticized Republicans for giving Big Tech a "free pass," but she and some organizers also said they do not support policies like moratoriums on data center approvals adopted by the Democratic state of New York. Among other things, organizers said they want the development process to be transparent, resources and environmental health protected, community benefits such as the creation of well-paid union jobs and ‌a way to hold developers accountable if they do not follow through on promises.

Late ​on Friday, the Republican stronghold of Texas, a hotspot for data center development, was on ​track to have the most protests with 16. The battleground state of ​Georgia had 11, while Democratic California, Republican Florida and the swing state of Pennsylvania came in at 7 each.

First-time activist ‌and self-described "political nomad" Eva Cardona, 31, is organizing a protest ​in Texas.

"I've been hearing about unregulated AI ​and the rapid growth was alarming me. I wanted to do something more hands-on than just your standard Facebook post," Hickman said.

Left-leaning Ivan DelSol, 54, is helping lead a protest in the California desert's Imperial County, where a proposed data center project could use 260 million ​gallons of water per year from the Colorado River.

"It's ‌dystopian that you would use this much fresh water for AI," DelSol said.

Although water is frequently cited as a top public concern, ​especially in water-stressed regions, the data center industry says its water use is not as significant as other industries.

(Reporting by Valerie ​Volcovici in Washington and Lisa Baertlein in Los Angeles; Editing by Stephen Coates)

After California residents line up to object, developer withdraws plan for giant data center
James Nanzo
Sun, July 19, 2026 

TCD
\

Photo Credit: iStock

Residents in El Segundo, California successfully halted a proposed data center project due to concerns about electricity use, pollution, noise, and the facility's proximity to homes, schools, and youth sports fields.

A proposed data center in El Segundo, California, unraveled during a public hearing last week, when strong resident opposition led the developer to withdraw the plan before the Planning Commission could vote.

As The Mercury News reported, residents objected to the project's anticipated electricity use, pollution, and noise, while also arguing that a large industrial facility did not belong so close to homes, schools, and youth sports fields.
What happened?

Eight Form, a real estate development company, sought to replace the Hyatt Place hotel at 750 N. Nash St. with a five-story data center totaling nearly 240,000 square feet. The proposal also included a 169-foot-tall building and a high-voltage electrical substation, per The Mercury News.

The plan reached the El Segundo Planning Commission for an initial reading, but the meeting was quickly dominated by public criticism. Nearly 60 people signed up to speak, and after most had already commented, Eight Form founder Arjun Shokeen announced from the audience that he was withdrawing the application.

"I've heard the community loud and clear," Shokeen said, according to the paper. "They've made their voice very present, and my intention isn't to put anybody through any mental or physical harm."

Because the project fell under the broader Corporate Campus Specific Plan, residents questioned whether relying on an older environmental review was adequate for a facility slated to operate around the clock with 16 diesel-run generators on standby, according to The Mercury News.

Why does it matter?

The dispute reflects growing frustration in many communities as energy-intensive tech infrastructure expands faster than public oversight. Data centers help power the modern internet economy, but they can also place major strain on local power grids, raise air pollution concerns, and reshape neighborhoods in ways residents never approved.

The Mercury News reported fears about electricity demand during extreme heat added to local opposition, as did the site's proximity to the Wiseburn School District and nearby youth athletic fields.

Resident Alex Perez summed up another major concern.

"The corporate campus project proposed (almost) 25 years ago is effectively antiquated and lacks any relevance to the proposed data center today," he said, according to the paper.

Communities are often expected to absorb the burdens of major developments while being told that the key decisions have already been made. When that happens, public input can feel less like a meaningful requirement and more like an afterthought.
What's being done?

By staying engaged throughout the hearing, residents prevented the proposal from moving further through the approval process.

The outcome also puts added pressure on developers and city officials to take community concerns seriously from the outset, especially for projects involving heavy electricity use and diesel backup infrastructure.

The Mercury News noted that many residents at the meeting weren't overly confident in the building's plans for water, electricity, and noise. Similar to other successful local efforts, the saga shows that communities can make an impact.

"When residents show up, stay informed, and participate, they can meaningfully influence the direction of their local government," activist group Sea Change wrote in a statement shared with the paper.

North Carolina residents thought they were getting a business park — not a data center campus

James Nanzo
Sun, July 19, 2026

TCD


Photo Credit: iStock

Residents in a North Carolina community are asking local leaders to pause the development of a proposed data center campus near their homes and farms, after believing they were evaluating a light industrial business park.

Residents in one North Carolina community say they believed they were evaluating a light industrial business park, only to find that the project proposed near their homes and farms was a much larger data center campus.

As NC Newsline reported, they are now asking local leaders to pause the development and make more records public about how it advanced.
What happened?

At Monday night's Lee County Board of Commissioners meeting, roughly 150 residents turned out to oppose the Sanford proposal, the outlet said. Nearly 2,500 people have signed an online petition calling for a county moratorium on data centers.

Residents say the 430-acre property on Lower Moncure Road had long been described as a "light industrial business park." But in June, Virginia-based PointOne Data Centers presented the same site as a $900 million, 90-megawatt technology park built around data center development, NC Newsline revealed.

Nearby residents say that change has been deeply unsettling. Among them is Jeff Kidd, a local farmer who told commissioners he had heard troubling stories from people living near a facility in Illinois.

"Sounds like a helicopter landing on your house," Kidd alleged, according to NC Newsline.

Lee County planning board member Steve Baber expressed frustration at the bait-and-switch.

"We as citizens feel like we were snookered a bit, in that it was to be light industrial," Baber explained, per the publication.

Why does it matter?

People who live close to the site say the proposal could reshape everyday life around them, pointing to worries about noise, light pollution, water demand, pressure on the electrical grid, and possible effects on health, sleep, and livestock.

NC Newsline said speakers also cited research they said links low-frequency noise from data centers to stress, headaches, and sleep disruption for nearby residents.

Job creation is another source of skepticism.

"This isn't economic growth; it's an extraction of Lee County's resources," Eric Evenson, a Lower Moncure resident, said, according to NC Newsline.

The debate in Lee County also reflects a larger national tension over AI and the infrastructure needed to support it. Data centers power cloud computing and AI tools that can help optimize electrical grids, improve clean energy forecasting, and support more efficient systems.

At the same time, those facilities can consume enormous amounts of electricity and water, potentially increasing costs for households and adding pollution when grids rely on fossil fuels.

What's being done?

Residents want county commissioners to slow the process. As NC Newsline described it, the petition calls for a countywide moratorium on data centers and for records to be released showing how the project moved forward.

Some protections have already been put in place nearby. In April, the City of Sanford revised its Unified Development Ordinance so data centers must stay at or below 65 decibels at the edge of their property, according to the outlet.

Even so, opponents told commissioners those rules still do not go far enough.

"The zoning power handed to you by the people created a loophole that was exploited by outside investors, and it is to their benefit, not to the people," resident Heather Watson told the board, according to NC Newsline.

Commissioner Kirk Smith, however, does not fully agree. Smith wrote that the county needs the property tax revenue and argued that public support may extend beyond those who showed up to protest.

"We definitely do not need or want a data center so close to our homes," countered Chris Chezem, a lifelong Lee County resident, according to NC Newsline.



Climate Activists Pelt Microsoft Data Center With Balloons Full of Acid

Joe Wilkins
Sun, July 19, 2026


Illustration by Tag Hartman-Simkins / Futurism. Source: Shutterstock

Climate activists in Amsterdam vandalized a Microsoft data center construction project by throwing water balloons filled with an acidic mixture, citing concerns over the environmental impact of data centers.

As the public backlash to AI data centers continues to escalate, activists are resorting to extreme measures to send home an important message.

The growing concern over environmentally damaging, yet rapidly growing, data centers has become an international phenomenon. In Amsterdam, climate activists affiliated with the group Extinction Rebellion claimed responsibility for some unique vandalism against a Microsoft data center construction project. According to the Register, the protestors filled water balloons with a mixture of hydrogen peroxide, acetic acid, salt, and acrylic paint before hucking them at the facility.

"This acidic mixture attacks concrete, and the hydrogen peroxide causes steel to rust faster," Extinction Rebellion said in a statement.

What physical impact the balloons had on the data center itself is unknown, but it may be beside the point. Extinction Rebellion often uses nonviolent civil disobedience and direct action to draw attention to climate issues that would otherwise be ignored. Previous actions involved spattering the offices of fossil fuel insurers with foul smelling butyric acid, and using superglue and bicycle locks to barricade the entrance of Lloyd's, a major insurance market in London.

As targets for climate activism go, data centers are a no-brainer. The facilities underlining the AI boom are a major driver of carbon emissions due to their intense energy demand, and likewise cause major problems with local water supplies.

In the post-action statement, Extinction Rebellion argues that the data center in question is weaponizing a loophole "to circumvent the rules banning so-called 'hyperscalers,'" and will "consume a gigantic amount of power in an area that already suffers from power shortages."

In addition to local concerns around electricity usage and climate impacts, Extinction Rebellion connects their action to the data center's future tenant, Microsoft, which international rights groups argue played an instrumental role in Israel's destruction of Gaza.

As Extinction Rebellion spokesperson Martijn Dekker said in the post-action statement, "the fight against data centers clearly shows how ordinary people unite against the power of big capital."

"The climate and ecological crisis cannot be viewed in isolation from Israel's genocide of the Palestinians or the fight against the destructive effects of AI," Dekker continued. "These abuses originate from the same few mega-rich, the same large corporations."

"We must join forces and resist the anti-democratic power of this small group of the very wealthiest," he added. "Stopping the construction of this data center is a necessary step in that regard."

Israel's $50 million influence campaign reaches beyond Iran ceasefire

CORINNE BAUM
Sun, July 19, 2026 
JERUSALEM POST


Thousands of Jewish and Israeli Americans participate in the annual Israel Day Parade, the world's largest pro-Israel parade, on May 31, in New York City. Mayor Zohran Mamdani, who did not attend the march, is the first New York mayor not to do so. (photo credit: Spencer Platt/Getty Images)More

Israel spends record amounts on hasbara in 2026, allocating over $730 million, more than four times the sum allotted in 2025, to improve its image and global standing.See more

As 69% of US adults hold an unfavorable opinion of the Israeli government, Israel has spent an all-time high on hasbara at roughly $730 million, over four times the sum allowed in 2025.

Israel paid at least $50 million to US-based firms to help its standing with Americans, the Wall Street Journal reported on Saturday.

The report alleged that the Israeli government had retained at least six firms to help in its efforts to sway public opinion in the United States in its favor. It added that at least three dozen new people, many of them in the marketing industry, have registered as foreign agents for Israel

This comes as 42% of American adults hold an unfavorable opinion of Israeli people, and 69% hold an unfavorable opinion of the Israeli government, a July poll from the Pew Research Center found.

The WSJ reported that Israel's 2026 budget to improve its image and global standing was set for over $700 million. In 2025, Israel's Foreign Ministry received $150 million, on top of what it gets for its existing activities, for public diplomacy, or in Hebrew, hasbara.

US President Donald Trump brokered a ceasefire and peace plan between Israel and Hamas in October 2025. The agreement led to Hamas handing over all 20 remaining living hostages that it held captive. (credit: Chris McGrath/Getty Images)More
Israel spends record numbers on Hasbara in 2026

That sum was more than 20 times what hasbara efforts have typically been allotted in past years.

But in 2026, the government allocated roughly $730 million, more than four times the sum allotted in 2025.

Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft researcher Nick Cleveland-Stout told the WSJ that Israel is on track to spend more than any other country on influencing US public opinion, based on funds disclosed to the US federal government this year.

In the past, nations such as Qatar spent around $400 billion to influence US public opinion, according to a June memo from the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

Notably, the WSJ report is also the latest accusation that former Trump campaign manager Brad Parscale has been hired to act on behalf of Israel.

According to the report, Parscale, who is now the chief strategy officer at Salem Media, was paid over $45 million to launch a series of campaigns by Israel to help boost its standing in the US.

Salem Media is a conservative Christian media conglomerate and is known for hosting conservative pundits such as Scott Jennings, Hugh Hewitt, and Lara Trump.

His contract involved the "integration of narrative messaging into Salem Media Network properties and aligned distribution channels," the WSJ reported. It was the largest contract that the WSJ reported on.

Both Parscale and Salem Media had since said that they don't pay their hosts, who are mostly known Israel supporters, to say anything specific about the Jewish state. They allege they used the money to buy more than half a million dollars' worth of ads on the network.

"Our hosts have built their careers by saying exactly what they think, not by reading from someone else's script," the WSJ quoted Salem Chief Executive David Santrella as saying.
Israel courts conservatives to help influence Americans' declining public opinions

"The existential threat to Israel is misinformation, from any side," Parscale was quoted by the WSJ as saying.


Last week, Time Magazine reported that Parscale ran a campaign denouncing the US-Iran ceasefire and

Under the deal between Havas, a global advertising agency, and Parscale's Clock Tower X, Parscale's group would produce "100 original pieces of content each month, with at least 80% aimed at Gen Z audiences across TikTok, Instagram, YouTube, and podcasts," Time reported.

He also pledged to "amplify the campaign across social media" alongside the aforementioned deal featuring Salem Media, and would frame his overall effort as an "effort to combat rising antisemitism online."

In fact, the WSJ reported that Parscale told Israeli officials during a 2024 business trip that companies he built were "probably the largest thing outside of Fox News to help fight misinformation and Jewish hatred."

Time reported that Parscale promised the campaign would produce "at least 50 million digital impressions per month, as well as influence how AI tools such as OpenAI's ChatGPT, Anthropic's Claude, and Google's Gemini characterized Israel and the war."

The WSJ also reported that part of Parscale's contracts were launching artificial-intelligence-generated texts to thousands of US citizens under the guise of "sharing perspectives and educating people about the importance of the US-Israel relationship."

The report added that Parscale's AI bots have shared links to websites like Allyvia.org, which Parscale's team built, to share information about the alliance.

The goal of the AI in the campaign was to deduce the biggest concerns US citizens have about Israel, combat them, and report the answers back to the government, Parscale said, according to the WSJ.

One Foreign Ministry source told Time that another aim of the campaign was to prevent any "young conservatives from turning against Israel," which the ministry believed Parscale was uniquely capable of doing.

The former Trump campaign manager denied the report, and told Time that he had "never funded, organized, or participated in any effort to undermine President Trump - ever - including his Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) or ceasefire proposal."

But beyond Parscale, the Israeli government is using several other firms to improve Americans' opinions of it.

One group, Show Faith by Works, reportedly filed documents outlining plans to send pro-Israel messaging to around 4 million megachurch members and Christian college students in the American Southwest through a geofencing campaign, the WSJ reported.

Show Faith by Works said that it would show "positive associations with the Nation of Israel while linking the Palestinian population with extremist factions."

In the planned $3 million campaign, the group intended to reach out to big names such as actor Chris Pratt or NBA player Steph Curry.

In a later email, the group's founder, Chad Schnitger, told the WSJ that it had decided to go in another direction and would spend the money to build a mobile museum featuring a video.

The WSJ also mentioned that Israel or agents working on its behalf have paid influencers on the Right and Left to help bolster its public image, but haven't mentioned paying for specific posts. The report noted that Christian influencers Stefanie and Caleb Rouse were paid $4,500 by a contractor for Israel in 2025 for "strategic marketing promotion," but the couple refused to comment on the matter.

While the next presidential elections are still years away, as America faces midterms in September, it is clear that Israel is fighting what could be considered an uphill battle to defend its most important alliance.

Iran Says Real ‘Foreign Influence’ Campaign in US Is Being Directed by Israelis Working With Trump Ally

“Americans are being warned of foreign influence. How about the extensive Israeli campaign to bamboozle the US administration into an unwinnable war of choice?”


Brad Parscale, campaign manager for Trump’s 2020 reelection campaign, speaks on stage during the Conservative Political Action Conference 2020 (CPAC) on February 28, 2020 in National Harbor, Maryland.
(Photo by Samuel Corum/Getty Images)

Brad Reed
Jul 17, 2026
COMMON DREAMS

President Donald Trump on Thursday accused the Chinese government of trying to meddle in US elections in a lengthy speech rattling off baseless conspiracy theories about his 2020 loss to former President Joe Biden.

However, Iranian Foreign Minister Seyed Abbas Araghchi on Friday said that the president was overlooking a foreign influence campaign being carried out by one of his longtime allies.

In a social media post, the Iranian diplomat pointed to a report in Time about Brad Parscale, Trump’s former campaign manager, who is now a registered foreign agent of Israel conducting influence operations on behalf of its government.

“Americans are being warned of foreign influence,” wrote Araghchi. “How about the extensive Israeli campaign to bamboozle the US administration into an unwinnable war of choice? Even worse: Israel is using US taxpayer dollars to silence any US critics. It will all soon unravel.”

According to Time, Parscale’s Clock Tower X firm last year signed an agreement to produce content across multiple platforms aimed at shoring up support for Israel among young US conservatives.

An anonymous Israeli Foreign Ministry official told Time that Parscale “presented himself as uniquely positioned to improve Israel’s reputation among young conservatives,” while stressing “his experience at the helm of Trump’s political operation, with a grasp of both the architecture of the modern internet and the political movement Trump had built” during his three runs for the presidency.

“Three people familiar with the campaign describe a messaging operation run through a network of interconnected firms overseen by Parscale or other firms he owns or created,” reported Time. “Through private group chats, they say, conservative influencers receive suggested language for posts on social media sites such as X, Instagram and TikTok. They were then compensated based on the impressions and engagement their content generated.”

One Trump official told Time they suspected that Parscale was also behind an operation aimed at undermining the president’s efforts to broker a deal to end his illegal war with Iran.

Parscale, however, denied pushing messages that attacked the deal shortly after its announcement.

“I have never funded, organized, or participated in any effort to undermine President Trump—ever—including his [memorandum of understanding] or ceasefire proposal,” the former Trump 2020 campaign manager told the magazine. “The claim that I am coordinating an effort to prolong the war is completely false.”

Expand Yellowstone National Park

George Wuerthner

 July 17, 2026

FacebookTwitterRedditBlueskyEmail

For several years, I have advocated for expanding Yellowstone National Park to create a Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem National Park.

There are many reasons to expand Yellowstone’s boundaries to include much of the surrounding national forest and other public lands that make up the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem.

The Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem has global significance. Yellowstone is a UNESCO Biosphere Reserve, recognized for its ecological diversity, conservation efforts and significant geological features.

If Yellowstone and the surrounding lands are to survive as a functioning ecosystem, we must recognize that the entire region is under multiple stressors.

Climate change is the greatest long-term threat. Climate change may make it impossible for many of the ecosystem’s plant and animal species to continue inhabiting the area.

Growing recreational use can harm and disturb sensitive wildlife.

Mining, logging and livestock grazing all affect ecosystem function. Enlarging the National Park Service’s administration of the ecosystem would eliminate ongoing threats from mining, logging and livestock grazing, since all are prohibited in national parks.

Finally, growing population growth in the region brings its own challenges.

So why expand Yellowstone to create a Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem National Park?

First, consolidating the majority of public lands in the ecosystem under a single agency will improve efficiency and effectiveness.

In particular, the mission and general goal of the National Park Service management is to preserve ecosystem function by minimizing human impacts. Compared to other state and federal agencies, the Park Service has a natural tendency to protect biodiversity and ecological integrity.

Creation of a Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem National Park would provide greater protection for predators, as trapping and hunting are prohibited within park units.

Expansion would allow bison to expand their population into suitable habitat. Even if bison were hunted beyond the expanded boundaries, the larger bison population would suffer less from genetic and other harm resulting from hunting, trapping and slaughter.

In other areas, like the Upper Green River Allotment in Wyoming, where livestock grazing has led to the killing of dozens of grizzly bears, expansion would eliminate livestock and thus conflicts.

The NPS administration favors native wildlife and plants. For instance, restoring native fish to the degree possible is a goal of NPS management.

NPS management generally favors maintaining natural ecological processes. Processes like insect outbreaks, wildfires, drought, flooding, predation and harsh winter weather are allowed to operate without human interference.

We have an obligation and responsibility to preserve the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Creation of a Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem National Park would be a major step towards achieving that goal.

George Wuerthner has published 36 books including Wildfire: A Century of Failed Forest Policy. 

The Long War on Bears Ears and Grand Staircase 

Erik Molvar

How decades of attacks on Utah’s national monuments culminated in Trump’s latest attempt to erase them.

In southern Utah, two crown-jewel landscapes have been the subject of a political tug-of-war spanning the past 25 years. On one end of the rope, Tribes, conservation groups, and the recreating public have sought – and gotten – expanded protections for Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monuments. Pulling the other end, the livestock industry, mining corporations, and Big Oil have joined forces with anti-regulation local governments to push to maximize the lands available for extractive use and minimize the protections.

This week, the Trump administration sided with the industrial interests and anti-environmental local governments to slash the two National Monuments by 90 percent, pulling the figurative rope back over to the side of exploitation.

The lands of southern Utah were wrested from the stewardship of multiple Indigenous tribes by EuroAmerican colonization, starting with Father Escalante in 1776. The modern battle over these lands started in 1996, when President Bill Clinton signed a proclamation establishing Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, recognizing “a geologic treasure of clearly exposed stratigraphy and structures.” “The monument,” Clinton proclaimed, “contains significant portions of a vast geologic stairway, named the Grand Staircase by pioneering geologist Clarence Dutton, which rises 5,500 feet to the rim of Bryce Canyon in an unbroken sequence of great cliffs and plateaus.” It contains paleontological features like fossils and dinosaur trackways, and cultural sites including Indigenous sites, Mormon pioneer sites, and the Old Paria townsite (a movie set, it turns out). The new Monument spanned 1.7 million acres of public land that are the traditional homelands of the Paiute, Hopi, Ute Mountain Ute, Navajo, and Zuni peoples.

A local history recounts some of the environmental battles that have ensued since Clinton’s proclamation. Andalex Resources, Inc. held claims to potentially-lucrative coal reserves in Smokey Hollow on the Kaiparowitz Plateau, and they scrapped their plans for a strip mine after the Monument was designated. There was controversy around oil and gas drilling by Conoco on state lands within the Monument boundary. And local counties tried to create new roads within the Monument using the obscure Reserve Statute 2477 to establish that livestock trails should be reclassified as county roads. Meanwhile, Grand Canyon Trust began to buy out grazing leases in the Escalante Canyons from ranchers who wanted to retire them because the allotments were too remote, too treacherous, too full of poisonous plants, and too troublesome to be worth continuing their cattle operations.

In 1997, the Utah Association of Counties filed a lawsuit, and Mountain States Legal Foundation filed a companion suit (represented by William Perry Pendley, who later would be appointed interim BLM Director during the first Trump administration), to overturn Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. They argued that the century-old Antiquities Act was unconstitutional, that the National Monument was larger than the minimum area necessary to protect the objects of scientific and cultural interest for which it had been designated, and even that the proclamation violated the Wilderness Act by establishing de facto wilderness. They lost on all counts, with a decisive ruling from the District Court in 2004. It stated,


The Proclamation of which plaintiffs complain speaks in detail of the Monument’s natural and archeological resources and indicates that the designated area is the smallest consistent with the protection of those resources. The language of the Proclamation clearly indicates that the President considered the principles that Congress required him to consider: he used his discretion in designating objects of scientific or historic value, and used his discretion in setting aside the smallest area necessary to protect those objects.

Mountain States Legal Foundation appealed (the counties did not), but was found to lack standing to bring forward a legal challenge, and its case was dismissed.

The dust did not remain settled for long. In 2013, Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT) kicked off the Utah Public Lands Initiative (UPLI), a process in which environmental and conservation interests were forced to collaborate with industrial interests, in an effort to put the fate of public lands conservation under “local control.” This process culminated in a bill that proposed to designate a modest Bears Ears National Conservation Area, spanning 857,603 acres. The UPLI bill was deemed by tribes and conservation groups to give away too much public land to industrial interests, so it never gained traction in Congress and ultimately died.

In 2015, five local Tribes – the Hopi, Navajo, Ute, Zuni, and Ute Mountain Ute – abandoned the UPLI proposal and authored the original proposal to protect a National Monument at Bears Ears to protect the abundant cliff dwellings and other archaeological sites, inspiring slot canyons and buttes, and native ecosystems of the Bears Ears area. Conservation groups advocated in support of the Tribes’ proposal, which encompassed potential wilderness like the Grand Gulch Primitive Area, and landmarks like Valley of the Gods, Comb Ridge, Cedar Mesa, and the Bears Ears themselves (a pair of buttes that can be seen from afar, rising from the flanks of the Abajo Mountains). The Tribal proposal was a natural complement to other protected lands in the region, including Canyonlands, Bryce Canyon, and Zion National Parks, as well as tribally-managed Monument Valley immediately to the south on the Navajo reservation.

Environmental threats began to these lands began to mount, with proposals for uranium mining and oil and gas drilling adding to the chronic degradation of livestock grazing on the fragile biological soil crusts of Cedar Mesa and the surrounding canyon country.

The Obama administration sought to solve the problem while appeasing local anti-conservationists, and instead of designating all of the Bears Ears Tribal proposal, he created a smaller, 1.35 million acre Bears Ears National Monument that lopped off half a million acres to assuage concerns from local governments. Among the lands excluded were Wilson Mesa, the eastern slopes of the Abajo Mountains, and the lands between Red Canyon and White Canyon. But he did add Tribal co-management, a key aspect that the Indigenous governments were seeking. While many were privately disappointed that the resulting National Monument was smaller than it should have been, it was widely celebrated by both Tribes and conservation groups (including WWP) as a major achievement.

The anti-conservation local governments, unsatisfied with the half a million acres that got pulled out of the National Monument at their request, cried foul. But they were powerless to overcome President Obama’s Monument proclamation.

In the spring of 2017, newly-elected President Trump sent Ryan Zinke, his Secretary of Interior, to Bears Ears on a listening tour of the Bears Ears region. He wasn’t a very good listener. In fact, when was asked by an Indigenous representative why he refused a meeting with the Bears Ears Intertribal Council, he scolded, “Be nice. Don’t be rude.”

This slap in the face of Indigenous interests was the prelude to an even bigger slap in the face: President Trump’s December 2017 proclamation slashing the size of Bears Ears from 1.35 million acres to 121,096 acres in two isolated units. He tried to put a veneer of Indigenous legitimacy on his rescission by renaming Bears Ears the Shash Jáa National Monument. No one was fooled. Gone was Indigenous co-management, replaced by an advisory committee where white representatives would outnumber Tribal ones. Trump’s proclamation also reopened the Grand Canyon Trust’s grazing allotments in the Escalante Canyons to livestock grazing.

The rope was tugged back In 2021, when President Joe Biden issued two new proclamations for Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante, restoring the original Obama Monuments and adding 13,000 additional acres that were added during the Trump recission. Biden’s Interior developed Monument Management Plans.

Then in 2026, a Congressional Review Act bid to overturn the Management Plan by Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) and Rep. John Curtis (R-UT) failed as the clock ran out before the resolution could come to the floor. This was a radical move, because the Congressional Review Act overturns not just the federal rule (in this case, a management plan) in question, but also permanently blocks any “substantially similar” rule from ever taking effect in the future. If the CRA had eviscerated the monument plans, the monuments could have been left unmanaged.

And then, last week, the latest pull back over to the side of extraction. According to Trump’s own Fact Sheet on the recent rescission, “One Proclamation reduces the size of the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument from approximately 1.87 million acres to approximately 181,500 acres. Another Proclamation reduces the size of the Bears Ears National Monument from approximately 1.36 million acres to approximately 121,100 acres.” Everything else in his Fact Sheet is pure fiction. It’s not “rightsizing” and doesn’t “reduce these monuments to appropriate sizes.” It slashes protections across 90 percent of the public lands that were designated, leaving the majority of the “objects of historic or scientific interest” for which Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante were designated, completely unprotected. Cliff dwellings. Pictograph panels. Dinosaur tracks. Ancient fossils. An entire staircase of exposed sedimentary layers marching down toward the Grand Canyon, telling the story of eons of geologic creation that took hundreds of millions of years to complete.

The new Monument Proclamations for Bears Ears and Grand Staircase wave away these historically and scientifically important objects by arbitrarily reclassifying them as “generic features and landscapes” or having “relative commonness” throughout the region. If one President protects cliff dwellings and pictograph panels and geologic features as significant, can a later President declare them insignificant? And how do we reconcile this wholesale dismissal of sacred sites?

Under the Antiquities Act, the President “is hereby authorized, in his discretion, to declare by public proclamation historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, and other objects of historic or scientific interest” as National Monuments. Congress did not give the President authority to subtract from National Monuments in any way. Nor did Congress grant a sitting President the authority to second-guess the decisions of a previous President that objects deemed significant from a scientific or cultural perspective and decide that they have suddenly become insignificant. In legal parlance, yesterday’s monument proclamations are an action deemed ultra vires, or “beyond the powers” of the President under the Antiquities Act. Congress makes the law, Presidents sign the law, and future Presidents are required to follow the law.

But this new Trump proclamation goes even farther, promoting extractive uses within the tattered fragments of the remaining National Monuments, stating that the “Secretaries shall endeavor to authorize traditional land uses within the Monument, such as grazing, recreation, timber management, public access, and infrastructure development, to the greatest extent possible….” (Emphasis added.) It directs federal officials to “consider livestock grazing to constitute a traditional cultural place (TCP) and shall consider how proposed activities will impact that TCP….” That’s another backhanded swipe at the Tribes: The acronym TCP actually stands for Traditional Cultural Property, which refers to tribally-identified cultural sites that are given federal protection under the National Historic Preservation Act.

For more than a century, Presidents have proclaimed national monuments, many of them across very large acreages. Theodore Roosevelt was the first, setting the precedents that still apply today. Roosevelt proclaimed 808,120 acres of public land as Grand Canyon National Monument, to protect “an object of unusual scientific interest, being the greatest eroded canyon in the United States.” He wasn’t trying to appease anybody. This, after the local publication, Williams Sun editorialized that an 1895 congressional bill to protect the Grand Canyon was a “fiendish and diabolical scheme” drawn up by lawmakers “suckled by a sow and raised by an idiot,” and protesting that “the fate of Arizona depends exclusively upon the development of her mineral resources.” Sound familiar? The rhetoric coming out of Utah anti-environmentalists echoes these warped sentiments.

One year after designating the Grand Canyon NM (which later became a National Park), Roosevelt designated Mount Olympus National Monument, encompassing 610,560 acres to protect “numerous glaciers” and “the summer range and breeding grounds of the Olympic elk.” Both the Grand Canyon and Mount Olympus grew to be crown jewels of our National Park System, and economic engines of regional prosperity.

Trump isn’t half the president of Theodore Roosevelt. Not even a tiny fraction. You can tell by the size of his Monuments.

For the Grand Canyon, monument opponents filed a lawsuit, in a case called Cameron v. United States, which went all the way to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court affirmed that the Grand Canyon is an object of scientific interest and affirmed Roosevelt’s expansive National Monument designation.

So when President Trump trots out the tired old argument that Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante were not “confined to ‘the smallest area compatible with the proper care and management of the objects to be protected,’” and asserts an “overreach and abuse of the Antiquities Act,” he’s contradicting a century of applicable precedent for the statute.

The Tribes have been swift to weigh in. The Bears Ears Intertribal Coalition stated that this latest Bears Ears proclamation “weakens protections for a living cultural landscape and sacred ancestral homeland that has been cared for by Indigenous peoples since time immemorial.” Grand Staircase-Escalante Inter-Tribal Coalition Coordinator Autumn Gillard, a Southern Paiute, stated of that monument proclamation, “Today’s action is a direct strike against the federal government’s duty to consult with Tribes. It also profoundly disrespects our intergenerational Traditional Knowledge by destroying a framework for Tribal co-stewardship over our ancestral lands in which we invested years of effort. Today’s action cannot stand.”

Trump’s Bears Ears proclamation is seven times smaller than the UPLI legislation that was sponsored by Rob Bishop, the most famously anti-environmental Member of Congress – out of 571 in Congress – at the time. Congratulations, Mr. President, you have won the race to the bottom. We’ll see you in court.

Erik Molvar is a wildlife biologist and is Executive Director of Western Watersheds Project, a nonprofit group dedicated to protecting and restoring watersheds and wildlife on western public lands.