EO-14408
Removing Unnecessary and Counterproductive Restrictions on Access to Federal Lands
- Signed
- May 29, 2026
- Published
- Jun 3, 2026
Federal Register: 2026-11181
Source: Federal Register.
Rescinding Off-Road Vehicle Rules on Federal Lands
Impact5/10
What it does
This order rescinds two executive orders from the 1970s — EO 11644 (1972) and EO 11989 (1977) — that required federal agencies to designate specific areas, roads, and trails where off-road vehicles (ORVs) could be used, based on criteria meant to minimize environmental and social impacts. It directs the Departments of Interior, Agriculture, and other relevant agencies to initiate rulemakings to rescind or revise the regulations that were built on those older orders. Going forward, ORV use on federal lands would be governed by existing statutes — such as NEPA, the ESA, FLPMA, and agency-specific authorities — rather than the additional designation criteria the 1970s orders imposed.
Who benefits
Off-road vehicle recreationists (ATV, dirt bike, and 4x4 users) who want access to more federal land trails and areas. Energy companies, timber operators, and utility maintenance crews who use ORVs to access remote federal land for work. Rural communities and outfitters whose economies depend on ORV tourism. Hikers and backcountry users who access remote areas via motorized vehicles. Ranchers and agricultural operators who use ORVs on federal grazing lands. Hunters and anglers who rely on ORVs to reach remote areas.
Who is affected
Hikers, backpackers, and non-motorized recreationists who may experience increased ORV traffic in previously quiet or restricted areas. Wildlife and habitat conservation advocates who relied on the 1970s criteria to limit disturbance to sensitive ecosystems. Tribal nations with cultural or treaty interests in federal lands that may see increased motorized access. Residents of communities near federal lands who may experience increased noise, dust, or erosion. State and local governments that coordinate land-use planning with federal agencies. Endangered or threatened species whose habitats overlap with newly accessible ORV routes.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the 1970s executive orders imposed vague, subjective criteria — such as minimizing "aesthetic" impacts — that gave agencies nearly unlimited discretion to block legitimate uses of public land, including energy production, timber harvesting, and recreation. They contend that Congress has already enacted a robust set of environmental statutes (NEPA, ESA, FLPMA, NHPA) that provide adequate protection, making the additional executive-order criteria redundant and counterproductive. Supporters further argue that modern land-management technology and data allow agencies to make better, more targeted decisions under statutory frameworks than under the broad, ill-defined standards of 50-year-old orders.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the 1970s executive orders provided a critical, proven layer of protection specifically tailored to ORV impacts — soil erosion, wildlife disturbance, habitat fragmentation, and conflicts with non-motorized users — that existing statutes were not designed to address with the same specificity. They contend that removing these designation criteria would give agencies broad discretion to open sensitive lands to ORV use without the structured environmental review the old orders required, potentially leading to irreversible damage to ecosystems, cultural sites, and wilderness character. Opponents further argue that the statutory framework cited as a replacement addresses general land management, not the particular and well-documented harms of unregulated ORV use.
Constitutional basis
Executive orders rest on constitutional authority or statutory delegation. This summary describes the legal grounding cited or implied by the order.
The order rests on the President's Article II, Section 1 executive power and the Take Care Clause (Art. II, Sec. 3), which authorize the President to direct executive branch agencies in managing federal property. It also draws on Congress's Property Clause authority (Art. IV, Sec. 3, Cl. 2), delegated to the executive through FLPMA (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), and the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). Because the order rescinds prior executive orders and directs new rulemakings — rather than itself changing regulations — it operates within established presidential authority over executive branch policy, though the subsequent agency rulemakings will face independent judicial scrutiny under Loper Bright (2024) and the major questions doctrine.