Haaland disregarded ethics concerns on Chaco Canyon decision

Interior⁣ Secretary Deb Haaland Dismisses Ethics Concerns Over Oil and Gas Moratorium

In a controversial move, Interior Secretary Deb Haaland has unilaterally dismissed ethics concerns regarding her decision on an oil and gas moratorium in New ‌Mexico.

Back in August, non-profit government watchdog Protect ​the Public’s⁢ Trust (PPT) filed a complaint related to Haaland’s order to restrict energy ‌development in hundreds of thousands of acres in New Mexico. The‍ complaint highlighted⁤ the fact that Haaland’s child, Somah Haaland,⁢ is a ‌prominent member of⁤ an activist organization that lobbied for the restriction of oil and ‌gas leasing in the area.

Somah Haaland, who works for the Pueblo ‍Action Alliance (PAA), a far-left indigenous activist group, played a significant role in opposing energy ⁢development in the region. The organization’s long-term goal of a ⁤20-year moratorium on new leases within a 10-mile radius of New Mexico’s Chaco ⁣Cultural National Historical Park was realized when Haaland, as Secretary of the Interior, implemented‌ the moratorium.

[READ:[READ:Who Is Somah ⁤Haaland, The Activist Daughter Of Biden’s​ Interior Secretary?]

Documents obtained‌ through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) by PPT revealed that ‌the agency’s ethics department recommended Haaland to utilize the “catch all provision” of ⁤federal ethics rules. This provision ⁢allows her to ‍participate in⁣ the decision-making process as long‌ as she personally determines that a reasonable person would not question her impartiality.

Haaland made her determination,⁣ stating that she​ believes a reasonable person with knowledge of the facts​ would not question her impartiality. However, critics ⁤argue that her involvement in activist work with her daughter raises doubts about her ​ability‍ to be impartial in the ⁢decision to restrict ‍oil and gas opportunities in​ the Greater ‍Chaco area.

The decision to implement the moratorium came at the expense of the Navajo Nation, which‌ voted against​ the administration’s plans to‍ withdraw 351,000 acres from consideration for oil and gas leases.

“If Secretary ‌Haaland really is satisfied that she could be impartial in the Chaco Canyon⁣ decision,⁣ she’s in the minority,” said Michael Chamberlain, the director of PPT. ⁣”Considering her previous statements, ‌her daughter’s activism, and her participation in a film advocating for the decision she‍ eventually took, it is more likely that she took the job as Secretary to remove the land around Chaco from oil and gas development.”

About the Author

Tristan ‌Justice⁢ is the western correspondent for The Federalist and the author of Social Justice ‍Redux, a ‌conservative newsletter on culture, health, and wellness. He has also written for The Washington Examiner and⁢ The Daily Signal. His work has been⁤ featured in Real Clear Politics ‌and ‍Fox News. Tristan ⁢graduated from George Washington University with a major⁤ in ‌political science ‍and a⁢ minor in journalism. Follow him on Twitter at @JusticeTristan or contact⁤ him at [email protected]. Sign up for​ Tristan’s⁢ email newsletter here.

⁣In the debate surrounding Haaland’s decision, what are the main⁤ arguments put forth by proponents and critics, respectively, regarding the ethical implications and transparency ⁤of the government’s decision-making process

A formal Article on “Interior Secretary ​Deb Haaland Dismisses Ethics Concerns Over Oil and‌ Gas Moratorium”

In a recent and contentious move, Interior Secretary Deb⁤ Haaland has unilaterally dismissed concerns regarding possible ethical implications stemming from her decision on an oil and gas moratorium in New ​Mexico. This decision has raised eyebrows⁤ among critics and has led to a fervent⁤ discussion regarding the⁣ impartiality ‌and transparency of the government’s decision-making process.

The controversy surrounding Haaland’s decision began when‌ non-profit⁢ government watchdog, Protect the Public’s Trust (PPT), lodged a complaint in August. The complaint was related to the Interior Secretary’s directive to⁣ restrict energy development in hundreds of thousands of acres in New Mexico. PPT’s complaint emphasized the ‌fact ⁤that Haaland’s child, Somah Haaland, holds a prominent position within⁣ an activist organization that was ‍actively lobbying for the restriction of oil and gas leasing in the region.

Somah Haaland works for the Pueblo Action Alliance (PAA), a far-left indigenous activist group, which ⁣played ⁢a significant role in opposing energy development in the‌ area. Through their efforts, the organization ​successfully⁣ advocated for a​ twenty-year moratorium on new leases within a ten-mile radius of New Mexico’s Chaco Cultural National Historical Park. It was under Haaland’s leadership⁢ as ​Secretary of the Interior that this moratorium was implemented.

Critics argue that the involvement of Haaland’s child in an organization that actively ‌pushed​ for the very ​policy she enacted raises serious ethical concerns. The potential conflict of interest is seen ⁤as troubling, ‌as it casts doubt on whether ⁣the decision-making process was impartial and free from outside influence.

Proponents ‍of Haaland’s decision, on the other hand, assert that the moratorium ​was a⁢ necessary step to protect valuable ‌cultural and natural resources. ‍They highlight the ⁢importance ⁤of preserving sensitive areas and assert that Haaland’s action aligns with the administration’s commitment to ​prioritize‍ environmental​ conservation.

To ⁢shed light on the matter, documents have been ​obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, revealing more⁢ information about the circumstances surrounding the decision. The American public and stakeholders deserve‍ full transparency and a thorough examination of the process leading up to the moratorium, so ⁤as to assess the validity of the decision and any potential ethical implications.

The dismissal⁢ of ethics concerns by Interior Secretary Deb Haaland has ignited a spirited debate ⁤on the role of objectivity and transparency in‍ government decision-making. The ⁣delicate balance between conservation efforts and ⁢energy development must be carefully weighed, while ensuring that the decision-making process remains beyond reproach. As discussions on this issue ⁣continue, it is crucial for all parties involved to maintain an open dialogue and​ seek a resolution that upholds the values of impartiality, transparency, and the​ well-being of both the environment and the community.

*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases