By Anna Keeley
The US National Parks are some of the most nationally visited places, covering around 3.4% of the US and bringing incredible amounts of biological diversity and beauty to the country’s landscape.[1] The first national park, Yellowstone, was established in 1872 following the Yellowstone Act, in which the park became protected and under the control of the Secretary of the Interior.[2] This establishment started the national park movement, ultimately leading to millions of acres of land used for the enjoyment of the people. Throughout the 20th century, the national park system grew and became a great highlight of the country, representing governmental and presidential action towards preserving the environment for the well-being of ecosystems and citizens. President Roosevelt was a major proponent of the parks, creating five more during his time in office and signing the Antiquities Act which landmarked places as national monuments – including the Grand Canyon.[3] With such progress, no one would suspect the deterioration of the national parks, until more recently.
Regardless of the benefits these parks bring, from biodiversity support to around $42 billion boosting the national economy, they are facing more threats than ever before.[4] Changing environmental policies are a critical factor that contribute to such threats, particularly with respect to the current Trump administration. In 2022, the Inflation Reduction Act passed by President Biden set aside around $700 million for infrastructure projects intended to help protect parks from the worsening climate issues.[5] However, Trump’s various policy adjustments may work to erase all previous efforts done to ensure the stability and safety of the parks. A key example is with Trump’s current plan to remove the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) used to implement National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), a long-standing policy that guides federal decision-making on projects with environmental impacts. [6], [7] While there are some established handbooks and regulations as to how the national parks should be managed, this eradication leaves it up to the Interior Department’s discretion in implementing NEPA for national park decision-making. This is of extreme concern as it eliminates consistency and security when protecting the well-being of the parks.
In addition to these policy changes, President Trump is following much of the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, highlighted with his appointment of its chief architect as the White House budget director. [8] Project 2025 itself calls for even more government deregulation, particularly around environmental policies aimed at reducing fossil fuel expansion.[9] Trump is aiming to reduce the protection of national monuments and parks to allow for more onshore oil and gas drilling on public lands. An example of this is with his plan to remove the 10-mile buffer that blocks such fossil fuel development around Chaco Cultural Historic National Park.[10] This is just one of the many adjustments Trump plans to make, causing the reduction of important land and wildlife protections as he hands over public lands to large, profit-seeking, environmental-polluting corporations.[11]
This deregulation is not the only concern surrounding the future of national parks; in fact, the more critical crisis arises from Trump’s budgetary restrictions and layoffs in the National Park Service. In February 2025, he has already fired 1,000 workers as he is aiming to gut the federal workforce and shrink the government.[12] Such significant layoffs will have major impacts on park operations and maintenance, especially as more and more people are visiting the parks – up around 16% from 2010.[13] There are risks that guided tours will be canceled, trash will pile up, protection within the parks will weaken, operating hours may decrease and overall maintenance projects will be halted.[14] Such quick changes from the administration are extremely dangerous for public projects as a whole, however is especially concerning for the beloved areas the US have deemed national parks.
While there may be debates around government budgets, size and policies, one thing that is for certain is the public’s love for the national parks. People travel from all over the world and country to see the incredible nature such parks obtain. By reducing their budgets and protection, the Trump administration is not only risking the status of countless ecosystems and species, but the well-being of citizens and communities that rely on the influx of national park endorsed tourism.[15] The preservation of national parks should be unquestionable; they are essential to the well-being of the US population, environment and local economies. Trump’s efforts to encourage fossil fuel production and minimize government protection of national parks must be prevented at all costs. These parks are not just public lands but a representation of the United States’ commitment to preserving natural beauty, history, adventure, and wildlife for generations to come.
[1] GEICO Living. (n.d.). 9 fascinating facts about the national parks. GEICO. Retrieved March 17, 2025, from https://living.geico.com/driving/rv-boat-more/9-fascinating-facts-about-the-national-parks/
[2] National Park Service. (n.d.). Quick NPS history. U.S. Department of the Interior. Retrieved March 17, 2025, from https://www.nps.gov/articles/quick-nps-history.htm
[3] PBS. (n.d.). Theodore Roosevelt. Ken Burns: The National Parks. Retrieved March 17, 2025, from https://www.pbs.org/kenburns/the-national-parks/theodore-roosevelt
[4] Seely, H. (2023, May 4). Benefits of national parks. Tamborasi. Retrieved March 17, 2025, from https://www.tamborasi.com/benefits-of-national-parks/
[5] Hart, D., & Ho, L. (2023, August 16). National parks are in climate distress. This law is one step toward a solution. National Parks Conservation Association. Retrieved March 17, 2025, from https://www.npca.org/articles/3568-national-parks-are-in-climate-distress-this-law-is-one-step-toward-a
[6] Council on Environmental Quality. (2025, February 25). National Environmental Policy Act implementing regulations—Interim final rule. U.S. Department of Energy. Retrieved March 17, 2025, from https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2025-02/ceq-reg-2025-02-25-interim-final-rule.pdf
[7] Repanshek, K. (2025, February 20). Trump administration moving to upend Magna Carta of environment laws. National Parks Traveler. Retrieved March 17, 2025, from https://www.nationalparkstraveler.org/2025/02/trump-administration-moving-upend-magna-carta-environment-laws
[8] Ireland, I. (2025, March 6). Nixing efforts to fight climate change and protect environment: Trump administration follows Project 2025 blueprint. Mississippi Free Press. https://www.mississippifreepress.org/nixing-efforts-to-fight-climate-change-and-protect-environment-trump-administration-follows-project-2025-blueprint/
[9] Wendling, M. (2025, February 13). Project 2025: The right-wing wish list for Trump’s second term. BBC News. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c977njnvq2do
[10] Repanshek, K. (2024, November 7). On a collision course: National parks, Project ’25, and President Trump. National Parks Traveler. https://www.nationalparkstraveler.org/2024/11/collision-course-national-parks-project-25-and-president-trump
[11] Groetzinger, K. (2024, July 16). Project 2025 would devastate America’s public lands. Center for Western Priorities. https://westernpriorities.org/2024/07/project-2025-would-devastate-americas-public-lands/
[12] Jones, B. (2025, February 19). The crisis coming for our national parks, explained in two charts. Vox. https://www.vox.com/down-to-earth/400209/national-parks-trump-government-layoffs-visit-data
[13] “” “”
[14] Associated Press. (2025, February 20). Trump’s firing of 1,000 National Park workers raises concerns about maintenance and operating hours. WTTW News. https://news.wttw.com/2025/02/20/trump-s-firing-1000-national-park-workers-raises-concerns-about-maintenance-and
[15] Repanshek, K. (2025, February 16). Trump administration’s cuts to National Park Service could impact local communities. National Parks Traveler. https://www.nationalparkstraveler.org/2025/02/trump-administrations-cuts-national-park-service-could-impact-local-communities
Hi Anna,
Really enjoyed reading your post! National parks hold some of the most fond memories for me and many other Americans. National parks are sacred for many reasons, and it is sad to see them just attributed to their natural resources. National parks were established to protect these unique landscapes from situations like these, and the current administration should not have the jurisdiction to change that. The number of jobs and livelihoods affected in the sake of protecting the “national budget” is so odd to me, since it was such a sliver to begin with. Even looking from a purely economic cost-benefit analysis perspective, the amount of income these parks make exceeds how much we are investing in these parks. I hope all those directly affected find loopholes and the national parks can return to providing their intended services to national and international visitors. I hope the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) can withstand the Trump administration’s efforts to undermine its jurisdiction, but it is hard to tell how long it can push back on restrictive policies. Thank you for bringing this conversation to light, all Americans need to know about what’s going on in our national parks.
Hi Anna!
Reading your post made me want to look into the operating costs of parks and what these attacks will mean for the future of National Parks. According to public record, the average salary of a National Parks employee is $61,069 which is 14.9% lower than the national average for government employees and 20.8% lower than other federal agencies. An economic evaluation of the NPS system determined its worth at $100 billion dollars with large public support, over 330 million visitors per year. However, since 1999 to 2018, the budget has remained extremely low, growing only from $2.2 billion to $2.5 billion despite significant periods of inflation. As a result of this and with more and more natural spaces needing maintenance, a $12 billion backlog exists. As spaces that we all know, love, and benefit from, putting the National Parks in an even more strained position might prevent the basic functioning and future of the the parks. To put into perspective just how valuable the parks are beyond our personal enjoyment, tourism activities generate $36 billion in economic activity and over 300,000 jobs. Therefore, the current administration’s attempts to increase “efficiency” and reduce costs simply does not make sense in this context when National Parks Federal spending amounts to literally 0.05% of the federal budget compared to the 13.3% spent solely on defense, as an example. If we want these places to continue to exist for future generations, we must inform Americans that they are under attack and need our help.
I agree with this post, Anna–the value of preserving national parks through financial and policy support should not be questioned. As someone who has visited national parks across the country, from Maine to Montana to Washington, the diverse natural beauty that the U.S. offers is unmatched. In addition, as this blog details, the vibrant communities that rely on national park tourism contribute substantial economic output to the country through visitor spending, jobs, and labor income. Trump’s national park employee layoffs in particular threaten the vitality of these communities, as well as the functionality of visitor experiences. As park busy seasons approach, visitors are feeling the impact of cuts already. Park entrance lines are longer, some visitor centers have reduced opening hours, and backcountry hiking trails are facing closures. Public safety is also at risk, as hikers taking on remote terrain and severe weather often require on-scene aid from park rangers. Ultimately, Trump’s ideas of “workforce optimization” focus on eliminating waste that doesn’t “align with American values or address the needs of the American people”. However, the implementation of this guiding concept fails to align with the trajectory of national parks, given that over three-fourths of Americans view the National Park Service favorably and national park visitation continues to grow each year.
Thanks for the post, Anna! Being from Arizona, a lot of my core memories of travelling with my family were to places like the Grand Canyon or like Zion National park in Utah. Experiencing the natural beauty of these places made me enjoy spending time in nature, and I’m sure it has the same effect on so many others. In my opinion, I find the prospect of building fossil fuel plants on these national parks equivalent to a mockery. We looked at the map of federal lands of the US and saw how much federally-controlled land there is outside of national parks on barren land that would be better suited for large-scale projects like the ones the Trump Administration has in mind. For instance, regarding the Chaco National Park example you mentioned, I find it hard to believe that the proponents of the fossil fuel development “need” to build within the 10-mile radius of the park. Also, I believe that the revenue generated from national parks is often overlooked by pro-development individuals. It would take a lot of fossil fuels to make up the $42 billion that the economy gets from national parks. Overall, I really hope there is a change of heart at the government-level regarding the preservation of national parks, but unfortunately, it seems unlikely.