Public Lands, Private Interests
- WULR Team
- Oct 10
- 4 min read
The Changing Political Landscape of America’s Public Lands
Written on March 17th, 2025
Written by Ann Lundstrom
President Franklin D. Roosevelt, in a radio address from Glacier National Park, famously stated, “There is nothing so American as our national parks....The fundamental idea behind the parks...is that the country belongs to the people, that it is in process of making for the enrichment of the lives of all of us.” Since the establishment of the first national park in 1872, according to the National Park Service, the U.S. has built a strong foundation for the appreciation and conservation of its natural resources. However, in the last several weeks, President Trump has directed presidential actions that may have resounding consequences on preservation and protection efforts.
One of the stated goals of those actions is to maximize government efficiency. With the development of the Department of Government Efficiency, thousands of National Park Service workers were fired on February 14th. This has far-reaching consequences for the operations of the parks. Already, several parks have changed their schedules and experienced disruptions due to a lack of staffing, according to NPR. The American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees reported that a court ruling on March 13th, presided over by Judge William Alsup in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, “ordered immediate reinstatement of terminated probationary employees of the Veterans Affairs, Agriculture, Interior, Energy, Defense, and Treasury departments.” While the Trump administration has already appealed the cases, Labor and Workplace Correspondent Andrea Hsu, in an article for NPR News, discusses how the burden on the states may allow all employees to be reinstated. Ongoing debates about the economic condition of the states and the individual welfare of those left unemployed shed little light on the outcome of this unresolved issue.
In the uncertainty of the future of National Park Service employees, it is hard to overstate their importance to the functioning of the national parks. Rangers and other employees play vital roles in conservation, research, maintenance and education. In an ABC News article, Kristen Brengel, senior vice president of governmental affairs at the National Parks Conservation Association, says, “We fully expect visitors to flood into national parks this spring and summer, and for parks to just generally be understaffed and not be able to handle that influx.” With reduced staffing, parks face mounting difficulties in maintenance, ensuring visitor safety and preserving the natural environment. The decision to fire so many National Park Service employees also jeopardizes the mission set forth by the Organic Act of 1916, which emphasizes efforts in conservation and protection to “leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations,” as outlined by the NPS. This act introduces a legal responsibility to ensure the protection of the national parks. The National Historic Preservation Act and the National Environmental Policy Act also underscore the importance of the federal government in thoroughly evaluating the effects of its actions on the environment. These layoffs not only threaten the integrity of the parks but also compromise the preservation efforts of foundational laws.
While staffing challenges within the National Park Service highlight the complexities of federal land management, another significant policy shift is taking shape. The Trump Administration recently released a presidential act centering on American timber production. Published by the White House, the “Immediate Expansion of American Timber Production” directs federal agencies to evaluate how to streamline permitting processes and work around acts like the Endangered Species Act to increase domestic lumber production. As journalist Lisa Friedman explains for the New York Times, the Endangered Species Act “requires thorough assessments to ensure that activities like logging do not harm protected wildlife and their habitats.” The question remains whether a balance between environmental protection and logging efforts can be achieved. Proponents like the American Forest Resource Council state that not only will this improve jobs and housing prices, but clearing public forests will also help prevent the spread of wildfires. Clearing out old growth can reduce the intensity of the wildfires, but forest management and preservation are complicated. In some cases, logging can actually increase the intensity and severity of wildfires. Author, ecologist, and Grist Magazine writer Chad Hanson explains that dense, mature trees provide a higher shade canopy, maintaining moisture and a cool environment that lessens the intensity of fires. It takes careful consideration when choosing areas to log. The override in regulations may make it easier for states and private entities to pursue large-scale logging projects without conducting thorough environmental reviews. This could potentially lead to unsustainable practices and the degradation of fragile ecosystems.
With the employee termination of the National Park Service and a push for increased timber production, there’s concern for a broader trend of prioritizing short-term economic goals over legal and ethical obligations to protect public lands. The potential consequences not only undermine the legal responsibilities but also the broader public trust in the government to safeguard America’s natural heritage. Public lands need public advocacy, and with the weakening of federal support, it comes down to the citizens and organizations to champion the protection of these shared lands and ensure their preservation for future generations.
