Trump is proposing 1.2 billion in cuts to the National Park's budget by transferring properties to the states or tribal management.

[Diane Greer]

There is an article in Bloomberg and some other media outlets about how Trump wants to cut 1.2 billion from the National Parks budget by offloading preserves, monuments and recreation areas to the states or tribal management.

See;

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2025-06-02/trump-plans-to-offload-national-park-sites-but-states-don-t-want-them

 

[fossana]

I live within an hour to Zion NP. Utah politicians want to reap the economic benefits of Park tourism, but do virtually nothing to mitigate the environmental, traffic, recreational, wildfire or water-related impacts. I shudder to think what would happen if the Utah parks were "managed" like State Trust Lands.

+ a KUER article on SAR impacts: https://www.kuer.org/sports-recreat...arch-and-rescue-teams-could-be-stretched-thin

 

[Bob]

It's about obscure and less used sites....... check the entire line of questioning first.

The gutting of the National Park Service

Plus: An attack on pro-Israel protesters in Colorado, a conservative wins Poland's presidential elections, and more...

reason.com

 

[zionsky]

Cut $1.2 billion and ALL parks will suffer! And that's unfortunate whether you visit national parks or not.

 

[fossana]

I'm sure those 13 full-time employees laid off at Zion NP this Feb were also "dispensable", like the "obscure" recreational areas.

 

[kwc]

Not exactly some obscure parks and monuments …

National Park Service Budget Cuts
- Overall Reduction: The NPS budget would be slashed by $1.2 billion, dropping from $2.67 billion to $1.8 billion, a 31% decrease and the largest cut in the agency’s 109-year history.
- Operational Funding: A $900 million cut to park operations could force the closure of up to 350 park units, impacting more than 75% of the National Park System.
- Natural Resource Programs: Funding would be cut by 95%, gutting efforts to protect ecosystems and wildlife.
- Cultural Programs: A 60% reduction would jeopardize preservation of historic landmarks and cultural heritage sites.
- National Heritage Areas Program: This program, supporting 62 regions nationwide, would be completely defunded.
- Land and Water Conservation Fund: Funding would be eliminated entirely, cutting off a critical lifeline for parks, wildlife refuges, and public lands.

In 2019, national parks generated $41.7 billion in economic output and supported 340,500 jobs nationwide.

 

[Diane Greer]

KWC's numbers are helpful in understanding the magnitude of the cuts and the important programs that will be impacted by the cuts. Here is the National Parks Conservation Association reaction to the cut: https://www.npca.org/articles/8495-...get-could-decimate-at-least-350-national-park

Interestingly in 2022 there were 153.8 million tax return filed in the U.S.. To avoid 1.9 billion in cuts each return would need to pay an additional $12.35. Small price to pay to preserve our public lands, conservation programs and national heritage sites/programs. Not to mention all those jobs. We are talking about places like Chaco Canyon and Natural Bridges, just to name two that come immediately to mind. (These numbers are also ignoring the revenue raised through visitor fees.)

How can this possibly make sense?

 

[fossana]

The other thing to keep in mind is that many of the parks and recreation areas have non-profit partners that take up the slack through private donations, for example. This is not a sustainable model. Given the multitude of benefits that we receive from our public lands, and widespread bipartisan support, it's disturbing how little value is placed on them by this administration in lieu of tax cuts for the ultra-wealthy and a $45M+ birthday parade.

 

[kwc]

And it gets even better … this gem was introduced by the senator from Utah.

The Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee budget reconciliation bill text released June 11 includes a range of extraordinary giveaways aimed at privatizing public lands and advancing energy dominance at the expense of public lands and resources.

Key takeaways on the public lands sell-off title:​

• The bill forces the arbitrary sale of at least 2 million acres of Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management lands in 11 Western states over the next five years, and it gives the secretaries of the interior and agriculture broad discretion to choose which places should be sold off. This, just weeks after bipartisan outrage over land sell off text threatened passage of the House bill. That provision was ultimately removed from the House bill and should be removed from the Senate accordingly.
• The bill directs what is likely the largest single sale of national public lands in modern history to help cut taxes for the richest people in the country. It trades ordinary Americans’ access to outdoor recreation for a short-term payoff that disproportionately benefits the privileged and well-connected.
• Public lands eligible for sale in the bill encompass over 120 million acres, including local recreation areas, wilderness study areas, inventoried roadless areas, critical wildlife habitat and big game migration corridors.
• The bill’s process for selling off lands runs at breakneck speed, demanding the nomination of tracts within 30 days, then every 60 days until the arbitrary multi-million-acre goal is met, all without hearings, debate or public input.
• The bill sets up relatively under-resourced state and local governments to lose open bidding wars to well-heeled commercial interests. It also fails to give sovereign Tribal Nations the right of first refusal to bid on lands, even for areas that are a part of their traditional homelands or contain sacred sites.
• The public lands sell-off provision masquerades as a way to provide more housing, but it lacks safeguards to ensure land is used for that purpose, and it sets up a system where lands could be sold or resold for non-housing uses after just 10 years. Research suggests that very little of the land managed by the BLM and USFS is actually suitable for housing.
• Land agencies already have ways to identify public lands for uses like housing if it serves community needs. Jury-rigging a new way to force such “disposal” as part of the budget reconciliation process sets up a precedent to quickly liquidate huge chunks of America’s treasured lands in the future whenever politicians have a pet project to pay for.

 

[OldBill]

It's still a proposal. There's a good chance it won't be as bad as feared:
NPS funding

 

[Jorey]

It's still a proposal. There's a good chance it won't be as bad as feared:
NPS funding

From the article you linked:

The proposed cuts include a 19 percent reduction for park visitor services, a 39 percent reduction for facility operation and maintenance and a 51 percent cut for resource stewardship, which includes “the protection of unique natural and historical features of units of the National Park System.”


Say it's half of that. This is somehow good?

 

[OldBill]

Say it's half of that. This is somehow good?

Can't speculate but it's clear from the article's discussion that it won't be as bad as feared. Doesn't mean it's good either. But it certainly adds more context and I'm not going to panic over it

 

[John Morrow]

It's about obscure and less used sites....... check the entire line of questioning first.

The gutting of the National Park Service

Plus: An attack on pro-Israel protesters in Colorado, a conservative wins Poland's presidential elections, and more...

reason.com

NPS sites are not just about scenery and tourism. They exist for ecological preservation, historic preservation, and other unique values (Flight 93 for example) of NATIONAL interest. If it is thought they are a fiscal burden to the Fed budget, how would they not be to a state budget? More likely they'd be sold. There are literally hundreds of National Battlefields east of the Mississippi. No agency is better suited to interpret such places than good old NPS Rangers. We sould be proud of ALL these sites as National Treasures that set us apart from any other great nation.
The Reason article is a ridiculous argument. Many of my tax $$$ may not benefit me personally, but I believe in the betterment of all Americans with my taxes. This is what civil society is about.

The stupidass military parade could have funded these lesser sites for a decade or more. Our Military deserves real, genuine, and authentic gratitude for their sacrifices on my behalf. Not to be treated like puppets for the senile orange wannabe dictator, Commander Bonespur.

 

[fossana]

Adding more details to @kwc's post.

• Link to the BLM/USFS forced land sale proposal
• The land would be sold for housing development and oil and gas extraction.
  • For non-Utahns, development interests run UT. The State Trust system is a model for how this would look in practice. Our public lands would be funneled into the hands of cronies.
• Areas like National Monuments, National Recreation Areas, and Wilderness Areas, as well as areas under grazing or mining leases, are excluded, but the Trump admin and UT politicians are continuing their onslaught on National Monuments and the Antiquities Act.
  • This is the third time in less than a year that UT has attempted to take over federal public lands.
  • I expect them to go after Wilderness Areas next.

I ran the numbers for UT last week:

 

[kwc]

Here is a map of the federal lands that would be up for sale to the highest bidder IF this legislation passes.

 

[John Morrow]

I need to do some research. That map shows essentially some whole National Forests and BLM Districts outside of protected Congressionally Designated Wilderness. "Available" must be a key word. Does anyone already have the actual Bill language? Not that any of this is at all acceptable. Anyone who lives is a state with a Republican Senator needs to contact them. This is not controversial. Every hunting and fishing group needs to be made aware of this.
Realize that the Senate authors of this hate all Federal public lands. The very democratic ideal of public commons, at all, goes against their philosophy.

 

[fossana]

That map was produced by conservation groups supposedly based on *potentially eligible* land should the amendment get passed with the budget bill. I also found some inconsistencies. One of the Wilderness Areas by my town is missing, which according to the proposed amendment text shouldn't be. From the amendment text:

 

[John Morrow]

That map was produced by conservation groups supposedly based on *potentially eligible* land should the amendment get passed with the budget bill. I also found some inconsistencies. One of the Wilderness Areas by my town is missing, which according to the proposed amendment text shouldn't be. From the amendment text:

View attachment 142337

Thank you for locating the actual text @fossana.

 

[fossana]

After some amendment provisions were struck down by the Parliamentarian, Senator Mike Lee yanked his public land sell-off amendment from the budget bill late last night. Multiple conservation and outdoor recreation groups spanning the political spectrum were vocal in their opposition to the amendment. Thanks to the MT and ID GOP Senators and Reps, who joined the Dems in opposing the amendment.

NYT article
non-paywalled version

 

[Jackson]

After some amendment provisions were struck down by the Parliamentarian, Senator Mike Lee yanked his public land sell-off amendment from the budget bill late last night. Multiple conservation and outdoor recreation groups spanning the political spectrum were vocal in their opposition to the amendment. Thanks to the MT and ID GOP Senators and Reps, who joined the Dems in opposing the amendment.

NYT article
non-paywalled version

It was great to see our members of Congress here in Montana take a stand on this one. An issue that such a large majority agrees on.