President Trump's budget proposal containing steep cuts to the National Park Service has sparked significant pushback from members of his own party. Several key Republican lawmakers have expressed worry about the administration's plan to slash NPS operations by 30 percent and transfer certain park sites to state control.
According to The Hill, the administration has proposed reducing the park service's operations and staffing budgets by nearly a third while also suggesting that some NPS sites be transferred to state management.
The budget plan includes a 19 percent reduction in visitor services, a 39 percent cut to facility operations and maintenance, and a staggering 51 percent decrease in resource stewardship, which covers the protection of unique natural and historical features within the park system.
Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho), who chairs the House appropriations subcommittee responsible for NPS funding, described the administration's proposed cuts as "concerning" and indicated his committee needs more information about how the changes would affect park operations.
Sen. Steve Daines (R-Montana), who represents a state home to Yellowstone and Glacier National Parks, emphasized his position as a "strong supporter" of national parks and his desire to ensure they receive adequate funding. Daines, facing reelection next year, suggested the congressional appropriations process would ultimately "sort all this out."
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), who chairs the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee for Interior Department funding, questioned how the cuts align with the administration's stated economic priorities, saying it's "hard to square it with the claims that DOI is focused on fostering the American economy."
Interior Secretary Doug Burgum has attempted to reassure lawmakers that the proposed cuts would not eliminate park rangers or wildland firefighters, instead focusing on reducing administrative positions.
Burgum stated his priorities during a recent Senate hearing, emphasizing his desire to maintain frontline park workers while reducing overhead costs. "I want more people in the parks, whether they're driving a snowplow in the wintertime or whether they're working with [an] interpreter in the summertime or they're doing trail work. … I want more of that. I want less overhead," he said.
The Interior Secretary has also clarified that none of the nation's 63 "crown jewel" national parks would be transferred to states. Instead, he indicated that sites under consideration for transfer are primarily "historic sites, cultural sites that … have got low visitation … that might better fit into a state, historic society site or some other designation."
Former NPS employees have warned that the proposed cuts to administrative staff could have serious consequences for park operations, particularly during emergencies like wildfires when displaced workers need immediate assistance with accommodations and other support.
The dramatic 51 percent reduction in resource stewardship funding could directly affect visitor experiences, according to a former park service employee. This funding ensures clean air and water in parks, impacts the safety of activities like swimming and fishing, and supports planning for climate change and other future challenges.
The cuts come as parks are already experiencing staffing shortages. At Yosemite National Park, seasonal hiring delays have reportedly forced scientists, IT workers, and rangers to clean bathrooms, while other parks have had to close visitor facilities.
The Trump administration's proposed cuts to the National Park Service are part of a broader effort to reduce federal spending and create what officials describe as leaner, more efficient agencies.
The National Parks Conservation Association estimates that 13 percent of NPS staff positions are already vacant due to previous administration initiatives like buyouts, early retirement, and deferred resignation programs. Critics warn that additional cuts would only worsen existing operational challenges.
Phil Francis, chair of the Coalition to Protect America's Parks and a 41-year NPS veteran, predicted widespread impacts if the proposed cuts are implemented. "There won't be as many rangers, won't be as many maintenance people. … There will be some closures in picnic areas," he said, adding, "It's a widespread issue that's going to affect every park, I think, in the country. I don't think it will be popular."
