Washington, D.C. – Former President Donald Trump has proposed a bold and controversial plan to cut $1 billion from the National Park Service (NPS) and transfer control of many federal park sites to state governments. The announcement has drawn sharp reactions from environmental groups, state officials, and the general public.
If implemented, the proposal could reshape the way America manages its public lands, affecting millions of yearly visitors, conservation efforts, and local economies dependent on tourism.
According to Trump’s plan, his administration would reduce the National Park Service budget by $1 billion over a span of several years. The proposal suggests that many smaller or lesser-visited national park sites could be handed over to state or local governments to manage.
Supporters of the plan argue it will reduce federal spending and give more local control to communities that know their parks best. But critics say it threatens the integrity and protection of treasured American landmarks like Civil War battlefields, historic trails, and cultural heritage sites.
“This is not just a budget cut—it’s a shift in responsibility,” said Mark Stevens, a policy analyst at the Center for American Parks. “Once states take over, there’s no guarantee the funding or protections will remain.”
While Trump’s proposal does not list specific parks to be transferred, experts believe that smaller and less-visited sites—especially historic landmarks and national monuments—could be the first on the list. Sites such as:
These parks might be viewed as less essential by federal standards and more manageable at the state level, according to the draft proposal.
A list of affected parks is expected to be released during upcoming budget discussions.
In speeches and policy papers, Trump has stated that the federal government is bloated and over-regulating public lands. His goal is to “return power to the states” and allow more flexibility in managing parks, especially those that generate low revenue or visitation.
His supporters say that the National Park Service is overburdened, managing over 400 units nationwide with a maintenance backlog of more than $22 billion. They argue that handing over some parks to states could help:
But the opposition believes it’s a slippery slope. “Once you start selling off the family silver, it’s hard to get it back,” said Sarah Whitmore of the Environmental Preservation League.
Governors and state park agencies have had mixed reactions.
Some Republican governors support the idea. For example, Governor Greg Abbott of Texas said his state would be “ready and willing to take over certain federal sites if it means better efficiency and lower costs.”
However, Democratic-led states like California and New York are pushing back hard. California’s governor Gavin Newsom said, “This is a disguised attack on conservation. We will not let California’s national treasures be gutted.”
State officials are concerned about the cost burden, as many states are already struggling with tight budgets, wildfires, and climate-related disasters.
For the average park-goer, the change might not be obvious at first—but long term, it could impact:
“This plan risks opening the door for mining, drilling, or logging in places that are currently protected,” said Jamie Reyes, an NPS veteran and conservation advocate.
This isn’t the first time such a move has been proposed. In the 1980s and again in the early 2000s, some lawmakers pushed for “de-federalizing” certain lands to reduce national debt and allow private-public partnerships.
However, each time, public opposition stopped the plans. Americans, polls show, continue to deeply value their national parks.
In a 2023 Pew Research survey, over 80% of Americans opposed cutting NPS funding, with bipartisan agreement across regions.
Several major environmental organizations, including the Sierra Club, National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA), and Friends of the Earth, are launching campaigns to oppose Trump’s proposal.
“The parks belong to all Americans, not just to whichever state they’re in,” said Lindsay Tucker, NPCA spokesperson. “Transferring parks to states is the first step toward selling or privatizing them.”
Environmental groups fear that once control is decentralized, federal protection laws like the Endangered Species Act or Clean Water Act might not apply as strongly
Congress will now review the proposal as part of the larger federal budget debate. Many lawmakers have promised to fight the $1 billion cut.
Senator Martin Heinrich (D-NM) said, “This plan is dead on arrival in the Senate. National parks are a national duty.”
Meanwhile, Trump’s campaign continues to promote the idea as part of his “America First” agenda, encouraging supporters to demand less federal overreach and more local power.
As the debate heats up, Americans are urged to contact their representatives, attend town halls, and stay informed.
Trump’s national parks proposal is more than just a budget issue. It represents a clash of visions: federal stewardship vs. local control. Supporters see efficiency and empowerment; critics see a risk to nature, heritage, and public access.
Only time will tell if this proposal will move forward—but one thing is clear: the fight over America’s parks is far from over.
For updates and resources on how this change may affect your area or favorite park, visit:
Washington, D.C. – Former President Donald Trump has proposed a bold and controversial plan to cut $1 billion from the National Park Service (NPS) and transfer control of many federal park sites to state governments. The announcement has drawn sharp reactions from environmental groups, state officials, and the general public.
If implemented, the proposal could reshape the way America manages its public lands, affecting millions of yearly visitors, conservation efforts, and local economies dependent on tourism.
According to Trump’s plan, his administration would reduce the National Park Service budget by $1 billion over a span of several years. The proposal suggests that many smaller or lesser-visited national park sites could be handed over to state or local governments to manage.
Supporters of the plan argue it will reduce federal spending and give more local control to communities that know their parks best. But critics say it threatens the integrity and protection of treasured American landmarks like Civil War battlefields, historic trails, and cultural heritage sites.
“This is not just a budget cut—it’s a shift in responsibility,” said Mark Stevens, a policy analyst at the Center for American Parks. “Once states take over, there’s no guarantee the funding or protections will remain.”
While Trump’s proposal does not list specific parks to be transferred, experts believe that smaller and less-visited sites—especially historic landmarks and national monuments—could be the first on the list. Sites such as:
These parks might be viewed as less essential by federal standards and more manageable at the state level, according to the draft proposal.
A list of affected parks is expected to be released during upcoming budget discussions.
In speeches and policy papers, Trump has stated that the federal government is bloated and over-regulating public lands. His goal is to “return power to the states” and allow more flexibility in managing parks, especially those that generate low revenue or visitation.
His supporters say that the National Park Service is overburdened, managing over 400 units nationwide with a maintenance backlog of more than $22 billion. They argue that handing over some parks to states could help:
But the opposition believes it’s a slippery slope. “Once you start selling off the family silver, it’s hard to get it back,” said Sarah Whitmore of the Environmental Preservation League.
Governors and state park agencies have had mixed reactions.
Some Republican governors support the idea. For example, Governor Greg Abbott of Texas said his state would be “ready and willing to take over certain federal sites if it means better efficiency and lower costs.”
However, Democratic-led states like California and New York are pushing back hard. California’s governor Gavin Newsom said, “This is a disguised attack on conservation. We will not let California’s national treasures be gutted.”
State officials are concerned about the cost burden, as many states are already struggling with tight budgets, wildfires, and climate-related disasters.
For the average park-goer, the change might not be obvious at first—but long term, it could impact:
“This plan risks opening the door for mining, drilling, or logging in places that are currently protected,” said Jamie Reyes, an NPS veteran and conservation advocate.
This isn’t the first time such a move has been proposed. In the 1980s and again in the early 2000s, some lawmakers pushed for “de-federalizing” certain lands to reduce national debt and allow private-public partnerships.
However, each time, public opposition stopped the plans. Americans, polls show, continue to deeply value their national parks.
In a 2023 Pew Research survey, over 80% of Americans opposed cutting NPS funding, with bipartisan agreement across regions.
Several major environmental organizations, including the Sierra Club, National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA), and Friends of the Earth, are launching campaigns to oppose Trump’s proposal.
“The parks belong to all Americans, not just to whichever state they’re in,” said Lindsay Tucker, NPCA spokesperson. “Transferring parks to states is the first step toward selling or privatizing them.”
Environmental groups fear that once control is decentralized, federal protection laws like the Endangered Species Act or Clean Water Act might not apply as strongly.
Congress will now review the proposal as part of the larger federal budget debate. Many lawmakers have promised to fight the $1 billion cut.
Senator Martin Heinrich (D-NM) said, “This plan is dead on arrival in the Senate. National parks are a national duty.”
Meanwhile, Trump’s campaign continues to promote the idea as part of his “America First” agenda, encouraging supporters to demand less federal overreach and more local power.
As the debate heats up, Americans are urged to contact their representatives, attend town halls, and stay informed.
Trump’s national parks proposal is more than just a budget issue. It represents a clash of visions: federal stewardship vs. local control. Supporters see efficiency and empowerment; critics see a risk to nature, heritage, and public access.
Only time will tell if this proposal will move forward—but one thing is clear: the fight over America’s parks is far from over.
For updates and resources on how this change may affect your area or favorite park, visit:
Also Read – Trump Shakes Up Security Team, Picks Waltz for UN Role
Standing tall against the shimmering waters of Lake Michigan, Chicago’s skyline is more than a…
Chicago’s Riverwalk is more than just a scenic stretch of waterfront—it’s a celebration of the…
New York City is vast and ever-changing, but no borough captures its creative pulse quite…
When Resorts World Las Vegas opened its doors in 2021, it was billed as a…
Las Vegas may be known for over-the-top luxury, but it also offers something wonderfully unexpected—world-famous…
Las Vegas has always been synonymous with extravagance, but in 2025, the city’s most elite…