In this feature, student reporter Emma Benvenuto explores proposed federal budget cuts to national parks and public lands, drawing on data, conservation perspectives, and students' reflections on what these spaces mean to them.

On January 25, the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) announced plans to reduce the federal budget for public lands. The proposed reductions have resulted in layoffs across several major agencies, including the National Park Service (NPS), U.S. Forest Service (USFS), Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS).

In an interview with PBS News, correspondent Stephanie Sy reported on the scope of the proposed cuts, stating, “The Big Beautiful Bill rescinded $267 million earmarked for park improvements, and the administration has proposed a further 38 percent budget cut next year.”

The reductions have led to the loss of hundreds of positions among rangers and land managers responsible for maintaining and protecting public lands. The impacts extend beyond staffing shortages, affecting park maintenance, visitor services, and scientific research efforts tied to conservation and land management.

Kevin Heatley, former superintendent of Crater Lake National Park, described operational challenges resulting from the cuts: “The inability to hire additional permanent staff to replace people, the disruptions that occurred with respect to our ability to make purchases for vital essential items, the open hostility towards public sector employees, it was an unacceptable, untenable situation. You cannot operate efficiently in that kind of environment.”

According to the Trump administration’s proposed 2026 budget, nearly $4 billion would be cut from agencies responsible for managing public lands, including $1.2 billion from the National Park Service alone—the largest single reduction in the agency’s 109-year history.

In 2024, the combined workforce of the NPS, USFS, BLM, and FWS totaled 61,441 employees. The National Park Service had already experienced a 20% reduction in staffing prior to the current proposal. If enacted, the 2026 budget would reduce the total workforce across these agencies to approximately 42,933 employees, representing a loss of 18,448 positions—nearly one-third of the current workforce.

These reductions are expected to affect core services, including visitor assistance, wildfire response, trail maintenance, and wildlife protection. Despite these challenges, parks are expected to remain open.

This requirement is supported by Secretary of the Interior Order 3426, issued on April 3, 2025, which states that national parks must remain “open and accessible for the benefit and enjoyment of the American people” while maintaining high standards of visitor services.

Kristen Brengel, Senior Vice President of Government Affairs for the National Parks Conservation Association, criticized the policy, stating, “This ill-conceived policy flied in the face of responsible management of national parks, risking both visitor safety and the very resources the Park Service was created.”

The effects of staffing and budget reductions are already visible. Visitors have reported longer entrance lines, reduced hours at visitor centers, and trail closures due to delayed maintenance. Public facilities have also experienced deterioration, affecting overall visitor experience.

The National Parks Conservation Association estimates that funding cuts could impact approximately 350 nationally recognized areas. National Heritage Areas, including the Niagara Falls National Heritage Area, may face reduced federal support, potentially shifting responsibility to state governments or private entities.

For many individuals, national parks serve as important sites for recreation, education, and personal experience. Students interviewed emphasized their significance:

Drew Brooks, a junior at Harrison High School, reflected on a visit to Garden of the Gods in Colorado Springs: “I found myself having very real and heartfelt conversations [there].”

Sophia Gose, a sophomore, described a visit to Kennesaw Mountain: “I learned many things, and I became more interested in history. We need National Parks to show us what happened in the past.”

Harrison graduate Rafaela Gontijo emphasized the aesthetic and experiential value of parks: “I’ll never understand people who feel a nice breeze in the air and don’t immediately want to go for a hike. Parks show that even in states that might not stand out to you at first, there’s undeniable beauty if you look deeper.”

The concept of national parks as a public good has long been part of U.S. policy. In a 1934 address from Glacier National Park, President Franklin D. Roosevelt stated, “There is nothing so American as our National Parks…. The fundamental idea behind the parks … is that the country belongs to the people.”

Similarly, landscape architect Frederick Law Olmsted argued in 1865 that protected lands such as Yosemite should remain public, writing that such spaces exist “solely for public purposes” and contribute to both public welfare and economic benefit.

As budget decisions move forward, the long-term management, accessibility, and preservation of public lands remain central issues for policymakers, conservation groups, and the public.