As U.S. national parks brace for another summer of record-breaking visitor numbers, the Trump administration’s proposal to slash funding for the National Park Service (NPS) is drawing sharp bipartisan criticism.
President Donald Trump’s budget for the current fiscal year calls for a reduction of more than $250 million from the NPS—funds that support rangers, emergency responders, and scientists. The proposal outlines an even steeper cut of $1.2 billion for the next fiscal year. While the administration claims these cuts will not affect the visitor experience, conservationists and lawmakers argue otherwise.
Kristen Brengel, vice president of the National Parks Conservation Association, condemned the proposal as a fundamental misunderstanding of public priorities.
“This is just a bad decision from the administration to put it in the president’s budget and think the American public doesn’t want to protect our national park system anymore,” said Brengel.
An analysis by her organization suggests that in order to achieve the level of cuts proposed, the federal government would need to relinquish control of around 350 park sites. These would not include the 63 official national parks, but rather smaller sites such as the Martin Luther King Jr. National Historical Park in Atlanta or the John Muir National Historic Site in California.
Although the administration has floated the idea of transferring some of these smaller sites to state governments, interest among states appears limited. A Utah parks official confirmed to NPR that the state has no plans to manage anything beyond its existing state park system.
The Department of the Interior declined to comment. However, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum told a Senate committee that the goal is to reduce administrative overhead and redirect resources toward field staff and operational roles.
“Whether they’re driving a snowplow in the wintertime, working with interpreters in the summer, doing trail work or firefighting—I want more of that. I want less overhead,” Burgum said.
Still, lawmakers from both parties remain unconvinced. Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, voiced concern over the implications of such deep cuts.
“When we see a skinny budget that proposes to cut $1.2 billion—or 35%—from the Park Service, it’s hard to square it with the claims that DOI is focused on fostering the American economy,” said Murkowski.
National parks contribute billions of dollars annually to the U.S. economy through tourism and related services. The proposed reductions now await debate and revision in the Senate, where opposition is mounting across party lines.
