Sign In or Create an Account.

By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy

Politics

How Trump Could Ruin Your Next National Park Adventure

Forest ranger firings have already led to some trail closures, but the stakes get much higher than that.

Donald Trump.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

It takes less than an hour to drive from Seattle to Franklin Falls, a beginner-friendly hike that is so popular among locals that it often runs out of parking space by mid-morning in the summer. A winter snowshoeing trip is no less rewarding — the rockface glistens with icicles, and sometimes Franklin Falls itself will freeze, delighting Instagrammers and Frozen acolytes alike.

Those views, though, now sit behind a barricaded trailhead. “Due to the large scale termination of Forest Service employees, Franklin Falls and the Denny Creek Trailhead are CLOSED,” the sign read as of Saturday morning. “This site will reopen when we return to appropriate staffing levels.”

It’s unclear when — or if — that will happen. Last Friday, the Trump administration began laying off thousands of public land managers, including 3,400 new hires to the U.S. Forest Service and 2,300 to the Department of the Interior, about a thousand of whom worked for the National Park Service. Adding insult to injury, the email firing the probationary employees told them they’d “failed to demonstrate fitness or qualifications for continued employment because your subject matter knowledge, skills and abilities do not meet the department’s current needs,” despite many having unblemished or even exemplary employment records.

The cuts have placed a staggering strain on the remaining employees at the agencies. “Cutting thousands of National Park Service and Forest Service jobs is like reducing ski patrol during peak season — it may not shut everything down, but it makes access, safety, and the outdoor experience more challenging for everyone,” Ryan Laemel, the chief operating officer of Protect Our Winters, an outdoor recreation environmental nonprofit, wrote to me in a statement.

And there are more existential crises, too, like the cessation of fire risk reduction work, which could result in worse wildfires, and an abrupt halt to decades of ongoing scientific research in the parks, which will leave a gaping hole in our understanding of our own country’s climate and ecosystems. “Public lands aren’t just places to recreate — they are part of the climate solution and hold deep cultural significance, especially for Indigenous communities who have stewarded these landscapes for generations,” Laemel pointed out. Forests and grasslands managed by now-terminated employees “store carbon, protect water sources, and help prevent catastrophic wildfires.”

In Montana, for example, only three full-time workers now maintain all the infrastructure in the Yellowstone and Bozeman Ranger Districts, which cover 1 million acres, the Bozeman Daily Chronicle reports. “I honestly can’t imagine how the parks will operate without my position,” Alex Wild, a ranger who lost his job at Yosemite, wrote in an Instagram post that more than 150,000 people have liked. “I mean, they just can’t. I am the only EMT at my park and the first responder for any emergency. This is flat-out reckless.”

Stories like Wild’s have struck a chord on social media, where there has been an upswelling of outrage over the public land manager layoffs. Though President’s Day weekend saw general protests across the U.S. against Elon Musk’s idea of efficiency, NOAA firings and USAID workers losing their jobs haven’t, on their own, generated quite the same level of backlash.

Part of that is likely an issue of immediacy: 85% of Americans have vacationed at a National Park, but it’s not necessarily apparent from looking at your iPhone that you’re relying on free NOAA data. But Americans also have an almost cuddly reverence for forest rangers; as one social media user aptly put it, they’re basically the “librarians of the forest.” Eliminate their jobs and face the wrath of everyone who had a childhood dream of wearing a quad-dented straw hat when they grew up.

Neal Clark, the wildlands director at the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, a nonpartisan non-profit leading efforts to protect public lands, told me he thinks the Trump administration is playing a long game with its sabotage of the Forest Service and Department of the Interior. “The bigger point is that when you cut staff from the Bureau of Land Management, the Forest Service, the National Park Service — agencies that have been chronically underfunded for decades — the additional lack of capacity and resources is ultimately going to catch up,” he warned. “It’s going to catch up with this administration, and it’s going to catch up to public land users.”

Trailhead closures like that at Franklin Falls are only the very beginning. Maybe this summer you’ll find it difficult to get the river permit you’ve come to expect for your annual family float trip. Perhaps you’ll find you can’t reserve a campsite in a National Park, or maybe the bathroom at your favorite trailhead will be closed or not serviced. Park infrastructure in general will get worse, making visits frustrating and messy; the $23 billion maintenance backlog at the National Parks will balloon into a multi-generational challenge.

Clark suspects this chaos is by design. “It’s intended to decrease the functionality. It’s intended to demoralize dedicated staff,” he said. “Ultimately, the goal is to bolster what has been a long-standing effort by industry and elected officials who back industry to sell off, transfer, or otherwise privatize public lands.”

Despite the incredible unpopularity of land privatization — majorities in every Western state, including conservative strongholds such as Wyoming and Montana, oppose the concept — there has been substantial talk of eliminating public lands by those in and around the Trump administration. By gutting the Forest Service and Department of the Interior, signs of strain will start to show. That, in turn, will “further bolster the argument that these lands would be better managed by the states, or in private hands,” Clark said.

It’s a playbook that is familiar across the government. If there is a silver lining, though, it’s that Americans really do seem energized to defend their access to the outdoors. “Protest. Speak up!” one Zion National Park ranger implored her followers this weekend. “Our nation is only as strong as we all stand together.”

Green

You’re out of free articles.

Subscribe today to experience Heatmap’s expert analysis 
of climate change, clean energy, and sustainability.
To continue reading
Create a free account or sign in to unlock more free articles.
or
Please enter an email address
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
AM Briefing

Exxon Counterattacks

On China’s rare earths, Bill Gates’ nuclear dream, and Texas renewables

An Exxon sign.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

Current conditions: Hurricane Melissa exploded in intensity over the warm Caribbean waters and has now strengthened into a major storm, potentially slamming into Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Haiti, and Jamaica as a Category 5 in the coming days • The Northeast is bracing for a potential nor’easter, which will be followed by a plunge in temperatures of as much as 15 degrees Fahrenheit lower than average • The northern Australian town of Julia Creek saw temperatures soar as high as 106 degrees.

THE TOP FIVE

1. Exxon sued California

Exxon Mobil filed a lawsuit against California late Friday on the grounds that two landmark new climate laws violate the oil giant’s free speech rights, The New York Times reported. The two laws would require thousands of large companies doing business in the state to calculate and report the greenhouse gas pollution created by the use of their products, so-called Scope 3 emissions. “The statutes compel Exxon Mobil to trumpet California’s preferred message even though Exxon Mobil believes the speech is misleading and misguided,” Exxon complained through its lawyers. California Governor Gavin Newsom’s office said the statutes “have already been upheld in court and we continue to have confidence in them.” He condemned the lawsuit, calling it “truly shocking that one of the biggest polluters on the planet would be opposed to transparency.”

Keep reading...Show less
Red
The Aftermath

How to Live in a Fire-Scarred World

The question isn’t whether the flames will come — it’s when, and what it will take to recover.

Wildfire aftermath.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

In the two decades following the turn of the millennium, wildfires came within three miles of an estimated 21.8 million Americans’ homes. That number — which has no doubt grown substantially in the five years since — represents about 6% of the nation’s population, including the survivors of some of the deadliest and most destructive fires in the country’s history. But it also includes millions of stories that never made headlines.

For every Paradise, California, and Lahaina, Hawaii, there were also dozens of uneventful evacuations, in which regular people attempted to navigate the confusing jargon of government notices and warnings. Others lost their homes in fires that were too insignificant to meet the thresholds for federal aid. And there are countless others who have decided, after too many close calls, to move somewhere else.

By any metric, costly, catastrophic, and increasingly urban wildfires are on the rise. Nearly a third of the U.S. population, however, lives in a county with a high or very high risk of wildfire, including over 60% of the counties in the West. But the shape of the recovery from those disasters in the weeks and months that follow is often that of a maze, featuring heart-rending decisions and forced hands. Understanding wildfire recovery is critical, though, for when the next disaster follows — which is why we’ve set out to explore the topic in depth.

Keep reading...Show less
The Aftermath

The Surprisingly Tricky Problem of Ordering People to Leave

Wildfire evacuation notices are notoriously confusing, and the stakes are life or death. But how to make them better is far from obvious.

Wildfire evacuation.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

How many different ways are there to say “go”? In the emergency management world, it can seem at times like there are dozens.

Does a “level 2” alert during a wildfire, for example, mean it’s time to get out? How about a “level II” alert? Most people understand that an “evacuation order” means “you better leave now,” but how is an “evacuation warning” any different? And does a text warning that “these zones should EVACUATE NOW: SIS-5111, SIS-5108, SIS-5117…” even apply to you?

Keep reading...Show less