From the Grand Canyon and Yosemite to the ancient trees of Alaska’s Tongass, President Donald Trump has vowed to make America’s federal nature reserves ‘beautiful again.’ Those parks are part of more than 600 million acres of public lands — forests, deserts, waterways and wildlife refuges — that experts describe as some of the country’s most ecologically intact and biodiverse landscapes, says Jenny Rowland-Shea, director of public lands policy at the Center for American Progress.
Critics say that vision is undercut by steep budget cuts and policy rollbacks that would open those lands to resource extraction. In May 2025 the administration proposed trimming nearly $1 billion from the National Park Service budget, a reduction park advocates warn could force hundreds of sites to close or sharply curtail services. Rowland-Shea argues that weakening the Park Service under the banner of ‘government efficiency’ has left parks ‘less safe, less clean, less accessible, and more crowded than ever before.’
Two months after proposing cuts, the president signed an executive order meant to ‘improve’ national parks. The order praised striking natural areas while criticizing ‘land-use restrictions’ it said have ‘stripped hunters, fishers, hikers, and outdoorsmen of access to public lands that belong to them.’ Conservationists fear that language signals a wider shift to open more federally managed lands to mining, drilling and logging.
Despite the debate, the national park system remains highly popular. In 2024 parks recorded a record roughly 332 million visitors, who spent about $29 billion in nearby communities. A November 2025 YouGov poll found 69% of Americans opposed the proposed National Park Service cuts. A bipartisan Senate budget bill rejected the cuts in January, though language that would have guaranteed parks remain public lands was removed — a change that left advocates warning the system is vulnerable to future sell-offs. ‘Protecting our national parks is a bipartisan issue,’ said Theresa Pierno, then-president of the National Parks Conservation Association. ‘Nobody asked for reckless cuts to park staffing or the gutting of our shared heritage.’
More than 40% of US public lands have long been available for oil, gas, coal and mineral extraction; the federal mineral estate produces about 15% of domestic oil and 9% of gas. The administration has pushed to ‘unleash’ more American energy on public lands by rolling back environmental and climate rules, including a proposal to end the 2024 Public Lands Rule that sought to balance extraction with conservation.
Rowland-Shea says the recent actions are largely aimed at weakening protections and valuing land chiefly for its extractive, market potential. In March 2025 the White House directed a significant increase in domestic ‘mineral production’ on federal lands and flagged large swaths for fast-tracked mining leases for critical minerals such as copper, uranium and gold. The administration has opened millions of acres of land and water to oil drilling and coal mining, and overturned a rule that had limited logging and road construction — changes described by officials as permitting ‘responsible’ timber production and improving ‘fire prevention.’
Environmental researchers note the policy path mirrors moves from the president’s first term. In 2017, millions of acres were removed from protected status and made available for logging and mining, including parts of Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante national monuments, and oil and gas leasing on public lands surged. Stephen Nash, an environmental researcher at the University of Richmond, warns that while major national parks may be relatively insulated from large-scale extraction, the broader portfolio of public lands — national forests and wildlife preserves — faces severe degradation. Those lands are often essential habitat for species that will need to shift ranges as temperatures rise.
Protected areas also play roles beyond preservation: reintroduced American bison help restore ecosystems, and parks serve as venues to educate the public about climate impacts. Yet in February the administration ordered park service staff to remove or censor exhibits conveying scientific information about climate change, echoing earlier moves to erase the word ‘climate’ from government websites. Officials instead emphasize removing ‘impediments’ to ‘responsible forest management’ — language critics say is a pretext for immediate exploitation. ‘The only natural resources they esteem are the ones they can extract and sell,’ Nash said.
Edited by: Jennifer Collins and Tamsin Walker