You are here

How Would A Second Trump Presidency Affect The National Park Service And Parks?

Share

Published Date

March 25, 2024

Though the U.S. presidential election is eight months away, those desiring a more conservative approach to government already have laid out plans they'd like to see implemented if Donald Trump wins, and many would affect the National Park System and wildlife within the system.

Now is the time to be planning for a transition to a more conservative government, say the authors of Project 2025, Presidential Transition Project, because waiting until inauguaration day is too late.

"To execute requires a well-conceived, coordinated, unified plan and a trained and committed cadre of personnel to implement it," they wrote. "The federal government’s complexity and growth advance at a seemingly logarithmic rate every four years. For conservatives to have a fighting chance to take on the Administrative State and reform our federal government, the work must start now. The entirety of this effort is to support the next conservative President, whoever he or she may be."

Under the blueprint, the authors — Paul Dans, former chief of staff at the Office of Personnel Management during the Trump administration; Spencer Chretien, former special assistant to President Trump; and Troup Hemenway, all members of The Heritage Foundation — would like to see "the radical environmental agenda" that they say started with President Jimmy Carter and continued under Presidents Clinton, Obama, and now Joe Biden rolled back. President Trump worked to reverse that agenda, they claimed.

"Thus, whether the statutory mandate was to promote economic activity, to ensure and expand recreational opportunities, or to protect valuable natural resources, including, for example, parks, wilderness areas, national monuments, and wild and scenic areas, efforts were expended, barriers were removed, and career employees were aided in the accomplishment of those missions" under Trump's presidency, reads a section of the introduction to Project 2025's chapter 16, which focuses on the Interior Department.

"Unfortunately, Biden’s [Department of Interior] is at war with the department’s mission, not only when it comes to DOI’s obligation to develop the vast oil and gas and coal resources for which it is responsible, but also as to its statutory mandate, for example, to manage much of federal land overseen by the BLM pursuant to 'multiple use' and 'sustained yield' principles," the section continues. "Instead, Biden’s DOI believes most BLM land should be placed off-limits to all economic and most recreational uses. Worse yet, Biden’s DOI not only refuses to adhere to the statutes enacted by Congress as to how the lands under its jurisdiction are managed, but it also insists on implementing a vast regulatory regime (for which Congress has not granted authority) and overturning, by unilateral regulatory action, congressional acts that set forth the productive economic uses permitted on DOI-managed federal land."

The chapter calls for the next conservative president to:

  • Remove the 10-mile buffer that blocks oil and gas development around Chaco Cultural Historic National Park in New Mexico for 20 years;
  • Reinstate President Trump's rules pertaining to the Endangered Species Act definitions for Critical Habitat and Critical Habitat Exclusions;
  • Reinstate President Trump's rules pertaining to the Migratory Bird Act;
  • Revoke National Park Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service rules regarding predator control and bear baiting, "which are matters for state regulation";
  • "Recognize Alaska’s authority to manage fish and game on all federal lands in accordance with ANILCA as during the Reagan Administration, when each DOI agency in Alaska signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game ceding to the state the lead on fish and wildlife management matters";
  • Review and downsize national monuments;
  • "[S]eek repeal of the Antiquities Act of 1906, which permitted emergency action by a president long before the statutory authority existed for the protection of special federal lands, such as those with wild and scenic rivers, endangered specials, or other unique places";
  • Reform the National Environmental Policy Act and "reinstate the secretarial orders adopted by the Trump administration, such as placing time and page limits on NEPA documents and setting forth—on page one—the costs of the document itself. Meanwhile, the new administration should call upon Congress to reform NEPA to meet its original goal. Consideration should be given, for example, to eliminating judicial review of the adequacy of NEPA documents or the rectitude of NEPA decisions";
  • Push meaningful reform of the Endangered Species Act, which "requires that Congress take action to restore its original purpose and end its use to seize private property, prevent economic development, and interfere with the rights of states over their wildlife populations";
  • Delist the grizzly bear in the Greater Yellowstone and Northern Continental Divide ecosystems;
  • Delist the gray wolf in the lower 48 states;
  • Direct the Fish and Wildlife Service to "end its abuse of Section 10( j) of the ESA by re-introducing so-called 'experiment species' populations into areas that no longer qualify as habitat and lie outside the historic ranges of those species"; and,
  • Direct the Fish and Wildlife Service to: "(1) design and implement an Endangered Species Act program that ensures independent decision-making by ending reliance on so-called species specialists who have obvious self-interest, ideological bias, and land-use agendas."

Comments

Now that I think about it, we need to reintroduce the grizzly in VT.

 

Let's re-wild the Green Mtns!


Hi Chris,

Regarding the situaion in Vermont, my organization, RESTORE: The North Woods, has been following Green Mountain National Forest and Vermont state land management issues for some time. So I take your caveats seriously.

However, Vermont has one of the most progressive congressional delegations and the people of Vermont care about protection for nature. The problem is that the mismanagement of national forest and state lands is being done by entrenched agencies that have been captured by the timber industry and other special interests. Most people are unaware it is happening.

This can change with public education and grassroots organizing. A good example is a new Vermont-based organization, Standing Trees, which has made a lot of progress on that front.

https://www.standingtrees.org/

Virtually every national park and national monument proposal was originally opposed by vested interests. This opposition was overcome by the work of dedicated activists who built enough public support to prevail. This report highlights some prominent examples of this phenomenon.

http://npshistory.com/publications/wrong-side-of-history.pdf

Regarding the New Hampshire recreation plan, the NPS routinely approves these unless there is something grossly inappropriate. It is not necessarily an endorsement. New Hampshire's public lands are seriously mismanaged and it promotes recreation that is environmentally harmful. See for example:

https://indepthnh.org/2022/02/05/op-ed-nash-stream-state-forest-easement...

The NPS has no power to fix that problem. On the other hand, if the White Mountain National Forest were transferred to the NPS, the agency would ensure the area's protection.

Best,

Michael


Over the course of the history of the US National Park Service only one thing can be said of it all: Nothing changes.  So called conservatives, in the name of personal freedom and exploitation of all land will, and aways have railed agains true conservation. While a few super rich (i.e the Rockefellers) buy, lobby and donate lands and funds to protect our natural resources, most Americans are only interested in exploiting (wasting) our land on get rich schemes that pollute and destroy. 

The same idiots putting out Trump's policies on land management come from the same institutions and industries that Reagan used to populate his environmental wrecking polices of the 1980s. James Watt and Anne Gorsuch. As far as Trumps National Recreation legislation.... big deal, it was sponsored by the likes of the RV industry. And as this RV owner, and any other can testify: Never trust the RV industry to do anything good. They can't even build a reliable RV. 


I'm with Lee on this.  I started with Interior under the infamous James Watt but I'm afraid a second Trump administration would be even worse.  The first was plenty bad enough.


Then we must pave the path to prevention of national parks becoming business parks by turning out a landslide election driven by votes of the vast majority of Americans.


You nailed it!


A second Trump Presidency would last from the time he takes the oath of office to the time he walks into the Oval Office to invoke the Insurrection Act, suspending due process and essentially crowning himself king.  

All hard-wrought protections from plunder for private profit would immediately end.  All land and resources would be immediately targeted for lease, sale and divvying up among the highest bidders.  Mountaintops would be razed.  Valleys would be paved.  Mines and quarries would proliferate.  Rivers would be dammed and redirected.  Forests would be felled.  Birds would flee.  Fish would die.  Mammals would starve.  Extraction would become the religion.  Extinction would become the rule. 

Factories would flourish, as would towns - until they wouldn't.  Industry would move on to the next haven, leaving Mother Nature toxins to manage for eons to come.  By the time anything would grow again, there would be no "nations, no "parks," no "services" - only nature rebuilding itself after yet another catastrophic - but avoidable - demise.

In the most nonpartisan spirit possible, I ask that folks get engaged in the process to Get.Out.The.Vote.  Voting is our voice but enlisting others to vote is the bee's knees.  WE are the answer to governance shortcomings and threats.  WE can and must do the work to mobilize those we know to mobilize those they know, and so on, to vote and to help folks who need help finding out where and how to vote.  If we want to preserve our national parks, and nature itself, we'll become an indivisible  natural army of voters making the difference that only WE can make to save our nation and the parks within it.


Project 2025 will gut the park service.


Add comment

CAPTCHA

This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.

Your support helps the National Parks Traveler increase awareness of the wonders and issues confronting national parks and protected areas.

Support Our Mission

INN Member

The easiest way to explore RV-friendly National Park campgrounds.

The Essential RVing Guide to the National Parks

Here’s the definitive guide to National Park System campgrounds where RVers can park their rigs.

Our app is packed with RVing- specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 national parks.

You’ll also find stories about RVing in the parks, tips helpful if you’ve just recently become an RVer, and useful planning suggestions.

The Essential RVing Guide to the National Parks

FREE for iPhones and Android phones.