Students and faculty discuss the ramifications of Trump’s recent actions against our national parks
By JENEVAH HARRISON — features@theaggie.org
As the busy season for national parks approaches, concerns are rising over the impact of recent government actions on park preservation and management.
The Trump administration’s decision to cut approximately 1,000 National Park Service employees in February 2025 has sparked debate about the future of these treasured landscapes. Critics argue that these cuts are part of a broader strategy that threatens the integrity of America’s natural spaces.
Jill Laufer, a UC Davis Ph.D. candidate, criticized the decision. Laufer believes that the move is less about efficiency and more about creating instability.
“[It is a] ploy to generate headlines — a nanny state for chaos,” Laufer said. “Trump’s overall motive for this act is most likely to encourage citizens to come together to protect the national parks and remove government interference altogether. However, the politics of it is chaos — to seem like they’re doing something — and essentially burn it down.”
Laufer points out Trump’s attempt to limit the amount of federal workers as a ploy to minimize the government and increase his own power, which has been frequently discussed during his past and current presidencies.
This decision from Trump could potentially also lead to more dangerous parks, which Austyn Gaffney discussed in an article for the New York Times.
“Among those whose jobs were eliminated were river and wilderness rangers, scientists who help keep forests healthy to minimize fire danger, analysts, attorneys and administrators,” the article reads. “Many were trained to assist firefighters, possessing skills that are required each summer as climate change causes bigger and more severe fires.”
Without these essential roles of workers in our national parks, Gaffney argues that the safety of visitors could be affected. This will likely include unsupervised activity resulting in an increase of accidents due to an overall lack of park maintenance and supervision.
Kalen Hale, a first-year environmental policy analysis and planning major, also voiced concern over the implications of these layoffs. Hale emphasized the essential role national parks play in environmental sustainability and local economies.
“National parks are the preservation of the natural environment, and [they] can greatly support the surrounding land and soil due to insects, animals, pollen and so much more,” Hale said. “Considering all of the national parks in America, it is valid to say that they greatly support the world’s climate.”
Beyond environmental concerns, the layoffs raise pressing questions about park maintenance and visitor education.
“To put it simply, if workers of any kind are fired, how will things be able to run? They simply can’t, at least not smoothly,” Hale said.
Without proper staffing, Hale said that parks could suffer from increased litter, vandalism and degradation, ultimately harming biodiversity.
“With less and less care and less and less upkeep, species [of] animals, insects, plants and fungi will be lost, and ultimately, climate change will get worse,” Hale said.
Hale also highlighted the personal impact of these cuts, reflecting on how national parks serve as crucial escapes from urban life.
“It can be hard living in a city without nearby, convenient natural seclusion, especially because I feel like I crave it all the time,” Hale said. “National parks aren’t close and convenient to me to feed my hunger for nature, though I know that it feeds others’. Even if I didn’t care about nature, why would I want to take that away from somebody, especially if it’s their job?”
The impact of these decisions extends far beyond individual livelihoods and visitor experiences and could potentially exacerbate environmental degradation at a time when climate concerns are already at an all-time high.
Marco Rivas, a second-year biology major, expressed his concerns about the long-term effects of reduced staffing on conservation efforts.
“National parks protect so many endangered species, and without enough staff to monitor and maintain their habitats, we could see serious declines in wildlife populations,” Rivas said. “It’s frustrating to see policy decisions that don’t consider the bigger picture.”
As national parks brace for the influx of visitors this upcoming summer, the loss of staff could have serious consequences for both conservation efforts and public enjoyment. The debate over these cuts highlights a broader tension between our country’s focus on economic policy and environmental stewardship, which many argue could leave our national parks in serious jeopardy.
Written by: Jenevah Harrison — features@theaggie.org
