The Trump administration has proposed a 38% cut in funding for the National Park Service (NPS). This would be a cut of more $1.2 Billion from the funding for the NPS. Theresa Pierno of the National Parks Conservation Association said that “This is the most extreme, unrealistic and destructive National Park Service budget a President has ever proposed in the agency’s 109-year history. It’s nothing less than an all-out assault on America’s national parks.” If enacted, the budget would triple the layoffs already experienced over the last three months among Park rangers, historians, archeologists, and support personnel.
In addition to the loss of personnel, the NPS would also close down many of its sites around the country. The NPS has 433 sites around the country. Trump is not proposing to close down the 63 National Parks like Yellowstone or the Grand Canyon, but he is looking at terminating historic sites and national monuments. The Trump administration is speculating that some of these sites may be turned over to the states, but without Federal funding it is difficult to see how the states could keep most of these open. The Trump administration has said that “This reduction complements the Administration’s goals of federal and transferring smaller, less visited parks to State and tribal governments…” The president has not said which parks it would close and whether any states have agreed to take on the administration of the transferred land.
The Trump administration said that closing down many parks would allow it to “prioritize larger projects at the Nation’s crown jewel parks…”
The proposal would cut $158 million from the Historic Preservation Fund which, “was established in 1977 to provide financial assistance to, originally, states, to carry out activities related to preservation. Funding is provided from Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas lease revenues, not tax dollars,” according to the NPS. Without this source of funding it is difficult to see how states and local governments can even begin making plans to take over the sites. This grant program also funds many local communities celebrating the 250th Anniversary of the American Revolution.
In addition these are where other cuts are targeted:
- $900 million cut to the operation of national parks
- $73 million cut to park construction funding
- $77 million cut to recreation and preservation funding
Please contact your Congressional representatives to let them know that you object to this destruction of the National Park System-It can only happen if the House of Representatives and the Senate go along with it.
Call the House of Representatives Switchboard to contact your Congressperson (202) 224-3121.
When you call you will likely have a live operator who will connect you to your Congressperson, so make sure you know the name of your Congressperson!
I am nearly 70 years old, have suffered a stroke and heart disease, yet I make these calls and I am out on the streets demonstrating in support of the National Park Service system. You can do it too!
Follow Reconstruction Blog on Social Media:
The good news is that president’s proposed budgets are invariably drastically altered or outright ignored by Congress. In my NPS days, when the President sent his proposed budget to Congress in the spring, we often spent considerable time planning for deep cuts envisioned by the President. Never did those proposed cuts come to pass in the for envisioned by the President. [We wasted a a LOT of time and anxiety on the process.]
That said, we all know this is a different time. Still, communities will have their say. NPS units are often centerpieces to the tourism programs of states and regions, and members of Congress will have a hard time taking a sledgehammer to their own districts. . I have no doubt, though, that we are about to see some changes. My worry is the criteria used to make those decisions. Do we only preserve sites that can turn a profit? How do you measure profit? Or, ominously, do they start eliminating sites that speak to themes the present administration finds objectionable? Of all the possible scenarios, that seems the most catastrophic; it implies dire things for our nation.
What concerns most:
John, it seems like you left something off at the end of your comment.