These efforts, particularly those in places like Washington State, where officials have allocated funds to restore roads in Olympic National Park, are commendable. They are deeply committed to preserving America’s natural heritage and ensuring these cherished landscapes remain accessible. However, beneath these well-intentioned state actions lies a dangerous and potentially catastrophic precedent: the growing argument that states should assume full responsibility for public lands, or worse, that these lands should be transferred to private ownership. What appears to be a noble act of stewardship could, in fact, become the Trojan horse for the greatest public land giveaway in American history.
The Trump Administration’s Assault on Public Lands
The damage inflicted on National Parks and federal lands during Trump’s presidency cannot be overstated. In his first term, Trump aggressively pursued a deregulatory agenda that prioritized extractive industries over conservation, slashing the budgets of the National Park Service (NPS) and the U.S. Forest Service while significantly reducing the size of protected lands such as Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monuments. The administration also weakened environmental protections, fast-tracked oil and gas leasing, and dismissed or forced out career park rangers and scientists who opposed its policies. Most recently, he rescinded two California national monuments.
His past and current reckless policies have left the NPS and other federal land management agencies in a crisis, with significant maintenance backlogs, staffing shortages, and degraded infrastructure. As a result, when natural disasters such as landslides and wildfires struck, many parks lacked the resources necessary to recover. This is where states began to step in.
State-Led Interventions: A Short-Term Solution with Long-Term Consequences
Faced with federal inaction, some states have taken matters into their own hands. In Washington, state leaders have allocated hundreds of thousands to repair washed-out roads in Olympic National Park, a critical lifeline for visitors and local economies. Similarly, states like California and Oregon have increased wildfire prevention on public lands or begun efforts to maintain environmental protections at or above current federal standards. Perhaps most significantly, several states are hiring former federal employees who lost their jobs under Trump, ensuring that local expertise in land management is not entirely lost.
While these actions are necessary to mitigate the damage caused by federal neglect, they also set a dangerous precedent. Suppose states continue to shoulder the burden of managing public lands. In that case, it will reinforce the argument—often advanced by anti-federal land advocates—that the federal government can no longer maintain national parks and forests. This, in turn, fuels the narrative that these lands would be better managed by states or private entities, a notion that has long been promoted by industries eager to exploit public lands for profit.
The Push to Privatize: A Looming Threat
The argument for transferring federal lands to states is not new. For decades, conservative lawmakers, industry lobbyists, and anti-government activists have sought to dismantle federal control over public lands, often under the guise of “local control” and “states’ rights.” The Trump administration emboldened these efforts, with figures like former Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke and Utah Senator Mike Lee openly advocating for transferring national lands to state ownership. States across the West feel emboldened by the Trump administration's new approach and are taking action to assert co-management of national parks or abolish federal landholdings altogether. This move would likely lead to increased privatization, development, and resource extraction.
With states now stepping in to manage and restore federally owned lands, these proponents have found new ammunition for their cause. The logic is insidious: if states are already paying for the upkeep of national parks, why not give them complete control? If the federal government cannot be trusted to maintain roads and infrastructure, why not sell the land to those who can? What begins as an emergency measure to protect national treasures could ultimately be used to justify their dismantling.
The Risks of State Control
The transfer of federal lands to state governments carries enormous risks. Unlike the federal government, which is obligated to manage these lands for the benefit of all Americans, states often lack the financial resources and legal frameworks necessary to maintain public access and conservation protections. With budget shortfalls, states could be pressured to sell off lands to private developers, logging companies, or oil and gas interests. Legislators have already expressed interest in doing that in many Western states, such as Alaska, Arizona, and Idaho.
In short, what many Western states want is Subsidize Anarchy. These states want it both ways when it comes to federal land management: they want the financial support of the American taxpayer to cover the costs of maintaining and managing vast federal lands, but they also want state and local interests to dictate how those lands are used. This approach creates a scenario where states push for increased autonomy over public lands—often favoring extractive industries, development, or reduced environmental oversight—while still expecting federal funding for infrastructure, wildfire suppression, and land stewardship. Essentially, western states want the benefits of federal ownership without the accountability that comes with it, shifting costs to the national taxpayer while prioritizing an inconsistent morass of local economic and political interests over broader conservation and public access goals.
But most importantly, state and private control would undermine the very purpose of national parks and federal lands: to be preserved in perpetuity for all Americans, not just those who live in a particular state. Public lands belong to the nation as a whole, and their management should reflect the collective interests of all citizens, not just the political whims of state governments.
A Call to Strengthen Federal Protections
Instead of allowing state interventions to justify land transfers, policymakers must double down on restoring federal leadership in public land management. This means fully funding the National Park Service, reinstating environmental protections rolled back under Trump, and passing legislation strengthening protections against land privatization. It also requires addressing the root causes of federal neglect—namely, political interference and budget cuts that have weakened agencies like the NPS and the U.S. Forest Service.
Additionally, we must remain vigilant against efforts to use state-led restoration as an argument for privatization. While states should be commended for stepping in where the federal government has failed, their role should be seen as a stopgap measure, not a long-term solution. The goal must always be to restore federal responsibility and ensure our public lands remain in public hands.
Conclusion: A Slippery Slope We Must Avoid
Repairing roads in Olympic National Park, rehiring fired rangers, and other state-led interventions are essential to address our national parks' immediate crises. However, these efforts also create a dangerous opening for those who seek to dismantle federal land protections. What appears to be a necessary act of stewardship could be weaponized against the very idea of public lands, transforming them from a national trust into a commodity to be sold off to the highest bidder.
The American people must reject this Trojan horse strategy and demand that the federal government resume its rightful role as the steward of our national parks and forests. Anything less risks the irreversible loss of our most cherished public lands. The solution to Trump-era neglect is not to abandon federal responsibility but to restore and strengthen it, ensuring that America’s public lands remain public—not just for today but for future generations.
What We Can Do
The good news? These parks have survived threats before—and they can again. But only if we step up.
- Stay informed – Policies can change overnight, but awareness is the first step in fighting back.
- Make your voice heard – Contact your representatives, support conservation groups, and demand accountability.
- Make your voice heard part 2: Write your local papers expressing your support for national parks, public lands, and opposition to Trump's policies.
- Spread the word: Post your support for parks on social media, and encourage your friends and colleagues to get involved.
- Amplify your impact: Join and support non-profits defending our public domain.
- Visit and support our parks – Show the world that these places matter as protected landscapes and as vital pieces of our national heritage.
