Grand Teton Is a National Park, Not a Major League Ballpark

I love baseball. I love national parks.

But that doesn’t mean the two belong together.

Major League Baseball has approached the Trump administration about the possibility of staging a future game in a national park, and Grand Teton National Park has emerged as a potential location.[1][2] According to recent reporting, National Park Service officials have examined possible locations inside Grand Teton where a temporary ballpark could potentially be constructed.[2]

The idea is apparently inspired by MLB’s increasingly ambitious series of games in unusual locations, including the enormously popular Field of Dreams games in Iowa, historic Rickwood Field in Alabama, and Bristol Motor Speedway in Tennessee.

There is an important difference, however.

Those places aren’t national parks.

And America’s national parks exist under a very different set of rules.

What Is Actually Being Proposed?

The proposal is still preliminary, and some early reporting has overstated the Trump administration’s role in originating it.

According to the Associated Press and Washington Post, MLB approached the federal government, asking whether a game could be held in a national park. The White House says the idea was not directed by President Trump and is not an administration priority. No site has been approved, and the National Park Service has not issued a permit. With MLB’s 2027 special-event schedule already established, 2028 appears to be the earliest a game could occur.[1][2]

Nevertheless, the proposal has advanced far enough to warrant attention. National Park Service Deputy Director Frank Lands recently visited Grand Teton while MLB representatives were examining potential locations. Initial reporting identified three possible sites, including previously disturbed land used for park operations, although the White House disputed the characterization that Lands himself was actively “scouting” sites.[2]

Some reports have suggested a temporary facility could accommodate roughly 20,000 spectators and require not simply a baseball diamond, but seating, clubhouses, concessions, broadcast facilities, offices, and the infrastructure necessary to support thousands of spectators.[3]

That means the real question isn’t whether baseball is a worthy American tradition.

It unquestionably is.

The question is whether constructing a temporary commercial sports venue inside one of America’s premier national parks is consistent with why national parks exist in the first place.

The Park Service Has a Special Mission

Congress answered that question more than a century ago when it created the National Park Service.

The 1916 Organic Act directed the Park Service to conserve park scenery, natural and historic objects, and wildlife while allowing people to enjoy them in a manner that leaves those resources “unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.” That fundamental mandate is now codified at 54 U.S.C. §100101.[4]

That distinction matters.

National parks aren’t simply federally owned recreation areas where any popular activity can be accommodated if somebody can figure out where to put it. Recreation in a national park is supposed to be compatible with the resources and purposes for which that park was established.

Grand Teton protects one of America’s extraordinary landscapes: the Teton Range rising abruptly above Jackson Hole and an ecosystem supporting elk, moose, bison, pronghorn, bears, wolves, and countless other species.

The park also sits at the heart of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. The Park Service emphasizes the importance of maintaining interconnected habitat and migration corridors used by wildlife moving through this landscape.[5]

People come to Grand Teton to experience that place.

They don’t need Grand Teton to experience baseball.

The Park Service Has Been Through This Before

In the early decades of the national parks, managers and concessioners sometimes treated parks almost like destination resorts.

Visitors could find entertainment that had little relationship to the places the parks had been established to protect.

Yosemite, for example, once had bowling. A bowling alley operated at Camp Curry before its lanes were removed around 1929. During World War II, when the Ahwahnee was being used as a naval hospital, temporary recreational facilities also included bowling. Those temporary Navy facilities were later removed.[6]

Yosemite also once had a nine-hole golf course near the Ahwahnee. By the 1980s, it had largely reverted to natural vegetation, and the park’s General Management Plan called for removal of its remaining features. The same plan called for removing the Ahwahnee’s tennis courts because they represented an outdoor activity “not directly related to the natural resource.”[7]

At Mount Rainier’s Paradise, concessioners tried a nine-hole golf course. The experiment was short-lived, and the Park Service notes that scars from the course remained visible for decades after nature began reclaiming it. There were also proposals over the years for expanded skiing facilities and ski lifts at Paradise.[8]

At Rocky Mountain National Park, the Park Service eventually removed the remaining greens, tees, drainage structures, and foundations of an old golf course from Moraine Park as part of restoring the landscape.[9]

The Park Service ultimately developed a much clearer philosophy about such development. Its historical administrative policies for natural areas stated the principle about as plainly as possible:

“A national park is not a scenic location for a golf course, amusement park, or a spectator sports event.”[10]

The policy explained that activities whose rewards exist independently of the park do not need to occur inside one.[10]

That sentence could almost have been written specifically for the Grand Teton baseball proposal.

Current NPS policy reflects the same underlying principle in other contexts. For example, Park Service Management Policies prohibit new downhill ski facilities and associated structures in national park areas, explaining that such developments have significant environmental impacts and “should only be provided outside park areas.”[11]

This doesn’t mean golf, skiing, bowling, or baseball are bad activities.

It means there are thousands of appropriate places to enjoy them without turning nationally protected landscapes into venues for them.

Then There Is the Law

The biggest obstacle to a Grand Teton baseball game may not be public opposition.

It may be the Park Service’s own regulation governing special events.

Under 36 CFR §2.50, sporting events and public spectator attractions can be permitted in a national park only when there is a “meaningful association” between the park and the event and the event contributes to visitors’ understanding of the significance of the park.[12]

The regulation also requires the superintendent to deny a permit when an event would cause injury or damage to park resources; be contrary to the purposes for which the park was established; unreasonably impair the atmosphere of peace and tranquility maintained in wilderness, natural, historic, or commemorative locations; substantially impair park operations; or create an unacceptable conflict with other existing uses.[12]

That raises an obvious question:

What is the meaningful association between Major League Baseball and Grand Teton National Park?

Grand Teton wasn’t established to commemorate baseball history. No famous Major League game occurred there. Baseball doesn’t help visitors understand the Teton Range, Jackson Hole, wildlife migration, geology, Indigenous history, or the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem.

The regulation therefore appears to present a substantial legal hurdle even before environmental impacts are considered.

Grand Teton’s own current special-use rules make the problem even clearer. The park says events will not be permitted if they alter the movement of visitors, wildlife, or traffic. Roads and trails cannot be closed for an event. Events cannot occur in areas managed as wilderness. Commercial logos, banners, and tent-like structures are also prohibited under the park’s listed event conditions.[13]

Try imagining a nationally televised Major League Baseball game for perhaps 20,000 spectators without affecting traffic, visitor movement, or wildlife and without commercial signage or substantial temporary structures.

Then there is NPS Management Policy 8.6.2.

The policy states that the Park Service will not permit an event in an area open to the public, or close such an area for an event, when the event is conducted primarily for the material or financial benefit of a for-profit entity, requires in-park advertising or publicity, or charges a separate public admission fee.[14]

A Major League Baseball game would have to be structured in a way that satisfies those requirements as well.

That appears, at minimum, extraordinarily difficult.

Because no final proposal, permit application, environmental review, or agency decision has been released, it would be premature to declare that a court has determined the proposal illegal. But existing federal regulations and Park Service policies create serious legal and administrative obstacles that the government and MLB would have to overcome.

“Temporary” Doesn’t Mean Impact-Free

Supporters might reasonably point out that MLB isn’t proposing a permanent Yankee Stadium beneath the Tetons.

The facility would presumably be temporary.

But temporary development can still have consequences.

Local officials and conservation advocates have raised concerns about habitat fragmentation, artificial light, noise, increased human presence around wildlife, traffic, and additional strain on park and community infrastructure. Critics have also warned about the precedent of allowing a major commercial entertainment event inside a protected national park.[1][15]

That concern deserves particular attention in Grand Teton.

Wildlife doesn’t always distinguish between a permanent disturbance and a temporary disturbance. Thousands of vehicles, stadium lighting, generators, construction equipment, fencing, broadcast infrastructure, and tens of thousands of people can affect an area even if everything is hauled away afterward.

The question isn’t simply whether workers could restore a site after the final out.

The question is why those impacts should occur inside a national park at all when the event could take place somewhere else.

This Is About More Than One Baseball Game

The most important issue may be precedent.

If Grand Teton can become the backdrop for a Major League Baseball game, what comes next?

Could Yosemite host an NFL exhibition?

Could Yellowstone host a major concert?

Could Olympic host a championship golf event?

Those examples are hypothetical, but they illustrate the larger question facing the Park Service.

At some point national parks cease being places where Americans experience extraordinary landscapes and become extraordinary landscapes used as backgrounds for commercial entertainment.

The Park Service spent much of the twentieth century learning that lesson.

Some activities are perfectly worthwhile and perfectly inappropriate inside a national park.

Baseball belongs in ballparks.

Grand Teton should remain Grand Teton.

What Concerned Citizens Can Do

Because no permit has been issued and no formal public-review process for the baseball proposal is currently listed by Grand Teton, citizens interested in the issue can make their views known now and watch for any formal proposal later.[16]

Concerned citizens can:

• Contact Grand Teton National Park. Ask park officials how any MLB proposal would satisfy the requirements of 36 CFR §2.50, the Organic Act, and NPS Management Policies.[17]

• Contact the Department of the Interior. Interior oversees the National Park Service and provides channels for members of the public to submit comments and questions.[18]

• Watch for a formal planning or environmental review. If NPS opens a public-comment period, submit substantive comments addressing wildlife, traffic, noise, lighting, visitor displacement, infrastructure, commercial use, and consistency with 36 CFR §2.50.[16]

• Contact members of Congress. Congress created the National Park System's governing framework and exercises legislative, oversight, and appropriations authority affecting the National Park Service. Citizens can ask their representatives and senators to seek information about the proposal, its financing, environmental review, and compliance with existing park laws.

• Contact Major League Baseball. MLB initiated the inquiry, according to current reporting. People who care about both baseball and national parks can tell the league whether they believe Grand Teton is an appropriate venue.[1]

The good news is that nothing has been approved yet.

And perhaps that is where this idea should end.

Two Great American Ideas—That Don’t Need to Share a Field

Baseball and national parks are both deeply woven into American culture.

We can celebrate both without turning one into a venue for the other.

The genius of the national park idea is that Americans deliberately chose to set some extraordinary places apart from the ordinary pressures of commerce and development. Grand Teton isn’t valuable because somebody can figure out how to build a baseball diamond there.

It is valuable because generations of Americans made the opposite choice.

They decided not to build.

A century of national park management has taught us that not every enjoyable activity belongs inside a national park. Sometimes protecting these places requires saying that a perfectly good idea belongs somewhere else.

Major League Baseball has stadiums, minor-league parks, historic ballfields, speedways, military installations, and Iowa cornfields available for special games.

There is only one Grand Teton.

Let’s keep it that way.

---

Annotated References

[1] Associated Press. “Trump administration considering MLB game at Grand Teton National Park.” September 2026.
https://apnews.com/article/b408fe1bd4c20c77120b2d8301dad9c0
Useful independent reporting on the origins and status of the proposal. AP reports that MLB approached the federal government, addresses the White House response, and explains that no game has been approved. This is an important source for distinguishing an MLB proposal being considered by federal officials from a presidential directive.

[2] The Washington Post. “Trump officials weigh MLB game in Grand Teton National Park.” September 26, 2026.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2026/09/26/trump-officials-weigh-mlb-game-grand-teton-national-park/
Detailed reporting on discussions involving MLB and federal officials, including consideration of possible locations within Grand Teton and the involvement of senior National Park Service officials.

[3] Ballpark Digest. “MLB, Trump Administration Eye 2028 Game in Grand Teton National Park Ballpark.” September 27, 2026.
https://ballparkdigest.com/2026/09/27/mlb-trump-administration-eye-2028-game-in-grand-teton-national-park-ballpark/
Provides additional reporting about what a temporary MLB venue could entail, including potential attendance and the infrastructure necessary to stage a Major League game.

[4] U.S. House of Representatives, Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 54 U.S.C. §100101 — Promotion and Regulation of National Park System.
https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title54-section100101
The primary statutory source for the National Park Service's fundamental conservation mandate, derived from the 1916 Organic Act. It establishes the famous requirement that park resources be conserved so they remain unimpaired for future generations.

[5] National Park Service. “Grand Migrations,” Grand Teton National Park.
https://www.nps.gov/grte/learn/nature/grand-migrations.htm
NPS background explaining the importance of wildlife movement and migration in and around Grand Teton and the park's relationship to the larger Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem.

**[6] National Park Service History Collection. Camp Curry Cultural Landscape Report, Yosemite National Park. **
https://npshistory.com/publications/yose/camp_curry_clr.pdf
Historical NPS documentation of Camp Curry and its recreational development. It provides useful context for the era when national parks sometimes accommodated resort-style recreational facilities, including bowling.

[7] National Park Service. “Tennis Court Restoration,” Yosemite National Park.
https://www.nps.gov/yose/learn/nature/tenniscourtrestoration.htm
Documents the Park Service's removal of the Ahwahnee tennis courts and restoration of the site. Particularly relevant because NPS explains that the activity was not directly related to Yosemite's natural resources.

[8] National Park Service. “Harmonizing Paradise,” Mount Rainier National Park.
https://www.nps.gov/articles/harmonizing-paradise.htm
NPS historical discussion of development at Paradise, including the short-lived golf course and the evolution toward development more compatible with the national park landscape.

[9] National Parks Traveler. “Remnants of Golf Course Being Removed at Rocky Mountain National Park.” August 2008.
https://www.nationalparkstraveler.org/2008/08/remnants-golf-course-being-removed-rocky-mountain-national-park
Documents restoration work removing remaining features of the former Moraine Park golf course. It illustrates the broader historical movement away from recreational developments unrelated to park resources.

**[10] National Park Service History Collection. Administrative Policies for Natural Areas of the National Park System. **
https://npshistory.com/publications/admin_policies/policy2-part2.htm
One of the most relevant historical sources for the Grand Teton controversy. The policy explicitly states: “A national park is not a scenic location for a golf course, amusement park, or a spectator sports event.” It demonstrates that the question of using spectacular park landscapes as settings for unrelated recreation is not new.

**[11] National Park Service. Management Policies 2006. **
https://www.nps.gov/subjects/policy/upload/MP_2006_amended.pdf
The Park Service's comprehensive management policy document. Among other subjects, it addresses recreational development and states that new downhill ski facilities and associated structures will not be allowed in national park areas. The policy provides contemporary context for NPS's approach to recreational facilities that can be provided outside parks.

[12] 36 CFR §2.50 — Special Events. Cornell Legal Information Institute.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/36/2.50
Perhaps the most important legal authority directly applicable to the proposed game. The federal regulation specifically addresses sporting events and spectator attractions in national parks. It requires a meaningful association between the park and the event and requires that the event contribute to visitor understanding of the park's significance. It also identifies circumstances requiring denial of a permit.

[13] National Park Service. “Permits and Reservations,” Grand Teton National Park.
https://www.nps.gov/grte/planyourvisit/permitsandreservations.htm
Grand Teton's current information concerning permits and special uses. Particularly relevant for understanding park-specific restrictions affecting events, traffic, wildlife movement, structures, and commercial displays.

[14] National Park Service. Management Policies 2006, Chapter 8 — Use of the Parks, §8.6.2.
https://www.nps.gov/subjects/policy/mp-8-use-of-parks.htm
Highly relevant to the commercial dimensions of an MLB game. The policy addresses special events involving for-profit entities, advertising and publicity, separate admission fees, public areas, and closures.

[15] Yahoo Sports/Front Office Sports. “‘Shortsighted’: Environmental Groups Sound Alarm on MLB Grand Teton Idea.” September 2026.
https://sports.yahoo.com/articles/shortsighted-environmental-groups-sound-alarm-182742398.html
The article that prompted this post. It summarizes concerns raised by conservation advocates and others about wildlife, artificial lighting, habitat, infrastructure, commercialization, and the precedent a Major League Baseball game could establish.

[16] National Park Service. “Planning and Public Involvement,” Grand Teton National Park.
https://www.nps.gov/grte/getinvolved/planning.htm
The park's official portal for planning activities and opportunities for public involvement. Readers can monitor this page for a future formal proposal or public-comment opportunity concerning the MLB event.

[17] National Park Service. “Contact Us,” Grand Teton National Park.
https://www.nps.gov/grte/contacts.htm
Official contact information for Grand Teton National Park. This provides readers with a direct means of communicating questions and concerns to park officials.

[18] U.S. Department of the Interior. “Contact Us.”
https://www.doi.gov/contact-us
Official contact portal for the cabinet department overseeing the National Park Service. This provides another avenue for citizens who want to communicate with federal officials about the proposal.

###

Meet Sean Smith, a master of conservation, adventure, and storytelling! This award-winning
conservationist and former National Park and Forest Ranger has trekked through the wilderness of Yellowstone, Glacier, Mount St. Helens, and the North Cascades, keeping nature safe with his trusty ranger hat and boots. But Sean's talents don't stop there. He's a TEDx speaker and even a private pilot.

But amidst all these adventures, Sean's heart beats for storytelling. He's been spinning tales since childhood, and now he writes thrilling national park novels that'll have you hooked from the first page. Imagine the drama and mystery of the mountains combined with the adrenaline of a rollercoaster ride. That's what you'll find in Sean's books, set against the majestic backdrop of Yellowstone, Gettysburg, and Mount Rainier. His most recent thriller is set in Glacier and will drop later this year.

So, if you're craving an escape into the wild, look no further. Grab a copy of Sean's novels and prepare for an unforgettable adventure. These stories will transport you to the heart of the national parks, where danger lurks and heroes rise. Don't miss out! Find all his captivating novels right here and in the QR code included. 

The Next Congress Should Put Guardrails Back Around America’s Public Lands

Presidents will come and go. America’s national parks, public lands, wildlife, and cultural treasures should not rise and fall with them.

This November, Americans will elect a new Congress. Inevitably, much of the campaign will revolve around taxes, immigration, health care, inflation, and other issues that dominate our politics.

But voters who care about national parks, wildlife, clean water, forests, and public lands should be asking congressional candidates another question:

What will you do to make sure one president cannot dismantle decades of conservation policy with the stroke of a pen?

That question has become increasingly urgent during President Donald Trump’s second administration.

Over the past two years, the administration has pursued significant changes to federal environmental and public-land policy. The administration argues that these actions reduce regulatory burdens, increase domestic energy and mineral production, restore local control, and bring environmental laws closer to their original statutory meaning.

Conservation organizations, tribes, environmental attorneys, and other critics see something very different: an unprecedented effort to weaken protections that Americans spent generations building.

Whatever happens in the courts and whatever happens in the next presidential election, the experience of the past two years has exposed weaknesses in America's conservation laws that Congress has the constitutional power to address.

The next Congress should consider doing exactly that.

Bears Ears: How Permanent Is a National Monument?

Few places illustrate the vulnerability of federal conservation policy better than Bears Ears National Monument in Utah.

President Barack Obama created Bears Ears in 2016, protecting approximately 1.35 million acres containing extraordinary archaeological, cultural, geological, and natural resources.

President Trump dramatically reduced the monument during his first administration. President Joe Biden subsequently restored it.

Then Trump returned to office.

On July 13, 2026, Trump issued another proclamation reducing Bears Ears to approximately 121,096 acres, excluding roughly 1.24 million acres from the monument.

The administration argues that the smaller monument complies with the Antiquities Act's requirement that monuments encompass the "smallest area compatible" with protecting the objects for which they were designated.

The proclamation also provides that excluded lands may, subject to existing protections and applicable law, become available for mineral leasing, mining claims, and other uses.

It is important to note that removing land from the monument does not automatically eliminate every protection covering it. Some excluded areas retain protections under wilderness designations, Wilderness Study Areas, Areas of Critical Environmental Concern, the Endangered Species Act, and other federal laws.

Nevertheless, Bears Ears presents a fundamental conservation question:

Should a national monument be capable of expanding, shrinking, expanding again, and shrinking again depending upon who occupies the White House?

Congress can answer that question.

Reform #1: Amend the Antiquities Act

Congress should clarify the Antiquities Act so that a president may create national monuments but cannot abolish one or substantially reduce its boundaries without congressional approval.

That distinction matters.

Congress delegated monument-designation authority to the president. Congress can explicitly determine what authority accompanies, or does not accompany, that delegation.

Congress could also legislatively designate important existing monuments, including Bears Ears, thereby providing protections based on statute rather than presidential proclamation.

There are competing proposals over presidential monument authority. Some would move in the opposite direction and reserve monument establishment or expansion to Congress.

That debate makes the underlying issue particularly appropriate for congressional consideration: Congress should decide the limits of presidential authority rather than leave the future of major landscapes perpetually dependent upon changing interpretations of executive power.

The Endangered Species Act Without Habitat?

Another major change involves one of America's most important wildlife laws.

For decades, regulations implementing the Endangered Species Act interpreted prohibited "harm" to protected wildlife to include certain significant habitat modifications that actually kill or injure wildlife by interfering with essential behavior such as breeding, feeding, or sheltering.

The Trump administration rescinded that regulatory definition in July.

The administration argues that the old interpretation expanded federal authority beyond the language Congress enacted and unnecessarily burdened landowners and businesses.

Conservation organizations strongly disagree and have sued to overturn the change. They argue that protecting an endangered animal while allowing destruction of habitat necessary for its survival makes little biological sense.

The administration has made additional ESA regulatory changes, including eliminating future use of the general "blanket rule" approach for newly listed threatened species and changing regulations governing critical-habitat decisions.

Again, Congress does not have to leave such fundamental questions to regulatory interpretation.

Reform #2: Put Habitat Protection Directly Into the ESA

Congress should amend the Endangered Species Act to explicitly state when significant habitat modification constitutes prohibited harm to a listed species.

That would accomplish something larger than simply reversing a Trump regulation.

It would settle the issue legislatively.

Congress could define "harm" with enough specificity to protect habitat genuinely necessary for species survival and recovery while establishing clearer standards for landowners and regulated industries.

Congress could similarly clarify that critical-habitat designations should principally rest on biological and conservation requirements and explicitly address how agencies should consider climate-driven changes to future habitat.

The principle should be simple:

You cannot save wildlife without saving the places wildlife needs to survive.

America's Roadless Forests Are Vulnerable Too

The administration's actions extend well beyond monuments and endangered species.

The Trump administration has moved to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule, which restricts road construction, logging, and certain other development across tens of millions of acres of national forest.

The administration says returning greater authority to local forest managers would improve forest management, reduce regulatory barriers, and help address wildfire risks.

Opponents argue that the rule protects some of America's most intact forests, wildlife habitat, watersheds, and backcountry recreation areas and that eliminating it could open previously protected landscapes to greater development.

Once again, the controversy exposes the vulnerability of conservation policies based primarily upon administrative rules.

Reform #3: Turn the Roadless Rule Into Law

Congress should codify core protections of the Roadless Rule.

Legislation could permanently protect inventoried roadless areas from new commercial road construction and large-scale development while providing carefully written exceptions for wildfire response, ecological restoration, tribal access, public safety, existing rights, and other legitimate needs.

Doing so would transform a regulatory policy vulnerable to changing administrations into a statutory national conservation standard.

Restore Congress's Voice Over Selling America's Public Estate

Congress should also address another recurring threat: disposal of federal land.

Public lands certainly require occasional boundary adjustments, exchanges, and disposals. Some small parcels make little sense for the federal government to retain.

But large-scale disposal of America's public estate is something entirely different.

Reform #4: Establish Stronger Protections Against Large-Scale Public-Land Disposal

Congress should establish a presumption that major federal public lands remain in public ownership unless Congress specifically authorizes their disposal.

Any major disposal proposal could be required to undergo public review and analysis of recreational access, wildlife habitat, water resources, tribal interests, cultural resources, local economic effects, and conservation values.

Protecting public ownership also has the potential for bipartisan support. Proposals such as the Public Lands in Public Hands Act demonstrate that concern over disposal of federal lands does not necessarily fit neatly within traditional partisan boundaries.

Keeping public lands public can be common ground.

Put Environmental Review Back in Statute

The Trump administration has also substantially rewritten the Department of the Interior's procedures for complying with the National Environmental Policy Act.

Interior describes its changes as reforms intended to reduce bureaucracy and accelerate permitting while maintaining NEPA's procedural requirements. Critics worry that important environmental-review requirements can consequently become increasingly dependent upon executive interpretation.

Reform #5: Establish a Clear Statutory Floor for Environmental Review

Congress should specify minimum requirements for major federal actions.

Those requirements could include analysis of reasonable alternatives, significant environmental consequences, effects on nearby communities and tribes, opportunities for meaningful public participation, and disclosure of important scientific information.

Congress could simultaneously establish reasonable deadlines and page limits for routine reviews.

Environmental review does not have to mean endless review.

The objective should be better decisions made within predictable timelines, rather than choosing between environmental protection and administrative efficiency.

Protect the Lands Surrounding National Parks

A national park boundary does not create an ecological force field.

Oil wells, mines, roads, industrial development, and other activities immediately outside a park can affect its water, wildlife, viewsheds, night skies, cultural resources, and visitor experience.

That concern has played out around places such as Chaco Culture National Historical Park, where mineral development on surrounding federal lands has generated years of controversy.

Reform #6: Require a "National Park Neighbor" Review

Congress should require federal agencies proposing major extractive or industrial projects within a specified distance of a National Park System unit to formally evaluate impacts upon park resources.

This would not automatically prohibit development.

It would require decision-makers to acknowledge that actions immediately outside Yellowstone, Grand Canyon, Glacier, Chaco, or another protected area can damage resources inside it.

For particularly important landscapes, Congress could go further by establishing permanent mineral withdrawals or conservation areas.

Give Wildlife Room to Move

America's conservation laws were largely created when wildlife management focused on protecting individual parks, refuges, forests, and wilderness areas.

Wildlife does not recognize those boundaries.

Elk migrate between national parks and national forests. Salmon move between federal, state, tribal, and private lands. Grizzly bears roam across enormous landscapes. Climate change is shifting habitats northward and upward.

Twenty-first-century conservation therefore requires protecting connections between protected places.

Reform #7: Establish a National Wildlife Corridor Program

Congress should create a permanent wildlife-corridor program directing federal agencies to identify major migration routes and habitat connections.

Federal transportation projects could incorporate wildlife crossings where scientifically justified. Land-management agencies could prioritize habitat connectivity when revising management plans, while voluntary conservation programs could help private landowners maintain migration corridors.

Congress could also expand grants to states, tribes, local governments, and private landowners for wildlife crossings and habitat restoration.

The goal would not be another enormous federal land designation.

It would be ensuring that America's existing protected lands do not become ecological islands.

A Law Is Meaningless If Nobody Is Left to Enforce It

There is another, less visible way to weaken America's conservation system.

You don't necessarily have to repeal the Endangered Species Act, sell a national park, or abolish a wildlife refuge.

You can simply make the agencies responsible for protecting them incapable of doing their jobs.

The National Park Service needs rangers, maintenance workers, biologists, archaeologists, historians, firefighters, engineers, and law-enforcement officers.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service needs scientists capable of reviewing endangered-species listings, developing recovery plans, restoring habitat, and managing wildlife refuges.

The Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service need professionals capable of monitoring millions of acres, fighting wildfires, restoring watersheds, administering recreation, conducting environmental reviews, enforcing permits, and managing competing demands upon public lands.

When staffing disappears, those responsibilities don't disappear with it.

Trails deteriorate.

Visitor centers close.

Scientific studies are delayed.

Endangered-species recovery plans fall behind.

Invasive species spread.

Cultural resources receive less protection.

Maintenance backlogs grow.

And agencies increasingly find themselves managing America's natural heritage in permanent crisis mode.

This creates another vulnerability that Congress should address.

Reform #8: Give Conservation Agencies Stable Funding and Staffing

Congress should establish more durable funding and staffing safeguards for America's major conservation agencies.

That does not mean Congress should guarantee every agency an ever-increasing budget or prevent legitimate efforts to make government more efficient.

Agencies should be accountable for how they spend taxpayer dollars.

But there is an enormous difference between improving government efficiency and systematically reducing an agency's ability to carry out responsibilities Congress has assigned to it.

Congress could establish minimum operational-capacity requirements for the National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, Forest Service, and Bureau of Land Management.

It could require agencies to publicly report how proposed staffing reductions would affect visitor services, law enforcement, wildfire response, endangered-species recovery, scientific monitoring, maintenance, and resource protection.

Congress could also place restrictions on an administration's ability to effectively dismantle congressionally created programs through mass layoffs, hiring freezes, office closures, or wholesale reorganizations without congressional approval.

And Congress could expand the use of dedicated conservation funding that cannot easily be redirected by whichever administration happens to occupy the White House.

There is already a successful model.

The Great American Outdoors Act, signed by President Trump in 2020 with strong bipartisan congressional support, permanently funded the Land and Water Conservation Fund and provided billions of dollars to address deferred maintenance on federal lands.

Congress should build upon that approach.

Because protecting public lands requires more than drawing lines on a map.

Congress can create the strongest conservation laws in the world. But those laws mean little if there aren't enough people, scientists, rangers, and resources to carry them out.

Make Conservation Harder to Politicize

There is a larger lesson behind all eight proposals.

Environmental policy has increasingly become a pendulum.

One administration writes regulations.

The next rescinds them.

The following administration restores them.

Then another administration removes them again.

Bears Ears may be the most visible example, but the same pattern increasingly affects endangered species, climate policy, environmental review, drilling, logging, agency staffing, and other public-land decisions.

That instability isn't particularly good for conservation.

It isn't particularly good for industry either.

Businesses, communities, tribes, landowners, recreationists, and conservation organizations all benefit from knowing what the rules will be five, ten, or twenty years from now.

Congress exists in part to make those rules.

Congress Should Legislate Again

For decades, Congress passed some of America's greatest conservation laws.

The Antiquities Act.

The National Park Service Organic Act.

The Wilderness Act.

The National Environmental Policy Act.

The Clean Air Act.

The Clean Water Act.

The Endangered Species Act.

Republican and Democratic presidents alike signed landmark conservation laws, and conservation legislation historically attracted coalitions that crossed ideological and geographic lines.

Today's Congress too often leaves enormous policy questions unresolved. Presidents consequently push the boundaries of executive authority, agencies reinterpret old statutes, environmental organizations and industries sue, judges decide what Congress meant, and the rules change again after the next election.

There is another way.

Congress can legislate.

The next Congress could:

1. Clarify the Antiquities Act so presidents cannot unilaterally dismantle national monuments.
2. Put habitat protection explicitly into the Endangered Species Act.
3. Codify protections for America's roadless national forests.
4. Strengthen safeguards against large-scale disposal of public lands.
5. Establish a statutory floor for meaningful environmental review.
6. Require consideration of threats to national parks from nearby federal development.
7. Create a national wildlife-corridor program.
8. Provide conservation agencies with stable funding, staffing, and operational capacity.

These policies would outlast a Trump administration.

They would also outlast the administration that follows it.

And that is precisely the point.

The Question to Ask This Election

Americans shouldn't have to wonder every four years whether a national monument will still exist after the next inauguration.

A species shouldn't gain or lose fundamental habitat protections simply because control of the executive branch changes.

A national park shouldn't deteriorate because the federal government no longer employs enough people to maintain or protect it.

And lands preserved for generations shouldn't suddenly become disposable because one administration has a different interpretation of a decades-old statute.

Presidents need authority to govern.

But presidents also need guardrails.

Our Constitution provides a branch of government capable of creating them: Congress.

So as candidates ask for our votes this fall, Americans who care about national parks, wildlife, wilderness, and public lands should ask them something in return:

What laws will you support to ensure these places are still protected long after the next president is gone?

Because America's public lands belong to generations yet to come.

Their future should never depend upon the signature, or whims, of one person.

###

Meet Sean Smith, a master of conservation, adventure, and storytelling! This award-winning
conservationist and former National Park and Forest Ranger has trekked through the wilderness of Yellowstone, Glacier, Mount St. Helens, and the North Cascades, keeping nature safe with his trusty ranger hat and boots. But Sean's talents don't stop there. He's a TEDx speaker and even a private pilot.

But amidst all these adventures, Sean's heart beats for storytelling. He's been spinning tales since childhood, and now he writes thrilling national park novels that'll have you hooked from the first page. Imagine the drama and mystery of the mountains combined with the adrenaline of a rollercoaster ride. That's what you'll find in Sean's books, set against the majestic backdrop of Yellowstone, Gettysburg, and Mount Rainier. His most recent thriller is set in Glacier and will drop later this year.

So, if you're craving an escape into the wild, look no further. Grab a copy of Sean's novels and prepare for an unforgettable adventure. These stories will transport you to the heart of the national parks, where danger lurks and heroes rise. Don't miss out! Find all his captivating novels right here and in the QR code included. 

The Endangered Species Act Is Under Attack Again. Wildlife Can't Afford for Us to Look Away

For more than 50 years, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) has served as America's emergency room for wildlife. When species are on the brink of extinction, the ESA has stepped in to protect not only the animals themselves, but also the habitats they need to survive and recover.

Thanks to the law, iconic species such as the bald eagle, American alligator, peregrine falcon, gray whale, and California condor have been pulled back from the edge of extinction. The ESA has prevented the disappearance of more than 99% of the species placed under its protection. It is widely regarded as one of the most successful conservation laws ever enacted.

Now, however, the Trump administration has finalized and proposed a series of regulatory changes that conservationists say could fundamentally weaken that law.

The Administration's New Rules

The most controversial change removes the federal regulatory definition of "harm" under the Endangered Species Act. For decades, federal regulations interpreted "harm" to include significant habitat destruction or degradation when it kills or injures protected wildlife by impairing essential behaviors such as breeding, feeding, or sheltering. That interpretation was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1995.

By rescinding that definition, the administration argues it is restoring the law to its original meaning and reducing unnecessary regulatory burdens on landowners, businesses, and infrastructure projects. Interior officials contend the previous interpretation expanded federal authority beyond what Congress intended.

The administration has also finalized or proposed several additional changes that collectively narrow ESA protections, including:

• Eliminating automatic protections for newly listed threatened species unless the government adopts species-specific rules.
• Requiring greater consideration of economic impacts when designating critical habitat.
• Revising listing and federal consultation regulations in ways that critics argue make habitat protections more difficult to implement.

Viewed individually, each rule may appear technical. Together, they represent one of the most significant regulatory rollbacks of the Endangered Species Act in decades.

Why Habitat Matters

Imagine making it illegal to shoot a bald eagle—but perfectly legal to cut down every tree where bald eagles nest.

That's the practical concern many wildlife biologists have raised.

For most endangered species, habitat loss is the single greatest threat to survival. A wolf cannot recover without connected forests. Salmon cannot return without healthy rivers. Red-cockaded woodpeckers cannot persist without mature longleaf pine forests. Florida panthers cannot expand if every remaining corridor becomes subdivisions and highways.

Species don't disappear only because individuals are killed.

They disappear because the places that sustain them disappear.

Removing habitat protections means developers, mining companies, energy projects, or other land uses may face fewer ESA restrictions if habitat destruction is not considered unlawful "harm" under the Act. Environmental organizations argue this creates a significant gap in one of the law's most effective conservation tools.

Why Americans Should Care—Even If They Aren't Wildlife Enthusiasts

It's easy to think endangered species only matter to birdwatchers or national park visitors.

But healthy ecosystems quietly perform services every American depends on.

Forests filter drinking water.

Healthy Forests are more wildfire resilient.

Predators help maintain balanced ecosystems.

Wetlands reduce flooding.

Native plants stabilize soils and improve water quality.

Pollinators support billions of dollars in agriculture.

When ecosystems unravel, people ultimately pay the price through higher costs, degraded recreation opportunities, increased flood damage, declining fisheries, and reduced biodiversity.

Protecting endangered species isn't simply about saving charismatic animals.

It's about maintaining the natural systems that support human communities.

The Administration's Perspective

Supporters of the new regulations argue the ESA has become overly burdensome, slowing housing construction, energy development, infrastructure, and economic growth.

They contend federal agencies stretched the meaning of "harm" beyond what Congress intended and believe states, private landowners, and tailored species-specific protections can provide conservation while reducing regulatory uncertainty.

Whether these reforms ultimately improve conservation or weaken it will likely be decided not only by policymakers but also by the federal courts.

Conservation Organizations Are Fighting Back

Environmental organizations have responded quickly.

Within days of the final "harm" rule, a coalition including the Center for Biological Diversity, Earthjustice, Sierra Club, Conservation Law Foundation, and other organizations filed suit in federal court.

Their central argument is straightforward:

If destroying the habitat essential to an endangered animal's survival is no longer considered "harm," then one of the Endangered Species Act's core protections becomes largely meaningless.

Additional lawsuits challenging other ESA rule changes are expected as more regulations take effect.

What Citizens Can Do

If you believe strong endangered species protections matter, there are several constructive ways to get involved.

1. Submit public comments.
Many federal regulatory changes include public comment periods. Agencies are legally required to review substantive comments before finalizing rules.

2. Support conservation organizations.
Groups such as the Center for Biological Diversity, Earthjustice, Defenders of Wildlife, the National Wildlife Federation, and local conservation organizations rely on public support to pursue scientific research, education, and litigation.

3. Contact your elected officials.
Members of Congress can influence appropriations, oversight, and future amendments to the Endangered Species Act.  All of the House of Representatives and a third of the Senate are up for reelection this November. Constituents voicing their support for a strong ESA during an election cycle, will increase the likelihood of their pausing before supporting its weakening.

4. Stay informed.
Regulatory changes often receive far less attention than legislation, despite having enormous real-world consequences.

5. Speak up locally.
Many endangered species depend on state, county, and local land-use decisions as much as federal policy.

Conservation Is an American Value

Protecting endangered species has never been solely about preventing extinction.

It reflects a deeper national value: that some parts of America's natural heritage are worth passing on intact to future generations.

Political administrations come and go. Regulations change. Court decisions are issued and later revisited.

But extinction is permanent.

Once a species disappears, no future Congress, president, or court can bring it back.

The Endangered Species Act has helped ensure that America's wildlife remains part of our shared inheritance. Whether it continues to do so will depend not only on judges and elected officials, but on whether citizens continue to insist that conserving our natural heritage remains a national priority.

###

Meet Sean Smith, a master of conservation, adventure, and storytelling! This award-winning
conservationist and former National Park and Forest Ranger has trekked through the wilderness of Yellowstone, Glacier, Mount St. Helens, and the North Cascades, keeping nature safe with his trusty ranger hat and boots. But Sean's talents don't stop there. He's a TEDx speaker and even a private pilot.

But amidst all these adventures, Sean's heart beats for storytelling. He's been spinning tales since childhood, and now he writes thrilling national park novels that'll have you hooked from the first page. Imagine the drama and mystery of the mountains combined with the adrenaline of a rollercoaster ride. That's what you'll find in Sean's books, set against the majestic backdrop of Yellowstone, Gettysburg, and Mount Rainier. His most recent thriller is set in Glacier and will drop later this year.

So, if you're craving an escape into the wild, look no further. Grab a copy of Sean's novels and prepare for an unforgettable adventure. These stories will transport you to the heart of the national parks, where danger lurks and heroes rise. Don't miss out! Find all his captivating novels right here and in the QR code included. 

The 10 Best National Parks to Experience the American Revolution

"The American Revolution was more than a war for independence. It was a revolution in political thought, one that declared governments derive their power from the people, not kings, and exist to protect our natural rights. Two hundred fifty years later, our national parks preserve the places where those revolutionary ideas were debated, defended, and ultimately secured."

As fireworks fill the skies every Fourth of July, Americans celebrate the birth of our nation. Yet the true meaning of Independence Day isn't found in fireworks, parades, or backyard barbecues.

It is found in the words penned by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence:

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

Those twenty words changed the world.

Before 1776, monarchs generally claimed political authority through divine right, inheritance, or conquest. The American Revolution rejected that centuries-old assumption. Instead, the Founders asserted that every person possesses inherent rights that no government grants and therefore no government should take away. Governments exist only because the people choose to create them.

Even more remarkably, the Declaration continues:

"Whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it."

That simple but profound idea became the philosophical foundation for democracies around the globe.

America's national parks preserve the places where these revolutionary ideals were born, debated, defended, and ultimately secured. Here are ten of the best places to experience that story firsthand.

1. Independence National Historical Park, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

No place better represents the birth of American democracy.

Inside Independence Hall, delegates debated and approved both the Declaration of Independence and, eleven years later, the Constitution. Nearby stands the Liberty Bell, whose famous crack has become a symbol of liberty itself.

This is where political power was formally transferred from a king to "We the People."

If you only visit one Revolutionary site, make it this one.

2. Minute Man National Historical Park, Massachusetts

"The shot heard 'round the world" was more than a battle, it marked the moment ordinary citizens decided that liberty was worth fighting for.

Walking the Battle Road between Lexington and Concord allows visitors to literally follow the footsteps of colonial militia who stood against one of the world's most powerful armies.

Here the Revolution transformed from political disagreement into armed resistance.

3. Saratoga National Historical Park, New York

Every revolution reaches a turning point.

The American victory at Saratoga convinced France that the fledgling United States might actually succeed. French military and financial assistance fundamentally changed the course of the war.

Without Saratoga, there may never have been a United States.

4. Yorktown Battlefield, Virginia

The Revolution effectively ended here.

General Cornwallis's surrender in October 1781 secured American independence and demonstrated that perseverance, alliances, and leadership could overcome overwhelming odds.

Visitors can stand where the British Army laid down its arms and a new nation emerged.

5. Valley Forge National Historical Park, Pennsylvania

Valley Forge reminds us that winning independence required far more than battlefield victories.

The Continental Army endured freezing temperatures, disease, hunger, and shortages while remaining committed to the revolutionary cause.

Washington transformed an exhausted collection of volunteers into a disciplined fighting force.

The greatest lesson of Valley Forge may be that freedom often demands sacrifice long before victory arrives.

6. Morristown National Historical Park, New Jersey

Often overshadowed by Valley Forge, Morristown served as Washington's headquarters during two difficult winters.

From these headquarters, Washington kept the Continental Army together despite shortages, political disagreements, and declining morale.

The Revolution survived because its leaders persevered through setbacks rather than expecting quick victories.

7. Boston National Historical Park, Massachusetts

The Revolution began long before the first musket fired.

Boston preserves many of the events that ignited colonial resistance:

• The site of the Boston Massacre

• Faneuil Hall

• Old South Meeting House

• Bunker Hill Monument

• The USS Constitution

These locations reveal how protests over taxation evolved into demands for representative government.

8. Thomas Jefferson Memorial, Washington, D.C.

Although not a Revolutionary battlefield, few places better capture the ideas behind the Revolution.

The memorial features Jefferson's writings on liberty, equality, education, and self-government.

The Revolution was won with muskets—but it began with ideas.

Jefferson reminds visitors that America's founding principles remain aspirations requiring each generation's stewardship.

9. George Washington Birthplace National Monument, Virginia

Every great movement begins with individuals.

This peaceful landscape introduces visitors to the early life of the man who became commander of the Continental Army and the nation's first president.

Perhaps Washington's greatest contribution came after the war, when he voluntarily surrendered military authority and later stepped down from the presidency after two terms.

In a world filled with leaders who clung to power, Washington demonstrated that true leadership sometimes means willingly giving it up.

His example reinforced one of the Revolution's central principles: political power belongs to the people—not to any single leader.

10. Colonial National Historical Park, Virginia

Connecting Jamestown and Yorktown, Colonial Parkway tells the larger story of America's political evolution.

Jamestown represents the beginnings of English self-government in North America.

Yorktown marks the successful conclusion of the Revolution.

Together, they illustrate nearly two centuries of political development that culminated in American independence.

More Than Battlefields

The American Revolution was not simply a military conflict.

It was a profound debate about where government derives its legitimacy.

The Founders rejected the notion that kings ruled because of birth or divine appointment. Instead, they argued that every person possesses inalienable rights, including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Government exists to protect those rights, not to grant them.

When governments fail in that duty, the Declaration argues that citizens retain the right to reform or replace them through the political process.

That principle remains one of the most influential ideas in human history.

Why These Parks Matter Today

National parks preserve more than beautiful landscapes.

They preserve America's civic memory.

Walking through Independence Hall, standing on Lexington Green, or overlooking the earthworks at Yorktown reminds us that democracy is neither inevitable nor self-sustaining.

The men and women who launched the American experiment were imperfect human beings confronting impossible questions. Their answers continue to shape debates over liberty, equality, representation, and the role of government.

Regardless of political affiliation, Americans can agree that these places deserve preservation, not because they celebrate one party or one ideology but because they tell the story of a people who dared to declare that legitimate government derives its authority from the consent of the governed.

That revolutionary idea changed America.

And ultimately, it changed the world.

Final Thoughts

This Independence Day, don't just celebrate America's birthday.

Visit the places where ordinary farmers, merchants, soldiers, writers, and statesmen transformed an audacious idea into a nation.

Because the greatest treasures preserved by the National Park Service are not simply historic buildings or battlefields.

They are the enduring ideals of liberty, self-government, and the belief that the people, not kings hold the ultimate authority in a free society.

###

Meet Sean Smith, a master of conservation, adventure, and storytelling! This award-winning
conservationist and former National Park and Forest Ranger has trekked through the wilderness of Yellowstone, Glacier, Mount St. Helens, and the North Cascades, keeping nature safe with his trusty ranger hat and boots. But Sean's talents don't stop there. He's a TEDx speaker and even a private pilot.

But amidst all these adventures, Sean's heart beats for storytelling. He's been spinning tales since childhood, and now he writes thrilling national park novels that'll have you hooked from the first page. Imagine the drama and mystery of the mountains combined with the adrenaline of a rollercoaster ride. That's what you'll find in Sean's books, set against the majestic backdrop of Yellowstone, Gettysburg, and Mount Rainier. His most recent thriller is set in Glacier and will drop later this year.

So, if you're craving an escape into the wild, look no further. Grab a copy of Sean's novels and prepare for an unforgettable adventure. These stories will transport you to the heart of the national parks, where danger lurks and heroes rise. Don't miss out! Find all his captivating novels right here and in the QR code included.