">
Trump Administration Partially Reverses National Park Layoff Decision
Days after enacting mass layoffs that alarmed conservationists and outdoor enthusiasts, the Trump administration has reversed course, reinstating thousands of seasonal positions within the National Park Service (NPS). This decision comes in response to mounting public outcry and widespread protests against the initial cuts, which had threatened the maintenance and accessibility of America’s hiking trails and public lands.
A reduction in staffing means some rangers will have to abandon guided hikes and educational sessions. (Photo: Glacier NPS)
The Department of the Interior released a memo to park service officials announcing their ability to hire 7,700 seasonal workers this year compared to the estimated 6,300 from previous years. If carried out in full, this would mark a significant departure from the government-wide hiring freeze imposed by the Trump administration, which aimed to shrink the federal bureaucracy by threatening to dismantle entire agencies, offering “deferred resignation” to most federal employees, and dismissing tens of thousands of career staff.
Public Backlash to the Layoffs
The initial layoffs affected around 1,000 full-time NPS employees—approximately 5% of the agency’s permanent workforce—as part of a broader federal downsizing initiative led by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). The order also eliminated thousands of positions for seasonal workers with the hires receiving emails rescinding their employment offers. These cuts raised immediate concerns about the future of trail upkeep, emergency response capabilities, and wildlife conservation efforts across the nation’s parks.
Public outcry was immediate. Protests erupted nationwide, emphasizing the indispensable role of NPS staff in conservation and visitor safety. The reinstatement of the seasonal positions is seen as a partial victory for these advocates, helping to mitigate some of the operational challenges posed by the earlier layoffs. However, the 1,000 full-time employees remain laid off, leaving significant gaps in year-round park management and specialized programs.
The public backlash to the decision was immediate and passionate. Many utilized Outdoor Alliance’s tool to send a message to their representatives.
Long and Short-Term Implications
Concerns remain high about the long-term impact of the layoffs. The loss of permanent staff has disrupted critical programs, including wildfire management and trail maintenance. The termination of key personnel at some National Monuments and National Forests has already prompted trail closures and reduced hours due to under staffing.
The abrupt policy changes have also sown confusion and uncertainty among remaining staff and prospective seasonal workers. The initial rescission of job offers, followed by their sudden reinstatement, has left many questioning the stability of their employment.
Putting Some Numbers in Context
While budgets and government spending have long been a divisive subject in American politics, it is important to consider impact and context when prioritizing budget cuts.The National Park Service operates on a budget that constitutes less than one-fifteenth of one percent of the federal budget, yet it delivers significant economic benefits, generating $15 in economic activity for every dollar invested.
For perspective, the NPS budget of $3.1 billion is so small it doesn’t even register on federal spending charts—less than one-tenth of the budget allocated to Science ($38.64 billion). Source: OMB, National Priorities Project
Over the past decade, from 2012 to 2022, park visitation increased by 10%, while staffing levels declined by 13%, resulting in 2,600 fewer staff members than in 2011. The combination of increased visitation and reduced staffing has strained the agency’s capacity to maintain park facilities and services, and further cuts will severely exacerbate this problem without reducing the federal budget by any significant amount.
Uncertain Times
While the reinstatement of seasonal positions offers a bit of hope, the broader implications of the initial layoffs continue to threaten America’s trails and natural heritage. The situation underscores the delicate balance between fiscal policy and environmental stewardship, highlighting the profound impact such decisions have on the preservation of the nation’s landscapes.
featured image via
This website contains affiliate links, which means The Trek may receive a percentage of any product or service you purchase using the links in the articles or advertisements. The buyer pays the same price as they would otherwise, and your purchase helps to support The Trek's ongoing goal to serve you quality backpacking advice and information. Thanks for your support!
To learn more, please visit the About This Site page.
Comments 7
Lots of good statistics here. It makes no sense to cut. The pandemic really put a lot of roads/structures under stress, too. I saw it with my own eyes at the national parks. They should raise their entrance fees across the board then. But then it’d another thing for them to complain about, just like eggs.
Thank you Katie. I appreciate your insighfull articles and how you are on top of this important issue that affects the future of our national treasures. Great Job.
There is a source of revenue available to the parks that should be explored before raising entrance fees, which make parks inaccessible to many of those who could benefit the most. The concessionaires, who benefit from having a captive audience and no competition, give very little back to the parks. (They are different from cooperating associations that have an interpretive mission and return any monies over and beyond operating expenses to the park.) Concessionaires operate hotels, sell you that overpriced hot dog and coke, and take your money for postcards and miniature monuments. Park visitors are encouraged to have a warm feeling about spending their money inside the parks because they believe they are directly giving money to their favorite site. I have long felt that if they streamlined their operations the way cooperating associations do and returned a greater percentage of their profits to the parks, the National Parks would be considerably better off.
Another excellent, well-researched article. Thank you for adding the context statistics; even the accountants cannot argue with the numbers. Keep up the great work, Katie!
Thank you Katie. It’s truly angering what is happening right now.
When traveling abroad many national or state sites have a lower fee for the citizens of that country and a significantly higher fee for people like me visiting the country. Since the tax dollars of US citizens support the federal lands (NPS, NFS, national monuments, BLM…) why aren’t non citizens visiting our national sites paying a higher fee? In addition, why can’t US citizens get an advantage when applying for permits (Angel’s Landing in Zion, The Wave, timed entry at numerous national parks…)? I love sharing what America has to offer but I’m also aware that many citizens aren’t able to win the lotteries for our national treasures. When I’ve tried to get permits I’ve been told I’m competing with people from all over the world.
I agree.