Trump takes aim at the people who protect national parks from climate change
Reporting for this story was supported by the Climate Equity Reporting Project at the UC Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism and is part of a project on how the Trump administration's funding cuts are affecting Californians.
The last few months have been a tumultuous time for National Park Service employees. After President Donald Trump took office, the federal agency laid off roughly 1,000 employees in a purge dubbed the Valentine's Day massacre. Then, after two judges ruled that the layoffs were unlawful, they were rehired. Now, as the Department of Government Efficiency begins executing an official and much larger plan to slash the federal workforce, many employees are anxiously awaiting the next round of cuts. The White House has reportedly directed the agency to reduce its workforce by as much as 30 percent in the coming months.
Despite the agency's murky future, some changes are clear: As the days get warmer, the numbers of visitors to the parks will begin to tick up. As spring gives way to summer, the Western landscape will begin to dry out, and the risk of drought and wildfires will also increase. The stakes for the climate — and for the parks in the face of climate-fueled disasters — couldn't be higher.
'Cities and places that are more developed are more resistant to changes in climate, but in these wild areas, we can see more warning signs, more indicators if the patterns start changing dramatically,' said one National Park Service employee. 'With all of these positions lost, there will be no one on watch anymore.'
The employee, who works at Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks in California, was among those laid off in February and rehired. He returned to work on Saturday and requested anonymity to speak freely without fear of reprisal. The February layoffs targeted probationary employees who had been hired or promoted within the last year.
National parks are on the frontlines of climate change. Temperatures in the parks have increased at double the rate of the country as a whole in part due to the fact that they are located in extreme environments, including at high elevations and in especially arid places. Many parks are now drying out faster than they ever have, resulting in larger wildfires, while others are facing unprecedented flooding. In Sequoia National Park, for instance, the giant sequoia trees, which have evolved with fires, have been unable to withstand the wildfires of recent years and are dying at unprecedented rates. Meanwhile, parts of the park had to be closed in 2023 because severe flooding washed away roadways.
Grist spoke with five former and current park employees about the role staff play in protecting the parks and the climate implications of the Trump administration's policies for the National Park Service. Aside from the interpreters and rangers who work directly with the public, the agency employs biologists, hydrologists, geologists, and conservation managers who track, study, and actively protect the ecosystems they work with. Crews also remove invasive species in an effort to preserve native species and make the landscape less flammable. Some employees are also working to move species at risk of extinction due to climate change, such as the Joshua trees in the Mojave Desert, to other parts of the park in a process called managed relocation. Many of the staff who study burn areas and the impacts of fire on native species also serve as a secondary fire-fighting force when needed. If the agency's workforce is reduced dramatically, it's unclear how much of this work can continue, they said.'Most of those positions have the least protections to begin with, so they're the first ones on the chopping block,' the Sequoia and Kings Canyon employee said.
In addition to potential staff losses, a portion of the funding from two landmark federal laws — the Inflation Reduction Act and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law — remains frozen, further jeopardizing the agency's work. A spokesperson for the agency did not respond to questions about the firings or frozen funding.
The National Park Service has been working to prepare for a warming world. It has had an ecosystem inventory and monitoring program in place since 1998 and a climate change response program since 2010. In recent years, it invested in building out both programs to detect and respond to the rapid changes in ecosystems and the growing number of disasters taking place in the parks. It also trained thousands of rangers, educated the public about the impacts of climate change on the parks, and adopted a national framework to help park staff decide which ecosystems to prioritize saving. In 2023, the agency developed a plan to electrify park vehicle fleets and buildings to reduce the parks' overall greenhouse gas emissions.
The Biden Administration provided funding for a number of these initiatives through the Inflation Reduction Act and Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, which Congress passed in 2022 and 2021, respectively. The agency used the funding for landscape restoration, invasive species removal, and integrating Indigenous knowledge with scientific research and restoration work. Funds from the Inflation Reduction Act alone directed $700 million toward hiring more staff and better preparing the parks' natural, cultural, and historic resources to withstand a changing climate. Since the parks also serve as carbon sinks by storing planet-warming gases in soil, wetlands, and forests, thirty five parks received funding to restore grasslands and the seedbanks that support them. But as funding for such initiatives remains frozen and the potential for mass layoffs looms large, the future of these projects is now uncertain.
Terri Thomas, a retired natural resources manager who worked in Crater Lake, Yosemite, and Everglades National Parks, said she is particularly concerned about the potential impact of weakening the inventory and monitoring program, which collects scientific information about how a park's native plants, animals, and birds are evolving.
'Parks are increasingly considering measures such as managed relocation to protect at-risk species by moving them beyond their historical range to locations with more favorable biotic or climatic conditions,' said Thomas. 'Without the staff and their scientific and institutional knowledge, these actions may not occur, and species could be lost.'
The agency's restoration work, some of which is dependent on federal funding, is also on the chopping block. In 2016, Yosemite National Park's Ackerson Meadow, a 400-acre parcel of formerly privately-owned land, was gifted to the National Park Service. The park and several conservation nonprofits are working to restore the land, which is home to multiple endangered plants and animals, a large meadow, and a vast network of wetlands.
'It's an ongoing process of improving the hydrology and function of a meadow system, and one of the benefits is carbon sequestration,' said Jesse Chakrin, executive director of The Fund for People in Parks and a former park ranger. 'Not only does it provide clean water, but the peat and the soils there are incredible carbon sinks.'
The number of visitors to the national parks has been increasing steadily since the pandemic and reached a new record of nearly 34 million people last year. But a recent internal park memo forbade employees from publicizing the number, in part because public awareness of this growth might spur more concern about the cuts to staff and funding. In years past, Chakrin, said that kind of bump would have likely resulted in more resources for the agency. Now, he said, 'we're in a totally new arena of operations at this point, and [parks are] trying to meet this increased demand with potentially a lot less staff down the road.'
The agency will be allowed to hire 5,000 seasonal employees this summer, but Chakrin and others worry about the lack of institutional knowledge moving forward. 'It's a real problem when you don't have continuity of leadership because these [climate resiliency] projects require effort and dedication over long periods of time. The damage being done under this administration will have an impact for decades.'
This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Trump takes aim at the people who protect national parks from climate change on Apr 2, 2025.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


New York Post
10 minutes ago
- New York Post
Bill Clinton urges Trump to ‘defuse' Israel-Iran crisis, end ‘outright constant killing of civilians'
Former President Bill Clinton called on President Donald Trump to 'defuse' the current conflict between Israel and Iran during an appearance on 'The Daily Show' on Tuesday. So far, the U.S. has stayed out of direct action in the conflict, but it has helped Israel shoot down missiles from Tehran. Advertisement There are some indications, however, that the Trump administration could move to get more directly involved in the conflict. While the former president expressed skepticism about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Trump's intentions regarding peace in the Middle East, he urged the current president to calm the situation and end the 'outright constant killing of civilians.' 'First of all — they're not talking about negotiating peace in the Middle East because the Israelis have no intention of… under Prime Minister Netanyahu, of giving the Palestinians a state. And now, they're too divided and crushed to organize themselves to achieve it,' Clinton said. He continued, maintaining that Trump agrees with Netanyahu in believing that the Palestinians 'shouldn't have a state.' Advertisement However, he added that neither leader wants to trigger a full-scale regional disaster. 3 Former President Bill Clinton made an appearance on 'The Daily Show,' calling on President Donald Trump to resolve the Israel-Iran conflict. The Daily Show 'Mr. Netanyahu has long wanted to fight Iran because that way he can stay in office forever and ever. I mean, he's been there most of the last 20 years,' the former president said. 'But I think we should be trying to defuse it, and I hope President Trump will do that.' Advertisement Clinton emphasized the importance of the U.S. protecting its allies in the region, while simultaneously advocating for restraint. 3 The U.S. has not been involved in the ongoing conflict in the Middle East, though the Trump administration could get involved. AFP via Getty Images 'We have to convince our friends in the Middle East that we'll stand with them and try to protect them,' he stated. 'But choosing undeclared wars in which the primary victims are civilians, who are not politically involved, one way or the other, who just want to live decent lives, is not a very good solution.' Advertisement Clinton conceded that the U.S. needs to try and stop Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, but again stressed the importance of saving innocent lives in the region. 3 Clinton also said that the 'outright constant killing of civilians' has to end. IRANIAN SUPREME LEADER'S WEBSITE/GPO/AFP via Getty Images 'Do I think that we have to try to stop Iran from having a nuclear weapon? I do,' he declared. 'But we don't have to have all this outright constant killing of civilians who can't defend themselves, and they just want a chance to live.' Fox News' Rachel Wolf contributed to this report.

Associated Press
15 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Israel's military warns people to evacuate the area around Iran's Arak heavy water reactor
DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) — Israel's military warned people Thursday to evacuate the area around Iran's Arak heavy water reactor. The warning came in a social media post on X. It included a satellite image of the plant in a red circle like other warnings that proceeded strikes. The Arak heavy water reactor is 250 kilometers (155 miles) southwest of Tehran. Heavy water helps cool nuclear reactors, but it produces plutonium as a byproduct that can potentially be used in nuclear weapons. That would provide Iran another path to the bomb beyond enriched uranium, should it choose to pursue the weapon. Iran had agreed under its 2015 nuclear deal with world powers to redesign the facility to relieve proliferation concerns. In 2019, Iran started up the heavy water reactor's secondary circuit, which at the time did not violate Tehran's 2015 nuclear deal with world powers. Britain at the time was helping Iran redesign the Arak reactor to limit the amount of plutonium it produces, stepping in for the U.S., which had withdrawn from the project after President Donald Trump's decision in 2018 to unilaterally withdraw America from the nuclear deal.


New York Times
19 minutes ago
- New York Times
An Iran Strategy for Trump
Nobody, perhaps even President Trump himself, knows for sure whether the United States will wind up joining Israel in launching military strikes on Iran. 'I may do it, I may not do it,' he said on Wednesday. But with a third U.S. aircraft carrier on its way to the region and the president calling for Iran's 'unconditional surrender,' the chance of war seems higher than ever — particularly now that Ali Khamenei, Iran's supreme leader, has gruffly rebuffed Trump's demand. If the U.S. does attack, the most obvious target will be the Fordo nuclear site, a deeply buried facility where Iran enriches uranium and which, by most reports, can be knocked out only by a 15-ton bomb known as a Massive Ordnance Penetrator, or MOP. Less well known but surely on the U.S. target list is a new, still unfinished subterranean facility south of Iran's main (and now largely destroyed) enrichment plant at Natanz. American pilots would also almost certainly join their Israeli counterparts in attacking Iranian ballistic missile launchers and bases. And then what? Nobody doubts the U.S. can do a lot of damage to Iran's nuclear capabilities, at least in the short term. What comes afterward is harder to predict. Proponents of an American strike believe that we have no realistic choice other than to help Israel do as thorough a job as possible in setting back Iran's nuclear ambitions not just for months but years — more than enough time to allow benign forces to shape events, including the possibility of Iranians overthrowing their widely detested rulers. By contrast, skeptics fear that the lessons Iran's leaders will draw from an American attack is that they should have gotten a bomb much sooner — and that the appropriate response to such an attack is to be more repressive at home and less receptive to diplomatic overtures from abroad. Skeptics also expect that Iran will respond to an attack by ramping up its malign regional activities, not least to embroil the U.S. in another Middle East war the Trump administration desperately wants to avoid. I'm with the proponents. A nuclear-armed Iran, fielding missiles of ever-growing reach, is both an unacceptable threat to U.S. security and a consequential failure of U.S. deterrence. After years of Iran's prevarications, which led even the Biden administration to give up on diplomacy, to say nothing of Iran's cheating on its legal commitments — detailed last month in a report by the International Atomic Energy Agency — the world had run out of plausible nonmilitary options to prevent the regime from going nuclear. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.