Possible second round of national park terminations draw fire from Mojave Desert groups
Nearly 1,000 National Park Service employees were laid off ahead of the agency's busy summer season as part of President Donald Trump's efforts to downsize the federal government.
Recent emails from the Department of the Interior allegedly informed federal park employees that a second round of terminations would follow.
Krystian Lahage, Public Policy Officer for the Mojave Desert Land Trust, said they are "closely watching this situation" and are "deeply concerned over federal staff firings."
'The Mojave Desert Land Trust strongly opposes the Trump Administration's decision to fire thousands of employees serving our public lands," Kelly Herbinson said in a press release, Executive Director of Mojave Desert Land Trust.
"These actions put landscapes at risk that are championed and beloved by our communities and visitors alike. They exacerbate long-standing funding and staffing shortages for our nation's public lands. We are deeply saddened by the toll this action is taking on morale among federal employees who have dedicated their careers to preserving this country's most treasured landscapes.'
Mojave Desert Land Trust tallied up the numbers.
Federal firings in February have included approximately 2,300 employees at the Department of the Interior, with 800 staff at the Bureau of Land Management and 1,000 staff at the National Park Service. A further 3,000 U.S. Forest Service employees were laid off.
A second round of layoffs is expected.
The Trump administration Wednesday ordered heads of federal departments and agencies to prepare to initiate "large-scale reductions in force" by March 13.
A memo sent by the Personnel Management and Management and Budget offices has also instructed federal departments to eliminate positions and produce reorganization plans for their agencies by the same deadline, USA Today reported.
Six probationary employees were fired at Joshua Tree National Park following what many are calling the "Valentine's Day Massacre" on Feb. 14.
According to Joshua Tree's local radio station, Z107.7 FM, park employees were allegedly notified on Tuesday, Feb. 25 via email from the Department of the Interior of a possible second round of terminations later this week for "schedule A employees."
Schedule A employees include people with severe physical, psychiatric, or intellectual abilities as well as interpreters and other disability assistants according to the Office of Personnel Management (OPM).
This second round of layoffs notification comes only days after email ultimatums from the head of Department of Government Efficiency Elon Musk on Saturday, Feb. 22, demanding a reply detailing employee's five accomplishments within the last week lest they face "termination through resignation."
Mojave Desert Land Trust does not have any indication yet whether and how the layoffs of BLM staff will directly impact Chuckwalla National Monument or other Southern California public lands.
For now, most federal outdoor recreation staff around the nation are unsure of their future.
'The loss of experienced staff in these positions will negatively impact protected habitat in the long-term," Mojave Desert Land Trust organizers told the Daily Press. "The lack of adequate staffing will make it extremely difficult to mitigate visitor interaction with the fragile desert ecosystem and at-risk species such as the Joshua tree and the Endangered Mojave Desert tortoise."
Staffing at Joshua Tree National Park was already operating at reduced capacity, Herbinson added, and seasonal employees will not be a solution to this public land crisis.
Joshua Tree is one of the busiest national parks in California with 3 million annual visitors trailing only Yosemite. The absence of these permanent staff could also lead to lower collected revenue. While visitation has risen to National Park Service units over the last decade, appropriate funding has not followed.
Park advocates like the National Parks Conservation Association and Coalition to Protect National Parks also warn of the repercussions of laying off so many personnel at an organization that was already understaffed.
The ability to protect the parks will severely diminish with fewer staff, they advise. Trash will accumulate and toilets in campgrounds will go unattended. Rescue response time will also be critically slower with fewer people manning national parks, leaving many skeptical of their safety while visiting the parks this summer.
Mojave Desert Land Trust told the Daily Press that it is also concerned about the Ending Presidential Overreach on Public Lands Act authored this year by Representatives Celeste Maloy (R-UT) and Mark Amodei (R-NV). The act would rescind the president's authority to designate national monuments by requiring congressional approval.
The Antiquities Act is a bedrock, first-of-its-kind conservation law that gives presidents the authority to designate national monuments on federal lands.
It has been used by an equal number of Republican and Democratic presidents since its enactment by President Roosevelt in 1906. Locally, both Joshua Tree and Death Valley began as national monuments designated by the Antiquities Act.
Mojave Desert Land Trust has joined countless other organizations and voters in opposing this legislation that would take away the acting president's power to designate national parks and monuments.
The Department of the Interior held a 15-day internal review of the nation's national monuments and other public lands previously protected from mineral and energy extraction this month.
The review came at the behest of Interior Secretary Burgum's Secretarial Order 3418 "Unleashing American Energy," which primarily dealt with rolling back energy development regulations.
Order 3418 encourages energy exploration and production on federal lands and waters to meet the needs of the citizens and solidify the United States as a global energy leader long into the future. The order states the intention of doing so is to establish the nation's position as the leading producer and processor of non-fuel minerals, including rare earth minerals.
This process excludes input from the public.
Mojave Desert Land Trust is strongly opposed to this order. Energy production is already booming on the lands available for extraction, organizers argued.
According to the Energy Information Administration, the United States has been the world's top producer of crude oil for the past six years, meaning, there is no need to further compromise the country's public and federal lands.
Through pioneering grassroots efforts, the Mojave Desert Land Trust successfully campaigned for a new national monument to be recognized in Southern California's Mojave Desert this year.
The establishment of Chuckwalla National Monument came as one of outgoing President Joe Biden's last executive actions. It is now the fifth largest land-based national monument in the mainland U.S.
Over the course of the last 18 years, Mojave Desert Land Trust has closely collaborated with the National Park Service and Bureau of Land Management in the shared mission of conserving public lands through land acquisition, stewardship, native plant conservation, and education.
Since its founding in 2006, Mojave Desert Land Trust has conserved over 125,000 acres, conveying more tracts of land to the National Park Service than any other nonprofit.
Mojave Desert Land Trust is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization with the mission to protect and care for lands with natural, scenic, and cultural value within the Colorado and Mojave Deserts.
The organization established a conservation seed bank to ensure the preservation of native species, which today houses over 900 seed collections. The organization also operates an onsite nursery at its Joshua Tree headquarters which has grown over 120,000 native plants for restoration projects and community landscaping.
Mojave Desert Land Trust educates and advocates for the conservation of the desert, involving hundreds of volunteers in its work.
McKenna is a reporter for the Daily Press. She can be reached at mmobley@gannett.com.
This article originally appeared on Victorville Daily Press: Mojave Desert groups oppose second round of national park terminations
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Pritzker, governors will defend immigration policies before House panel
As President Donald Trump spars with California's governor over immigration enforcement, Republicans in Congress are calling other Democratic governors to the Capitol on Thursday to question them over policies limiting cooperation with federal immigration authorities. The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform posted a video ahead of the hearing highlighting crimes allegedly committed by immigrants in the U.S. illegally and pledging that 'sanctuary state governors will answer to the American people.' The hearing is to include testimony from Govs. JB Pritzker of Illinois, Tim Walz of Minnesota and Kathy Hochul of New York. There's no legal definition of a sanctuary jurisdiction, but the term generally refers to governments with policies limiting cooperation with federal immigration authorities. Courts previously have upheld the legality of such laws. But Trump's administration has sued Colorado, Illinois, New York and several cities — including Chicago and Rochester, New York — asserting their policies violate the U.S. Constitution or federal law. Illinois, Minnesota and New York also were among 14 states and hundreds of cities and counties recently listed by the Department of Homeland Security as 'sanctuary jurisdictions defying federal immigration law.' The list later was removed from the department's website after criticism that it errantly included some local governments that support Trump's immigration policies. As Trump steps up immigration enforcement, some Democratic-led states have intensified their resistance by strengthening state laws restricting cooperation with immigration agents. Following clashes between crowds of protesters and immigration agents in Los Angeles, Trump deployed the National Guard to protect federal buildings and agents, and California Gov. Gavin Newsom accused Trump of declaring 'a war' on the underpinnings of American democracy. The House Oversight Committee has long been a partisan battleground, and in recent months it has turned its focus to immigration policy. Thursday's hearing follows a similar one in March in which the Republican-led committee questioned the Democratic mayors of Chicago, Boston, Denver and New York about sanctuary policies. Heavily Democratic Chicago has been a sanctuary city for decades. In 2017, then-Illinois Gov. Bruce Rauner, a Republican, signed legislation creating statewide protections for immigrants. The Illinois Trust Act prohibits police from searching, arresting or detaining people solely because of their immigration status. But it allows local authorities to hold people for federal immigration authorities if there's a valid criminal warrant. Pritzker, who succeeded Rauner in 2019, said in remarks prepared for the House committee that violent criminals 'have no place on our streets, and if they are undocumented, I want them out of Illinois and out of our country.' 'But we will not divert our limited resources and officers to do the job of the federal government when it is not in the best interest of our state, our local communities, or the safety of our residents,' he said. Pritzker has been among Trump's most outspoken opponents and is considered a potential 2028 presidential candidate. He said Illinois has provided shelter and services to more than 50,000 immigrants who were sent there from other states. A Department of Justice lawsuit against New York challenges a 2019 law that allows immigrants illegally in the U.S. to receive New York driver's licenses and shields driver's license data from federal immigration authorities. That built upon a 2017 executive order by then-Gov. Andrew Cuomo that prohibited New York officials from inquiring about or disclosing a person's immigration status to federal authorities, unless required by law. Hochul's office said law enforcement officers still can cooperate with federal immigration authorities when people are convicted of or under investigation for crimes. Since Hochul took office in 2021, her office said, the state has transferred more than 1,300 incarcerated noncitizens to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement at the completion of their state sentences. Minnesota doesn't have a statewide sanctuary law protecting immigrants in the U.S. illegally, though Minneapolis and St. Paul both restrict the extent to which police and city employees can cooperate with immigration enforcement. Some laws signed by Walz have secured benefits for people regardless of immigration status. But at least one of those is getting rolled back. The Minnesota Legislature, meeting in a special session, passed legislation Monday to repeal a 2023 law that allowed adults in the U.S. illegally to be covered under a state-run health care program for the working poor. Walz insisted on maintaining eligibility for children who aren't in the country legally, Cappelletti reported from Washington, D.C. Lieb reported from Jefferson City, Mo. Also contributing were Associated Press writers Anthony Izaguirre in Albany, N.Y.; Steve Karnowski in St. Paul, Minn.; and Sophia Tareen in Chicago. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
As the Middle East teeters on the brink, Trump could be forced into war with Iran
US president Donald Trump faces a make or break moment in his long-running confrontation with Iran. The UN's nuclear watchdog has just reached the damning conclusion that Iran is in breach of its non-proliferation agreement for the first time in 20 years. Trump has been personally responsible, in recent years, for the significant rise in tensions in Washington's decades-old feud with the ayatollahs. Having taken the decision in 2018 to end American participation in the Iranian nuclear deal, negotiated by former president Barack Obama, Trump has invested a great deal of political capital in his second term in an effort to resolve the issue once and for all. Trump's offer to reopen talks with Tehran, made in a personal letter sent to Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei shortly after the president returned to the White House this year, held out the prospect of lifting the punitive sanctions imposed against Tehran during his first term in office. This would be in return for Iran curbing her nuclear ambitions. There were even suggestions that Trump, following several rounds of talks between American and Iranian officials in the Gulf state of Oman (another session is due to take place in Muscat on Sunday), might be prepared to agree a 'soft' deal with Tehran. This would allow Iran to continue work on its nuclear programme on condition that tight safeguards were in place to prevent the production of nuclear warheads. Such an outcome would bear little difference to the deal Obama negotiated in 2015, and would be sure to cause outrage in Israel, where prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu insists that only the complete dismantling of Iran's nuclear programme would be acceptable. Trump's hopes of achieving a breakthrough, though, now appear to have been torpedoed by the alarming evidence produced by the latest report published by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN body responsible for monitoring Iran's nuclear activities. Apart from confirming the existence of three previously undisclosed nuclear sites in Iran, it says that unexplained traces of nuclear material have been found at these and another site. This suggests Tehran's nuclear activities are far from peaceful. The report has prompted the IAEA's 35-member Board of Governors (which includes the UK) meeting in Vienna this week that Iran has broken its non-proliferation agreement for the first time in 20 years, and to demand that Iran provide answers 'without delay' in the IAEA's long-running investigation into uranium traces found at several locations that Tehran has failed to declare as nuclear sites. In response to the ruling, the Islamic Republic said it had no choice but to respond by establishing a new enrichment facility in a 'secure location'. Suddenly, Trump's hopes of achieving a peaceful resolution of the Iran issue lie in tatters, with fears that the IAEA's uncompromising condemnation of Tehran's conduct could ultimately provoke a regional war. Western security officials have expressed concern that Israel is preparing to launch unilateral military action to nullify Iran's nuclear facilities, while Washington has responded to the deepening crisis by ordering the removal of non-essential staff from the US Embassy in Baghdad. Other diplomatic and military missions in the region have been ordered to undertake urgent risk assessments of the vulnerability to possible Iranian attacks. The latest Iran crisis certainly means the US leader, whose natural instinct is to avoid military action, is in a difficult dilemma. Having made clear that he is totally opposed to the ayatollahs developing nuclear weapons, Trump cannot ignore the clear-cut evidence that Iran is in breach of its nuclear obligations. Indeed, there were already indications that Trump was losing patience with Tehran prior to the IAEA's demarche. The president told a US podcast on Wednesday he was 'less confident' about the prospects of a deal, and accused Tehran of adopting a hardline position during the recent negotiations in Oman. By the same token, Trump has little appetite for engaging in military action unless there is absolutely no alternative, an attitude that the Iranians have no doubt taken on board in their approach to the latest round of nuclear talks. Even if Trump is unwilling to hold Tehran to account for its constant defiance of the IAEA, there are others, especially the Israelis, who are. So the American president could soon find himself involved in a direct confrontation with Iran, whether he likes it or not. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.


Forbes
35 minutes ago
- Forbes
L.A. Immigration Crackdown Sparks Concerns About Possible Martial Law
TOPSHOT - Demonstrators holding signs and flags face California National Guard members standing ... More guard outside the Federal Building as they protest in response to federal immigration operations in Los Angeles, on June 9, 2025. US President Donald Trump on June 9 ordered active-duty Marines into Los Angeles, vowing those protesting immigration arrests would be "hit harder" than ever. Protests in Los Angeles, home to a large Latino population, broke out on June 6, triggered by immigration raids that resulted in dozens of arrests of what authorities say are illegal migrants and gang members. (Photo by Apu GOMES / AFP) (Photo by APU GOMES/AFP via Getty Images) In recent weeks, the Los Angeles immigration crackdown has become the epicentre of a dangerous national experiment—one in which immigration enforcement is serving as the pretext for something far more ominous: a steady descent into possible martial law. The deployment of U.S. military forces into California without the governor's consent, the violent sweep of immigration raids, and the weaponization of emergency powers all signal that the constitutional order is under siege. President Donald Trump's decision to send 4,000 National Guard troops and Marines into California was met with outrage from state leaders and legal experts alike. California Governor Gavin Newsom has called the action 'an illegal, immoral, and unconstitutional act,' and the state has filed suit against the federal government, citing violations of the U.S. Federal Code, which prohibit federalizing state militias except in cases of invasion, rebellion, or when a state cannot enforce its own laws. None of those conditions apply in this case. Yet the justification offered by the administration—that Los Angeles was on the brink of collapse due to immigrant protests—is as false and inflammatory as was demonstrated on a recent episode of Jimmy Kimmel, which showed footage of quiet Los Angeles streets. Following a series of ICE raids that detained over 100 people, protests erupted across the city. While the Los Angeles Police Department stated that the demonstrations were largely peaceful, federal officials framed them as acts of rebellion. In televised comments, President Trump, without evidence, declared that Los Angeles would have been 'completely obliterated' without military intervention. However, some legal scholars point out that such claims are disturbingly reminiscent of how autocrats have historically manufactured crises to seize power. For instance, in comments made recently by Yale historian Timothy Snyder, he warned, 'Be wary of paramilitaries. When the men with guns claim to be against the system, the system is under threat.' These warning signs are increasing. Earlier this year, President Trump re-declared a national emergency at the southern border, significantly intensifying deportation efforts, particularly in sanctuary jurisdictions. His Homeland Security Secretary, Kristi Noem, asserts that these efforts are crucial to national security. However, critics contend that the raids are politically motivated, intended to incite chaos and test the boundaries of presidential authority. This is not mere conjecture. There have been calls to arrest Governor Newsom for defying the troop deployment—an idea that would equate to criminalizing political opposition. The implications are chilling. Meanwhile, on Capitol Hill, Republicans are racing to pass what Trump has dubbed his 'big, beautiful bill,' a sprawling legislative package that, among other things, includes over $46 billion for the border wall and ICE funding. The administration is leveraging the unrest in Los Angeles to push hesitant GOP senators to fall in line. The proposed bill also imposes a $1,000 asylum application fee—an unprecedented barrier to legal refuge—and earmarks billions more for new Border Patrol and customs agents. These aren't merely policy choices; they are tools of exclusion and intimidation. Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR), a leading voice for the legislation, is actively urging his colleagues to use the Los Angeles protests as proof of why ICE and the border crackdown require even more support. Beyond Capitol Hill, the cultural symbolism of this shift is equally revealing. Trump has announced a massive military parade in Washington, D.C., timed to coincide with the U.S. Army's 250th anniversary—and his own birthday. With tanks, howitzers, and cruise missile launchers on display, the spectacle is designed to evoke strength. But it also mirrors the authoritarian aesthetics of regimes like Russia and North Korea. The question is, where is this all heading? During his first term, Trump was dissuaded from invoking the Insurrection Act during the George Floyd protests only after senior military officials objected. This time, with loyalists appointed to key positions, those checks seem to be absent. Historically, there exists a dangerous precedent for all this. In 1933, Adolf Hitler used the Reichstag Fire to suspend civil liberties and consolidate power. Legal analysts are increasingly drawing comparisons between that moment and today's ongoing use of emergency powers in the name of immigration control. 'If you saw all this in any other country — soldiers sent to crush dissent, union leaders arrested, opposition politicians threatened — it would be clear that autocracy had arrived,' said constitutional law professor Laurence Tribe. Even tech magnates are playing a role. Elon Musk, who now owns X (formerly Twitter), has eliminated most content moderation, amplifying polarizing rhetoric and misinformation. His platform has become a megaphone for conspiracy theories that portray immigrants as invaders and critics as traitors. Beneath all these disturbing developments in the crackdown on immigrants lies a core question: Is the United States still a democracy governed by civilian law, or is it becoming a militarized state ruled by executive whim? The courts may still provide a line of defense. California's lawsuit regarding the unauthorized deployment of federal troops will test the judiciary's willingness to uphold the Constitution. However, history teaches us that legal battles alone cannot protect democracy when institutions are co-opted or eroded. What is unfolding is more than a dispute over immigration policy; it is a stress test of America's democratic fabric. The use of immigration raids to justify military actions, the demonization of peaceful protests, and the consolidation of emergency powers—these are not isolated events. They form a pattern. While Americans seem divided on the issue of military use in the Los Angeles immigration crackdown, with half in favour and the other half, particularly Californians, opposed, June 14th, 2025, the 'No Kings National Day of Action,' promises to be a pivotal day for America as immigration protests, which have spread to other cities, will likely reach their peak on that day. While this unfolds, Trump will head to Canada to attend the G-7 meeting while keeping a watchful eye on events back home. Meanwhile, the fate of the Republic may hinge not on whether Trump builds a wall, but on whether Americans permit him to dismantle the walls of constitutional restraint in the name of constructing it.