Nick Offerman Blasts Donald Trump For Cutting National Parks Budget
🔥 Full coverage and conversation on Politics
Nick Offerman has called out President Donald Trump after his 'big, beautiful bill' — which he signed into law earlier this month — slashed hundreds of millions of dollars in funding to America's national parks.
'Let me get this straight, Mr. President. You cut $267 million to get back $90 million. Now, I'm no mathematician but I believe that's called shitting the bed,' said Offerman in an appearance on Tuesday's episode of The Daily Show.
'But then again, I didn't go to Wharton Business College.'
The Parks & Recreation star — who portrayed libertarian official Ron Swanson — turned to several news reports detailing how America's 'pastoral gifts' are 'under attack' as staffing levels have seen a notable dip across the National Park System since January, per the National Parks Conservation Association.
One clip noted that park scientists, in some cases, have been forced to help clean toilets due to staffing shortages.
Offerman — who quipped that the situation is like " Good Will Hunting but in reverse" — stressed that the cuts are a 'huge mistake.'
'No scientist has the strength to clean the skid marks of a man who's been eating beans and campfire hot dogs for the past three days! They're weak,' he joked.
He went on to refer to Trump 'shaking down foreigners' after he issued an executive order earlier this month that calls for foreign tourists to face higher park entry fees, a move that the administration expects to generate more than $90 million annually.
After highlighting how national parks contributed a record $55.6 billion to the U.S. economy and supported over 415,000 jobs just two years ago, Offerman explained why the parks are a 'true miracle.'
'It is an affordable vacation that everyone can take inside our own borders, whether you're traveling with your family or abandoning your constituents during a crisis,' quipped the actor as a photo of Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) amid his Cancun controversy appeared on screen.
Offerman, who recently revealed why Ron Swanson would've 'despised' Trump, then mocked the president for speaking so 'fondly' of national parks in years past.
He turned to a 2020 clip of Trump who, when referencing sequoia trees at Yosemite National Park, appeared to pronounce the park's name as 'yo-semites.'
'It's Yosemite,' Offerman remarked. ''Yo, Semites,' is what a bad undercover cop might say to a group of Hasidic Jews.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump signs executive order making it easier to remove homeless people from streets
President Donald Trump signed an executive order Thursday making it easier for local jurisdictions to remove homeless people from the streets. The order directs Attorney General Pam Bondi to 'reverse judicial precedents and end consent decrees' that limit jurisdictions' abilities to relocate homeless people. It also redirects federal resources so that affected homeless people are transferred to rehabilitation and substance misuse facilities. It also directs Bondi to work with Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Housing and Urban Development Secretary Scott Turner and Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy to fast-track federal funding to states and municipalities that crack down on 'open illicit drug use, urban camping and loitering, and urban squatting, and track the location of sex offenders.' 'President Trump is delivering on his commitment to Make America Safe Again and end homelessness across America,' Leavitt said in a statement Thursday. 'By removing vagrant criminals from our streets and redirecting resources toward substance abuse programs, the Trump Administration will ensure that Americans feel safe in their own communities and that individuals suffering from addiction or mental health struggles are able to get the help they need.' Advocates for the homeless condemned the executive orders with some saying that it will make homelessness worse for communities. 'These executive orders ignore decades of evidence-based housing and support services in practice. They represent a punitive approach that has consistently failed to resolve homelessness and instead exacerbates the challenges faced by vulnerable individuals,' said Donald Whitehead, executive director of the National Coalition for the Homeless, in a press release. The National Homelessness Law Center said the order 'deprives people of their basic rights and makes it harder to solve homelessness' in a statement on Thursday. The group said the order will expand the use of police and institutionalization in response to homelessness, while increasing the number of people living in tents, cars and on the streets. Order follows high court decision The order comes a month after the Supreme Court ruled in favor of an Oregon city that ticketed homeless people for sleeping outside. Justices rejected arguments that such 'anti-camping' ordinances violate the Constitution's ban on 'cruel and unusual' punishment. The case had been watched closely by city and state officials who have struggled to respond to a surge in homelessness and encampments that have cropped up under bridges and in city parks across the nation. It was also followed by people who live in those encampments and are alarmed by efforts to criminalize the population rather than build shelters and affordable housing. Homelessness in the US soared to the highest level on record last year, driven by a lack of affordable housing, a rise in migrants seeking shelter and natural disasters, which caused some people to be displaced from their homes, according to the Department of Housing and Urban Development. More than 770,000 people experienced homelessness in 2024, an 18% increase from 2023. It was the largest annual increase since HUD began collecting the data in 2007 (excluding the jump from 2021 to 2022, when the agency didn't conduct a full count due to the Covid-19 pandemic). As a candidate, Trump railed against the nation's homeless crisis, telling supporters during a September campaign rally it was 'destroying our cities.' 'The homeless encampments will be gone,' Trump said in remarks from North Carolina. 'They're going to be gone. Oh, you have to see, you have to – some of these encampments, what they've done to our cities, and we've got to take care of the people.' CNN's Shania Shelton contributed to this report. Solve the daily Crossword
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
How the Trump–Musk relationship complicates Tesla's future
Tesla (TSLA) CEO Elon Musk's close ties with President Trump initially gave many investors hope for faster progress on initiatives like robotaxis and autonomous driving. Barron associate editor Al Root explains why that optimism was overblown and discusses the risks the Musk–Trump relationship still poses. To watch more expert insights and analysis on the latest market action, check out more Market Domination here. Al, you know, it's interesting because I had some bulls on this program, Al. And part of their bullishness, full stop, was the relationship between Trump and Musk. Their thinking being, listen, it is a great thing for Musk to have this good friend in the White House who can perhaps foam the runway on some of these initiatives like robo taxis. Yeah, I mean, so the primary you just reiterated it or I'll just reiterate it. The primary benefit from the trust Trump Musk relationship was supposed to be nationwide uh autonomous driving standards, uh which would speed the adoption of this trillion dollar valuation that Dan Ives has for Dan Ives, for instance, and others have for robo taxis. Um, that was a bit Listen, I mean, you know, should I said it then? Maybe we did, maybe we didn't. It was a bit euphoric, right? The idea that just a relationship between the President and Elon Musk could create, you know, a trillion dollars in value, which it basically did overnight, right? Tesla stock, I can't remember, but we're talking like 480 in December. Um, so that was a bit euphoric. Uh so we probably overcooked that, just like we overcooked it on the downside when we thought the world was ending. I think the Trump Musk relationship is just sort of a risk for Tesla investors, and it kind of goes back to Musk's time, right? Is he going to stay involved in politics? Is he going to form a new political party? That's sort of like the downside risk. Uh, but if things sort of blow over and we just have to deal with like losing tax credits, then I think that, you know, we'll we'll sort of we can move on from the bromance and just sort of focus on whether they can sell cars and whether they can expand the robo taxis.
Atlantic
20 minutes ago
- Atlantic
Food Aid in Gaza Has Become a Horror
Capping off all the other horrors in wartime Gaza is the food-distribution situation that has prevailed since late May. Famished Palestinian civilians must approach one of very few aid-distribution locations under the auspices of the Israeli and United States governments. A shocking number of civilians seeking aid have reportedly been shot dead by Israeli soldiers or shot at by U.S. contractors on their way to these sites. According to the United Nations, more than 1,000 Palestinians have been killed in this scramble for sustenance since May 26. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu broke the last cease-fire in the Gaza war on March 18 by launching air strikes that killed more than 400 Palestinians in 36 hours, a reported 183 of them children. He had also imposed a total blockade on March 2, allowing no aid whatsoever into the Strip from March until late May. The resulting situation was untenable. But the Israeli government did not trust any of the international institutions with experience in humanitarian-aid distribution, so together with its U.S. backers, it cooked up an alternative: the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, a nonprofit registered in Delaware and funded with $30 million from the Trump administration. According to one report, GHF has billed itself as seeking, among other aims, to ' facilitate President Trump's vision ' for the Gaza Strip. Trump has said a variety of things about that vision, but one prospect he has articulated includes the forced removal of all Palestinians from the territory and its transformation into a 'Riviera' for 'international people.' According to The Washington Post, some for-profit companies are behind GHF, including McNally Capital, a Chicago private-equity firm. Among the entities initially involved with the group, some have since withdrawn, including the Boston Consulting Group. The foundation's initial head, Jake Wood, resigned on account of humanitarian concerns. GHF is now run by Johnnie Moore Jr., a pro-Israel evangelical activist and former aide to Jerry Falwell, and John Acree, a former USAID official. GHF began operations on May 26 in the south of Gaza, near Rafah. Since then, it has operated four main aid-distribution centers (compare this to the more than 400 that the UN and other traditional aid agencies once ran). The aid boxes themselves have been described by Palestinians as woefully inadequate as Gaza continues its slide toward outright famine. The food distribution points have practically become shooting galleries. Israeli troops told reporters from the newspaper Haaretz that they had been ordered to open fire on Palestinians with live ammunition as a means of crowd control. The newspaper quoted one soldier as describing the zones as a 'killing field.' The report singled out Brigadier General Yehuda Vach, commander of Division 252, which operates in northern Gaza. Vach reportedly told his men that ' there are no innocents in Gaza.' Some suggested that using live fire to disperse crowds in northern Gaza, for fear they would rush UN aid trucks, was Vach's policy more than that of the Israeli military command or government. But reports have also circulated about U.S. contractors deliberately shooting Palestinians and boasting about direct hits. Israel refuses to allow outside journalists into Gaza, making these and other related accounts difficult to confirm or disprove. What is indisputable is that GHF has an effective monopoly on delivering humanitarian aid into an ever more desperate Gaza Strip. Virtually all of the traditional distributors of aid have been barred by the Israeli authorities. And by most accounts, the results are ghastly. The UN relays that a third of the more than 2 million Palestinians in Gaza go days without eating, and credible reports suggest that infants and the elderly are dying of malnutrition and dehydration—according to one issued by a group of international nonprofits, more than 100 people have died of hunger, including 80 children. Agence France-Presse says that its local journalists are now in danger of imminent death from starvation. Israel claims that it is allowing ample food, water, and medicine into the Strip, but if that's the case, the supplies are apparently not reaching those who need them most. Much of the world is appalled by these conditions. On Monday, 30 governments, many friendly to Israel, plus the European Union, demanded an end to the war and condemned 'the drip feeding of aid' to the Palestinians in Gaza whose suffering, the group noted, had 'reached new depths.' More than 100 aid agencies have signed a letter demanding that Israel allow additional food, water, medicine, and other supplies into Gaza immediately. Far from ameliorating Gazans' suffering, GHF has instead established a system that presents them with an impossible dilemma. Palestinians are drawn in desperation to four centers, where they must risk their lives in order to gain the supplies they need to live. Many also walk away disappointed but uninjured. There is no evidence that GHF, its founders, or its backers intended to create death traps rather than alternative distribution centers. But for many weeks, this is how the sites have functioned, and GHF's response has been to simply carry on as before. What GHF may have begun inadvertently, it now perpetuates without correction and with full awareness. Palestinians face a Hobson's choice between starvation and the real possibility of being shot down for no intelligible reason. For that there is no excuse—and quite possibly criminal culpability.
