Upside-down American flags hung as hundreds protest US Forest Service cuts at RMNP
Some of the protestors hung upside-down American flags from Eagle Cliff, which is private property near the park.
Colorado advocates say impacts of National Park Service layoffs will be 'visceral'
An upside-down American flag has been a form of protest for decades, according to the Free Speech Center at Middle Tennessee State University. A similar act was reported at El Capitan in Yosemite National Park earlier this week, and on Friday, an upside-down American flag was also hung from the 2nd flatiron.
It's far from the first protest regarding federal layoffs, which have been determined under Executive Order 14210: The Department of Government Efficiency 'Workforce Optimization Initiative.' Local advocates with the National Parks Conservation Association told FOX31 on Friday that the NFS was given the green light to continue its seasonal hiring, but many positions were still eliminated at Colorado parks.
'It means shorter visitors hours, delayed openings, closed campgrounds, maintenance needs are going to pile up, trash will pile up. It's going to be visceral,' said Tracy Coppola, the National Parks Conservation Association's Colorado senior program manager.
Coppola also said that in 2023, gateway communities saw almost $800 million in spending from the approximately 7.3 million park visitors who come to Colorado.
It's still unclear how many employees have been — or will be — fired — one group of nearly 500 outdoor-industry organizations said in a letter to Congress that between the Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, USDA Forest Service and the National Park Service, approximately 5,700 people have lost their jobs.
Other protests found Saturday were not in-person: The sign board for the Dry Lake Trailhead parking lot at Buffalo Pass greeted snowmobilers with a number of 'for sale' signs, and a central sign encouraging citizens to call their representatives and 'Keep public lands public.'
Witnesses told Shannon Lukens, of Steamboat Radio, that U.S. Forest Service staff was there and saw the signs, which were gone before noon on Saturday.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
6 minutes ago
- Newsweek
China Is the Big Winner of the Trump-Putin Summit
Advocates for ideas and draws conclusions based on the interpretation of facts and data. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The clear winner of the recent Anchorage summit was not the United States or Russia. Nor was it the European Union, NATO, or Ukraine, all directly affected by the war in Eastern Europe. The big winner, at least for the moment, is the People's Republic of China. And China's only military ally, North Korea, did not do too badly either. Both Presidents Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin at their post-meeting press conference tried to create the impression of momentum toward ending the three-year-old conflict in Ukraine. Putin used the word "agreement" and Trump mentioned "great progress." Russian President Putin and President Donald Trump pose for a photo during the welcoming ceremony prior to the meeting on the war in Ukraine on August 15, 2025, in Anchorage, Alaska. Russian President Putin and President Donald Trump pose for a photo during the welcoming ceremony prior to the meeting on the war in Ukraine on August 15, 2025, in Anchorage, Alaska. Getty Images Nonetheless, it was clear that the summit was a disappointment for the American side. There was, for instance, no ceasefire, which Trump publicly said he wanted. "There's no deal until there's a deal," an uncharacteristically somber Trump said after the shorter-than-expected face-to-face with Putin. "We didn't get there." No, they didn't. And no deal is precisely what China was looking for. Beijing, from all indications, hopes that the war in Ukraine will continue indefinitely. Hong Kong's South China Morning Post reported that Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi told Kaja Kallas, the EU foreign policy chief, on July 2 that China does not want Russia to lose because then the U.S. would focus on China. In addition to the continuation of the conflict, the Chinese leadership got something else on Friday. "For Beijing, the Alaska summit confirmed its core belief: The world is a stage for great-power bargains over spheres of influence," Charles Burton of the Prague-based Sinopsis think tank told Newsweek. China's regime, which has a top-down concept of the world, likes the idea of big countries, by themselves, settling the world's problems. "Now, there is a crucial precedent for a future summit between Trump and the Chinese leadership, where China would press for major concessions in East Asia," Burton said. One of those concessions would be American diplomatic recognition of North Korea, noted Burton, who was a Canadian diplomat in Beijing. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea, China's only formal military ally, also has an interest in the continuation of the war in Ukraine. "The Kim regime is likely content to see the United States diplomatically engaged on other fronts," Greg Scarlatoiu, president and CEO of the Committee for Human Rights in North Korea, told Newsweek. "That will buy Kim Jong Un more time to continue his for-profit exportation of instability, violence, and tools of death." Kim has filled regime coffers via the sales of artillery shells and short-range ballistic missiles to Putin—28,000 containers of weapons according to one recent count. Kim also sent soldiers, up to 12,800 troops, to the Russian-Ukrainian battlefield late last year. Moreover, the North is dispatching perhaps 30,000 more of them now. That will be on top of combat engineers and miscellaneous workers. Russia, according to South Korean intelligence, is paying Kim $2,000 per month per trooper. Russia is reportedly transferring weapons tech to the North as well. Whatever Putin is paying or bartering, the Ukraine war has been a bonanza for the Kim regime. Yet a proverb from ancient China reminds us, "No feast lasts forever." Trump can end the Chinese banquet quickly if he imposes costs on Russia and its enablers. He will, for instance, have to hit China hard to cut off its flow of cash to Moscow. No cash for Putin means no war in Ukraine. On August 6, Trump by executive order imposed a 25 percent additional tariff on India for buying Russian oil, but he did not tariff China, which purchases even more of that commodity from Russia. Trump last Friday said he did not think he had to tariff China at this time. In a conversation with Fox News' Sean Hannity immediately after his meeting with Putin, the president said, "I may have to think about it in two weeks or three weeks or something. But we don't have to think about that right now. I think, you know, the meeting went very well." Whether the meeting with Putin went well or not—we will know only later—Trump cannot entice bad actors with reason alone; he needs to give them incentives to stop doing what they're doing. For the moment, Russia and supporters are trying Trump's patience, seeing how far they can push him. As a result, the American leader is taking heat for what looks like weak diplomacy. My sense is that Trump is trying to be generous. There is, however, only so much generosity in global politics. Trump could end his indulgent policies soon, especially if Putin continues to be intransigent. "Trump is losing patience," said Burton, the former diplomat. "The Russians, Chinese, and friends should watch out. When Trump decides it's time to hit them, he is going to hit them really hard." Gordon G. Chang is the author of Plan Red: China's Project to Destroy America and The Coming Collapse of China. Follow him on X @GordonGChang. The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
Newsweek
8 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Trump Admin Grapples With Supreme Court Dilemma on Birthright Citizenship
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The Trump administration is seeking more time in federal court as it considers how to bring a challenge to birthright citizenship before the U.S. Supreme Court. In a consent motion filed on August 19 in the District of Maryland, government lawyers requested an additional 30 days to respond to an amended complaint in CASA Inc. v. Trump. The case contests executive order 14160, titled "Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship." The order denies citizenship at birth when the mother is unlawfully present (or lawfully but temporarily present) and the father is not a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident. Newsweek contacted the Department of Justice for comment by email outside regular working hours on Wednesday. Why It Matters The case goes to the core of the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause, which for more than a century has guaranteed citizenship to almost everyone born on U.S. soil. A successful challenge could affect hundreds of thousands of children born each year to undocumented parents, while also testing the limits of presidential power to redefine constitutional rights through executive orders. With the Trump administration signaling that it plans to seek a Supreme Court review, the litigation has the potential to reshape immigration law and the broader debate over American identity. What To Know The plaintiffs, a coalition of immigrant-rights organizations led by CASA, amended their complaint in June. On July 18, the government's deadline to respond was extended to August 22. The new motion seeks to push that date back to September 22. According to the filing, the delay is tied to the administration's broader legal strategy. The Justice Department acknowledged that multiple lawsuits were pending against the executive order across different jurisdictions. To resolve the matter more definitively, the solicitor general is preparing to ask the Supreme Court to take up the issue in its next term. "To that end, the Solicitor General of the United States plans to seek certiorari expeditiously to enable the Supreme Court to settle the lawfulness of the Executive Order next Term, but he has not yet determined which case or combination of cases to take to the Court," government attorneys wrote. The administration emphasized that the extension request was not an attempt to stall the proceedings. "This request is not made for purposes of delay, and no party will be prejudiced by the relief requested herein, particularly because Plaintiffs consent to the same," the motion said. On August 7, the court in Maryland granted a classwide preliminary injunction, applying nationwide to members of the certified class. Birthright citizenship newspaper headlines on the U.S. Constitution. Birthright citizenship newspaper headlines on the U.S. Constitution. iStock / Getty Images Plus Birthright Citizenship and the 14th Amendment Executive order 14160 has drawn criticism from immigrant advocacy groups, which argue that birthright citizenship is guaranteed under the 14th Amendment. The constitutional provision says, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." The administration, however, has contended that the clause does not extend to the children of undocumented immigrants. By moving toward a Supreme Court review, the administration appears to be seeking a definitive ruling on the scope of the citizenship clause. The outcome could have significant implications for immigration law and the legal status of U.S.-born children of noncitizen parents. What People Are Saying Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, criticizing the administration's approach in the Supreme Court, said on May 15: "Your argument … would turn our justice system into a 'catch me if you can' kind of regime, in which everybody has to have a lawyer and file a lawsuit in order for the government to stop violating people's rights." Justice Sonia Sotomayor, emphasizing constitutional precedent, added: "So, as far as I see it, this order violates four Supreme Court precedents." What Happens Next If the Trump administration's request for more time is approved, the government's deadline would move to September 22. For now, a nationwide injunction continues to block the order, leaving it unenforceable. Justice Department lawyers say they are considering which case to present to the Supreme Court for review in the next term, a move that could bring arguments before the justices in 2026. Both sides have agreed to the extension, and the government emphasized that no party would be harmed by the delay. While the extension keeps the litigation on hold, the broader fight over birthright citizenship is poised to escalate. On June 27, the court ruled on nationwide injunctions in Trump v. CASA but did not decide the merits of birthright citizenship. The administration now plans to seek a full review next term on the lawfulness of the executive order itself. If the court grants the review, it will put the question of the core citizenship clause before the justices in a way not seen since United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898).
CNN
11 minutes ago
- CNN
Hundreds of items just got a lot more expensive to import into the US because of Trump's tariffs
Hundreds of different goods just got a lot more expensive to import into the United States, now that President Donald Trump's 50% tariff on steel and aluminum has kicked in. Butter knives, baby strollers, spray deodorants and fire extinguishers, considered 'derivative' steel and aluminum products, were previously excluded from the 50% tariff, though they were still subject to the higher country-specific tariffs Trump enacted over the last several months. However, on Friday, US Customs and Border Protection and a division of the US Commerce Department published notices informing US importers that 407 categories of goods containing steel and aluminum would immediately be subject to the 50% tariffs at 12:01 a.m. ET on Monday. The non-steel and non-aluminum components of the products face other applicable levies. The abrupt move leaves many US-based importers between a rock and a hard place, with goods they already paid for currently in transit. If they decide to accept the goods, the importers will have to pay considerably higher tariffs. But if they, for instance, tell cargo operators not to unload their orders at US ports to avoid paying tariffs, they'll likely lose money. 'Today's action expands the reach of the steel and aluminum tariffs and shuts down avenues for circumvention – supporting the continued revitalization of the American steel and aluminum industries,' Under Secretary of Commerce for Industry and Security Jeffrey Kessler said in a statement on Tuesday. As is the case with any tariff in place, businesses may not pass on the entire tariff expense they've paid to consumers by raising prices. But the chances of businesses absorbing a tariff as high as 50% will likely be slimmer compared to goods tariffed at lower rates. In addition to the 50% tariff on copper-based goods that recently took effect, the levies 'will likely ripple through the manufacturing supply chain, raising production costs across construction, automotive, and electronics sectors,' analysts at the Telsey Group said in a note on Tuesday.
