Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Trump’s Playbook to Loot the American Commons

Opinion

A scenic landscape of ​Yosemite National Park

Yosemite National Park.

Getty Images, Kenny McCartney

While Trump declares himself ruler of Venezuela, sells off their oil to his megadonors, and threatens Greenland ostensibly for resource extraction, it might be easy to miss his plot to pillage precious natural wonders here at home. But make no mistake–even America’s national parks are in peril.

National parks promote the environment, exercise, education, family bonding, and they transcend our differences—John Muir once said, "One touch of nature makes the whole world kin." Thanks to Teddy Roosevelt, who championed these treasures with the Antiquities Act, national parks are (supposed to be) federally protected areas. To the Trump administration, however, these federal protections are an inconvenient roadblock to liquidating and plundering our public lands. Now, they are draining resources and morale from the parks, which may be a deliberate effort to degrade America’s best idea.


First and foremost, Trump is responsible for a dramatic slashing of staffing. Over the past year, the administration fired 4,000 dedicated professionals, or a quarter of its workforce. These rangers once maintained trails, educated visitors, and protected endangered species. Their absence is already being felt across the park system, with longer wait times, fewer services, and less capacity to address environmental threats. Adding insult to injury, the administration has implemented a new performance review system that seems designed to demoralize the remaining staff and make further layoffs easier. By artificially limiting the number of top marks given in evaluations, this policy violates federal regulations and sets the stage for potential "reduction in force" layoffs. It's a move that threatens to crush the spirit of those who have dedicated their careers to preserving our natural heritage, and who are already spread thin, filling the holes left by the mass firings.

In a brazen attempt to rewrite history and downplay environmental concerns, Trump officials have also ordered the removal of signs and displays related to climate change, conservation efforts, and the mistreatment of Native Americans and slaves. This gaslighting and whitewashing of our parks' educational materials flies in the face of the National Park Service's mission to provide accurate information to visitors. Even the simple act of visiting a park has become more complicated and exclusionary. New policies require staff to question visitors about their residency status, leading to longer wait times and potential discrimination. For non-U.S. residents, steep surcharges have been implemented, making our national parks less accessible to international visitors and contradicting the idea that these are spaces for all to enjoy.

The cumulative effect of these changes is clear: a diminished experience for visitors, demoralized staff, and parks that are less able to fulfill their crucial role in conservation and education. This systematic undermining of our national parks system feels suspiciously like a precursor to more drastic measures.

If everyone who visited Yosemite and Yellowstone had a bad time, it would be easier to justify further budget cuts or further exploitation and extraction. This means eliminating restrictions on mining, drilling, and logging, to the detriment of the wildlife habitats. It also means selling off public lands to the highest bidder, who may harvest the parks for resources (drill, baby, drill?). Trump has already signaled his goal by hand-picking Steve Pearce–a multi-millionaire who made his fortune in oil and gas, known as Sell-Off Steve by conservation groups as a result of his ongoing efforts to privatize public lands–to run the Bureau of Land Management, overseeing 245 million acres of public land. These tactics resemble the Big Short–a significant investment strategy where an investor bets that the price of an asset, such as a stock, will decline–and Trump is insider trading with himself. Don’t fall for it.

Luckily, in January, the Senate introduced a three-bill appropriations package that rejected what National Parks Conservation Association President and CEO Theresa Pierno referred to as “the Trump administration’s reckless $1 billion funding cut that would have devastated our parks” (this proposed cut came from the same president who managed to find $74.85 billion in the couch cushions to appropriate to paramilitary thugs, more than ICE spent in the last eight years combined). Still, Congress must do much more to prevent national parks from getting sold off in the future, which could mean, at a minimum, ensuring they remain federal lands.

Our national parks are scenic vistas, living classrooms, biodiversity hotspots, and sources of national pride. By preserving nature for future generations, we acknowledge that some places are too precious to be developed or exploited. As citizens, we must contact our representatives, ask them to oppose Pearce’s nomination, fully fund and staff parks, and push back against policies that threaten their integrity. We should also keep visiting our parks, share our positive experiences, and help maintain these spaces when possible. There is no Lorax to fight for our home. Only YOU can prevent the theft of our public lands.

Julie Roland was a Naval Officer for ten years, deploying to both the South China Sea and the Persian Gulf as a helicopter pilot before separating in June 2025 as a Lieutenant Commander. She has a law degree from the University of San Diego, a Master of Laws from Columbia University, and is a member of the Truman National Security Project.


Read More

 Cracked Dry Earth - stock photo A pair of worn brown boots stand on cracked, dry earth. Sparse green plants struggle to grow amidst the barren landscape, creating a stark contrast.

After the AfD’s historic wins in Saxony-Anhalt and Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, an analyst links climate migration to democratic decline and a possible fix.

Climate, Migration and the Far Right: Democracies Need a Short-Term Plan

On September 6, the far-right German party Alternative for Germany (AfD) made a historic breakthrough. 100 years after Hitler’s official reorganization of the Nazi Party, a group that has openly strategized and worked with neo-Nazis won a plurality of the vote in the state of Saxony-Anhalt and is on the precipice of forming a government there. 14 days later, they won a plurality again in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania. This is the AfD's strongest electoral result yet, and the closest a far-right party has come to a majority in postwar Germany.

In a country with numerous safeguards against right-wing co-option – from a 5% minimum threshold to enter the Bundestag to bans for undemocratic parties – this democratic victory of a far-right movement shook the country to its core. Whether AfD is able to make up the handful of seats it needs in coalition agreements to form governments in both states isn’t the point; AfD’s stock is on the rise, and at this rate, they will likely continue to win at both the state and federal level. Even if Chancellor Merz’s coalition government can start delivering for the increasingly underemployed and isolated German people, by all signs, far-right support will only continue to increase.

Keep ReadingShow less
Humans May Start Wildfires. Climate Change Makes Them Catastrophic.
A forest fire glowing with bright orange flames and smoke at night
Photo by Egor Vikhrev on Unsplash

Humans May Start Wildfires. Climate Change Makes Them Catastrophic.

The summer of 2026 once again saw wildfire smoke from the West Coast and Midwest blanketing East Coast skies. Smoke-filled summer skies now seem to be the norm across America, and wildfire season isn’t even close to over.

The public response is also becoming normal. When investigators determine that a person started a wildfire, online chatter usually centers on the idea that humans are the cause and that climate change could not have played a role. That argument confuses the ignition source with the complex conditions that contribute to wildfire. A spark may explain where a wildfire began. It cannot, on its own, explain why flames spread so far and devastate entire communities.

Keep ReadingShow less
Aerial view of a large Google Data Center

AI data centers consume huge amounts of water and power. Tucson’s Project Blue shows why communities need clearer, verifiable transparency from tech companies.

Getty images

The True Cost of AI: Are Tech Companies Reducing the Damage?

Ever since the AI boom of 2022 with the release of OpenAI’s large language model “ChatGPT” to the public, we have seen the exponential rise of AI being seemingly forced into our daily lives. It makes sense after all; who doesn’t like an uncanny Will Smith eating spaghetti, making funny faces?

Fast forward 4 years, and that same technology is being used to create almost undetectable videos of posthumous celebrities doing things they never did. High school teachers and college professors must worry daily about the effects AI is having on both the work turned in and the brains of those submitting it.

Keep ReadingShow less
data server

Abstract image of a futuristic server with light blue and green LED lights.

Getty Images

The One Thing Both Sides of the Data Center Fight Already Agree On

In Festus, Missouri, a town that gave Donald Trump 67 percent of its vote, residents have filed to recall the mayor and three council members over a $6 billion data center. In New York, a Democratic governor has signed the first statewide moratorium on new ones. Across seven states, at least 33 recall campaigns are targeting as many as 58 local officials for the same reason, and the reason is not a party. It is a building.

That makes data centers the rarest thing in American politics right now: an issue where the folding chairs in a red county and a blue one are filled with people saying the same words. They are not saying "no technology." They are saying the box across the road raises their power bill, drains their water, takes the farm, and was negotiated behind a nondisclosure agreement before anyone in town knew its name. In Luther, Oklahoma, the moratorium passed only after word leaked that the mayor had been in closed talks with a developer for months. The anger is not about servers. It is about being handed a decision that was already made.

Keep ReadingShow less