The Trump administration’s plan to offload hundreds of national park sites to state control has triggered bipartisan pushback over funding gaps, preservation risks, and fears of privatization.
At a Glance
- Trump’s 2026 budget proposes $1.2 billion in cuts to the National Park Service
- States would be asked to manage lower-traffic park sites instead of the federal government
- Critics warn many states lack the funds or staff to preserve historic and cultural landmarks
- Senators and advocacy groups call the plan a stealth move to privatize public lands
- The proposal affects sites from the Nicodemus Historic Site in Kansas to remote monuments across the West
Budget Cuts and Control Transfers
President Donald Trump’s 2026 federal budget includes a proposal to transfer management of numerous lesser-known national park sites to the states, as part of a broader effort to slash the National Park Service budget by nearly $1.2 billion. Of that total, $900 million would come directly from park operations—what could become the largest one-year cut in agency history.
The administration argues that lower-visitation sites could be better managed locally, with one official noting that “transferring administration of some park units would reduce operational burdens and improve efficiency.” But critics see a different motive: reducing federal involvement in conservation and opening the door to inconsistent or commercialized management.
According to E&E News, the plan would affect a wide range of locations, including cultural landmarks like the Nicodemus National Historic Site, which honors African American settlers in post-Civil War Kansas.
Watch a report: National parks targeted for state control in Trump budget.
States Push Back
The backlash has been swift—and bipartisan. Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski likened the plan to “putting my kids in charge of the upkeep for the house that I own,” warning that under-resourced state governments may be unable to maintain national heritage sites properly. Other lawmakers echoed concerns that such a transfer would lead to uneven standards, neglect, or even closure of smaller park units.
According to SFGate, park rangers and preservation groups warn that historic sites could fall into disrepair, with some facing the prospect of development or privatization if states sell off land to balance budgets.
Even traditionally red states have expressed reluctance. State park officials in Utah, Texas, and Wyoming noted that they already face funding shortages for their existing systems and lack the capacity to absorb dozens of new federally designated sites.
Preservation at Risk?
Beyond practical concerns, many see the park transfer proposal as part of a deeper ideological shift. Conservation advocates argue that the administration is seeking to roll back federal protections for public lands. As The Guardian reported, Trump allies have floated privatization of select park amenities or partnerships with developers to generate revenue from public spaces.
Environmental groups point to a pattern: shrinking monuments, rolling back endangered species protections, and now offloading parks—moves they say all share a common theme of sidelining federal stewardship in favor of political expediency or profit motives.
While the administration defends the plan as “rightsizing” government, park supporters see it as an abandonment of one of America’s most cherished legacies.
As the budget heads to Congress, lawmakers and activists alike vow to fight what they call a “historic retreat from conservation,” warning that once a park is lost, it may never be restored.
