Public land advocates: Be careful who you vote for!

In the summer of 2025, the federal budget reconciliation bill included a provision to sell millions of acres of public land for low-income housing. After intense nationwide protest, the provision was removed from the bill. 

Millions of Americans breathed a sigh of relief, but the threat to our public land hasn’t gone away. The battle has shifted to federal land management. 

At the core of the battle is the Trump administration’s disregard for conservation values. This administration shows very little interest in balancing conservation with economic development. Instead, to promote their economic agenda, they’ve launched an assault on our land management infrastructure including budgets and personnel, as well as numerous laws and regulations that govern management activities.   

Because this threat is less visible than proposals to sell or transfer federal land, it often fails to grab the attention of public land users. That’s unfortunate, because a weakened management infrastructure has serious ramifications.

Budget and personnel cuts are especially concerning. They started with Elon Musk and his chainsaw, but continue long after his departure. 

According to the Conservation Lands Foundation, the administration’s proposed fiscal year 2027 budget for the Bureau of Land Management includes a 34% cut to the total budget and a 27% reduction in staff. It also includes a 61% cut to recreation management of trails, campsites and visitor services. A complete elimination of funding for cultural resources and wilderness management is proposed. 

The U.S. Forest Service is also under attack. In addition to proposing massive budget cuts, the Trump administration is in the process of moving the headquarters from Washington, D.C. to Salt Lake City. Numerous research facilities are being closed and their remaining functions will be centralized at a research headquarters in Fort Collins, Colorado. Because many personnel are unable to relocate for family reasons, institutional knowledge will be lost and research activities will suffer. 

The National Park Service is not being spared. The Trump administration has proposed a 32% budget cut for fiscal year 2027. In addition, President Trump has been redirecting tens of millions of National Park Service dollars to projects in Washington, D.C. (including the Reflecting Pool) while blocking numerous planned projects at national parks across the country.

Much of this is happening with the willing participation of agency leaders. That’s not surprising because the president nominated people who pledged absolute loyalty to his agenda. One of the most egregious examples is the nomination and confirmation of Steve Pearce to direct the Bureau of Land Management. Pearce has a long record of advocating for public land sales and unrestricted economic development.   

Regrettably, the unquestioning loyalty from high-level agency personnel almost always usurps the role of science when science contradicts the administration’s political agenda. A prime example is Trump’s insistence that global warming is a hoax despite overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary. In a decision that directly contradicts science, the Environmental Protection Agency recently announced their intent to eliminate climate-related emission requirements for coal and gas burning power plants.  

Laws and regulations that govern public land management are also under attack. With considerable success, the Trump administration has attempted to revise, circumvent or eliminate the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Roadless Rule, the Public Lands Rule, the Waters of the United States Rule, the Antiquities Act and BLM Resource Management Plans. (For more details, click here and here).   

Much of this is going unnoticed by the average public land user in Wyoming. But it is certainly not unnoticed by our congressional delegation. They are complicit in supporting the destruction of our land management infrastructure. There is speculation that the ulterior motive is to build support for sales or transfer, born out of frustration with how federal lands are managed.   

In November, we have an opportunity to change the composition of our congressional delegation and elect people who support public lands. For many people in Wyoming that might mean putting loyalty to public lands over loyalty to party.