The National Parks Are Not a Burden: Why the Interior Department's FY 2026 Budget Completely Misses the Point

A detailed look at the alarming Interior Department's FY 2026 National Park Service Budget

As America’s beloved national parks continue to draw record crowds—over 331 million visitors last year alone—you might assume they would be celebrated with robust funding and bipartisan support, protected as cherished symbols of America’s natural and cultural heritage.

But the proposed Fiscal Year 2026 budget for the National Park Service (NPS) reveals a very different reality: one where parks are seen less as sacred public spaces and more as liabilities to be minimized.

I already reported on the President’s FY 2026 Budget Request, a behemoth document of more than 1,200 pages, and what it would mean to our national parks.

But it’s definitely also worth taking a closer look at the Interior Department’s own FY 2026 Budget, which provides more specifics on their actual intentions with our parks.

The Trump administration’s FY 2026 Interior Budget request outlines $2.1 billion for the NPS. That sounds respectable until you dig into the details. Much of this money does little more—often even less—than sustain current operations.

Meanwhile, other critical national programs face dramatic reductions, and the framing of the budget treats the public lands system as bloated, inefficient, and ripe for offloading to states and tribes.

It is a vision that prioritizes profit and political expediency over preservation, and short-term optics over long-term stewardship.

A Shell Game of Spending

Let’s start with the numbers. The budget includes $2 billion for core park operations, officially called the “Operation of the National Park System.” That’s $900 million (or 31%) less than this year’s operational budget.

---

---

Every line item of the NPS’s operational budget is being cut. Every. Single. One.

• Resource Stewardship (51% cut)

• Visitor Services (19% cut)

• Park Protection (1% cut)

• Facility Operations Maintenance (38% cut)

• Park Support (39% cut)

---

---

The budget allocates an additional $99.5 million to construction and maintenance.

That may seem like welcomed funding, but when you consider that this year’s construction and maintenance budget is $172.3 million, the proposed budget is alarmingly low.

It’s a 42% reduction, with severe cuts to Park Service’s construction planning and management programs.

It barely scratches the surface of the more than $23 billion in deferred maintenance plaguing park roads, trails, water systems, and historic buildings.

The administration proposes to bridge this funding gap by repurposing the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF).

Long a bipartisan tool for protecting public lands and improving outdoor access, LWCF dollars are now being steered away from acquiring new lands or creating local recreation opportunities. Instead, they will be used to chip away at maintenance backlogs.

It’s an accountant’s solution to a deeper problem—like using your home improvement loan to fix your roof instead of weatherizing your windows and upgrading your heating system.

---

---

Simultaneously, the budget slashes the National Recreation and Preservation account from $89.6 million to a paltry $12 million—an unbelievable 87% cut.

It effectively brings the FY 2026 budget for things like Natural Programs and Heritage Partnership Programs to $0. Cultural Programs are reduced by about 75%, while the Environmental Compliance and Review budget is cut by 50%.

---

---

Similarly, the Historic Preservation Fund budget is reduced from $168.9 million to an almost offensively low $11 million. That’s a 93% budget cut.

Get this: the Trump administration’s FY 2026 Interior budget allocates exactly $0 to African American Civil Rights, the History of Equal Rights, and Underrepresented Communities.

If you didn’t yet know what they’re going after, these numbers say it all.

---

---

That’s not belt-tightening; it’s amputation. These funds support everything from historic preservation, including the National Register of Historic Places, to environmental compliance.

Without them, parks risk losing both the contextual stories that make them meaningful and the regulatory rigor that ensures they remain protected.

A Political Philosophy Dressed as Policy

Beyond the budget figures lies a deeper ideological current. The administration’s narrative repeatedly describes public lands as a “bloated federal estate.”

It proposes transferring less-frequented federal lands to willing states and tribes, a move touted as empowering local communities. In reality, it may amount to shirking federal responsibility.

Consider the complexity of running a national park: from wildfire management to endangered species protection, from managing crowds at Old Faithful to coordinating law enforcement across millions of remote acres.

States and tribes are essential partners, but they should not be handed the reins without the resources to succeed. Handing off responsibility while keeping the purse strings tight is not devolution of power—it’s abandonment.

The risk isn’t just to land, but to legacy.

Parks like Gettysburg, Grand Canyon, Everglades, Mount Rushmore, Devils Tower, the Lincoln Memorial, and the Statue of Liberty aren’t local parks—they’re national symbols. They belong to all Americans.

Ceding them to fragmented governance undermines the very principle of the National Park System: a unified network of landscapes and stories, held in trust for future generations.

Playing to the Crowd

The budget does make room for some popular moves. The administration emphasizes the importance of visitor experience. Secretary Doug Burgum has directed the NPS to ensure parks remain open and accessible and to improve customer service.

There are even plans to impose a surcharge on foreign visitors to generate over $90 million in additional revenue.

The intent here is clear: parks are valuable because they draw crowds, support local economies, and offer recreation.

That is all true, and all worth celebrating. National parks are essential to the booming $1 trillion outdoor recreation industry. The park system generates $55.6 billion of annual economic output—that’s $15 of economic value for every $1 of federal funding they get.

But when we measure their value solely by their foot traffic or economic return, we risk diminishing their deeper purpose.

National parks are not amusement parks.

They are refuges for wildlife, reservoirs of history, and sanctuaries for the spirit.

The shift toward viewing parks through a lens of customer service and revenue generation may boost short-term satisfaction, but it can erode the long-term mission. Conservation takes time, humility, and often restraint—qualities not easily captured in quarterly reports or visitor metrics.

Losing the Plot

America’s national parks were created not because they were easy or profitable, but because they were worth protecting.

From the rugged peaks of Glacier to the fragile ecosystem of Virgin Islands, these lands were set aside precisely because market forces alone would not spare them. They represent a promise: that some things are too valuable to sell, pave, or privatize.

The FY 2026 Interior budget seems to forget that promise. In prioritizing revenue over restoration, access over ecology, and handoffs over federal commitment, it undermines the philosophical foundation of the National Park Service.

And that foundation matters more now than ever. Parks are under unprecedented strain—from climate change, from record visitation, from staffing shortages, and from outdated infrastructure. What they need is not austerity, but investment. Not suspicion, but support.

What We Stand to Lose

If this budget becomes the blueprint for the future, we risk losing more than just access or amenities.