National Parks: Behind the Iconic Scenery That Has Never Been Public

Written by: Adam Assimakopoulos

Edited by: Sunny Bell

Introduction

When Donald Trump became the United States’ 47th President, he was unshy about his agenda: Drill, baby, drill! For the world at large, Trump’s return signalled a new era for industry and energy. Of course, economic growth has long been at the forefront of national politics. Though national parks once told a different story – a story of conservation, breathtaking views, and environmental stillness… at least, in theory.

 Frozen in time, the United States’ 63 national parks attract millions of visitors each year. In 2023, national parks added $55.6 billion to the nation’s economy and supported 415,400 jobs (Williams, 2025, pp. 1). Trump’s “Make America Beautiful Again” plan even recognizes their value: “The Secretary of the Interior, working with the Secretary of State, shall work to encourage international tourism to America’s national parks and outdoor recreation areas, and especially wider utilization of America’s many such areas that may be underutilized” (United States White House, 2025). Yet, national parks face extreme budget cuts for the 2025 fiscal year. The National Park System (NPS) received approximately $3-3.5B in funding in recent years; this budget has been cut by a third under the new administration (Rogin, 2025). These cuts emerged alongside tweets by Minister of the Interior Doug Bergum, who insists on their prospective mineral wealth. Park workers, tourists, and natural landscapes have struggled to keep up with the dramatic change in funding. Conservationists and environmentalists alike have raised concerns over the implications of the reductions. While these outcries resonate deeply, the discourse on national parks seems largely misunderstood. Specifically, their role as a public resource. This article evaluates national parks as an environmental and economic institution across American history. I call into question the tension between the notion of parks as a “public good,” and a private system of thought that sees parks as sites of private resource extraction. Since its genesis, the NPS has entwined with national dialogues on conservation, economic growth, and sustainability.

History

The Department of the Interior has overseen the NPS since 1872. However, the DOI’s responsibilities extended to Indigenous reserves, colonization of freed slaves in Haiti, westward expansion, and oversight of district water systems. This situated the NPS amid a broader project for American development that persists to this day (Stanley, 2025). By 1908, only 7 parks had been established. It was then that Roosevelt, upon visiting Arizona, decided to officially protect what is now the Grand Canyon. Like today, Roosevelt was encircled by mining lobbyists and prospectors who saw the area for its economic potential. Roosevelt was firm that the canyon should be a site enjoyed by generations of Americans (Pierno, 2025). Indeed, the Canyon satisfied the DOI’s aim to provide national parks as a “public good” under the following criteria:

1. It is an outstanding example of a particular type of resource.

2. It possesses exceptional value or quality in illustrating or interpreting the natural or cultural themes of the nation's heritage.

3. It offers superlative opportunities for recreation, for public use and enjoyment, or for scientific study.

4. It retains a high degree of integrity as a true, accurate, and relatively unspoiled example of the resource.

Indeed, national parks have long functioned as an instrument of colonization and social stratification. The above criteria conjure memories of westward expansion, genocide, and, ironically, environmental degradation. Plus, the Grand Canyon and preceding parks were guarded by the army. They were to be sealed and patrolled – a response stemming from the “rot, decay, and neglect” found at park campgrounds (Udall, 1961). While such precautions were taken in the interest of preservation, they inhibited the public character of the designated territory. Existing class-based stratification was only enhanced by these measures. A popular essay published by Bernard DeVoto in 1953 titled “Close the Parks” reprimanded the NPS for its neglect in maintaining the parks. He wrote, “all but one of the camp grounds look like slums; in the observer's opinion, the reason why they look that way is that they are slums” (DeVoto, 1953). In airing the frustration of park-goers, he further wrote, “A middle-aged couple with a Cadillac make a formal protest: it is annoying that they must wait three-quarters of an hour to get a table at Lookout Point Lodge” (DeVoto, 1953). DeVoto’s essay emphasizes how parks were used by urban elites for personal gratification. An amalgamation of the post-frontier and romantic movements, national parks represented an escape from the toil of everyday life (Runte, 2010, pp. 2). As such, wealthier guests did not like that sites were open to park-goers of lower social classes. Unlike a city park, which are chiefly concerned with access, national parks were designed to be objects of reverence – distant utopias, untouched by humanity (Runte, 2010, pp. 4).

Current Situation

Thus, while defunding and prospecting national parks for private gain is troubling, these developments should be understood as an evolution of the parks’ existing coloniality and privatized character. Yet, I do not wish to undermine the severe changes to protected parks under the new administration. Alongside the $900,000,000 spending cut, the DOI wrote, “The National Park Service responsibilities include a large number of sites that are not ‘National Parks,’ in the traditionally understood sense, many of which receive small numbers of mostly local visitors, and are better categorized and managed as State-level parks” (United States White House, 2025). 

First, the rhetoric is bothersome because it implies the NPS should function like a business. To demote a national park on account of its annual revenue implies that parks must “perform” in order to receive funding. And while my issues with the NPS are clearly outlined above, national parks were unmistakably never intended to comprise a business venture. To measure a park’s value by its monetary revenue is to justify removing it entirely. To be sure, the NPS has always commodified parks’ scenery and land, though the move toward natural resources is surely a step in the wrong direction. Pitas & Mowen chalk this process up to an “only in my backyard” framework, whereby “those with sufficient financial and social capital are able to guide resources to areas and projects of their choosing, often at the expense of those that would most benefit from public park and recreation services” (Pitas & Mowen, 2023, pp. 1165). This allows privileged stakeholders to weaponize the national parks’ ethos for private benefits. 

Second, justifying national park closure under the auspice of low revenue is a self-authorizing manoeuvre. Say national parks were to become more crowded and, therefore, generate more revenue. The utility gained from the park’s aesthetics, scenery, and space diminishes with each additional person. Overcrowding then renders parks less attractive to tourists (Link, 2022, pp. 49). Indeed, parks become less popular on account of being too popular. And as students of economics or environment will recall, the only antidote is to make parks more excludable by making them more expensive. If a lot of people are excluded from visiting (i.e. privatization), there is no reason to protect the parks for the public good; if nobody is excluded, there is no revenue and we can’t protect the parks. 

It then becomes clear that there is no perfect economic case for national parks – nor should there be. The money for national parks must come from above. Park guests cannot be customers, for then we have competition and further exclusivity. The only solution is to oversee national parks for their maximum public value. That is to say, value we measure in enjoyment, not money. While this article vehemently opposes the changes brought forth by the NPS under the Trump Administration, it recognizes these changes as continuations of withstanding issues. I call for the continued funding of National Parks. If nothing else, the US national parks are the least affected by industrialization and social stratification, compared to the rest of the country. And until the country repairs its withstanding environmental, social, and historical misdoings, that will have to be good enough.

---

¹Notice, I say maximum and not inherent or ubiquitous for the reasons listed in Section 1.

---

References

DeVoto, B. (1994). America's national park system: The critical documents (L. M. Dilsaver, Ed.). Bloomsbury Academic. Retrieved September 21, 2025, from https://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/anps/anps_4d.htm

Link, A. N. (2022). Public sector entrepreneurship: innovative pricing policies for U.S. national parks. Edward Elgar Publishing. https://www.elgaronline.com/view/book/9781803920696/9781803920696.xml

National Park Service. (2025, August 6). The guide to managing the national park system. https://www.nps.gov/subjects/policy/mp-1-foundation.htm

Pierno, T. (2025, March 6). Parks are being dismantled before our very eyes. National 

Parks Conservation Association. Retrieved September 21, 2025, from https://www.npca.org/articles/7044-parks-are-being-dismantled-before-our-very-eyes

Pitas, N., & Mowen, A. J. (2023). Support for neoliberal conservation strategies in state park and recreation service delivery: privatization, trust, and place attachment. Society & Natural Resources, 36(10), 1163–1180. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2023.2199698

Rogin, A. (2025, July 27). How funding cuts to national parks may harm the communities around them. PBS. Retrieved September 21, 2025, from https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/how-funding-cuts-to-national-parks-may-harm-the-communities-around-them

Runte, A. (2010). National parks: The American experience (Fourth edition). Taylor Trade Publishing.

Stanley, J. M. (n.d.). History of the Department of the Interior | U.S. Department of the Interior. Retrieved September 21, 2025, from https://www.doi.gov/about/history

Udall, S. (1961, June). National parks for the future. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1961/06/national-parks-for-the-future/658285/

United States White House. (2025, July). Making America beautiful again by improving our national parks. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/07/making-america-beautiful-again-by-improving-our-national-parks/ 

United States White House. (2025). Budget of the United States Government.

Williams, A. (2025). Public lands, private profits. Brown Political Review, https://proxy.library.mcgill.ca/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/public-lands-private-profits/docview/3217288382/se-2