Takeaways:

• You heard me: we uncovered a back‑door plan to give a developer private access through Yosemite, with public dollars possibly paying for it — unthinkable and we're pushing back hard.
• We flagged the likely misuse of the Land and Water Conservation Fund — money meant for conserving land, not underwriting private development — and Congress is already getting squeaky about it.
• You should care that we sued to stop the Park Service from quietly scrubbing history and science from exhibits; censorship of climate, slavery, and Indigenous stories undermines park truth‑telling.
• Heads up: since January 2025 we've seen more than a quarter of permanent Park Service staff vanish, degrading visitor programs, ecological monitoring, and the 'forever' stewardship parks rely on.
• We're alarmed by funds diverted to Trump‑era vanity projects — from a cage‑fight arena to a proposed triumphal arch — while the Mall and other parks get neglected; transparency is toast.
• If you want to help, go to npca.org, call your member of Congress, and remind Interior that parks unite Americans — we need you to speak up before these decisions become permanent.

And, you know, it's one of our most famous and most visited national parks.

And the very thought that part of that national park could be sold off to enable a giant private development that would have its own private access to the park is almost unthinkable.

Hello, and welcome to Democracy on Fire.

I'm Kay Brown, and in this episode, we'll be exploring how the Trump administration is harming and exploiting our national park parks.

My guest is Ed Sterley.

He's vice President for Government affairs for the National Parks Conservation association, which is a nonprofit that advocates for our national parks.

Ed leads the organization's federal advocacy work on park funding, historic preservation, and the protection of park resources.

He's based in Washington, D.C. ed has spent more than 15 years running advocacy campaigns for conservation and early childhood education causes.

Thank you so much.

So glad to have you.

Thank you for having me on.

Well, there's a lot going on with our national park, so I'm sure you've been really busy recently with all the different threats.

And I wanted to start with one that's been in the news recently, and that's the administration's proposed land exchange in Yosemite National Park.

From what I understand, Yosemite is a crown jewel of the national park system and the fifth most visited national park, renowned for its mountains and waterfalls.

What do you know about this potential deal with Kings Barn Realty Capital, a real estate investor who's trying to get a piece of Yosemite to connect some private land.

Who are these people and what's going on?

Yeah, I mean, I'm glad you raised this right.

I mean, because Yosemite national park is one of the crown jewels.

I mean, whether you've been there or not, certainly if you've been there, you understand how majestic and incredible the place this is.

But even if you've never been there, you likely know what Yosemite is, and, you know, it's one of our most famous and most visited national parks.

And the very thought that part of that national park could be sold off to enable a giant private development that would have its own private access to the park is almost unthinkable.

So, you know, so honestly, I think the outrage that we've seen in the media and from the public, from, from outdoor organizations, from people who love their parks, has been totally deserving.

I think we, you know, reporting broke, I think a couple weeks ago now, that exposed that behind the scenes for more than a year now, officials of the Department of Interior had been in, you know, backdoor negotiations to essentially sell off a part of the park that would enable a private development to be built with its own private access road.

And that's just.

And then also the fact that that was being done using potentially funding from the Land and Water Conservation Fund.

You know, this, again, this is, this is money.

This is our public lands.

These are public dollars that would go to benefit a private developer.

It's just totally wrong and unthinkable.

So understandably so.

I mean, people are speaking out.

I mean, we've been certainly talking to folks on Capitol Hill, you know, urging folks within the National Park Service, within the Department of Interior and this administration to make sure that this doesn't come to reality, that our national parks aren't for sale.

So I was just wondering, it sounds like from what I've read, they want to have a direct access from this adjacent parcel that they're developing directly into the park so they can avoid 90 minute drive to go around and come in one of the visitor entrances.

Would they have to set up a whole separate visitor entrance?

And what would that cost?

I mean, it seems like, you know, if they're going to open up another front, are they just going to let people come and go at will through that private entrance?

I mean, you know, honestly, we have no idea what's being negotiated because this isn't being done in the public eye.

I mean, this has not been transparent.

The only reason we even heard about this is because of investigative reporting that's done a tremendous job, you know, bringing to light some of the negotiations that have been going on.

But you raise on an important point, right?

I mean, equitable access to our public lands is essential, right?

I mean, these are, these are lands that are owned by all of us.

They should not be set up so that public dollars can be used to build a private entrance for, you know, one particular development for whatever that might be.

So.

Yes, and that's just one of the concerns we have about this project.

I mean, obviously, you know, having a big development right adjacent to the park could have all kinds of issues that not just impact visitation, like you pointed out, but also the ecosystem and wildlife and making sure that we're not essentially enabling the ability that would otherwise be a detriment to this great place.

And I wonder how you would put a value on something that's really invaluable.

I mean, it's hard to value something as iconic and beautiful and revered as Yosemite National Park.

I mean, how would you put a price on that?

I've been thinking about this, right?

I mean, we call them the crown jewels, right?

And I think they're called that because they are so priceless, right?

I mean, you can't put a value on the crown jewels, right?

So I think that's, you know, that's essentially one of the things that's so, so alarming about this is that, you know, the view of, of any decision maker or official that there could be a value placed on what has otherwise been invaluable public land for generations is deeply upsetting, which is why the outrage has been so enormous and understandably so.

So is it up to the Interior Department?

I mean, do they have the authority to do this?

Does it take an act of Congress to allow this, or is it just something the administration can do through executive power?

Well, there's a couple of things that are being looked into, right?

I mean, first and foremost, the Department of Interior has tried to do this in the past with the same parcel of land, and they've lost in court.

So I think it's an uphill battle out the gate knowing that.

That being said, I think what you also have here is potentially, you know, the improper use of, of public bunny of Land and Water Conservation Fund to potentially enable this.

That's not how that program was designed.

That program was designed for land conservation, you know, not to enable private development.

And I think you are seeing Congress weigh in on this.

You know, right now, I saw letters circulating today.

Over 130 members of Congress, both Democrats and Republicans, are sending a note to the Department of Interior.

And that number is growing every day, it seems, you know, saying with deep concerns saying, don't move forward with this deal.

And similarly, even at the local level, I mean, in California, there was a letter with dozens and dozens of state elected officials, but led by, you know, a Republican who was speaking out.

And even the member of Congress, Congressman McClintock, a Republican who represents Yosemite, has spoken out against this deal.

So, I mean, to say this is deeply unpopular, both politically and with the public, I think is a dramatic understatement.

And hopefully here that that weighs on the balance.

To make sure that, you know, Interior doesn't move forward with otherwise would be a deeply unpopular and legally questionable decision.

So where do you think it would be most effective for concerned citizens to direct their outrage and opposition?

I mean, I think Right now I'm going to make a shameless plug because we make it super easy.

If you go to npca.org we have it right on our homepage right now.

Essentially it says, you know, Yosemite is not for sale.

And, and we're weighing in with two folks here.

One is Secretary Burgum, the Secretary of the Interior, making sure that he knows this is a deeply unpopular decision.

And secondly, with your member of Congress, I mean, you know, we want them to use their voice unequivocally here.

We've seen Congress, you know, a year ago, time and time again speak out about any type of public land sell off, let alone with Yosemite National Park.

So I think it's really important that Congress, in a strong bipartisan way, push back on this as well.

And, and those are the two areas right now where we're really urging people to, to speak up so they know how unpopular this is,.

Something we should do.

Well, I wanted to check in with you also about the status of the litigation that your organization and others brought earlier over the issue of removing historical and scientific information from the parks from visitor displays, things that related or that were deemed to be too much dei, too much inclusive, or about the Civil War, about climate change, or things that the administration didn't want to be talked about, what's going on on that front.

So, you know, this past summer, we celebrated America's 250th birthday.

You know, the record visitation at historic sites in our parks, which is amazing to see, but I think when people visit the parks, they want to know that what they're hearing and seeing is the truth.

Which is why, you know, so important to npca, along with democracy Forward and our partners, you know, to bring forward a lawsuit to make sure that the National Park Service wasn't removing interpretation or trying to censor, you know, science and history in our parks.

So as of right now, you know, the National Park Service, this, this is going to be, essentially there's a hold on this right now as this, as this case works through the courts.

And, and as a part of this process, what has emerged is the Park Service has had to give us an inventory of all of the exhibits, interpretive materials, videos, et cetera, that have been removed, altered or even destroyed as a result of this secretarial order.

And it's really alarming to see what's on there.

I mean, we're talking videos about women's history in parks, you know, the interpretation of slavery or black history in America land acknowledgments you know, that tell the history of Native American tribes that you know, existed on these landscapes before they were ever even national parks.

Right.

So, you know, I think this is really important stuff that people need to learn and we're hopeful, obviously that we'll prevail in this suit and more importantly, to make sure that we can make the National Park System preserved in a way in which every four to eight years we don't have this happen again.

And I think that's so important.

Right.

We want to make sure when people visit the national parks, they expect to hear the truth.

They expect to see facts.

They don't want to see a political spin that, that can, that can change with every administration, which is so, which is what's so dangerous about the secretarial order.

And what we want to make sure, you know, can't happen again.

Will be interesting to see how that progresses.

Let's talk about the attempts to dismantle, really the field program of the National Park Service.

And I've read that money is being diverted away from, you know, the routine work of just maintaining the parks to these vanity projects that the President is using.

But there's been a big cut in the amount of employees since this Trump 2 took over.

And just wondering what effect is that having on people's visitor experiences and what's the morale like inside the Park Service?

You know, and we're talking about a tremendous amount of knowledge, leadership, you know, the people who knew the ins and outs of what are truly unique places.

Right.

Every single national park is different to manage, its history is different.

That's what makes them so unique.

And, and I think to lose some, so many of these staff within such a short period of time has been incredibly damaging.

Not to just to the management of the parks today, but I'm sure visitors take notice too.

I mean, you know, when you go to a park, there's fewer educational programs, there's fewer, there's, there's much less interpretation happening than there was two years ago.

I mean, staff are being pulled in so many different directions.

You've even seen, you know, for a while there, even visitor centers were closing or trying to limit their hours.

And also, it's the behind the scenes work, right?

The removal of invasive species, the management of many of the natural resources, the inventory and monitoring of threatened endangered species, air quality monitoring, water quality monitoring.

This is all really important in making sure that parks aren't just great to visit today, but are healthy for the next generation and generations to come.

When you talk to the folks who work for the Park Service, they always say that they're in the forever business, right?

And the forever business means you're managing them for forever, not just for what the visitors like coming next weekend.

So, you know, I think that's what's been such a big impact here.

And to your other point, I mean, you're right, unfortunately.

You know, we've seen a lot of funds that were supposed to be spent across the National Park System, particularly collected from visitor fees, been diverted to projects that are the priority of this administration.

You know, some of which we agree with.

I mean, Washington, D.C. 's national parks have needed a lot of help for a long time.

That's no secret.

But also for the creation of new construction projects, which we certainly don't agree with and haven't been authorized by Congress.

What about the cage fights, that huge arena that they built for that on the grounds of the White House?

Oh, man, did they pay for that with park fence?

And that's the crazy thing, right, is like all of this is happening behind the scenes.

I mean, the only reason we even know the funds have been diverted to these is because of investigative reporting.

There's been no public accounting for this.

And I think it's an egregious use of taxpayer dollars.

I mean, people want to know that the National Park System is spending their tax dollars wisely.

They've implemented so many processes and systems to make sure that that's the case, and those are being completely undermined and undercut.

And let me tell you, and I know this is probably particular to those who live in the D.C. area, but the National Mall, when you see those aerial photos, you know, of the long, you know, the long beautiful lawn, you know, from the Lincoln Memorial, the Capitol, that couldn't be any further from the truth right now.

What an absolute mess it is.

And it's so unfortunate.

I mean, here at America's 250th birthday, you know, the reflecting pool is still a mess.

You have, you know, the, the, all of the events that took place in the National Mall, you know, didn't do any of the turf saving activity, you know, platforms or activities that we've seen other events do.

So it just looks, it just looks like a disaster.

And it's so unfortunate and could have been completely avoided.

I mean, certainly The National Mall is home to a lot of events and major activities that take place.

But, you know, there were no precautions put into effect to think about what is this going to look like after this is all over.

And unfortunately, if you're visiting DC over the next couple months, you're going to be greeted with big fences along the grass and the National Mall because they're closing it off to the public, you know, which, which is needed, unfortunately, because the grass is in such terrible shape right now.

And at the expense of our other national parks.

You know, just like you said, no accountability, no authority, and just a real stretch to denigrate these important places.

Is the Park Service involved in the arch, the triumphal ar that's proposed?

Yes.

I mean, that, that project is, is on National Park Service land where it's being planned right outside the gates of Arlington National Cemetery.

And MPCA has been very involved in this because, you know, there, there are, as there should be, there are laws that Congress created to make sure that whatever is constructed on the National Mall, which in my opinion is one of the most important, if not the most important commemorative landscape in the world, that whatever is built there is done thoughtfully, is of the utmost of national significance and importantly has the support and the buy in of both Congress and the American people that has been throughout its history.

How monuments, memorials have been created and established on the National Mall.

So the very fact that a triumphal arch could be built right outside in between the Lincoln Memorial and, and the gates of Arlington Cemetery without any of that process taking place or even consulting veterans or those who have brought suit now because of the impact it would have on Arlington National Cemetery, is absolutely egregious.

So whether it's that project or the proposed Garden of American Heroes, a sculpture garden that's being planned, you know, right next to the FDR Memorial, you know, it is, it is just not how these are supposed to be selected.

Usually it's a very careful and thoughtful process which has guided the creation.

You know, most recently, the War on Global Terror Memorial is being built right now.

The Women's Suffrage National Monument is in the review process.

And then of course, you know, the more recent memorials like the MLK National Monument as well as the World War II Memorial, you know, these have all gone through this process and it's designed so that no president or individual lawmaker has the power or authority to unilaterally decide what should be built on the National Mall.

I've read that Trump has been pushing to open public lands, national parks and other public lands to mining, logging, oil and gas drilling.

Have, have any of those efforts been successful as far as the national parks?

Or is that just rhetoric on his part to suggest that those activities would be appropriate?

Well, I mean, the reality is, right, it's not.

It's not necessarily just national parkland.

I mean, because national parks aren't.

Aren't islands.

There isn't some mystical barrier around the boundaries of a national park that prevents anything happening right outside of that from impacting the park.

So I think, you know, we've seen a lot of decisions made on, from.

From this administration that could harm the national park.

You know, the shrinking of national monuments, which we don't think.

I mean, the Antiquities act, which is a law that Congress passed, you know, what, almost a century ago.

Over a century ago, right.

That gives the President the power to create national monuments on federal public land.

You know, that gives the president the power to.

To create new national monuments, not to take them away.

Right?

And then similarly, you know, seeing the, the.

The shrinking of those national monuments to open up lands for oil and gas or other energy development that would take place right outside the boundaries of national parks, or even a rule that got passed called the roadless rule, essentially this pertains to, you know, Forest Service lands to be able to open up more lands for.

For logging and other extraction activities and build roads through otherwise would be wilderness areas.

Again, these are all connected landscapes.

Many of them are only, you know, miles from a national park.

And, you know, if you're, if you're, if you're wildlife that's thriving in our parks, it's not as though, you know, you know, oh, that's the Forest Service land.

I know not to go there.

Right.

I mean, these are all connected landscapes.

So that's something that we've been really concerned about, and there hasn't been much thought put into what the impacts of these decisions would be on national parks.

It's purely just looking at, you know, rescinding them and looking to see how, you know, we can open up as much.

Many lands as possible for these type of development.

One other one that's happening right now that soon we'll be asking folks to weigh in, is the revision of the National Historic Preservation Act.

There's a section of that law, it's called section 106, and that has helped preserve historic sacred cultural sites throughout the country from otherwise being developed.

And this doesn't stop development projects.

It just means if you're developing near one of these places, that you need to make sure that you're mitigating or avoiding whatever harm you might provide to that historic site.

And once again, we're seeing this administration try to revise that law to make them as developer friendly as possible.

And maybe, you know, that could lead to the destruction not just of our.

Of our natural lands, but our historic sites as well.

Well, we've just about come to the end of our time, and I want to thank you, Ed, for sharing your perspective and your information and for everything the NPCA is doing to be a watchdog and to keep us informed about these things, which, as you said, are all going on behind the scenes, not obviously, but these public lands, our national parks, belong to all of us.

And they're so important for our both current population, but for the future as well.

And there's just no good reason to sacrifice these national treasures for the sake of private profit.

And that does seem to be what the agenda is of the current folks in charge.

So, yeah,.

I'd be remiss to say.

I mean, you know, when you walk the halls of Congress, whether you're in a Democratic office or Republican office, national parks are still one of the issues that truly unite us.

Right.

And I think that's what's so frustrating about what we're seeing come out of this administration.

It just flies in the face of that sentiment, which is why I hope people call their member of Congress and urge them to contact this administration and remind them of that of like, hey, this is an issue that truly unites Americans.

Don't hurt our national parks.

Don't hurt the National Park Service.

Because let me tell you, I talk to people from all political backgrounds and I can tell you this is the one thing that most people agree on.

The national parks are a great idea, and we need to do everything we can to protect them.

Well, thank you for everything you're doing.

Democracy is on fire.

And what we've been discussing is just another example of the idiotic policies being implemented throughout the federal government.

All eyes are on the midterms as we have a chance to start turning things around.

And it's not too early to make a plan to vote and to encourage everyone you know to do so.

So thanks for watching and listening.

Find us on United America Network or wherever you get your podcasts.

Thanks so much, Ed.

Thank you.