Interior is rolling back hunting restrictions in national parks, while the Trump term also brings staffing cuts, higher foreign fees, and exhibit removals.

A major shift in how Americans use federal lands is taking shape inside the Trump administration’s Interior Department. with a new push to expand hunting access in national parks—while other changes are simultaneously reshaping staffing. visitor costs. and the way history is presented on park grounds.

The department’s latest move is aimed at scaling back hunting restrictions across national parks. following a directive issued by Interior Secretary Doug Burgum in January.. The change is part of an effort to remove what Burgum characterized as “unnecessary regulatory or administrative barriers” to hunting and fishing. a framing that the administration argues will broaden participation in outdoor traditions.

In explaining the move. Burgum said expanding opportunities in the parks would be good for conservation and would also support rural economies and public health.. He further argued it would improve access to the country’s outdoor spaces. connecting hunting access to a wider policy goal of encouraging use of federal land.

The directive arrived a year into President Donald Trump’s return to office. and it is only one piece of a broader package of changes affecting the National Park Service.. Federal officials have also reduced staffing. proposed budget cuts. adjusted exhibits addressing slavery at multiple parks. and increased entry fees for visitors from other countries—decisions that critics say are moving parks in a less resourced and less inclusive direction.

Staffing reductions are at the center of the pressure building around the park system.. Under the administration’s spending priorities, the National Park Service reduced its workforce by nearly 25%.. The report said that many employees were pushed to resign or take early retirement. and that additional hiring has not filled the gap.

The impact, according to the National Parks Conservation Association, has already been visible to visitors and to park management.. In a statement last month. the group said the cuts have resulted in fewer ranger-led programs. weakened resource protection. delayed maintenance. and diminished visitor experiences.. Those complaints are now facing a new layer of uncertainty as the administration weighs further reductions.

For 2027, the administration is proposing additional cuts, including a $736 million reduction to park operations, the park service said.. The proposal. it was reported. would come at a time when park attendance is rising. raising concerns that the system’s capacity to handle higher visitation will deteriorate further.

John Garder. senior director of budget and appropriations for the National Parks Conservation Association. warned that a cut of that scale would be “catastrophic.” He said that after a year of deep staffing cuts and dwindling resources. park staff are already near their limits. particularly in an environment where. he said. there have also been attacks on history and science.

The stakes around the park budget proposal broaden beyond the National Park Service alone.. The association said the administration’s proposed budget would cut $4.6 billion from the Environmental Protection Agency. and would reduce the National Heritage Area program by 87%.. Taken together. advocates argue those decisions could affect not only parks themselves but also the broader ecosystem of programs tied to environmental protection and preservation.

While the administration has adjusted internal operations, it has also changed the cost of entry for at least one group of visitors. Late last year, federal officials rolled out what they described as “America-first” pricing for foreign visitors to national parks.

Under the policy described in the report, the administration is imposing a $100 surcharge on visitors from other countries.. Foreign nationals would also be charged $170 more than American citizens for a digital annual pass.. Burgum defended the pricing in a statement, saying it ensures U.S.. taxpayers—who. he said. already support the National Park System—continue to receive affordable access while international visitors contribute what he characterized as their “fair share” to maintaining and improving the parks.

Not everyone has been persuaded.. The report said some have raised concerns that the new fees could discourage foreign tourists. particularly as foreign tourism has already been down.. The debate over pricing speaks to a central tension for the parks: balancing revenue needs with efforts to maintain broad public access and preserve international travel flows that can support tourism economies.

The changes also extend to how the park system handles historical interpretation. particularly around slavery and other difficult parts of American history.. In January. officials began removing or altering displays at national parks. with the report describing multiple changes that have affected exhibits tied to slavery. Native Americans. and climate change.

At Independence National Historical Park in Philadelphia, the park service removed an exhibit on slavery.. The report also said other displays were taken down or modified. including exhibits related to Native Americans. slavery. and climate change.. Supporters of the removals have argued for different approaches to interpretation. while critics see the changes as part of a broader effort that reduces the visibility of contested or painful history.

One of the most significant removals highlighted in the report involved a 1863 photograph from Fort Pulaski National Monument in Georgia.. The image depicted a formerly enslaved man with scars on his back. and it was removed from the park’s exhibits.. The removal underscored how the administration’s changes are not limited to rules about hunting or visitor fees. but also reach into the historical record displayed in public spaces.

Taken as a whole. the administration’s approach appears aimed at reshaping national parks on multiple fronts: expanding hunting access through less restrictive rules. changing how the agency is funded and staffed. raising the price of entry for some international visitors. and revising what visitors see when they walk into museums and exhibit halls.

For visitors and for the broader political debate about the purpose of the National Park Service. the question now is whether these policy shifts will strengthen the system as the administration suggests—or whether they will strain the park experience at a time when. as the report notes. attendance is already climbing.

Interior Department national parks hunting Doug Burgum National Park Service cuts foreign visitor fees exhibit removals US politics