• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Trump’s Push To Shrink Government Could Return National Parks To Tribes

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
This is a very interesting idea if done properly (aye, there's the rub)

Trump’s Push To Shrink Government Could Return National Parks To Tribes

For decades, America’s National Parks have been celebrated as “America’s best idea.” But this celebration often overlooks that their creation came at an unjust cost. When Yellowstone National Park was established in 1872—the first of its kind—it displaced the Crow, Shoshone, and other Indigenous nations who had lived healthy lives stewarding the land for thousands of years. This pattern was repeated across the country, excluding and displacing Indigenous Peoples to reservations, which today represent some of the poorest regions in the entire Western Hemisphere.​
As President Trump and a Republican-controlled Congress focus on scaling back government to reduce federal spending, a unique opportunity emerges. By transferring National Parks back to Tribal Governments, we can address a historic injustice in a way that aligns with conservative principles of market-driven solutions and limited government.​
...​
Making this vision a reality would require careful planning and multiple pathways are available to achieve it. For example, Congress could authorize the transfer of select pilot parks to Tribes with ancestral ties to the land, supported by a multi-year transition period. Federal agencies would provide technical training and funding for infrastructure upgrades during this time, ensuring a seamless handoff. Over time, as parks become self-sustaining, federal financial involvement would diminish. This would free up resources for other national priorities while empowering Tribes to lead their own futures together.​
This proposal isn’t just about fixing National Parks, it’s about restoring dignity and opportunity. It’s about addressing a historic wrong in a way that benefits everyone: taxpayers, tourists, Indigenous Peoples and the environment alike. In a time of political division, this initiative offers rare common ground. Conservatives can champion it as a fiscally responsible way to reduce government spending and promote local control. Progressives can celebrate it as a landmark act of land restitution and environmental justice. Indigenous leaders can see it as a pathway to sovereignty and economic independence.​
 

Wandering Monk

Well-Known Member
Well, in principle, this might be morally justifiable, but what would prevent corporations from exploiting the land if there are valuable minerals discovered, or they need the water for the southwestern states if the Native Americans see a chance for lease money etc?
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Well, in principle, this might be morally justifiable, but what would prevent corporations from exploiting the land if there are valuable minerals discovered, or they need the water for the southwestern states if the Native Americans see a chance for lease money etc?
Deed restrictions are possible.

BTW, the cost of operating national parks exceeds revenue.
Would fees rise, or would government subsidize it?
Just raising questions....not expecting answers.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
I think indigenous nations are best suited to handle conservation issues and in my opinion would make stellar stewarts of the land they have control over.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Could enough money be collected from visitors to replace the lost federal funds to cover expenses for infrastructure and restoration projects for the biome?
Sure.
And it would have the added benefit
of getting rid of poor folk.

Edit...
The Indians would have to honor my
Senior Pass granting free admission for life.
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
Deed restrictions are possible.

BTW, the cost of operating national parks exceeds revenue.
Would fees rise, or would government subsidize it?
Just raising questions....not expecting answers.
Exactly what I was thinking. If it costs the USA so much money that we want to turn them over, how will tribes, who are notoriously low on money, going to manage these lands? If some company wants to mine it or drill for oil/gas how would the tribes afford legal representation? This whole thing sounds generous on the surface, but remember this is Trump, and he and his rich friends would certainly exploit the tribes.

My guess is this whole idea is about the rich getting richer.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Exactly what I was thinking. If it costs the USA so much money that we want to turn them over, how will tribes, who are notoriously low on money, going to manage these lands? If some company wants to mine it or drill for oil/gas how would the tribes afford legal representation? This whole thing sounds generous on the surface, but remember this is Trump, and he and his rich friends would certainly exploit the tribes.

My guess is this whole idea is about the rich getting richer.
Still, there's potential for it to work well.
 

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
With government funding, but then where is the cost savings? The money to manage these lands will have to come from somewhere. I just don't trust anything coming from Trump.
Bureaucracy is eliminated which will be part of the solution. And Federal moneys would be transitional.
 
Top