House rejects $1 billion NPS cut

House Republicans backed away on May 20 from the Trump administration’s proposed $1 billion cut to the National Park Service, releasing a fiscal 2027 Interior-Environment spending bill with a much smaller reduction instead. The House Appropriations Interior-Environment Subcommittee proposed a $42 million cut to the agency, according to E&E News, after park advocates spent weeks warning that deeper reductions would hit staffing and visitor services during the summer season. The National Parks Conservation Association said the House measure would keep funding for park operations at $2.9 billion. The bill still trims the Park Service overall and leaves in place a staffing crunch that advocates say is already affecting parks. ### How much did House Republicans actually cut? The House Interior-Environment subcommittee proposed a $42 million reduction for the National Park Service in its fiscal 2027 bill, rather than the more than $1 billion cut the administration sought earlier this spring. E&E News reported the measure was released Wednesday, May 20, and said House Republicans rejected the White House’s deeper reduction. NPCA said the House bill would maintain funding for operation of national parks at $2.9 billion while reducing the Park Service budget by 1.3% overall, including a $41 million cut to historic preservation. The group said the legislation also would eliminate funding that supports tribes and states in community-driven preservation work. (subscriber.politicopro.com) ### Where did the $1 billion figure come from? The Trump administration’s earlier budget proposal called for cutting National Park Service funding by more than $1 billion. Interior Department budget documents put the fiscal 2026 NPS request at $2.1 billion and said the administration wanted to shift funding priorities toward core operations while identifying savings elsewhere. (npca.org) NPCA described that earlier proposal as the largest cut in the agency’s history and said it threatened funding and staffing across hundreds of park units. E&E News separately reported in April that the administration’s budget documents outlined significant staff reductions at the Park Service and other Interior agencies. ### Why were park advocates focused on staffing? (doi.gov) NPCA said the National Park Service has lost nearly 25% of its permanent workforce since January 2025, or more than 4,000 positions, because of terminations, early retirements, deferred resignations and a reorganization. The group said visitor centers are reducing hours, trails and facilities are deteriorating, and long-term protection work is being delayed. (npca.org) About 600 positions were recently cleared to be refilled, NPCA said, but the group added that the number covers only a fraction of the jobs lost and that hiring could be slowed by cuts to human resources staff. In a statement released May 20, NPCA budget director John Garder said parks and park employees “deserve more investment, more protection and greater commitment to their future.” (npca.org) ### Did the House bill solve those concerns? The May 20 House proposal did not resolve the staffing issue. NPCA said it welcomed the rejection of the administration’s most severe cuts but warned that additional reductions and other provisions in the bill would still make it harder for the Park Service to carry out its mission. Democratic appropriators also criticized the broader Interior-EPA package. (npca.org) E&E News reported Democrats said the measure threatened public-land access and did not sufficiently curb President Donald Trump’s plans for changes across the federal government. ### What happens next in Congress? The House subcommittee released the bill on May 20, starting the next stage of the appropriations process for Interior and environmental agencies. (npca.org) NPCA said it would review the measure in more detail once the explanatory statement is released in two weeks. The next formal step is full committee consideration in the House. (subscriber.politicopro.com) Any final National Park Service funding level would still have to move through both chambers of Congress before becoming law. (npca.org)