Trump's Plan to Sell a Yosemite Parcel Highlights Public-Land Privatization Push

The Trump administration is advancing a proposal to transfer a roughly quarter-mile parcel on the western edge of Yosemite National Park to a private developer. Critics describe the move as a “fire sale” that would break the long-standing principle that national-park lands are inalienable and held for public benefit. The plan would allow corporate development on a site that the administration has previously targeted for mining, logging, and fossil-fuel projects.

The Guardian

Yosemite’s public-use status dates to the spring of 1864, when President Abraham Lincoln signed legislation declaring the valley “inalienable for all time.” After the Civil War, President Ulysses S. Grant signed a document reserving the area from settlement, occupancy, or sale and designating it a public park for the enjoyment of the people. While the parks were originally established on Indigenous peoples’ ancestral homelands, recent decades have added signage and ceremonial access for descendant communities.

The Guardian

According to journalist Michael Scherer, the National Park Service has seen a sharp decline in funding outside the Washington region. In the first eight and a half months of fiscal year 2026, spending in non-Washington park areas fell by $854 million—68 % lower than the previous full fiscal year—while Washington-area spending rose by about $100 million. The agency’s workforce had already been trimmed by 24 % in 2025, and the administration has proposed further staff cuts. Additional controversies include a $16 million contract to repaint the reflecting pool at the White House.

The Guardian

The Yosemite proposal is part of a wider pattern of public-land rollbacks. The Associated Press reported that the administration and congressional Republicans have pursued a 90 % reduction of protections in Utah’s Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante regions, opened New Mexico’s Chaco Canyon to fracking, and expanded drilling, mining, and logging on federal lands. These actions have also weakened rules safeguarding imperiled species and reduced conservation funding.

The Guardian