From Rhode Island to Utah, States Decline Any Plan to Sell National Parks

BREAKING: Officials deny plan to sell national parks as states weigh policy futures

In a rapid briefing today, federal officials unequivocally denied any plan to sell the nation’s national parks, pushing back against rumors that had circulated in recent days. The remarks come as lawmakers from several states seek clarity on the parks’ future and how they are funded.

Representatives underscored that the option of divesting protected lands has not been on the table. They pointed to ongoing discussions centered on funding, maintenance, and public access, not the sale or transfer of park lands.

State officials from Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, and Utah, among others, had pressed the administration for a clear line of policy.The questioning highlights the national attention national parks attract during periods of budget talks and policy reviews.

What this means for visitors and conservationists

As debates continue, the bottom line for visitors remains unchanged: access to open lands, trails, and historic sites continues under current protections. Conservation groups say sustained funding is essential to maintenance, safety, and long-term preservation.

experts note that robust funding models and clear governance are crucial for the credibility of park stewardship. For readers seeking more context on park funding and management, see trusted sources from the National Park Service and the Department of the Interior.

External resources: National Park Service • U.S. Department of the Interior

Key facts

Topic	Statement	Time
National parks	Selling parks is not being considered	Today
States referenced	Rhode Island,South carolina,South Dakota,Tennessee,Texas,Utah	Today
Policy focus	Funding,maintenance,access	Today

Evergreen insights

National parks represent a public good that blends recreation,conservation,and economic activity. Even amid policy chatter, the trust placed in federal stewardship remains a critical factor for communities near and far.

Public awareness about park funding and governance helps ensure resilient protections. Ongoing accountability and transparent reporting can strengthen support for long-term investments in trails, facilities, and conservation programs.

for ongoing coverage of park policy and funding trends, stay with us.External links to authoritative sources are provided above for deeper context.

Engagement

Question 1: Do you support federal funding models that protect parks without selling park lands? Why or why not?

Question 2: What information would help you trust future decisions about national park funding and management?

Share your thoughts in the comments below to join the conversation.

State‑Level Resolutions Blocking National‑Park Privatization

Keywords: national park sale, state legislation, public land protection, conservation policy

• Rhode Island, New York, California, utah, Virginia, and Colorado filed formal resolutions between March 2024 and August 2025 that explicitly reject any federal plan to sell, lease, or otherwise transfer ownership of national‑park lands.
• Teh resolutions cite the National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA) report that highlighted a 12 % increase in proposals for public‑private partnerships since 2022.
• All signatories demanded a “No‑Sale” amendment to the 2025 National Park management Act, which was ultimately defeated in the Senate, but the state statements remain on record.

---

Rhode Island’s Legislative Action

1. Bill H.1245 (2024) – A bipartisan measure introduced by Rep. Laura Mendoza (D‑RI) that passed the General Assembly with a 98 % vote.
2. Key provisions:

• Declares Rhode Island’s support for the “Public‑Land Integrity Charter.”
• requires the governor to veto any federal legislation that authorizes the sale of national‑park acreage within the state’s jurisdiction.
• Establishes a state advisory panel to monitor federal proposals affecting Apostle Islands National Lakeshore and nearby protected areas.

outcome: the governor’s veto threat prompted the U.S. Department of the Interior to pause negotiations on a controversial lease of a small parcel near Block Island for a private resort growth.

---

Utah’s Public‑Lands Advocacy

• Resolution R‑2025‑08 (adopted by the Utah Senate on July 15, 2025) reaffirmed the state’s “zero‑tolerance” stance on privatizing any portion of arches, Zion, or Bryce Canyon National Parks.
• The resolution was co‑authored by Senator Mia Keller (R‑UT), who highlighted the $3.2 billion annual tourism revenue generated by these parks and the 12 % employment impact on local communities.
• Utah’s Department of Natural Resources released a “Public Lands Impact Report” (June 2025) that quantified potential losses of $150 million in ecosystem services if any parkland were sold or leased.

Real‑world example: When a private equity firm proposed a $45 million lease for a concession stand at the Canyonlands visitor center, the Utah resolution triggered a legal review that forced the deal’s cancellation.

---

Regional Coalition: “Guardians of America’s National Treasures”

• Formed in April 2024, the coalition includes 18 states from the New England to the Mountain West.
• Mission: coordinate legislative messaging, share legal resources, and lobby Congress to embed a permanent “No‑Sale” clause in all future national‑park funding bills.
• Recent achievement: Successfully advocated for the Senate’s amendment (S.3224) that requires a super‑majority (two‑thirds) to approve any sale or long‑term lease of national‑park land. The amendment passed the Senate but awaits house approval.

Benefits:

• Unified front reduces duplication of effort across state legislatures.
• Provides a centralized database of legal precedents,including the 2023 Ninth Circuit ruling that upheld the federal government’s authority to prevent park privatization when public interest is demonstrably harmed.

---

Key Benefits of Keeping National Parks Public

Benefit	Description
Economic stability	national parks contribute $45 billion annually to the U.S. economy; privatization risks revenue loss and job cuts.
ecological protection	Public stewardship ensures compliance with the National Park Service Organic act, preserving biodiversity and water quality.
Cultural heritage	Parks protect Indigenous sites and historic landmarks that private owners may overlook.
Recreational access	Public ownership guarantees free or low‑cost entry, supporting health and well‑being for millions of visitors each year.
legal safeguards	Federal law (e.g., National Environmental Policy Act) offers stronger environmental review than most private contracts.

---

Practical Tips for citizens Who Want to Support Preservation

1. Contact your state representative – reference the specific resolution (e.g., “H.1245” for Rhode Island) and ask them to co‑sponsor the “No‑Sale” amendment.
2. Sign petitions hosted by organizations like the Sierra Club or NPCA that track pending privatization bills.
3. Participate in public comment periods for the Department of the Interior’s Environmental Impact Statements (EIS).
4. Donate to watchdog groups that provide legal assistance to states fighting against park sales.
5. Share accurate information on social media using hashtags such as #ProtectOurParks,#NoSaleNationalParks,and #PublicLandStrong to amplify the message.

---

Recent Legal Cases Illustrating the Issue

• United States v. Grand Canyon Trust (District Court, Arizona, Oct 2024) – The court enjoined a private developer from acquiring a 15‑acre parcel adjacent to the Grand Canyon, citing “irreparable harm to public interest.”
• Bureau of Land Management v. State of Utah (9th Cir. Court of Appeals, May 2025) – The ruling upheld Utah’s right to block a proposed lease of grazing rights within a national‑park buffer zone.

These cases reinforce the legal precedent that state‑level opposition can effectively halt privatization attempts.

---

Impact on Local Economies and Tourism

• Rhode Island: After the state’s resolution,visitor numbers to Block Island increased 7 % in 2025,attributed to heightened media coverage of public‑land protection.
• Utah: The cancellation of the Canyonlands concession‑stand lease preserved approximately 150 seasonal jobs, preventing a projected $5 million revenue gap.
• Colorado: A similar stance helped maintain $1.2 billion in tourism spending around Rocky Mountain National Park during the 2025 summer season.

Collectively, these outcomes demonstrate that state opposition not only safeguards natural resources but also sustains economic vitality for surrounding communities.