Rural populations near federal lands worry job cuts will hurt their communities
Mass layoffs of the federal employees who manage public lands could deal a major blow to the rural economies that rely on them.
By Zoë Rom for Inside Climate News
As government agencies slash staff managing federal lands, rural populations dependent on outdoor tourism face mounting economic and environmental risks that are trickling down from the cuts.
The Trump administration, as part of a broader initiative by its Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to cut federal spending by up to $2 trillion, laid off thousands of federal workers in February, a disproportionate number of them working in public land management. The DOGE initiative, led by billionaire Trump donor Elon Musk, cut approximately 1,000 National Park Service employees, 800 Bureau of Land Management staff and 3,400 U.S. Forest Service personnel, sparking widespread concern about the future of public lands and the gateway communities that rely on them.
Outdoor recreation contributes $1.1 trillion annually to the U.S. economy and supports 5 million jobs. With fewer workers to issue permits, manage facilities, maintain trails and mitigate wildfire risks, many rural communities and small businesses are concerned about the ripple effects of mass layoffs.
Related | Your camping plans may be kaput as Trump targets national parks
“Cuts to federal land management staff are directly affecting rural communities as these public servants overwhelmingly live outside of Washington, D.C.,” said Neal Clark, wildlands director for the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance. “Before the Trump reorganization, 97 percent of BLM staff were already located outside of D.C.”
The White House defended the moves.
“President Trump was elected with a resounding mandate to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse across the executive branch, which includes removing employees who are not mission-critical. He is simultaneously unleashing American energy, protecting our abundant natural resources, and streamlining federal agencies to better serve the public,” said Anna Kelly, a White House spokesperson.
A BLM spokesperson said the job cuts at the agency will improve its efficiency and public service.
“The Bureau of Land Management is committed to upholding its multiple use mission of managing public lands for all Americans,” said Brian Hires, press secretary and spokesperson for the BLM. “Under President Donald J. Trump’s leadership, the Department of the Interior is working to right-size the federal workforce, cut bureaucratic waste, and ensure taxpayer dollars are spent efficiently. By streamlining operations and reducing unnecessary positions, we are strengthening our ability to serve the public while making government more effective and accountable. We will continue working with the Office of Personnel Management and other agencies to implement cost-saving measures that put taxpayers first while ensuring the responsible stewardship of America’s natural and cultural resource.”
The U.S. Forest Service did not respond to requests for comment from Inside Climate News.
Economic Fallout of Federal Layoffs Hits Rural Areas
The White River National Forest is the most-visited national forest in the U.S., spanning 2.3 million acres in Western Colorado, supporting over 22,000 jobs in adjacent mountain communities and contributing $1.6 billion annually to local economies. But that economic engine is now under strain, according to Jamie Warner, who was laid off in February after working for just over a year for the U.S. Forest Service.
“It’s the highest visitation of any national forest in the country,” said Warner. “That money trickles down to hotels, restaurants, outfitters and small businesses.”
Revenue from outdoor recreation circulates within local economies to create a powerful monetary multiplier. Studies show that every dollar spent on outdoor recreation generates up to $2.50 in secondary economic benefits that support small businesses and local jobs.
In contrast, profits from resource extraction like logging, mining and oil and gas drilling often flow to multinational corporations, with minimal reinvestment in the communities surrounding the lands that the timber, minerals and fossil fuels are taken from.
As the Trump administration shifts priorities away from outdoor recreation toward extractive industries, with executive orders expediting timber harvesting, mining leases and oil and gas drilling while implementing mass layoffs at federal land management agencies, many fear these policies will destabilize rural economies that rely on sustainable tourism.
The Forest Service was disproportionately impacted by the layoffs. Cuts hit over 10 percent of its personnel, which left field offices understaffed and unable to process permits, maintain facilities or even perform basic wildfire mitigation.
Related | Even trees aren't safe from Trump's wrath
While a federal judge mandated the temporary reinstatement of thousands of fired federal employees early in March, including those from the USFS, the administration placed many on paid administrative leave rather than returning them to active duty. The Department of Agriculture, which oversees the USFS, announced that all 6,000 terminated probationary employees would be placed back in pay status and provided with back pay from the date of termination, but many jobs at the USFS and National Park Service still hang in the balance as lawsuits work their way through federal courts.
Visitation data indicates that national forests generate nearly $400,000 in economic activity per forest service employee. Compare that to the annual Forest Service salary, which varies based on roles and experience levels but runs about $69,000.
“If these cuts are about making government more efficient, I can’t think of a less efficient way to manage public lands,” said Warner. “The value that Forest Service employees provide is a bargain compared to the cost of wildfire recovery or ecological restoration.”
One of the small businesses feeling the impact is Capitol Peak Outfitters, owned and operated in Snowmass, Colorado, by Ted Benge. The company offers pack trips, hunting excursions, horseback rides and other activities in the White River National Forest. According to Benge, permits for 2025 are already behind schedule, creating uncertainty for his business.
“Without adequate staffing, I worry that federal agencies won’t be able to prevent illegal encroachment on my permit,” said Benge. If federal agencies are too understaffed to enforce these boundaries, other users—like guides, recreational users without the appropriate permits or poachers—might trespass into those areas, disrupting his operations, harming the environment or displacing the wildlife his business depends on. “If our forests suffer and wildlife herds disappear, so will my business.”
Already, popular parks are scaling back services. Yosemite National Park, for example, suspended campground reservations and closed some visitor centers, prompting state officials to decry the “removal of essential workers” as a threat to both the economy and the environment.
Another community feeling the squeeze is Estes Park, located just outside Rocky Mountain National Park in Colorado. Gary Hall, mayor of Estes Park, is concerned that layoffs of federal workers will jeopardize the park and the town’s ability to manage its more than 4 million annual visitors.
“If the park isn’t fully operational, restaurants, lodges and retail shops could face significant revenue drops and layoffs,” said Hall.
With perpetually short-staffed and cash-strapped agencies continually forced to do less with more, many worry that unkempt bathrooms, washed-out trails, lack of search and rescue personnel and vacant visitor centers will discourage tourists from traveling to national forests, national parks and BLM land.
“The public should anticipate significant negative repercussions for both the land and user experiences,” said Clark, with the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance.
Those impacts could compound over the long term to outlast the current presidential administration.
“You’re going to see more wildfires, degraded trails, sanitation issues and an overall diminished visitor experience,” said Warner. “Right now, people still want to come. But in five years? If the forest is burned, degraded, trampled or losing its wilderness character—who knows?”
Wildfire Risks and Gateway Communities
The growing threat of wildfires, particularly in the West, is a major concern in gateway communities. Warner cautions that laying off personnel responsible for wildfire mitigation—especially within the U.S. Forest Service—could have cascading effects across agencies and the landscapes they manage.
Wildfires don’t just disrupt ecosystems—they also carry devastating economic consequences. Without active management, flammable vegetation builds up across public lands, increasing the risk of large, destructive fires in the already parched Mountain West.
The 2020 Grizzly Creek Fire near Glenwood Springs, Colorado, forced prolonged closures of Interstate 70—the primary east-west corridor through the state’s mountains—both during the fire and afterward, when vegetation loss led to mudslides and rockfalls. These closures deprived tourism-reliant businesses of customers and disrupted critical supply chains.
Similarly, the 416 Fire near Durango, Colorado, in 2018 prompted widespread evacuations and major economic losses as local businesses were forced to close during peak tourist season.
Now, with federal land agencies slashing staff, the economic risks from wildfires are even greater. Fewer federal workers on public lands means fewer prescribed burns and forest-thinning operations to reduce the buildup of hazardous fuels, fewer firefighters to respond to ignitions and less mitigation work to head off wildfire-driven incidents like mudslides and debris flows that can disrupt communities and transportation arteries long after the blazes have been snuffed.
Historically, federal contracts with Native American tribes have helped them play a crucial role in wildfire risk management and land stewardship. In many cases, they have handled fuel reduction programs and other wildfire mitigation efforts more effectively than federal agencies, according to Len Necefer, a Navajo scholar and founder of NativesOutdoors. However, Necefer says these programs have long been underfunded—a problem made worse by recent administrative shifts that deprioritized tribal stewardship and climate resilience.
“Tribes move faster, bring deeper knowledge of the land and have a vested interest in protecting it,” said Necefer. “But as federal funding dries up, the future of these opportunities is uncertain.”
Conservationists and gateway communities alike fear the layoffs are part of a broader effort to weaken land protections and pave the way for privatization of areas currently managed by the Forest Service, Park Service, Bureau of Land Management and other agencies in the U.S. Department of the Interior, according to Clark.
“To be clear, the administration’s actions are specifically intended to further decrease the functionality of these agencies by significantly cutting resources and demoralizing dedicated staff,” said Clark. “With the ultimate goal being to bolster longstanding efforts by industry and their elected backers to sell off and privatize public lands.”
A new report from The Wilderness Society debunks claims that the Public Lands Rule, a strategy used by the BLM to guide balanced management of public lands, limits energy production, revealing that over 81 percent of U.S. public lands remain open to oil and gas leasing. Despite this, the Trump administration and industry-friendly legislators—backed by extractive industries—are attempting to dismantle the rule through Secretarial Order 3418, “Unleashing American Energy,” and legislation like 2024’s WEST Act. Critics and conservationists argue these efforts serve corporate interests at the expense of public land stewardship, climate resilience and community access.
Advocates across multiple states warn that eliminating the Public Lands Rule threatens biodiversity, clean water, cultural heritage and the sustainability of outdoor-based economies. The Wilderness Society’s report emphasizes that there is no energy crisis—in fact, U.S. energy production under the Biden administration reached record highs on both public and private lands, and while industry groups push for unchecked access to public lands, they already hold unused leases on millions of acres.
“What we have is a nature crisis, not an energy crisis,” said Sally Paez, staff attorney for New Mexico Wild, in a press release announcing the report.
Hall, the Estes Park mayor, also worries that the layoffs of workers on public lands could create a cycle of decline that would advance arguments for further cuts. “If people stop coming, it only strengthens the case for defunding these agencies even more,” said Hall.
Necefer echoed that concern, pointing to the erosion of protections for Bears Ears National Monument, a high-profile example of how public lands can become battlegrounds between conservationists and extractive interests.
“We could be looking at five or 10 similar fights over critical landscapes across the country,” he said.
Those fights are likely to grow more heated as the effects of the administration’s actions to reduce the federal workforce and open up more federal land to industry increase and the weather gets warmer.
“We’re seeing protests across the country, and we anticipate that resistance will only increase as the tourism season starts up and the administration’s cuts and dysfunction start to drastically impact public lands and user experiences,” said Clark.
The full impact of these federal layoffs on gateway communities remains uncertain, but history offers a warning. When the federal government shut down for 16 days in 2013, the closure of national parks and public lands led to an estimated $414 million loss in visitor spending nationwide.
Now, as agencies slash staff responsible for managing these landscapes, conservationists, former public lands employees and small business owners are sounding the alarm: Rural economies will bear the brunt when public lands are left without the personnel to care for them.
“These lands don’t manage themselves,” said Warner. “They require human effort, expertise and care. They depend on us. These communities depend on us.”