Questions About Burgum’s Park Privatization & Public Land Sell Off Budget
Memorandum: Questions About Burgum’s Park Privatization & Public Land Sell Off Budget
To: Interested Parties
From: Save Our Parks
Date: Friday, April 17, 2026
Contact:Jayson O’Neill, Save Our Parks Spokesperson
Interior Secretary Doug Burgum will make a rare congressional appearance when he testifies in front of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on his disastrous budget proposal next week on Monday, April 20th at 4 pm ET. Burgum, the least transparent Interior Secretary in modern history, has testified only a handful of times, while ignoring congressional inquiries and critical deadlines.
“Secretary Burgum hasn’t faced a tough question in a year – hopefully that changes next week. Congress must hold Burgum’s feet to the fire and demand answers on behalf of the public, who are deeply concerned about our parks and public lands as the unchecked corruption occurring under Burgum’s leadership decimates our natural heritage. We deserve to hear the truth about this disastrous budget proposal, which comes after a year of attacks on park rangers, unAmerican censorship of history and science, and the support for unpopular proposals to sell-off public lands. ” said Jayson O’Neill, Save Our Parks spokesperson.
Burgum’s budget slashes the Interior Department by nearly 13%, including draconian cuts to the National Park Service (25% budget reduction with an additional cut of nearly 3,000 park employees), the Bureau of Land Management (eliminates the cultural resource program while slashing another 2,100 workers), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services ($340 million funding cut and eliminates state and tribal wildlife grants), and the U.S. Geological Survey (half a billion dollar cut with a reduction of nearly 2,000 staff).
This proposed budget calls for a net gain of over 4,500 new positions, but the increase is driven almost entirely by 13,000 positions – most of which are current federal firefighting staff who will transfer into Burgum’s newly concocted and non-congressionally approved Wildland Fire Service. His budget also cuts Interior’s Inspector General Office budget by 28%, ostensibly to limit the number of audits and investigations the office can conduct, concerning considering the outright corruption and ethical lapses occurring under Burgum and this administration.
Bottom line: This budget proposal is a reflection of the Trump administration’s and Burgum’s views of America’s beloved parks, public lands, and wildlife. Appropriators must get Burgum to answer critical questions on behalf of the American people, who overwhelmingly support our parks and public lands, and whom he insulted by calling them ‘financially illiterate.’
The $10 Billion DC “Trump-ification” Slush Fund
Burgum’s budget calls for a $10 billion slush fund to establish a new program within the National Park Service, with its stated purpose to “coordinate, plan, and execute targeted, priority construction and beautification projects in and around Washington, D.C.” While Burgum is proposing to eliminate nearly 3,000 more park positions and cut operations by another 25% across 433 sites nationwide, how does he justify creating a $10 billion discretionary slush fund, with no itemized spending plan or congressional transparency?
This $10 billion slush fund budget request comes as Trump demolished the White House ballroom in defiance of the courts and has proposed construction of multiple memorial arches, which have already faced legal challenges. What legal authority does Interior have to spend mandatory funds on projects before those legal challenges are resolved?
The deferred maintenance backlog across America’s public lands now exceeds $40 billion. Why should Congress appropriate $10 billion in slush funds without transparency and accountability while rural parks, trails, campgrounds, and visitor centers in states like Montana, Idaho, Nevada, and Alaska are crumbling?
Did Interior produce any cost-benefit analysis comparing the return on this investment versus directing those funds toward the existing park maintenance backlog?
Billion Dollar Bad Deal and Skyrocketing Energy Prices
A recently unearthed lease cancellation document confirms that Burgum intends to pay TotalEnergies, a French Energy Corporation, using the Department of Justice’s Judgment Fund, which is public money intended for agency settlements. Who authorized the use of the Judgment Fund for this payment, and which Interior Department and Department of Justice attorneys signed off on the legal justification?
The lease terms TotalEnergies agreed to in January 2025 explicitly state the lease cannot be cancelled “unless and until” the Interior Secretary has suspended operations for at least five years. If there was no credible litigation threat, what legal basis justifies drawing on the Judgment Fund at all?
TotalEnergies’ own release acknowledged the $1 billion would help finance a LNG project the company had already announced as it made a final investment decision in September of last year. If TotalEnergies had already committed its own capital before this deal was struck, how can Burgum argue taxpayers received fair value?
Isn’t this simply a gift of public funds to a foreign corporation for something it was going to do anyway?
Burgum has repeatedly cited ‘fiscal discipline’ as justifications for cutting park rangers, wildlife biologists, and Tribal programs. How does Burgum reconcile that position with approving a nearly $1 billion payment to a foreign energy conglomerate from a public fund intended for litigation settlements?
The budget eliminates $45 million for Interior’s renewable energy programs. Meanwhile, over 22 gigawatts of wind and solar projects, enough to power more than 16 million American homes, have already been canceled or blocked. With gas prices at record highs and the IEA calling the current situation the greatest global energy security challenge in history, how does eliminating domestic clean energy capacity make American families more energy secure?
Why did Burgum ignore the deadline to update Congress about energy projects on federal lands?
Illegal Power Consolidation, Wildfire Risk, and Outdoor Economy
Democratic congressional members have demanded Interior Secretary Burgum account for the movement of thousands of employees without congressional input, and Burgum has not responded to a February letter demanding answers about staffing, coordination, and budget. Why has Burgum not responded to that oversight letter, and will Burgum commit to providing a full accounting of all employee transfers and associated budget movements?
Rep. Chellie Pingree has stated: “Congress controls the purse strings for a reason. When the administration shuffles thousands of employees across agencies, changes their reporting structures, and rebrands entire operations, that has real budget implications.” Under what specific statutory authority did Burgum create the U.S. Wildland Fire Service via secretarial order and move roughly 3,900 employees from congressionally funded agency accounts to a new entity without a congressional appropriation or approval?
Fire personnel represent as much as one-third of BLM’s staff, and removing them will kneecap the bureau’s budget for land improvement, recreation, and habitat programs. What independent review has the department conducted to assess this long-term risk to taxpayers and public lands?
Burgum consolidated more than 5,000 Interior Department positions under his personal office. Can Burgum identify the legal authority for that consolidation, specify which agency appropriations accounts those positions were funded from, and confirm whether Congress was notified in advance, as required under law?
The outdoor recreation economy contributes more than $1 trillion annually to the U.S. economy. Burgum previously characterized Americans who raise this economic argument as “financially illiterate” and his staffers assisted in advocating for public land sell offs. Can Burgum explain to the gateway communities, small businesses, and workers, whose local economies and livelihoods depend on parks, wildlife, and public lands, why their economic concerns and way of life deserve to be dismissed?
Has Interior commissioned any economic analysis of the downstream costs to tourism, businesses, outfitters, outdoor recreation companies, and gateway communities from the combined effects of the DOGE staff cuts already implemented and the additional cuts proposed in this budget?
###
