Erika Allen Wolters, assistant professor of political science, looks at what’s ahead for federally owned and managed land in the second Trump Administration
Erika Wolters
By Colin Bowyer, Communications Manager - March 20, 2025
The federal government owns about 53 percent of Oregon's land, one of the highest in the country, by a combination of the United States Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, and the National Park Service. Only two months into 2025, the Trump Administration has begun to articulate its priorities in the management of public lands, outdoor recreation, and the environment, potentially impacting Oregon’s vast wilderness and residents who use the federally-owned lands for their enjoyment. Support for federal management of public lands in the Western U.S. is high, even among voters across the political spectrum.
Erika Allen Wolters, a political science professor in the School of Public Policy, focuses on environmental, energy, and water policy, as well as public perception of federally-owned wilderness. Wolters’ latest research on the topic was published in The Social Science Journal.
How do you expect the administration’s efforts will play out in terms of public perception of federally-owned lands?
Currently, Trump is benefiting from a Republican majority (albeit slim) in both the Senate and House of Representatives, and a conservative Supreme Court. Efforts by Republicans to get management or ownership of public lands has gone on for decades. In 2016, the platform of the Republican Party called for the federal government to turn federal land over to the states, indicating for the first time, a unified position on public lands. However, every federal effort to transfer ownership or management of federal public lands to the states has been unsuccessful. Further, bipartisan public outcry over these efforts indicate how unpopular state ownership or management of federal lands are to the American people.
During the first Trump administration, we witnessed the reduction of federal lands through Trump’s use of the Antiquities Act. Most notably, Trump used the Act to significantly reduce the size of Bears Ears National Monument. Over 2.5 million people submitted public comments in opposition to this reduction. Trump has already indicated that he wants to revert Bears Ears National Monument and Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument to the 2017 boundaries established during his first term. Further, Trump’s Department of Interior Doug Burgum issued an order called “Unleashing America’s Energy” to mandate an exploration of energy development opportunities on federal public lands. While unpopular among a strong majority of Americans, we can expect continued efforts to wrestle control of public lands out of public hands by the Trump Administration, though efforts to do so will most likely be met with swift opposition.
Water policy continues to be a galvanizing and polarizing issue, particularly in the Western U.S. and among voters of both parties. Your research in 2022 and 2023 looked at public perception of water resource management and group identity. What did your findings reveal?
Both studies revealed that personal identity is predictive of water conservation policies. Specifically, in 2022, we found that belief about personal efficacy, human-caused climate change, and those who identify as politically liberal were more likely to support water conservation efforts. In the 2023 study, we found that people who identify themselves as environmentalists, conservationists, or wildlife advocates support water conservation policies. Both of these studies are based on surveys conducted in California, Oregon, Washington, and Idaho, areas where extended periods of drought and water scarcity or water shortages are becoming increasingly familiar. Due to extensive, and sometimes complicated, water rights in these states, water conservation or reuse is the most likely way to continue to meet water needs. While it is perhaps unsurprising that people who identify as more liberal, or as an environmentalist or conservationist, are more likely to support water conservation, more work is needed to incentivize water conservation in order for these states to continue supplying water for residential, agricultural, industrial and other uses.
The Trump Administration has already taken big steps in reducing the federal workforce in agencies that manage public lands. What could be some of the downstream effects of a smaller workforce?
The administration’s cuts to the National Park Service (NPS), the Forest Service (USFS), and other land management agencies threaten to significantly reduce access, management, and protection of federal public lands. Recently, the administration laid off over 1,000 NPS employees (roughly 5,000 people have been fired who work in federal land management agencies). The NPS has been underfunded for years, making it difficult for the NPS to maintain and protect the parks. These cuts sharply undermine the Public Trust Doctrine which states that public lands are to be preserved for use by the public; essentially all Americans own federal public lands. Under the Public Trust Doctrine, the federal government has a responsibility to manage public lands for the benefit of all Americans. The administration’s cuts significantly undermine this duty.
Concurrently, Trump is appointing people who may weigh more heavily on resource use within public lands. The USFS Administrator, Tom Schultz, is a former Idaho timber executive, who some believe will likely open up more Forest Service land to significantly increase timber harvesting (though it should be noted that Schultz identifies as a public land user and may strive for a more balanced approach). Irrespective, Trump is trying to eliminate the need for consideration of the Endangered Species Act or other federal laws protecting federal lands, making it easier to increase timber production, oil and gas extraction, or mining on federal lands without proper consideration of environmental impacts. Our public lands provide habitat for endangered species, are the headwaters for clean water, offer carbon sequestration, and provide recreational opportunities. With this effort, there is the potential for species extinction, a reduction in clean water, an increase in wildfire risk, and a reduction to recreation on public land.
The public is already responding to the cuts, and to Trump’s actions and appointees. Across the nation, thousands of people are at National Park sites protesting the cuts to NPS. With the majority of Americans, regardless of party affiliation, in strong support of the protection of public lands, I would expect to see on-going and vocal objections to the layoffs and subsequent impacts on federal land management.
Further, many rural communities will be negatively impacted by the federal workforce layoffs. Rural communities serve as the gateway to public land. These places are facing economic losses as their communities are often home to full-time and seasonal workers, and provide gateway tourism services like lodging, recreational outfitters, and restaurants. The cuts, in conjunction with Trump’s efforts to reduce protected lands, will have a very real impact on local communities and more broadly on Americans who value public lands for all the amenities they provide.
A part of your research agenda focuses on aquaculture (e.g. shellfisheries), which occurs in either state or federally-managed waterways. How could these industries be affected by recent administrative actions?
Recently, the administration laid off hundreds of people working for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). NOAA provides critical information on climate change, particularly the impact on ocean conditions. For shellfish farmers, having up-to-date information on ocean chemistry as well as other ocean conditions is critical to their industry. In a paper my colleagues and I published this year, we examined how oyster farmers in California and Oregon could build longer term adaptive capacity to changing ocean conditions, primarily ocean acidification. Farmers stressed the importance of updated ocean science and monitoring. NOAA funds, in part, Oregon Sea Grant and California Sea Grant, collaborative arrangements between scientists, industry representatives, Tribes, community members, conservation groups, local governments and state agencies working, in part, to maintain sustainable aquaculture and resilient communities and economies. The reduction of NOAA funding threatens the ability of these sea grant programs, and potentially undermines the ability of shellfish farmers to maintain viable and robust businesses.
Is there anything that you would like to share on the topic?
Public lands are intricately woven into the identity of Americans. They are a unique idea premised on the belief that federal public lands are entrusted to the federal government to manage for the public trust. It is unsurprising that there are already protests against federal land management agency layoffs. No matter party affiliation, a majority of Americans support the protection and management of federal public lands. Efforts to usurp the public trust for private interests, or to undermine the efforts of public land management agencies to adequately manage the lands for the public, has historically and is currently, meeting with strong public opposition. In this area, a majority of Americans are unified and demonstrate a consistent commitment to maintaining public lands in public hands.