Rebecca Solnit: Selling part of Yosemite is privatization by another name

A Trump administration proposal to give away or exchange a small parcel on the edge of Yosemite National Park is being criticized as part of a broader push to privatize public lands. The parcel is roughly a quarter-mile in size but the debate is about more than acreage: it's about whether land held in trust for everyone can be traded for private development.

The current proposal would allow a private developer on the park's western border to connect their property to a Park Service road and develop adjacent parcels. Even if the area proposed for transfer is small, Solnit argues, giving away any piece of a park weakens the principle that parks are public commons and invites further carve-outs.

Context: administration patterns and Park Service impacts

Staffing is shrinking too. Park Service employee numbers were cut by 24% in 2025, and the administration has proposed further reductions. Solnit emphasizes that fewer staff and less funding mean diminished capacity to protect endangered species, manage watersheds, prevent fires, and carry out search-and-rescue and educational programs.

Solnit recalls that white American entry into Yosemite Valley in the 1850s came as part of a violent campaign tied to the Gold Rush that displaced Indigenous peoples. Photographers and visitors soon promoted Yosemite's scenic fame. The park system's founding documents ignored Indigenous presence, but in recent decades Yosemite has taken steps to correct that history by changing signage, acknowledging ancestral inhabitants, and allowing traditional usages and ceremonies.

Solnit's argument is practical: parks preserve ecological functions—carbon sequestration, watershed protection—and support rural recreation economies. Privatizing pieces undermines those benefits and converts long-term public value into short-term private profit.

Concrete figures and examples cited

• The parcel under discussion is about a quarter-mile on Yosemite's edge.
• Park Service spending outside Washington fell by $854 million (68%) in early fiscal 2026, while Washington-area spending rose by about $100 million.
• The Park Service workforce had been reduced by 24% in 2025.
• An example of redirected funds cited is a $16 million painting of the Washington reflecting pool.

Look for whether Congress, public-interest groups, tribal representatives, or park advocates press legal or legislative challenges to any land exchange. Monitor Park Service budget and staffing proposals for fiscal 2027 and any finalized land-exchange paperwork or environmental reviews tied to the Yosemite parcel.

The immediate proposal involves a small piece of land, but the principle at stake is broader: whether land set aside for public use can be bartered away to serve private developers. Solnit frames the move as part of a systematic rerouting of public-lands policy toward private interests while shrinking the agencies tasked with protecting those lands.