When Public Lands Get Political: What a Hatch Act Complaint Says About the Future of Conservation

A recent complaint filed by an environmental advocacy group has drawn new attention to the intersection of politics, public lands and the agencies that manage them. 

The complaint, brought by the Center for Biological Diversity, argues that a banner on the U.S. Forest Service website violates the Hatch Act, a 1939 law designed to prevent the use of taxpayer-funded resources for partisan political purposes. 

As of October 15, 2025, the site includes a banner that reads, “The Radical Left Democrats shut down the government … President Trump has made it clear he wants to keep the government open and support those who feed, fuel, and clothe the American people.”

Whether the banner crosses a legal line remains unclear. Still, the case underscores a deeper concern: the potential erosion of political neutrality in federal land management agencies and the growing polarization of public lands and conservation efforts.

The U.S. Forest Service manages approximately 193 million acres of public land across the United States, including 154 national forests and 20 national grasslands across 43 states, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. Most of this land is open to the public for a wide range of recreational activities.

“There’s a reason the Hatch Act exists, and that’s to keep politics out of basic government functioning, particularly when discussing provision of essential services,” said Lincoln Larson, an associate professor of parks, recreation and tourism management at North Carolina State University. “I put public lands and conservation in that category.”

Public lands are, by definition, for everyone. And they offer countless benefits, including recreation, conservation of wildlife and natural resources, and support for local economies. The use of politicized language, especially when presented on official government platforms for these lands, could jeopardize the bipartisan support that has protected them for more than a century. 

“If people think that parks or public lands are somehow partisan, they might be less likely to use or support them. In that case, everyone loses,” said Larson, who has conducted research on the political polarization of conservation issues.

That concern is particularly relevant today, when political identity is playing a greater role in shaping Americans’ views on a wide range of issues, from science to public health to environmental policy. 

“Anytime you brand something with politics these days, it matters. In the past, people were able to hold multiple identities simultaneously. But today, our political identities seem to define pretty much everything,” Larson said. 

Nils Peterson, a professor of forestry and environmental resources at NC State and one of Larson’s frequent collaborators, noted that while relatively few people may actually see messages on federal websites, the symbolism matters. 

“If it becomes the norm for the political party controlling the executive branch to use federal agencies for campaigning, that might eventually encourage people to view federal agencies as partisan entities,” said Peterson, who studies public attitudes toward land management.

Public Lands as Common Ground

Public lands in the U.S. have historically been contested terrain, according to Peterson. From the Sagebrush Rebellion of the 1970s to more recent debates over energy development and land use, federal lands have often reflected deeper ideological divides. 

“Fights over federal lands and land management agencies go all the way back to their origins,” Peterson said. 

Conflicts usually stem from differing priorities, such as whether to allow grazing and mining activities or to protect the land for recreation and conservation, underscoring the difficulty of reconciling local needs with federal management.

Yet despite this contentious history, public lands have also emerged as one of the few policy areas to garner broad bipartisan support. In recent decades, conservation and public lands have often served as unifying issues. As Larson noted, they have acted as “a bridge, not a wedge” across political divides.

The data supports this view, according to Larson. Park-related ballot measures regularly pass with strong support from voters across the political spectrum as Americans of all political affiliations continue to use, appreciate and advocate for public lands.

But as Larson noted, that unity is fragile as political polarization threatens to turn even widely shared values into partisan battlegrounds, raising concerns not only about the sustainability of public lands but also about the neutrality of federal agencies tasked with managing them.

Hope Rises from Shared Responsibility

The outcome of the Hatch Act complaint will be decided by legal experts. But the broader issue of preserving public confidence in the organizations that oversee America’s public lands requires thoughtful consideration, according to Larson.

Growing political polarization around public lands, and the looming threat of privatization, carries consequences that are far from symbolic, potentially influencing everything from funding priorities and conservation policies to how Americans across the political spectrum experience and value these spaces.

Larson emphasized that national parks and other public lands require the dedication and support of all Americans to confront increasing challenges, including deteriorating infrastructure, insufficient staffing, climate change impacts and unprecedented levels of visitation.

“I still firmly believe that public lands can serve as a common ground.”

Sustained public engagement and investment, both in terms of advocacy and financial support, are essential to overcoming these challenges. Without widespread support, the ability to maintain and protect public lands will be significantly limited. 

“Ensuring the long-term health of these shared spaces requires not just policy action, but a sustained, nationwide commitment to their stewardship,” Larson said.

As debates over budgets, shutdowns and political messaging continue, Larson reiterated that conservation has the potential to unite more than it divides. “I still firmly believe that public lands can serve as a common ground, offering a unique opportunity to bring people together, improve our quality of life, and inspire a shared sense of responsibility to protect and enjoy America’s natural and cultural treasures.”