Will America's National Parks Survive Trump?

Like a cinnamon river overflowing its banks, thousands of elk have been making their way across Jackson Hole, Wyo., to their summer range below the high, jagged peaks of Grand Teton National Park.
This is one of the world's most spectacular migrations, protected by the creation and expansion over the last half century of what is now a 485-square-mile park. As the weather has warmed, cars and vans carrying tourists from far and wide have been lining the roads, watching and photographing the elk and keeping an eye out for wolves, bears, moose, deer, bison and pronghorn antelope.
With more than 3.6 million visitors last year, Grand Teton is one of the most popular national parks. In 2023, the $738 million spent by these tourists in nearby hotels, restaurants and shops supported more than 9,300 regional jobs — not a bad return for a park that runs on a budget of about $15 million a year.
The pattern is similar across America. That same year, the most recent for which figures are available, the 325 million visitors to national parks, monuments and historic sites spent an estimated $26.4 billion in surrounding communities. Visits to the parks swelled last year to a record of nearly 332 million.
Want all of The Times? Subscribe.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Forbes

15 minutes ago

• Forbes

Why Now Is The Time To Find A Fabulous Gay Financial Advisor

Now is the time vote with your wallet and find an amazing gay financial advisor. It's 2025, and a gay financial advisor just might be right for you. If nothing else, they may make financial planning fun enough for you to take the steps necessary to reach financial freedom and enjoy it along the way. The gay community faces a unique set of challenges when it comes to careers and finances that deserve the best advice available to them, and that may mean choosing an LGBTQ+ friend or even, if available, a gay financial advisor.I'm writing this article during Pride Month, which, despite misinformation circulating on the web, has not been canceled. We also just witnessed the "No Kings Day" protests across the county, reportedly the largest protest in U.S. history. Millions of Americans are ready for change and are often willing to vote with their wallets. Your financial advisor doesn't need to match your political affiliation or sexual orientation. Still, if they see the world differently than you, it might create financial planning blind spots that could be devastating for your finances when things go I'm proud to be a financial planner, sadly, the demographic truth is that the overall financial industry skews mostly older, whiter, more male and socially conservative than the population as a whole. Mind you, just because your adviser is wearing a Maga hat in his profile picture doesn't necessarily mean he (and in this case, he probably is a 'he') is a big homophobe. But aside from some notable, admirable exceptions, fiscal conservatives aren't exactly out there speaking up for LGBT rights. Some may be blatantly hostile to them. It's a double whammy if you are LGBTQ+ and a person of color, an immigrant or the wrong religion. While no specific data shows how many financial advisors are LGBTQ+, we know that more than 76% of Certified Financial Planners™ are male. There has been a significant increase in racial diversity across the 100,000 CFP® in the USA over the past few years. According to the CFP Board's Consumer Sentiment Survey — LGBTQ+ Financial Planning Pulse, same sex married couples are more than twice as likely to be working with a financial planner. Nearly ¾ of LGBTQ+ investors would prefer to work with a gay financial advisor or who identifies as part of a financial advisor who is part of the LGBTQ+ community. What difference does sexual orientation make when it comes to financial planning? Quite simply, the way you spend and allocate your money has everything to do with who you are and how you live. It follows that if someone has a visceral prejudice against your very existence, how can you trust them to have your best interests at heart? So, here are the top reasons you may be happier with an LGBT gay or gay-friendly financial planner. You might as well have a financial planner who is as fabulous as you are. The Worldview Of Your Gay Financial Advisor Every time I attend a financial industry conference or interact with other financial advisors, I can't help but notice how conservative many of them are. They may be nice guys, but if they don't think you deserve to exist, they likely aren't going to give you the best advice to reach financial freedom or have the best options to build your family. I've spoken to many women who described their families' (or husbands') financial advisors as creepy or even lecherous on a few occasions. It's not exactly how I'd want to be described, nor is it a skill I'd look for in my financial advisor. The right gay financial advisors will more likely share your social and political views. Hopefully, this means hiring someone you can trust. If you find that you can more easily trust someone who is gay or gay-friendly, then so be it. We might also appreciate it when you say you want to retire to Palm Springs or spend summers in Provincetown, not to mention not coming back and scolding you for what could seem like an exorbitant travel budget compared to the average retiree. Beyond the fun aspects, such as where to retire and how much to spend on travel or entertainment as we age, there are several other considerations for gay retirees to consider. A gay financial advisor may have better insights into where you can retire and get the healthcare you need without too much homophobia getting in the way. Likewise, long-term care planning is different for gay couples without children. Many in the gay community have expressed interest in retiring abroad. The number of people reaching out to me on this topic has skyrocketed since the last presidential election. People I know who were considering retiring abroad have pulled the trigger and are making it happen. Gay retirees are not alone in this desire to escape the U.S. I've seen many other people put plans in place just in case they need to move Best Gay Financial Advisor Advantage - Lifestyle Comprehension Walking down the street in Palm Springs, Manhattan or West Hollywood, it is easy to forget that there are still people in the closet. These days, in many parts of the county, staying in may actually be a matter of survival. We'd like to think that the closet is history, but in many parts of the country, staying 'in' can literally be a matter of survival. Throughout the last 20 years working as a fabulous financial advisor, I've spoken with a wide variety of people across the LGBTQ+ spectrum who were fearful of coming out to their financial advisor. This is a person you are entrusting to your financial future. If they don't know what truly motivates you and what you are looking to accomplish, how can they offer the best financial advice for your specific goals and the timeframe in which to achieve them? I've also literally reviewed financial plans where the sex of the second spouse was changed to cover the fact that this was a same-sex couple. Two glaring problems present themselves here: 1) The input of both spouses was not included in the financial plan. Financial Planning for couples (gay or straight) is not a solo sport. 2) Healthcare needs and life expectancy differ significantly when a couple consists of two women versus two men. The difference may not be dramatic now, but it can prove quite sizable over Marriage Equality Mean The End Of Gay-Specific Financial Planning The good news is that the LGBTQ community has achieved legal marriage equality. With that equality comes all the rights and responsibilities that come with marriage. When it comes to income taxes and estate planning, this has significantly helped level the playing field for LGBT citizens by granting access to spousal benefits, such as Social Security and additional retirement account options. There are currently nine states with proposals attacking same-sex marriage. Five of the measures urge the Supreme Court to overturn its 2015 landmark ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, which granted same-sex couples nationwide the right to marry. While I am optimistic that at least those who are already married won't see their marriage nullified, our community needs to be vigilant to maintain our hard-fought and well-deserved rights. Either way, marriage equality does not mean an end to the unique financial challenges facing the LGBTQ+ community. If nothing else, gay seniors may differ in priorities, interests, hobbies and ideal retirement For Your Fabulously Gay Financial Plan Choosing the best gay financial advisor is one of the most important decisions you'll ever make. Here's what to look for in a financial advisor: If your advisor was more likely to be storming the Capitol on January 6 than voting for marriage equality, it may be time to think about your financial advisor relationship. The days are gone of having to search for a financial advisor near me and working with the person who is closest to me. Gay business owner? There is a financial advisor who specializes in that. Gay couple looking to retire abroad. Likewise, there is someone who specializes in that. The list goes on, so there is no reason to settle for anything less than fabulous financial advice.

Fox News

21 minutes ago

• Fox News

The new map that could be guiding Trump's Middle East moves

Video President Donald Trump came back into office promising no new wars. So far, he's kept that promise. But he's also left much of Washington — and many of America's allies — confused by a series of rapid, unexpected moves across the Middle East. In just a few months, Trump has reopened backchannels with Iran, then turned around and threatened its regime with collapse. He's kept Israel at arm's length — skipping it on his regional tour — before signaling support once again. He lifted U.S. sanctions on Syria's Islamist leader, a figure long treated as untouchable in Washington. And he made headlines by hosting Pakistan's top general at the White House, even as India publicly objected. For those watching closely, it's been hard to pin down a clear doctrine. Critics see improvisation — sometimes even contradiction. But step back, and a pattern begins to emerge. It's not about ideology, democracy promotion, or traditional alliances. It's about access. Geography. Trade. More specifically, it may be about restarting a long-stalled infrastructure project meant to bypass China — and put the United States back at the center of a strategic economic corridor stretching from India to Europe. The project is called the India–Middle East–Europe Corridor, or IMEC. Most Americans have never heard of it. It was launched in 2023 at the G20 summit in New Delhi, as a joint initiative among the U.S., India, Saudi Arabia, the UAE and the European Union. Its goal? To build a modern infrastructure link connecting South Asia to Europe — without passing through Chinese territory or relying on Chinese capital. IMEC's vision is bold but simple: Indian goods would travel west via rail and ports through the Gulf, across Israel, and on to European markets. Along the way, the corridor would connect not just trade routes, but energy pipelines, digital cables, and logistics hubs. It would be the first serious alternative to China's Belt and Road Initiative — a way for the U.S. and its partners to build influence without boots on the ground. But before construction could begin, war broke out in Gaza. The October 2023 Hamas attacks and Israel's military response sent the region into crisis. Normalization talks between Saudi Arabia and Israel fell apart. The Red Sea became a warzone for shipping. And Gulf capital flows paused. The corridor — and the broader idea of using infrastructure to tie the region together — was quietly shelved. Video That's the backdrop for Trump's current moves. Taken individually, they seem scattered. Taken together, they align with the logic of clearing obstacles to infrastructure. Trump may not be drawing maps in the Situation Room. But his instincts — for leverage, dealmaking and unpredictability — are removing the very roadblocks that halted IMEC in the first place. His approach to Iran is a prime example. In April, backchannels were reopened on the nuclear front. In May, a Yemen truce was brokered — reducing attacks on Gulf shipping. In June, after Israeli strikes inside Iran, Trump escalated rhetorically, calling for Iran's "unconditional surrender." That combination of engagement and pressure may sound erratic. But it mirrors the approach that cleared a diplomatic path with North Korea: soften the edges, then apply public pressure. Meanwhile, Trump's temporary distancing from Israel is harder to miss. He skipped it on his regional tour and avoided aligning with Prime Minister Netanyahu's continued hard-line approach to Gaza. Instead, he praised Qatar — a U.S. military partner and quiet mediator in the Gaza talks — and signaled support for Gulf-led reconstruction plans. The message: if Israel refuses to engage in regional stabilization, it won't control the map. Trump also made the unexpected decision to lift U.S. sanctions on Syria's new leader, President Ahmad al-Sharaa — a figure with a past in Islamist groups, now leading a transitional government backed by the UAE. Critics saw the move as legitimizing extremism. But in practice, it unlocked regional financing and access to transit corridors once blocked by U.S. policy. Even the outreach to Pakistan — which angered India — fits a broader infrastructure lens. Pakistan borders Iran, influences Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, and maintains ties with Gulf militaries. Welcoming Pakistan's military chief was less about loyalty, and more about leverage. In corridor politics, geography often trumps alliances. None of this means Trump has a master plan. There's no confirmed strategy memo that links these moves to IMEC. And the region remains volatile. Iran's internal stability is far from guaranteed. The Gaza conflict could reignite. Saudi and Qatari interests don't always align. But there's a growing logic underneath the diplomacy: de-escalate just enough conflict to make capital flow again — and make corridors investable. That logic may not be ideologically pure. It certainly isn't about spreading democracy. But it reflects a real shift in U.S. foreign policy. Call it infrastructure-first geopolitics — where trade routes, ports and pipelines matter more than treaties and summits. To be clear, the United States isn't the only player thinking this way. China's Belt and Road Initiative has been advancing the same model for over a decade. Turkey, Iran and Russia are also exploring new logistics and energy corridors. But what sets IMEC apart — and what makes Trump's recent moves notable — is that it offers an opening for the U.S. to compete without large-scale military deployments or decades-long aid packages. Even the outreach to Pakistan — which angered India — fits a broader infrastructure lens. Pakistan borders Iran, influences Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, and maintains ties with Gulf militaries. For all his unpredictability, Trump has always had a sense for economic leverage. That may be what we're seeing here: less a doctrine than a direction. Less about grand visions, and more about unlocking chokepoints. There's no guarantee it will work. The region could turn on a dime. And the corridor could remain, as it is now, a partially built concept waiting on political will. But Trump's moves suggest he's trying to build the conditions for it to restart — not by talking about peace, but by making peace a condition for investment. In a region long shaped by wars over ideology and territory, that may be its own kind of strategy. Tanvi Ratna is a policy analyst and engineer with a decade of experience in statecraft at the intersection of geopolitics, economics, and technology. She has worked on Capitol Hill, at EY, at CoinDesk and others, shaping policy across sectors from manufacturing to AI. Follow her takes on statecraft on X and Substack.

Associated Press

24 minutes ago

• Associated Press

Senate parliamentarian deals blow to GOP plan to gut consumer bureau in tax bill

WASHINGTON (AP) — Republicans have suffered a sizable setback on one key aspect of President Donald Trump's big bill after their plans to gut the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau and other provisions from the Senate Banking Committee ran into procedural violations with the Senate parliamentarian. Republicans in the Senate proposed zeroing-out funding for the CFPB, the landmark agency set up in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, to save $6.4 billion. The bureau had been designed as a way to better protect Americans from financial fraud, but has been opposed by many GOP lawmakers since its inception. The Trump administration has targeted the CFPB as an example of government over-regulation and overreach. The findings by the Senate parliamentarian's office, which is working overtime scrubbing Trump's overall bill to ensure it aligns with the chamber's strict 'Byrd Rule' processes, signal a tough road ahead. The most daunting questions are still to come, as GOP leadership rushes to muscle Trump's signature package to floor for votes by his Fourth of July deadline. Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C., the chairman of the Banking Committee that drafted the provisions in question, said in a statement, 'My colleagues and I remain committed to cutting wasteful spending at the CFPB and will continue working with the Senate parliamentarian on the Committee's provisions.' For Democrats, who have been fighting Trump's 1,000-page package at every step, the parliamentarian's advisory amounted to a significant win. 'Democrats fought back, and we will keep fighting back against this ugly bill,' said Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, the top Democrat on the Banking Committee, who engineered the creation of the CFPB before she was elected to Congress. Warren said that GOP proposals 'are a reckless, dangerous attack on consumers and would lead to more Americans being tricked and trapped by giant financial institutions and put the stability of our entire financial system at risk–all to hand out tax breaks to billionaires.' The parliamentarian's rulings, while advisory, are rarely, if ever ignored. With the majority in Congress, Republicans have been drafting a sweeping package that extends some $4.5 trillion tax cuts Trump approved during his first term, in 2017, that otherwise expire at the end of the year. It adds $350 billion to national security, including billions for Trump's mass deportation agenda. And it slashes some $1 trillion from Medicaid, food stamps and other government programs. All told, the package is estimated to add at least $2.4 trillion to the nation's deficits over the decade, and leave 10.9 million more people without health care coverage, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office's review of the House-passed package, which is now undergoing revisions in the Senate. The parliamentarian's office is responsible for determining if the package adheres to the Byrd Rule, named after the late Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia, who was considered one of the masters of Senate procedure. The rule essentially bars policy matters from being addressed in the budget reconciliation process. Senate GOP leaders are using the budget reconciliation process, which is increasingly how big bills move through the Congress, because it allows passage on a simple majority vote, rather than face a filibuster with the higher 60-vote threshold. But if any of the bill's provisions violate the Byrd Rule, that means they can be challenged at the tougher 60-vote threshold, which is a tall order in the 53-47 Senate. Leaders are often forced to strip those proposals from the package, even though doing so risks losing support from lawmakers who championed those provisions. One of the biggest questions ahead for the parliamentarian will be over the Senate GOP's proposal to use 'current policy' as opposed to 'current law' to determine the baseline budget and whether the overall package adds significantly to deficits. Already the Senate parliamentarian's office has waded through several titles of Trump's big bill, including those from the Senate Armed Services Committee and Senate Energy & Public Works Committee. The Banking panel offered a modest bill, just eight pages, and much of it was deemed out of compliance. The parliamentarian found that in addition to gutting the CFPB, other provisions aimed at rolling back entities put in place after the 2008 financial crisis would violate the Byrd Rule. Those include a GOP provision to limit the Financial Research Fund, which was set up to conduct analysis, saving nearly $300 million; and another to shift the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, which conducts oversight of accounting firms, to the Securities and Exchange Commission and terminate positions, saving $773 million. The GOP plan to change the pay schedule for employees at the Federal Reserve, saving $1.4 billion, was also determined to be in violation of the Byrd Rule. The parliamentarian's office also raised Byrd Rule violations over GOP proposals to repeal certain aspects of the Inflation Reduction Act, including on emission standards for some model year 2027 light-duty and medium-duty vehicles. __ Associated Press writer Mary Clare Jalonick contributed to this report.