As the new year quickly approaches, residents of the U.S. reflect on the year and think not only about what affected them, but also what changes came with the return of the Trump Administration. The conservation industry — focused on protecting and restoring natural resources and wildlife — faced numerous challenges within the year, mainly focused on budget cuts and employee attrition. As a result, select protected areas became vulnerable to economic exploitation or did not receive proper upkeep.
Under President Donald Trump, several key actions stand out for the industry. November, 2025, the administration published four proposed rules that would revise the Endangered Species Act (ESA) implementation, restoring a regulatory framework similar to the first Trump term. Key changes include removing blanket protections for species newly listed as threatened, narrowing what counts as critical habitat and allowing economic or other non-environmental impacts to weigh in when designating protections. Removing the necessary guidelines could cause species to remain unprotected for years to come, even if considered endangered, and habitat protections could become weaker.
“I think that Trump has the right idea for the economy, but it’s hard to back his economic policies when it comes at the cost of the environment. We need to keep protected areas protected because they provide places for our wildlife to flourish. People forget that, even though we need money, we also need to survive,” NC alumni Connor Deery said.
June 23, 2025, the administration — via the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) — announced it would repeal the Roadless Rule, which protected about 59 million acres of undeveloped national forest from new roads, logging and other industrial development. The administration claims that the rule “is overly restrictive,” and rescinding it allows for flexible, “common-sense forest management” — which proponents say could help with wildfire mitigation, forest health and support local rural economies. While the pros exist, opening 59 million acres of national forest to logging, mining and roads threatens unspoiled ecosystems, old-growth forests and biodiversity. These areas commonly serve as critical habitat for wildlife, store huge amounts of carbon, protect headwaters and watersheds and offer recreation and ecosystem services. Without these areas protected, residents face potential long-term harm that extends beyond economic profit.
While the aforementioned legislation seems negative, during Trump’s first presidency from 2017 to 2021, he passed the Great American Outdoors Act (GAOA) which addressed overdue maintenance needs with the establishment of the National Parks and Public Land Legacy Restoration Fund (GAOA LRF) and invested in, not only the protection and sustainment of national parks, but the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE)-funded schools. The GAOA also permanently authorized funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), which aims to safeguard natural areas and cultural heritage. So, despite the objectively rough start to his second term, Trump knows how to care for the environment.
“He [Trump] has had some good environmental policies before, so we know he can do it; he just isn’t focused on that right now. I don’t know why he chose to focus on the economy and throw other things to the side, but he did. We just need to stay involved and informed so that we can use our voices to know when he has gone too far,” Deery said.
As the nation steps into the new year, the future of conservation under the Trump Administration remains complex and deeply debated. The recent rollbacks and regulatory shifts highlight a renewed emphasis on economic growth and flexibility, usually at the expense of long-term environmental protection. Yet the legacy of past achievements, such as the GAOA, complicates the narrative, proving that meaningful conservation efforts remain possible with Trump’s leadership. Ultimately, the direction of the U.S. environmental policy now depends on whether the administration chooses to prioritize short-term economic gains or recognize the irreplaceable value of the environment.
