Connecting National Parks and Controversial Issues
When you think of the most trusted parts of our government, national parks often come to mind. They’re generally seen as non-political and loved by many. It seems safe to say these spaces hold a special place in our hearts.
But if you look a bit deeper, you might find connections between these cherished parks and some of the most contentious issues we face today. Topics like data centers, so-called “energy-efficient” technologies, or even our complex relationship with China all unexpectedly link back to our national parks.
Strangely enough, this connection revolves around NGOs (non-governmental organizations). You might be surprised to learn that some NGOs with ties to foreign adversaries, including China, are involved with our national parks. And even more astonishing is how these groups, often comprised of unelected activists, have found ways to influence federal policies without going through the usual democratic channels.
They leverage tactics like litigation, exploiting well-meaning laws to stall major infrastructure projects. There’s also what’s known as “sue and settle,” where they file lawsuits against agencies that are sympathetic to their causes. These cases often lead to settlements that result in policy changes—all without public scrutiny or any democratic process involved. To complicate things further, these NGOs often receive federal funding, which can help them grow and solidify their power.
Take data centers, for instance. Properly managed data centers could enhance many aspects of life in the U.S.; they create jobs and could potentially lessen tax burdens. In the race for AI technology, they could give the U.S. a significant edge. Moreover, from a national security standpoint, they can help prevent foreign entities from gaining control over our technologies. Yet, the narrative around them is overwhelmingly negative. NGOs with links to Chinese interests often push misleading messages against data centers.
A case in point is the Prince William Digital Gateway project, meant to be located near the Manassas Battlefield, which ultimately got canceled. NGO litigation portrayed data centers as antagonistic to national parks, even though this one would merely have been near a park. The misuse of proximity here set a concerning precedent, which NGO leaders openly admitted was intentional.
Now, if you’re questioning the integrity of these NGOs and their potential ties to corruption, a recent paper from the Council to Modernize Governance outlines several troubling examples. One such instance involves the Energy Foundation China, which has allocated over a billion dollars in grants, some of which have made their way to the U.S. Environmental groups, like the Rocky Mountain Institute, which have been influential in shaping energy and development policies, are among the recipients. Interestingly, this is also the same group that has advocated against gas stoves and has a longstanding partnership with the National Park Service, leveraging that connection to bolster its credibility in the energy conversation. Another notable recipient is Earthjustice, known for using legal avenues to hinder progress.
So, what can we do to address this? First off, we need better transparency laws aimed at NGOs that receive foreign funding, creating limits on their access to government agencies and funding. Agencies like the National Park Service should also be urged to distance themselves from organizations with foreign ties. The federal government needs to establish clear criteria identifying activities that undermine American interests, limiting the influence of NGOs engaged in those activities on policy-making.
Lastly, Congress should step in to strip these NGOs of certain obstruction tactics. For example, amending the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to clarify that projects can’t be stalled over vague angles that weren’t part of the environmental assessment would take one tool away from these NGOs and potentially allow for more progress.
It’s about time we view our parks as simply national parks again. NGOs shouldn’t be allowed to manipulate them for ideological or political aims. We have to bring awareness to these issues and create distance from those organizations, especially given any foreign interests. It’s a widely shared sentiment: America First is a sound strategy for our national parks.
