Nature unites us, but it’s not nonpartisan

While our country has never felt more divided, one thing remains undeniably true: Nature can still unite Americans. Whether you're hiking through dense forests, standing beside a river, or watching the sunset over wild peaks, politics often fade away. Almost all of us value clean water, wildlife, public lands, and open spaces for future generations, no matter our party. Yet as comforting as it is to call nature nonpartisan, that framing is misleading. Nature feels neutral, but it's deeply political. 

TL;DR

🌲 Nature can unite us: Nearly all Americans across parties value clean water, wildlife, and public lands. In 2025, 74% opposed closing public lands and 71% opposed selling them, including a majority of Trump voters (Source).

🌱 Nature is inherently political: Every acre of public land is shaped by policy, from Indigenous dispossession to laws like the Roadless Rule. Funding, staffing, and protections are all political decisions.

🚨 Nonpartisan framing is dangerous: Calling nature nonpartisan erases responsibility, weakens urgency, silences history, and lets bad actors off the hook. One party is actively dismantling environmental protections. We have to hold our leaders accountable.

🪶 This land was stolen in the first place: Public lands were taken from Indigenous peoples, whose stewardship practices were often outlawed. Until co-management and sovereignty are restored, “neutral” or "nonpartisan" isn’t accurate, productive, or helpful. Nature became political the moment it was stolen from them.

🔥 The harm by MAGA is real: The Trump administration has tried to sell of MILLIONS of acres of public land, pursued rollbacks of the Roadless Rule, removed monument protections, are trying to eliminate BLM conservation rules, destroyed pollution safeguards, and have ruthlessly (and needlessly) cut staffing and funding for our public lands. And so much more. One party is responsible for this.

🤝 Real unity requires truth: We can build bridges through shared values while still holding leaders accountable. Empathy doesn’t mean ignoring harm, it means naming it and acting together to protect our future. There is a productive path forward, but it needs to strike a healthy balance between accountability and cooperation.

Yes, we can all find common ground in nature

Nature has always been a place where people find common ground because we're supposed to be living in tandem with it, in partnership it. It can all feel very romantic and lovely when we think about it this way (let's be honest, in a vacuum). While this might sound like I'm arguing that nature is nonpartisan, trust me, I'm not. Just walk with me for a second, though...

When we connect around the outdoors, politics fade into the background, and often what rises to the surface is awe, gratitude, and connection. Whether it’s a sunrise in the Grand Canyon, a fishing trip on a quiet lake, or a neighborhood walk under old trees, these experiences remind us of our shared humanity.

When we step outside, we’re reminded that we belong to something bigger than party lines or political fights. Clean air, safe water, and thriving landscapes don’t ask for your affiliation. They sustain all of us. That’s why protecting public lands and natural spaces has the potential to be one of the most unifying causes in America. At the heart of it, nearly everyone cares about passing down beauty, wonder, and freedom to future generations.

The Trust for Public Land (TPL) found that in 2025, 74% of Americans oppose closing public lands, and 71% oppose selling them to the highest bidder. That includes 61% of Trump voters opposed to selling such lands. Polling also shows that even 37% of Americans who support MAGA still oppose funding cuts to land-management agencies.

TPL also found that 92% of Trump voters and 90% of Harris voters spent time in a park in 2025. Enjoying nature is profoundly human. Everyone visits outdoor spaces.

These numbers show that outdoor values can (and often do) bridge political divides. But we don’t live in a silo. We don’t enjoy nature in a vacuum. We exist within the context of this world, and in that, we have to acknowledge the truth: Nature is deeply political in America. And that's why it's so frustrating when people try to claim this as something that is purely uniting. Because it's not that black and white.

Nature in America is inherently political

In the colonized United States, nature has never been “non-political.” Who owns land, how it’s managed, and who has access are all determined through policy and power.

Every parcel of public land in America is shaped by politics, from the displacement of Indigenous communities to federal land grabs, conservation laws, and management decisions. The value of our lands (331.9 million visitors in 2024 and a $1.2 trillion outdoor economy) is immense, but it’s not self-protecting.

Whether it's proper funding for the National Park Service, staff protections for rangers and firefighters, or regulations like the Roadless Rule, these decisions come down to political will.

Calling nature “nonpartisan” risks ignoring how deeply entangled land and politics truly are.

This land was stolen in the first place

Another critical reason nature can never be neutral is this: These lands were stolen. The federal government forcibly removed Indigenous peoples from their ancestral territories. Their sophisticated land management (such as prescribed burns, stewardship practices, and intricate ecological knowledge) was dismissed, banned, or completely ignored by our government.

Public lands are not “neutral resources.” They are stolen land, and until it is restored to Indigenous stewardship, it will always reflect the politics of power and dispossession.

Claiming “nature is nonpartisan” can be dangerous

At first glance, calling environmental issues and protecting nature “nonpartisan” sounds unifying. Nonpartisan means not tied to or influenced by any political party. A nonpartisan issue is one where both major parties (and their voters) generally agree, and where policy decisions aren’t shaped by partisan divides. And didn't we just establish that the majority of people agree we should protect nature?

I understand why this can be confusing. Here's the problem: Calling nature "nonpartisan" suggests nature is above politics. It sounds like a lovely idea, a beautiful concept. And that's how things used to be before our colonizer government took over. The truth is that in reality, in practice, that framing is not only inaccurate, it’s dangerous. Here's why.

• It erases responsibility. Pretending both parties treat the environment the same way lets those actively dismantling protections off the hook. Right now, one party is systematically rolling back environmental safeguards, gutting agencies, and prioritizing corporate interests over climate action. To call nature “nonpartisan” is to flatten those realities into a false equivalence.

  
  

• It weakens urgency. If the public believes both sides are equally invested in protecting nature, there’s no pressure on elected officials to act. But the truth is: protections like the Roadless Rule, the Endangered Species Act, and clean air/water regulations only exist because of strong political fights. Without naming where the harm is coming from, it’s harder to build the urgency we need to defend them.

  
  

• It silences history. Land has always been political, from Indigenous dispossession, to the creation of the National Parks, to oil and logging battles today. Calling nature “nonpartisan” erases this context and ignores the systems of power that shape who benefits from the land and who pays the price.

  
  

• It undermines accountability. If environmentalism is framed as a “neutral” issue, then leaders who destroy protections can hide behind rhetoric about balance, jobs, or tradition. Naming partisan harm is necessary to hold them accountable.

  
  

• It closes off progress. Real solutions require honesty. We can build bridges across the aisle at the individual level, but at the policy level, we must call out bad actors and demand action. Anything less risks greenwashing, complacency, or bipartisan gridlock.

  
  

Of course, we can all agree that unity around nature is powerful. But it should not come at the cost of truth. Protecting our environment requires both empathy and courage. It means we must have the willingness to connect across divides, but also to name who is actively putting the future of our planet at risk.

The reality is that one party is actively undermining the protection of nature and public lands

While public support for protected lands remains broad, the rollback of environmental protections is happening fast. And it's led by Trump's MAGA agenda. Recent Republican-led efforts (from rolling back land-use plans to expanding drilling and mining) are some of the most aggressive moves against public lands since the Reagan era.

Meanwhile, polling confirms bipartisan public resistance. Even in contexts where traditional political conservatism is dominant, the conservation impulse remains powerful. One in four Republicans support selling lands, very close to only about one in five Democrats or Independents.

The current administration has done (and plans to do) irreparable damage

The current administration is inflicting long-term systemic damage on our environment by dismantling protections and institutions that have safeguarded nature for decades. 

Hundreds of clean air, water, and climate regulations have been rolled back, while fossil fuel expansion is being fast-tracked and renewable energy blocked. Mass layoffs across the Forest Service, National Park Service, EPA, and USDA have gutted the workforce responsible for conservation and wildfire prevention.

Meanwhile, the Endangered Species Act faces unprecedented attacks, leaving key habitats and wildlife at risk. On top of this, courts and federal agencies have curtailed the EPA and NEPA’s authority, stripping away vital oversight. 

Together, these actions not only threaten ecosystems and biodiversity today but also undermine the very systems we rely on to protect our environment for generations to come.

Here are just a few of those harmful actions by this administration:

• Historic rollback of protections: Within just 100 days, the Trump administration instigated 145 actions dismantling environmental protections, targeting clean air, water, climate rules, and wildlife protections (more rollbacks than in the entirety of the prior term).

  
  

• Roadless Rule tescission: Aligned with Project 2025’s playbook to weaken conservation, the administration is working to repeal protections for 58+ million acres of national forest, opening them up to new logging, mining, and roadbuilding.

  
  

  • NOTE: We can act to stop this RIGHT NOW! Leave a public comment before Sept. 19th to tell the USDA we need to protect the Roadless Rule!

• One Big Beautiful Bill land sales: The Trump admin backed provisions to sell millions of acres of public lands to private interests, only withdrawing after intense bipartisan backlash.

  
  

• National Monument revocation authority: The DOJ issued an opinion claiming presidents can abolish national monuments, clearing a legal path to erase conservation designations like Bears Ears or Grand Staircase.

  
  

• BLM conservation rollback: The Trump admin is moving to repeal Biden-era rules that recognized conservation as a legitimate land use on BLM lands, restoring priority to oil, gas, and mining.

  
  

• Mass pollution regulation rollbacks: The EPA announced it would roll back 31 major regulations covering climate, air, and water pollution. This has been described by experts as the “biggest deregulatory action” in U.S. history. Actions include repealing limits on greenhouse gas emissions from power plants and weakening regulations on mercury, arsenic, and other toxic pollutants. These changes are expected to increase premature deaths and health problems.

  
  

• Exemptions for toxic chemical releases: Over 100 industrial plants were exempted from pollution limits on hazardous chemicals. These hazardous pollutants are linked to cancer, developmental delays, and heart disease.

  
  

• Expedited fossil fuel expansion: Executive orders expedited approval for LNG export terminals, favoring fossil fuel infrastructure despite energy cost concerns. Wind and solar permitting was halted nationwide, and over $679 million in wind project funding was withdrawn.

  
  

• Rejection of climate science: The administration dismantled scientific institutions by firing climate scientists, dismantling NOAA’s climate.gov team, and shuttering the Global Change Research Program. It withdrew from the Paris Climate Agreement and removed the U.S. from UN loss-and-damage initiatives.

  
  

• Attacks on the Endangered Species Act: Congress introduced 32 bills aiming to weaken ESA protections, including delisting species, opening habitat to extraction, and rolling back scientific safeguards.

  
  

• Firing of EPA employees & suppression of dissent: At least 7 EPA staff were fired (and more placed on leave) for signing a dissent letter warning of erosion to the agency’s mission.

  
  

• Judicial rollbacks of governance tools: Supreme Court decisions have curtailed EPA and NEPA authority, limiting environmental review scope, restricting clean water protections, and allowing challenges to California’s emissions standards.

  
  

• Widespread layoffs across agencies: Massive reductions in government workforce including:

  • USDA: ~5,600 staff fired; closure of headquarters.

  • NRCS: ~1,200 staff fired

  • Forest Service: ~3,400 employees eliminated

  • National Park Service: ~1,000 staff fired

  • EPA: Over 300 probationary employees terminated

  • Bonneville Power Administration: ~20% of staff laid off

  
  

• Alignment with Project 2025: Many executive actions mirror Project 2025’s anti-environment playbook: dismantling federal climate protections, shrinking national monuments, weakening EPA/NOAA, and pushing extraction.

  
  

• Administrative suppression of environmental data: The EPA removed its Environmental Justice mapping tools. NOAA ceased climate data updates. Crucial datasets and research infrastructure were erased.

Claiming this is “nonpartisan” ignores that one party is actively dismantling protections, science, and conservation infrastructure. That stance erases accountability, undermines public safety, and insults those working to preserve our shared future.

We can have empathy without erasing reality

“I voted for Trump, but I didn’t vote for THIS!” 

Look, I know it’s frustrating to hear that kind of rhetoric coming out of the right when so many of us screamed about this from the rooftops prior to the election, warning of what was to come. 

It’s natural to feel irritated when so many voters weren’t fully aware of the harmful policy implications of their vote. But many people believed the lies that they were told: that Project 2025 or privatization efforts were overblown. Lies like this caused people to genuinely believe they were doing the right thing by voting for Trump. We can hold empathy for them while also being annoyed. We can hold them and leaders accountable without writing off entire communities.

But let me be clear: Empathy doesn’t mean softening accountability. Unity doesn’t mean pretending both sides share equal blame. It means recognizing deception and harm, and calling it out while still finding ways to connect from person to person.

What real unity looks like and how to put it into practice

True unity doesn’t mean ignoring harm or pretending parity in wrongdoings. It means acknowledging the political landscape, confronting which leaders are undermining protections, and still finding common ground through shared values like clean water, healthy wildlife, and the mental healing nature provides.

While we’ve seen conservatism shift in post-2016 contexts, there remains a deep-rooted appreciation for public lands among many people who still identify as Republican (just not in the modern-day MAGA sense).

We’ve seen nature unite and activate people across parties before

One of the clearest examples of Americans uniting to defend public land came when Senator Mike Lee proposed selling off up to 3.3 million acres of federal land to private interests.

His proposal was met with an intense backlash led not only by environmentalists and Democrats, but by hunters, anglers, and conservative voices who saw public lands as symbols of freedom and national heritage. Influencers like Joe Rogan, outdoor activists, and grassroots conservatives all pushed back. This rare cross-aisle resistance forced Lee to withdraw and drastically revise his plan.

It showed that when the public makes their voice heard, even partisan proposals can be stopped.

Here’s what we can do to continue working together

It’s on all of us to continue protecting our natural spaces. Resistance in action can look vastly different from one person to the other, though, so it’s important we all find what works for us.

• Reach across the aisle: Have honest conversations with friends, family, and neighbors who may not share your political views. Focus on shared values as a bridge to collective action.

  
  

• Hold leaders accountable: Public land policies affect us all. Call your representatives, submit public comments, attend town halls, and remind decision-makers that protecting nature is not optional. It’s their responsibility.

  
  

• Stay informed, and inform others: Don’t let misinformation stand. Share credible news, explain why protections like the Roadless Rule matter, and help neighbors, coworkers, and family understand what’s at stake.

  
  

• Support Indigenous sovereignty and knowledge: Acknowledge that public lands are stolen lands. Amplify Indigenous voices, support co-management agreements, and push for policies that return stewardship to Tribal Nations.

  
  

• Vote with the outdoors in mind: Local and federal elections directly shape environmental protections. Research candidates’ stances on conservation, land management, and climate, and cast your vote for leaders committed to protecting public lands.

  
  

• Invest in community action: Join local conservation groups, volunteer for trail maintenance, or donate to organizations fighting for land protection. Collective small actions add up to lasting impact.

  
  

Conclusion

Nature doesn’t care how you vote. It only asks that we respect it, protect it, and pass it on. That requires being honest about politics, calling out harm, and building bridges where possible and standing firm where we must. Truth and unity are both essential to protecting our shared wild places.