One thing that I can't get over about this administration is its cartoon villainy. There are all sorts of substantive and important issues in which people can have viable disagreements. Even when I disagree with people on those issues, I can usually at least understand their motivation. But this administration has so many policies like this which both seem completely unimportant to be worthy of focus and yet are also seemingly only motivated to make things worse. I truly can't imagine why anyone would put their energy into enacting a policy like this that is so transparently wrong. And I also don't know why people don't see policies like this as a canary in the coal mine for the administration's other positions.
According to the article Interior is just centralizing the release of the information. That sounds reasonable to me rather than letting any NPS employee discuss it with the press, and is consistent with many other agencies and employers policies (family privacy etc). As far as I can tell the only "cartoon villainy" is based on speculation in the article that the administration has some other motive. The only evidence I can see the article providing is that two deaths last week are not yet listed on the NPS website.
I don't think it's comprehensible at the individual level, but at population scales even the worst leaders tend to maintain a sizeable level of support. Trump and Chavez have alot in common[1], and nearly half of Venezuelans still supported Chavez at the end, when Venezuela had already been wrecked. Even Maduro had double-digit support in the last election (nominally 30% but probably less in reality). Cult of personality is a powerful thing, and can linger even after the personality is gone. I wouldn't expect MAGA to disappear overnight.
Some of it is designed to distract and fill the news cycle so actions or matters likely to be very unpopular if they get lots of publicity are drowned out. Any time the administration does something preposterous, look around to see what's actually going on.
That said, I though it was generally obvious the actions and policies are intended to do as much damage to US strengths as quickly as possible?
Relationships with our allies and the developing world?
Research/development/science/education?
The US Dollar standard?
US foreign policy/influence?
US military power?
All of it has been (and is still being) systematically disassembled. Who would benefit from all that? Answer: Russia, China, and to a lesser extent, India.
Did you notice how much the current president loves dictators (or put more politely "strongmen" leaders") but in particular, the Russian head of state? And at times has fawned all over the head of state of China? He sure does spend a lot of time talking to Putin with next to no other US officials in the room, and any records of the meetings destroyed (illegally, I might add.) I'm not joking when I say it's possible Putin is literally telling Trump how to run the country and he's nodding and saying "wow what a great idea, thank you!"
The republican party is generally awfully cozy with Russian officials because they've apparently decided Russia is the ideal society they want to convert the US into:
They see how powerful Putin is, how powerful the FSB is, how freely Russian society racially discriminates, how powerful the oligarchs and ultrawealthy are, how patriarchal it is, how christian it appears to them - and they love all of it.
> Interior shall not confirm the severity of injuries,” the memo reportedly said, according to The Washington Post. “Interior may state only that an individual was transported and the method of transport"
> According to The Washington Post, the internal policy states “Interior shall not confirm a death,” and that this policy applies to “all Interior bureaus and offices” plus “all Interior communications involving fatalities, suspected fatalities, serious injuries or emotionally sensitive incidents.”
So now I cannot learn about known bear attacks when I plan a backpacking trip?
If you are going into an area with bears, you should be prepared for bears. Appropriate behavior isn't conditional on someone dying recently. The risks in an area are widely published and posted by the National Park Service. This is basic safety.
It is common to see people in National Parks flagrantly ignore the many warnings. Honestly, I am surprised it is only 350 deaths per year.
The number of deaths tell you relatively little about the risks because almost all of them are preventable. If you don't ignore the myriad highly visible warnings, the risks are below the noise floor. You take a bigger risk of death driving to the National Park.
For example, dozens of people die every year due to heat stroke and dehydration in places like Death Valley, Joshua Tree, and White Sands. The National Park Service posts many large signs warning you to bring sufficient water that thousands of people ignore. Most people that ignore the warning don't die but you could eliminate the risk entirely by simply staying hydrated.
You keep using numbers to underpin your comments. The parent's point is that it's important to have access to numbers like this. From where I'm sitting it seems like you very much agree despite your comments sounding like disagreement or deflection.
If there is heightened animal activity in an area it helps to know, especially if they are aggressive. We adjust where we go to avoid especially dangerous situations.
The National Park Service continuously posts updated guidance based on animal activity and will temporarily close areas of the park if there is an aggressive animal. This isn't being changed by the policy in the article.
Allowing arbitrary NPS employees talk to the public about people that may have died isn't required for any of this. To be honest, I am surprised that this new policy didn't already exist. It is very common practice to manage incident comms this way.
I’m somewhat experienced in wilderness backpacking, and I always look into bear protocol anywhere I visit (including talking to the rangers there in person). But it’s disingenuous to suggest that you’d learn nothing from death statistics. Are you suggesting that there’s no need to know that, because if the numbers were too high in an area they’d close it down?
This is not a situation where good actors have different ideas on how to best administer the country.
These are criminals. They are committing crimes. You are the victim, not their peer.
[1] Does this sound familiar? https://www.caracaschronicles.com/2003/12/03/the-cornered-na...
That said, I though it was generally obvious the actions and policies are intended to do as much damage to US strengths as quickly as possible?
Relationships with our allies and the developing world?
Research/development/science/education?
The US Dollar standard?
US foreign policy/influence?
US military power?
All of it has been (and is still being) systematically disassembled. Who would benefit from all that? Answer: Russia, China, and to a lesser extent, India.
Did you notice how much the current president loves dictators (or put more politely "strongmen" leaders") but in particular, the Russian head of state? And at times has fawned all over the head of state of China? He sure does spend a lot of time talking to Putin with next to no other US officials in the room, and any records of the meetings destroyed (illegally, I might add.) I'm not joking when I say it's possible Putin is literally telling Trump how to run the country and he's nodding and saying "wow what a great idea, thank you!"
The republican party is generally awfully cozy with Russian officials because they've apparently decided Russia is the ideal society they want to convert the US into:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/15/republicans-...
They see how powerful Putin is, how powerful the FSB is, how freely Russian society racially discriminates, how powerful the oligarchs and ultrawealthy are, how patriarchal it is, how christian it appears to them - and they love all of it.
The visitor took a hearse home...
[1] https://www.yahoo.com/news/us/articles/national-park-staff-n...
So now I cannot learn about known bear attacks when I plan a backpacking trip?
It is common to see people in National Parks flagrantly ignore the many warnings. Honestly, I am surprised it is only 350 deaths per year.
Isn't this exactly why we need to know how many deaths there are -- so we can judge the level of risk we face?
Also: How many people killed by falling coconuts would cause you to cancel a Hawaiian vacation?
For example, dozens of people die every year due to heat stroke and dehydration in places like Death Valley, Joshua Tree, and White Sands. The National Park Service posts many large signs warning you to bring sufficient water that thousands of people ignore. Most people that ignore the warning don't die but you could eliminate the risk entirely by simply staying hydrated.
Allowing arbitrary NPS employees talk to the public about people that may have died isn't required for any of this. To be honest, I am surprised that this new policy didn't already exist. It is very common practice to manage incident comms this way.
You should always be prepared to encounter unrestrained nature when backpacking in a national park.