By John Q. Hosedrinker 
During a meeting with police and military personnel at the Anacostia Operations Facility in Washington, D.C., President Trump discussed plans to revamp the city’s national parks, suggesting they would be transformed into golf club-like landscapes. Citing his expertise in grass management, due to his ownership of numerous golf courses, Trump envisioned new sprinkler systems and vibrant green lawns for these areas. The president, whose remarks included philosophical musings on the life of grass, emphasized the need to rebuild and revitalize the parks. These comments came as he declared that the improvements would be swift, and he would handle the physical reconstruction while law enforcement focused on safety.
Read the original article here
Trump Wants to Turn National Parks Into Golf Clubs – a prospect that, frankly, feels like a logical endpoint to some of the more… ambitious ideas we’ve come to expect. The idea of turning vast, protected swathes of natural beauty into manicured fairways and greens feels jarring, doesn’t it? It’s a concept that rubs against the very idea of what national parks are for: preservation, public enjoyment, and the intrinsic value of untouched landscapes.
Trump’s vision, as described, centers around regrassing parks, complete with new sprinkler systems, transforming them into something that, in his words, resembles Trump National Golf Club. The image that conjures up is quite telling. It’s not about preserving nature; it’s about imposing a very specific aesthetic, one associated with wealth, privilege, and, let’s be honest, a certain degree of exclusivity. The idea of “regrassing all your parks” is particularly telling. It’s not just a suggestion; it’s a command, reflecting a mindset where everything can be, and perhaps *should* be, remade in his image.
The claim of knowing “more about grass than any human being” adds another layer of absurdity. It’s a quintessential Trump statement, overflowing with self-assuredness and a tendency to exaggerate expertise. Anyone who has ever maintained a lawn knows grass can be tricky, and anyone who has been near a golf course knows the importance of proper maintenance. However, the true expertise lies in a deep understanding of the unique ecosystems of our National Parks and not simply manicuring an expansive landscape. It is a classic example of focusing on the superficial rather than the essential.
The environmental implications of such a plan are staggering. Golf courses are notorious for their high water usage, often consuming vast amounts of resources in regions already facing water scarcity. The contrast is stark: the IEA reports data centers globally use 560 billion liters of water per year, whereas golf courses, according to CBD, use between 890 billion and 3.4 trillion liters per year. Then you consider the heavy use of fertilizers and pesticides, which can pollute waterways and harm local wildlife. Transforming national parks into golf courses, therefore, would not only desecrate natural environments, but also place an unsustainable strain on precious resources.
The potential for conflicts of interest is impossible to ignore. Trump’s business interests, and the potential for personal enrichment through these kinds of developments, would be a glaring issue. The possibility that such a plan could be a vehicle for money laundering, or simply a way to enrich himself and his associates, immediately surfaces. The idea of turning public land into private golf courses raises questions about whose interests are being served and who ultimately benefits.
It is also important to ask ourselves who this plan serves. Does it genuinely benefit the public, or does it primarily cater to a specific demographic? Does it serve the people of the United States, or does it simply serve the business interests of a certain few? National parks are intended for public use and enjoyment, and the idea of converting them into golf courses – an activity often associated with wealth and exclusivity – runs counter to this core principle.
Of course, there’s the more general point about the appropriateness of such a project. Many believe that national parks should remain untouched, left as a reminder of nature’s beauty, and a testament to conservation. This is especially pertinent when you consider that there are already many golf courses in the United States. It raises the question of whether we really need more, especially if it comes at the cost of our natural treasures.
It is easy to understand the exasperation with the whole concept. It’s not just that the idea is environmentally damaging, ethically questionable, and financially suspect. It’s also that it’s so…predictable. It fits a pattern of prioritizing personal interests over public good. The fact that this proposal has echoes of other controversial schemes is no coincidence.
Ultimately, the proposal to turn national parks into golf courses highlights a fundamental clash of values. It’s a conflict between conservation and development, public interest and private gain, and the preservation of nature versus its exploitation. It is important to remember this and to reflect on the nature of the national parks and the role they play in our country, and the preservation of our land.