Stories credited to Outside, by publication date. ChamberLight collects articles that mention the officials it tracks, so this shows its own coverage of this source, not how much the source publishes.

Stories from Outside
Shaded: ChamberLight collected no stories, or almost none, from any outlet (a gap in its collection, not in the outlet’s publishing)

Show as a table

Month	Stories	All outlets
March 2026	1	940
April 2026	1	4,538
May 2026	0	none collected
June 2026	0	none collected
July 2026	0	none collected
August 2026	0	1 (collection gap)
September 2026	0	1,320

Who they cover

Party of the officials these stories are mainly about, across all 2 officials named. A story counts once for each official it is mainly about, so the split is over 2 story–official pairs, from 2 stories.

Democrat50% · 1 pair
Republican50% · 1 pair

Most covered

Stories mainly about each official, and their share of the source’s 2 stories.

Article tone

ChamberLight’s article analysis assigns each story a tone toward the official it covers. It describes the coverage of that official, not Outside’s stance, and reader votes do not change it. 2 stories.

Good Look: 0 (0%)
Mixed: 2 (100%)
Informational: 0 (0%)
Bad Look: 0 (0%)

Challenges to these scores

No one has challenged a score on this page yet. Anyone can; editors publish every outcome here.

Articles served from outsideonline.com

The Forest Service Is Moving to Utah. Here’s What That Means for Our Public Lands.

One of the largest agencies overseeing America’s public lands is headed for a major shake-up at the hands of the Trump Administration. On March 31, the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) announced sweeping changes to the agency’s structure, makeup, and headquarters. The USFS will officially move its headquarters from Washington, D.C., to Salt Lake City, Utah. The agency will abandon its regional structure in favor of one that focuses on state offices. Finally, the agency will shutter a sizable portion of its research division. While the government claims the move will streamline bureaucracy, critics argue it is a strategic step toward shredding federal land protections. Currently, the USFS oversees 193 million acres of public land. “That is what makes this so dangerous,” Tracy Stone Manning, former director of the Bureau of Land Management, told Outside. “When you set the agency up to fail, you set up public lands and the communities that rely on them to suffer with it.” Outside spoke with public lands experts and former Forest Service managers to gauge how this move will affect the agency and its management of our national forests. A rainbow appears behind the U.S. Forest Service building along the National Mall following a rain shower on March 28, 2021 in Washington, DC. A Strategic Retreat from the Capital In a memo distributed on March 31, the USFS argued that restructuring puts decision-makers closer to the forests and communities, while also simplifying the chain of command and giving field leaders greater ability to respond to on-the-ground conditions. “For an agency whose lands, partners, and operational challenges are overwhelmingly concentrated in the West, this shift represents a structural reset and a common-sense approach to improve mission delivery,” the memo said. Under the new directive, the Forest Service is abandoning its regional structure in favor of a state-led one. Previously, the USFS operated around ten regional offices. Now, the agency will: Close nine regional offices and establish 15 state offices. Relocate two-thirds of D.C. staff to the Western U.S. Shutter 57 research stations and consolidate others into a hub in Fort Collins, Colorado. “This is about building a Forest Service that is nimble, efficient, effective, and closer to the forests and communities it serves,” said Forest Service chief Tom Schultz in a news release announcing the decision. “Effective stewardship and active management are achieved on the ground, where forests and communities are found—not just behind a desk in the capital.” But conservation groups like Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) warn that closing specialized research stations from Alaska to Florida cripples the agency’s ability to understand local forest diversity and combat climate change. Sweeping changes could isolate groups and slap a one-size-fits-all approach to the 193 million USFS-managed acres. For the millions of Americans who use these lands for recreation, and for groups that promote conservation, the move represents a fundamental shift in who owns, and who protects, the American West. “D.C. is where our government is located, and moving the headquarters isolates the agency from other agency leadership and decision makers in the government,” Stone-Manning said. A U.S. Forest Service firefighter monitors backfire during the Park fire in Tehama County’s Mill Creek area of California in 2024 (Photo: Josh Edelson/AFP via Getty Images) What the Move Means for Your Public Lands Stone-Manning, who is now president of the non-profit conservation group The Wilderness Society, told Outside that moving the NFS headquarters to the West could result in a wide range of changes: closures to forests, fewer maintenance projects, more strain on trails and campgrounds, and a lack of preparation for wildfire season. “When you weaken the Forest Service, you weaken the public’s experience of public lands. These places belong to all of us, and people should be able to count on safe access, healthy forests, and the freedom to enjoy them. This kind of disruption puts all of that at risk,” Stone-Manning said. Stone-Manning saw disruption like this firsthand. In 2019, the Trump Administration moved the BLM headquarters from Washington, D.C. to Grand Junction, Colorado, a move that led to a mass exodus of staff from the agency. Stone-Manning took over as director in 2021, shortly after the Biden Administration reversed the move and relocated the agency back to the nation’s capital. “When you drive out staff, disrupt leadership and strip away expertise, you get less stewardship on the ground: less capacity to reduce wildfire risk, protect wildlife habitat, safeguard clean water and keep these places open and usable for the public,” she added. Fewer on-the-ground staff will diminish the agency’s ability to protect lands for conservation, and weaken its ability to do vital jobs like issue permits and clean up public spaces. A transition plan hasn’t been released, and it’s unclear how key roles—such as researchers, planners, and permit specialists—will fit into the new structure. The move could also pave the way for the sale of public lands, advocates fear. Unlike the National Park Service, which emphasizes preservation, historically the Forest Service followed a multi-use model, balancing conservation with grazing, timber, and recreation. By moving the agency to Utah, critics fear the balance is shifting permanently toward extractive industries, advocates say. “The biggest change will be that the agency seems to be shifting toward more extraction and development, and away from conservation and recreation,” Tania Lown-Hecht of the public lands advocacy group Outdoor Alliance told Outside. “In practice, this will mean things like more timber development, with clearcuts through your favorite trails.” The U.S. Forest Service is responsible for multi-use management of public lands, balancing grazing with timber and recreation (Photo: Dennis Anderson/Star Tribune via Getty Images) At the Heart of the Sagebrush Rebellion For nearly 40 years, Bill Kaage worked across America’s public lands—from the Everglades to Sequoia and Kings Canyon. He spent a decade with the Forest Service, mainly in wildland fire, and also worked for the National Park Service at the Powell Ranger District in Idaho. “I care deeply about public lands,” Kaage told Outside. “They affect us every day, from watershed management to the air we breathe and the critters that live there.” But the agencies Kaage spent his life serving are undergoing a radical transformation. The choice of Salt Lake City is seen by some as symbolic and politically motivated. Utah was central to the Sagebrush Rebellion, a 1970s political movement that attempted to transfer federal public lands to state or private control. The recent relocation follows a 2025 legislative proposal by Utah Republican Mike Lee that would require the USFS and Bureau of Land Management to sell off roughly 3 million acres by 2030. Lee also proposed a now-defunct plan that critics said would pave the way for the sale of national parks. “It’s not lost on me that the move to Utah with Senator Mike Lee,” Kaage said. “Why Utah and not somewhere else?” Huge swaths of public lands currently face an uncertain fugure—from Minnesota’s Boundary Waters to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge—if protections are weakened. Rolling back protections on forest service lands could open them to extractive industries. “Certainly Utah shares the perspective with the administration that public lands are something to make money off,” Lown-Hecht told Outside. “This administration is keen to reward states aligned with their viewpoint.” A group of U.S. Forest Service firemen walk down a road after a fire in the Los Padres National Forest in California in 2002 (Photo: Joseph Sohm; Visions of America/Getty Images) The End of Local Forest Science? For more than a century, the federal government safeguarded America’s public lands. Congress laid the framework for a federal forestry agency in 1876. By 1891, the Forest Reserve Act authorized the president to designate western public lands to forest reserves. By 1905, these lands were officially transferred to the USFS. Leaders like naturalist John Muir, scientist Franklin Hough, and President Theodore Roosevelt promoted the preservation of American wilderness areas like Yosemite and Yellowstone. Regional offices like those Kaage worked in help bridge gaps between the federal government and local communities, ensuring that each forest is studied and protected individually. “Not all forests are the same, but the Forest Service is weakening its ability to understand forest diversity by eliminating almost 60 specialized research stations looking at local forest conditions,” PEER Western Lands and Rocky Mountain Advocate Chandra Rosenthal said in a blog post. By moving the headquarters away from the seat of government in D.C., the agency becomes isolated from other federal leadership, potentially making it more susceptible to local political pressure. “This is not just a bureaucratic shuffle. It could affect the water people drink, the forests they visit, and the government’s ability to respond to wildfire when it matters most. And that is what makes the timing so dangerous. After months of cuts and staff losses, the Forest Service should be gearing up for fire season, not being thrown into more chaos,” Stone-Manning said. Kaage and Stone-Manning said that the power to protect public lands now rests with the public. “This land is mine, it’s yours,” Kaage said. U.S. Forest Service firefighters take a break from battling the Rim Fire at Camp Mather on im 2013 near Groveland, California (Photo: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images) The post The Forest Service Is Moving to Utah. Here’s What That Means for Our Public Lands. appeared first on Outside Online.

Apr 18, 202611 votes

The Trump Administration Took Down National Park Signs. Now 17 Senators Want Answers.

More than a dozen U.S. senators are calling on the Department of the Interior (DOI) to explain why the Trump administration ordered the National Park Service (NPS) to remove multiple historical signs across American national park sites. On February 24, 17 senators sent a letter to the Secretary of the Interior, Douglas Burgum, demanding answers about the removal of the signs. New Mexican U.S. Senator Martin Heinrich, the Democratic ranking member of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, sent Outside a copy. Among the senators who signed the letter, all Democrats, are Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker. The signatories requested an answer by March 10. A representative for Sen. Heinrich told Outside that, although the DOI confirmed receipt of the letter, the Trump administration has yet to provide a substantive response. Outside also contacted the agency for comment, but did not receive a response at the time of this publication. “The Department of the Interior’s decision to remove the exhibit deprives park visitors of a full and accurate understanding of American history. Removing or sanitizing exhibits that depict the realities of our past sets a dangerous precedent by signaling that history can simply be erased or altered when those in power do not like the truth presented,” the senators wrote in their letter. “A core responsibility of the NPS is to preserve and interpret history based on facts and not political preferences.” In March 2025, President Trump signed an executive order directing federal agencies to review how American history is portrayed at NPS sites. The order required officials to ensure that sites do not contain content that “inappropriately disparage[s] Americans past or living.” In the year since, NPS staff have removed or flagged interpretive signs at dozens of NPS locations, from the Stonewall in New York City to Glacier National Park in Montana. (A state-by-state guide of all signs known to have been removed can be seen here.) “The removal of exhibits by NPS has become a troubling trend, sadly,” the signatories wrote. “National parks provide visitors with an opportunity to appreciate our nation’s natural beauty and rich history while also serving as educational spaces that inform visitors across this country and the world.” To date, the federal government has not provided a publicly available list of NPS exhibits it has removed or altered. In their letter, the senators asked the DOI to provide such information, as well as further details about future plans to remove or alter additional exhibits at national parks. Senators Jeffrey Merkley, Edward Markey, Christopher Coons, Jack Reed, Alex Padilla, Chris Van Hollen, Tina Smith, Ruben Gallego, Tammy Duckworth, Mark Kelly, Ron Wyden, Mazie Hirono, Catherine Cortez Masto, and Richard Durbin also signed the letter. The text of the letter to the DOI is below: Dear Secretary Burgum: We write to express deep concern over the recent actions by the National Park Service (NPS) in removing an exhibit that provided valuable information about the enslaved people who lived and worked at the President’s House, now a part of the Independence National Historical Park in Philadelphia. The Department of the Interior’s decision to remove the exhibit deprives park visitors of a full and accurate understanding of American history. Removing or sanitizing exhibits that depict the realities of our past sets a dangerous precedent by signaling that history can simply be erased or altered when those in power do not like the truth presented—opening the door for future administrations to do the same. A core responsibility of the NPS is to preserve and interpret history based on facts and not political preferences. The removal of exhibits by NPS has become a troubling trend sadly. Not only has this Administration ordered the removal of exhibits related to slavery, it has ordered national parks around the country to remove exhibits or signage related to Native American history, climate change, and environmental impacts. According to an article by The Washington Post, “Trump officials instructed staff to remove or edit signs and other informational materials in at least 17 additional parks in Arizona, Texas, Colorado, Utah, Montana, and Wyoming.” 1 National parks provide visitors with an opportunity to appreciate our nation’s natural beauty and rich history while also serving as educational spaces that inform visitors across this country and the world. Accordingly, we request that your Department provide responses to the following questions by March 10, 2026: Since the issuance of President Trump’s Executive Order, “Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History”, how many exhibits has the Department removed or otherwise altered? What specific information in the exhibit at the President’s House in Philadelphia does the Department consider inaccurate? If the information is accurate, what is DOI’s rationale for its removal? Does the Department intend to remove or alter additional exhibits within National Park System units across the United States? If so, please provide the timeline and a comprehensive list of all exhibits under consideration, and the rational for removal. Does the Department plan to replace all removed exhibits from national parks? If so, when will this occur, and what sources or historical documentation will inform the revised content? Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. The post The Trump Administration Took Down National Park Signs. Now 17 Senators Want Answers. appeared first on Outside Online.

Mar 6, 202616 votes

Search

Scores for Outside

Credibility

Political lean

Originality

Stories ChamberLight collected, by month

Top topics