National Park Service Tells Staff to Stay Quiet About Deaths in Parks: Report

**New Policy Restricts Disclosure of Deaths in US National Parks**

A controversial new directive issued by the Interior Department has raised concerns amongst employees and observers alike, limiting the dissemination of information regarding deaths and incidents occurring within the United States’ national parks. An internal memo that emerged in December 2025, as reported by the Washington Post, instructs staff members of the National Park Service (NPS) and the broader Interior Department not to confirm any deaths that might take place on public lands.

The memo states unequivocally that the “Interior shall not confirm a death,” affecting all bureaus and offices within the department concerning fatalities and injuries. Instead, confirmations of death are to be handled solely by designated “appropriate authorities.” The directive does not clarify who these authorities are nor how they will operate.

Importantly, the policy also limits the extent of information that can be publicly shared about serious incidents. Officials may only confirm the occurrence of an incident, its general location, and the fact that Interior staff or partners are involved in the response. They must refrain from commenting on the severity of injuries and are only permitted to note that individuals have been transported from the scene, without disclosing any medical details.

This shift in communication protocol has elicited criticism from some staff, who argue that it represents a significant departure from previous practices that emphasised transparency. Throughout the years, the National Park Service has generally prioritised the swift release of information surrounding incidents, which many believe reinforces public safety and trust.

Dan Wenk, a former superintendent of Yellowstone National Park and head of operations for the park system, voiced concern over this new approach. He highlighted the importance of providing timely information, especially during high-profile incidents. For instance, after a bear attack that resulted in a fatality, Wenk recounted the media scrutiny he faced, with numerous news outlets clamouring for information. He noted that public expectations are rooted in a need for facts.

In a statement issued jointly by the National Park Service and the Interior Department, officials asserted that the new policy aims to establish a more uniform approach to incident communications. They emphasised that the changes are not designed to conceal fatalities or impede the flow of information. The departments claim that essential public safety information continues to be made available via press statements, news releases, and incident updates whenever appropriate.

However, officials also acknowledged that certain details may be withheld due to privacy considerations, notifications for next of kin, or requests from families to refrain from disclosing identifying information. This consideration for privacy, while understandable, may conflict with public expectations for timely information during emergencies.

The shift in communication practices comes at a time when the National Parks are encountering increasing visitor numbers. Last year, the NPS reported a staggering 323 million visits. Between 2014 and 2019, 2,149 deaths occurred in these parks, an alarming statistic that translates to approximately 358 deaths annually, or an average of seven fatalities each week.

Bill Wade, executive director of the National Association of Park Rangers, reflected on the prior process, which typically involved releasing a press statement within one to two days of an incident, initially detailing the basic facts followed by a more comprehensive account, including the cause of the incident. Such a method, many argue, helped to foster good communication between the parks and the public.

The apparent tightening of restrictions on information dissemination has sparked discussions among current and former NPS employees who fear potential repercussions for voicing dissent or expressing concerns. It raises a pivotal question regarding the balance between operational integrity, transparency, and public safety in the context of managing the nation’s vast and popular national parks.

As national parks remain vital attractions, drawing millions of visitors seeking nature and adventure, the obligation to maintain both visitor safety and clear communication will be scrutinised. Stakeholders within and outside the National Park Service will likely continue to call for policies that not only uphold the privacy of individuals involved but also ensure the public is well-informed during critical incidents.