The Trump administration’s firing and furloughing of tens of thousands of federal workers and contractors have obviously caused economic hardship for Americans employed in national parks, research labs and dozens of government agencies.

As a professor of social work who studies how people’s finances affect their physical and mental well-being, I’m concerned about the health hazards they’ll face too.

My research shows that losing your job can seriously harm your physical and mental health, especially when you see the situation as a catastrophe rather than a temporary setback.

Power of financial perception

When people lose their jobs, they do have real problems. Typically, for example, their income and savings decline. They might struggle to keep up on their rent or mortgage payments and might not be able to afford to maintain the same standard of living they had beforehand.

However, research shows that your perspective regarding your financial situation can do more harm to your health than your actual financial circumstances – even as your savings dwindle.

Someone might view losing their job as a temporary setback and remain relatively calm, while another person might experience the same circumstances as a disaster, triggering intense stress that cascades into serious health problems, such as depression and substance abuse. This difference in perspective often determines whether somebody will suffer significant health problems when they lose their job or experience a similar financial setback.

In a study I published in 2023 with social work scholar Theda Rose, we found that how a person felt about a decline in income mattered 20 times more than the actual financial change itself.

This finding comes from our analysis of data from the 2018 National Financial Capability Study, which surveyed more than 27,000 American adults. We used advanced statistical methods to examine how different financial factors affected people’s health and financial decision-making, looking specifically at financial strain, confidence in managing money and overall financial satisfaction.

The study confirmed earlier work about the vastly different psychological and physical responses two people can have when their income falls by the same amount, based on how they perceive this change.

Pathway to illness

Previous research has typically viewed what’s known as “financial precarity” – not having enough money to get by – in either purely technical terms, such as being able to come up with US$400 in an emergency, or in terms related to your feelings about that situation, such as persistent worrying about your finances.

However, we found that both aspects of financial precarity can influence health and behavior.

Among the many variables we explored, a decline in income surprisingly contributed much more in terms of worry than just not being able to pay the bills.

This distress caused by economic hardship isn’t just a psychological problem – it can produce physical changes that may have long-term health implications, such as high blood pressure.

Mental health suffers

There’s also a toll on your mental health.

Losing a job can lead to anxiety, depression and lower self-esteem.

Interestingly, people who face ongoing financial challenges but don’t get stressed about their situation aren’t more likely to develop depression symptoms than people without any financial stress.

A systematic review of 65 studies found clear connections between debt and mental health problems, depression and even suicide attempts.

Physical health troubles

Losing your job can harm your body in two main ways.

First, the stress from financial worries can affect people’s bodies directly – for example, by increasing blood pressure. Being in debt is associated with other ailments, including back pain and obesity.

Second, when money is tight, people often try to save money by skipping doctor visits or forgoing prescription drugs. Even with health insurance, high deductibles can mean paying thousands of dollars out of pocket before insurance helps. When choosing between paying for rent, food and health care, people often put their medical needs last.

Unhealthy coping methods

Some people turn to alcohol, tobacco or other substances to cope with the loss of their jobs. These habits are bad for your health and may empty your wallet, adding to the financial strain.

Others turn to gambling or excessive shopping to cope, which can also make money problems even worse.

Marriage and other relationships may fray amid financial stress too. Borrowing money excessively from friends and family or snapping at your loved ones when you feel stressed out can weaken ties with those closest to you.

Moving on in healthy ways

To be sure, some people become more resilient after losing their job by adopting positive coping strategies.

Whenever you lose a job, try reaching out. Your friends and loved ones can help protect your health while you move on.

In addition to applying for new positions, spend time networking. Reach out to former colleagues, join professional groups and attend events related to your career.

Try to volunteer. It will help you sharpen or expand your skills while expanding your networks and perhaps lead you to a new job.

And consider starting or expanding a side hustle. It will generate some income, give you a greater sense of control over your life and keep you feeling productive during the monotony of sending out applications.

It’s also essential to stick to self-care basics: Regular exercise reduces stress hormones. Getting enough sleep improves cognitive function, and maintaining a busy social life provides emotional support.

Keeping healthy habits is always important. But they could protect your mental and physical health during challenging times. Losing a paycheck is hard enough. Losing your health over it is even worse.

Jeffrey Anvari-Clark, Assistant Professor of Social Work, University of North Dakota

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

America’s public lands, from its majestic national parks to its vast national forests, are at the heart of the country’s identity.

They cover more than a quarter of the nation and large parts of the West. Some are crisscrossed by hiking trails and used by hunters and fishermen. Ranchers graze cattle on others. In many areas, the government earns money through oil, gas, timber and mining leases.

These federally managed public lands have long enjoyed broad bipartisan support, as have moves to turn them into protected national parks and monuments. Research consistently shows that a majority of Americans want their congressional representatives to protect public access to these lands for recreation. One avenue for protection is the creation of national monuments.

But the status of national monuments can change.

Presidents have expanded and contracted national monuments, as the U.S. saw with Bears Ears National Monument in Utah over the course of the past three presidencies. The rules for the use and maintenance of various public lands can also change, and that can affect surrounding communities and their economies.

The U.S. is likely to see changes to public lands again under the second Trump administration. One of the new administration’s early orders was for the Department of Interior to review all national monuments for potential oil and gas drilling and mining. At least two national monuments that President Joe Biden created in California are among the new administration’s targets.

The avenue for many of these changes is rooted in one century-old law.

The power and vagary of the Antiquities Act

The Antiquities Act of 1906, signed into law by President Theodore Roosevelt, gave Congress or the president the authority to establish national monuments on federal land as a means of protecting areas for ecological, cultural, historical or scientific purposes.

From Theodore Roosevelt on, 18 of the 21 presidents have used the Antiquities Act to create, expand or contract national monuments through a presidential proclamation.

By using the Antiquities Act to create, expand or reduce national monuments, presidents can avoid an environmental impact statement, normally required under the National Environmental Policy Act, which also allows for public input. Supporters argue that forgoing the environmental impact statement helps expedite monument creation and expansion. Critics say bypassing the review means potential impacts of the monument designations can be overlooked.

The Antiquities Act also offers no clarity on whether a president can reduce the amount of area protected by prior presidents. The act simply states that a president designates “the smallest area compatible with the proper care and management of the objects to be protected.” This has led to the shifting of national monument boundaries based on the priorities of each administration.

An example is Bears Ears, an area of Utah that is considered significant to several tribes but also has uranium, gas and oil resources. In 2016, President Barack Obama designated Bears Ears a national monument. In 2017, President Donald Trump signed a proclamation reducing Bears Ears by 80% of its total designated size. The monument’s size and scope shifted a third time when President Joe Biden reestablished Bears Ears to the boundaries designated by Obama.

In the span of just over five years, the monument was created, reduced, then restored to the original monument designation.

The uncertainty about the long-term reliability of a designation makes it challenging for federal agencies to manage the land or assure Indigenous communities that the government will protect cultural, historical and ecological heritage.

Public lands can be economic engines

National parks and monuments can help fuel local economies.

A 2017 study by Headwaters Economics, a nonprofit research group, found that Western rural counties with more public land have had greater economic growth, including in jobs and personal income, than those with little public land. National monuments can also benefit neighboring counties by increasing population, income and employment opportunities.

While many counties adjacent to public lands may be dependent on natural resource extraction, the establishment of a national monument can open up new opportunities by expanding tourism and recreation. For example, four national parks and monuments in southeastern Utah, including Natural Bridges, drew about 2.4 million visitors who spent nearly US$400 million in surrounding communities.

However, when there is uncertainty over whether public lands will remain protected, communities may be hesitant to invest in that future, not knowing whether it will soon change.

What Congress and the courts could do

There are a few ways to increase the certainty around the future of national monuments.

First, lawsuits could push the courts to determine whether the president has the authority to reduce national monuments. Since the Antiquities Act doesn’t directly address presidential authority to reduce monument size, that’s an open question.

Advocacy groups sued the government over Trump’s authority to shrink Bears Ears National Monument, but their cases were put on hold after Biden expanded the monument again. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear other cases in 2024 that argued that a president’s authority to declare and expand national monuments should be far more limited under the law.

Second, Congress could permanently protect designated national monuments through legislation. That would require presidential approval, and the process would likely be slow and cumbersome. Creating White Clouds Wilderness in Idaho, for example, took decades and a public campaign to have it designated a national monument before Congress approved its wilderness designation.

Third, Congress could take new steps to protect public lands. For example, a bipartisan bill titled Public Lands in Public Hands Act could block privatization of public lands and increase and maintain access for recreation. One of the bill’s lead sponsors is U.S. Rep. Ryan Zinke, a Republican from Montana who served as Interior secretary during the first Trump administration. Whether the bill will pass and gain the president’s approval remains to be seen.

Public lands have widespread support

The Antiquities Act has led to the creation of 163 terrestrial and marine monuments and subsequently the protection of land and waters that hold cultural, scientific or historic significance.

These monuments tend to have broad support. During the first Trump administration, there were over 650,000 public comments on Trump’s review of national monument creation. An analysis found that 98% of the comments expressed broad support for both the creation and expansion of national monuments.

Public lands are more than just physical places. They are spaces where our ideals and values around public land unify us as Americans. They are quintessentially American – and in many ways define and shape the American identity.

Monica Hubbard, Associate Professor of Public Policy and Administration, Boise State University and Erika Allen Wolters, Assistant Professor of Political Science, Oregon State University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.