Trans Flag Fallout Rocks Yosemite

A Yosemite National Park ranger’s off-duty protest just turned into a high-stakes test of whether federal agencies can punish employees for political speech on America’s public lands.

Quick Take

Former Yosemite ranger and bat biologist Shannon “S.J.” Joslin was fired after helping hang a massive transgender pride flag from El Capitan while off duty.
Joslin filed a federal lawsuit in Washington, D.C., naming the National Park Service, Interior Department, and Justice Department, among others.
The government argues the issue is rule enforcement and resource protection, while Joslin alleges viewpoint-based retaliation and First Amendment violations.
The case spotlights a broader question: are national parks becoming stages for political messaging—and who gets punished when they are?

What Happened on El Capitan—and Why It Became a Federal Case

Shannon “S.J.” Joslin, a non-binary Yosemite National Park ranger and bat biologist, joined six climbers on May 20, 2025, to unfurl a large transgender pride flag from El Capitan for under three hours, according to multiple reports. Joslin said the action was done off duty and framed it as protest against Trump administration policies. The flag was removed the same day, but the aftermath escalated into employment discipline and a criminal probe.

Yosemite announced a ban on flying large flags from most park areas immediately afterward, with the announcement dated May 20 and signed May 21. In August 2025, a temporary deputy superintendent fired Joslin for “failing to demonstrate acceptable conduct,” and Joslin was informed of a criminal investigation. The National Park Service and Interior Department have largely avoided personnel specifics publicly, emphasizing that demonstrations without permits can detract from visitor experience and park protection.

The Lawsuit: First Amendment Claims, Privacy Allegations, and a Push to Stop DOJ

Joslin filed suit on February 23, 2026, in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., seeking reinstatement, damages, and an injunction that would halt the criminal investigation. The complaint names the National Park Service, the Department of the Interior, the Department of Justice, and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of California, along with Interior Secretary Doug Burgum and NPS acting director Jessica Bowron. The allegations include First Amendment retaliation and violations of the Privacy Act.

Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), which is representing Joslin, argues the government used enforcement power to intimidate and silence dissent. Reports also describe the lawsuit’s core theme as viewpoint discrimination—an argument that even if permit rules exist, they cannot be enforced selectively to punish speech the government disfavors. The case remains at an early stage based on available coverage, and no court rulings were reported in the initial round of stories.

Permit Rules vs. Political Messaging: What the Agencies Say the Dispute Is About

The National Park Service manages lands with strict rules designed to protect resources and maintain visitor access, including limits on demonstrations outside designated First Amendment areas and requirements for permits in many circumstances. Interior’s public messaging has stressed uniform application of these rules “no matter the cause,” pointing to the principle that national parks are not meant to be canvases for large displays. That framing matters because it places the dispute in an administrative lane rather than an ideological one.

At the same time, the reports highlight an uncomfortable fact pattern for the government: El Capitan has seen other unpermitted flag or banner displays over time, including messages tied to climate activism, international conflicts, and personal observances, without known instances of federal employees being fired or facing criminal scrutiny. That history does not automatically prove discrimination, but it strengthens the lawsuit’s claim that enforcement may have shifted abruptly once the message touched a politically charged issue.

Why This Matters Beyond Yosemite: Speech, Trust in Institutions, and Public Lands

For Americans who want limited government and consistent rule-of-law enforcement, the key question is whether agencies can apply the same standard to everyone—employee or visitor, left-wing cause or right-wing cause—without turning federal power into a political weapon. Joslin’s claim that the flag action was off duty raises additional constitutional complexity, because the government’s authority as an employer is not identical to its authority as a regulator over the public.

The case also underscores a broader tension many voters have felt for years: federal institutions are expected to be neutral, yet cultural and political fights keep landing inside agencies that manage parks, schools, and public spaces. Whether one agrees with Joslin’s message or not, the legal outcome could influence how aggressively agencies police demonstrations, how clearly they define “acceptable conduct,” and whether future administrations face pressure to crack down—or stand down—depending on the politics of a given display.

Limited public detail remains about the status and scope of the criminal investigation, and the initial coverage does not provide a definitive timeline for next court actions. What is clear is that this dispute now sits at the intersection of public-land stewardship and constitutional protections, with both sides claiming the higher ground: the agencies emphasizing preservation and order, and the plaintiff emphasizing speech rights and equal treatment under the rules.