This article addresses reported interference by National Park Service (NPS) leadership in the performance review process for park staff. The National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA), through its President and CEO Theresa Pierno, argues that NPS officials have directed park superintendents to assign the majority of employees a rating of 3 on a 1-5 performance scale, regardless of actual performance merit. The NPCA contends this practice is arbitrary, unfair, and inconsistent with the agency's own evaluation standards. Key evidence cited includes Washington Post reporting, statements from park superintendents questioning the fairness of the directive, and the broader context of significant workforce reductions — the NPS having lost more than a quarter of its staff since January. The NPCA frames the alleged rating manipulation as a potential precursor to further mass layoffs, describing it as an attempt to manufacture justification for terminations. The article concludes with an implicit call to accountability, positioning the practice as an abuse of the performance management system at a time when remaining staff are reportedly carrying substantially increased workloads. Key insights: NPS officials are reported to have instructed park superintendents to rate the majority of staff at a 3 on a 1-5 performance scale, irrespective of individual performance merit. The alleged rating suppression follows a period of significant NPS workforce reduction, with the agency reported to have lost more than a quarter of its staff since January through mass firings and pressured buyouts. Several of the NPS employees terminated earlier in the year had recently received positive performance reviews, raising questions about the relationship between formal evaluations and termination decisions. Practical takeaways: Centralised directives to constrain performance rating distributions can conflict with an agency's own evaluation standards and undermine the integrity of the appraisal process, particularly when employees are carrying elevated workloads due to staffing shortfalls. Performance review outcomes can serve purposes beyond individual development — including workforce reduction justification — making the independence and integrity of the evaluation process a matter of organisational governance and legal exposure.