2025-04-30T11:00:31Z

---

The Trump administration's robust initiatives aimed at opening vast areas of the American wilderness to commercial logging are provoking a wide range of reactions, from raised eyebrows to deep-seated apprehensions among scientists, environmental advocates, and both current and former federal land managers.

Just a month after President Trump signed two pivotal executive orders focused on national security issues regarding timber and lumber exports, as well as the expansion of domestic timber production, Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins has intensified these efforts. In a recent memo, she declared an emergency situation determination that encompasses a staggering 112,646,000 acres (or 455,862 square kilometers) of national forestland. To put this in perspective, there are 154 national forests across the United States, covering approximately 188.3 million acres (or 762,000 square kilometers). This means that nearly 60% of all national forest lands in the country are now affected by this initiative.

Rollins's memo is framed as a strategic response to an escalating wildfire crisis; however, it leans heavily on references to domestic timber production and criticizes what it terms heavy-handed federal policies such as established environmental safeguards. This framing has sparked concerns among environmentalists. According to a release from Los Padres Forest Watch, these actions represent a thinly veiled effort to escalate logging activities on national forests, bypass existing environmental regulations, and ultimately benefit the timber industry financially.

Gizmodo reached out to ForestWatchs executive director, Jeff Kuyper, for his thoughts on these developments. He pointed to the broader implications, stating, This is a thinly veiled attempt to ramp up logging on our national forests, bypass environmental laws, and line the pockets of the timber industry, emphasizing that this initiative, combined with significant staff layoffs, budget cuts, and environmental rollbacks, could cause severe disruptions to the Los Padres and other national forests throughout the United States.

As the Trump administration embarks on its first 100 days, a pattern has emerged of systematically reducing funding and personnel across critical federal scientific agencies. This trend threatens to undermine their capabilities to research, monitor, and respond to both environmental and public health crises effectively. Agencies such as NOAA and NASA are faced with staff layoffs and the cancellation of vital contracts and research programs, all under the guise of fiscal responsibility. This is particularly concerning given these agencies' crucial roles in tracking natural disasters, including hurricanes and wildfires. Meanwhile, many scientists and public servants are being reassigned or let go from the National Park Service, part of a broader initiative to cut down the workforce responsible for managing the nation's wildlife refuges.

While the government insists that the emergency determination aims to protect forests rather than diminish their protected status, many experts express skepticism. Elaine Leslie, a former chief of biological resources for the National Park Service, conveyed her doubts in an email to Gizmodo, stating, These orders are under the pretense of enhancing national security which most realize is bogus. The policies articulated and implemented will weaken environmental protections to benefit wealthy corporations in an expedited manner.

It's worth noting that Leslie and other ecologists are not fundamentally opposed to forest management. In fact, techniques such as prescribed burns and thinning are essential tools in forest management strategies. They help mitigate the spread of uncontrollable and expansive wildfires, promoting healthier local ecosystems. Evidence supports that specific tree removal practices can indeed lessen the severity of wildfires, as noted by Mark Ashton, an ecologist from Yale University and director of the universitys forests. He elaborated, Much of their land base has been managed for timber and loggingso there is nothing new to that, adding, It is a question of how and where it is done.

However, the scale and methodology of logging and land management are poised to undergo significant changes under the Trump administration. Leslie distinguished between forest thinning and logging, stating, Thinning isnt logginggenerally removing smaller diameter trees. Logging generally harvests large, mature, often old-growth trees in quite large tracts. This differentiation raises concerns that the recent executive orders may prioritize logging practices that differ markedly from those aimed at mitigating wildfire risks.

As Ashton highlighted, If it was a normal administration with an intact full professional workforce working for the Forest Servicethis should not be an issue. The Forest Service has long been recognized for its unparalleled expertise in managing forest resources, but the current administration's staffing reductions raise significant concerns regarding the adherence to existing regulations governing land management. Leslie pointed out that numerous forest supervisors have either resigned or retired, leading to a workforce that is increasingly pressured to comply with directives from above, risking their own positions. Hopefully the environmental groups come together to sue, she added, expressing hope for legal challenges against these policies.

The previous Biden administration also faced criticism for not doing enough to safeguard America's forests, yet the current administration's approach towards scientific agencies and national parks fails to inspire confidence in their ability to protect the nations pristine forests. I think what is of critical importance are the long-term consequences of these expanded actions, Leslie warned. This type of logging without thorough environmental analysis will put endangered species at risk. It will threaten biodiversity, water quality and whole watersheds. It will decrease wildlife habitat and increase fragmentation.

According to Los Padres Forest Watch, the most catastrophic fires cannot be prevented by commercial logging. In fact, these devastating blazes are often fueled by extreme winds and adverse climate conditions, such as those that contributed to the destructive wildfires in Los Angeles earlier this year. The Forest Watch expressed concern, stating, By using emergency declarations to fast-track commercial logging under the false promise of fire protection, the Trump Administration is putting special interests ahead of science and leaving local communities more vulnerable at a critical time when climate change is worsening fire risk across the country.

Indications from the administration suggest a clear stance against climate change, complicating the already contentious relationship between the government and national forests. The ongoing conflict may eventually lead to legal battles, but the Trump administration appears determined to act quickly, often prioritizing rapid implementation over careful deliberation. As history has shown, the effects of removing old-growth forests are long-lasting, and the restoration of such ecosystems can take generations.