In a significant environmental policy adjustment, the Trump administration initiated changes to ease restrictions on logging projects across a substantial portion of U.S. national forests, citing the threat of wildfires as an urgent justification. This move, announced via an emergency measure on Friday, intends to support President Trump’s previous executive order aimed at augmenting lumber supplies, though its effectiveness in this regard remains uncertain.
The Biden administration similarly pushed for increased logging in public forests as part of its wildfire mitigation strategy, yet timber sales during its tenure remained steady. The new directive, issued by Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins, neglected to address the impact of climate change, instead urging expedited environmental reviews by her staff. The policy change will remove the objection process, previously available to external parties such as conservation groups and tribes, to challenge logging plans before they become final. Additionally, it restricts the number of project alternatives that federal officials can evaluate, a decision that could influence future logging projects.
The emergency status encompasses 176,000 square miles (455,000 square kilometers) of terrain, primarily in the western regions, but also affecting areas in the South, the Great Lakes, and New England. This coverage includes about 59% of all Forest Service lands, where high wildfire risks and deteriorating forest conditions due to insect infestations and diseases exist.
Rollins highlighted the critical condition of National Forests, attributing it to severe wildfires, pest outbreaks, invasive species, and environmental stressors, similar to concerns expressed by former Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack during Biden’s administration. She added that the combination of overgrown forests, increasing residential development in wild areas, and long-standing fire suppression tactics contribute to a “forest health crisis” that more logging could potentially alleviate.
Despite these claims, environmental groups refuted the suggestion that the reforms aim primarily at wildfire prevention. Instead, they argue that the real beneficiary is the timber industry. According to Blaine Miller-McFeeley from Earthjustice, the new rules focus on increasing lumber output rather than safeguarding communities. Acting Associate Chief Chris French directed regional Forest Service officials to boost timber supplies by 25% over the next four to five years and pinpoint projects eligible for “categorical exclusions,” sparing them from extensive environmental scrutiny.
The U.S. Forest Service’s timber sales have remained consistent at about 3 billion board feet annually over the last decade, a significant decrease from the highs of 12 billion board feet decades ago, a time marked by widespread clearcutting. Since the 1980s and 1990s, as environmental protections intensified and more forest areas became restricted, timber volumes have significantly declined. Most logging takes place on private lands. The Biden administration had attempted a more aggressive management of national forests in the West through enhanced wildfire defense strategies, targeting “priority landscapes” across approximately 70,000 square miles (180,000 square kilometers). This program mainly targeted smaller, younger trees, which are less valuable to the timber industry.
Efforts to safeguard old-growth forests began under Biden but faced timber industry opposition and ultimately did not succeed by the end of his term. Industry players are hopeful that the latest shifts under Trump will facilitate access to more mature forests preferred by sawmills. Travis Joseph, from the American Forest Resource Council, emphasized the necessity of a steady raw supply to sustain the industry. Currently, federal regulations allow harvesting up to 6 billion board feet each year—double the current logging rates.
President Trump had previously mandated an investigation into the potential national security impacts of lumber imports, accusing countries like Canada of benefiting from lumber subsidies that disadvantage the U.S. However, Canadian timber was notably absent from the latest U.S. tariff measures.