Trump to strip protections from millions of acres of national forests

https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2025/06/23/roadless-rule-public-lands-repeal/

The Agriculture Department said it would begin the process of rolling back protections for nearly 59 million roadless acres of the National Forest System.

June 23, 2025 at 6:23 p.m. EDTYesterday at 6:23 p.m. EDT

The Tongass National Forest on Prince of Wales Island in Alaska. Currently, 92 percent of the forest — 9 million acres — is protected from logging and roadbuilding. (Salwan Georges/The Washington Post)

A decades-old rule protecting tens of millions of acres of pristine national forest land, including 9 million acres in Alaska’s Tongass National Forest, would be rescinded under plans announced Monday by the Trump administration.

Speaking at a meeting of Western governors in New Mexico, Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins said the administration would begin the process of rolling back protections for nearly 59 million roadless acres of the National Forest System.

If the rollback survives court challenges, it will open up vast swaths of largely untouched land to logging and roadbuilding. By the Agriculture Department’s estimate, this would include about 30 percent of the land in the National Forest System, encompassing 92 percent of Tongass, one of the last remaining intact temperate rainforests in the world. In a news release, the department, which houses the U.S. Forest Service, criticized the roadless rule as “outdated,” saying it “goes against the mandate of the USDA Forest Service to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the nation’s forests and grasslands.”

Environmental groups condemned the decision and vowed to take the administration to court.

“The roadless rule has protected 58 million acres of our wildest national forest lands from clear-cutting for more than a generation,” said Drew Caputo, vice president of litigation for lands, wildlife and oceans for the environmental firm Earthjustice. “The Trump administration now wants to throw these forest protections overboard so the timber industry can make huge money from unrestrained logging.”

The Roadless Area Conservation Rule dates to the late 1990s, when President Bill Clinton instructed the Forest Service to come up with ways to preserve increasingly scarce roadless areas in the national forests. Conservationists considered these lands essential for species whose habitats were being lost to encroaching development and large-scale timber harvests.

The protections, which took effect in 2001, have been the subject of court battles and sparring between Democrats and Republicans ever since.

The logging industry welcomed the decision.

“Our forests are extremely overgrown, overly dense, unhealthy, dead, dying and burning,” said Scott Dane, executive director for the American Loggers Council, a timber industry group with members in 46 states.

He said federal forests on average have about 300 trunks per acre, while the optimal density should be about 75 trunks. Dane said President Donald Trump’s policies have been misconstrued as opening up national forests to unrestricted logging, while in fact the industry practices sustainable forestry management subject to extensive requirements.

“To allow access into these forests, like we used to do prior to 2001 and for 100 years prior to that, will enable the forest managers to practice sustainable forest management,” he said.

Monday’s announcement follows Trump’s March 1 executive order instructing the Agriculture Department and the Interior Department to boost timber production, with an aim of reducing wildfire risk and reliance on foreign imports.

Because of its vast wilderness, environmental fragility and ancient trees, Alaska’s Tongass National Forest became the face of the issue. Democrats and environmentalists argued for keeping the roadless rule in place, saying it would protect critical habitat and prevent the carbon dioxide trapped in the forest’s trees from escaping into the atmosphere. Alaska’s governor and congressional delegation have countered that the rule hurts the timber industry and the state’s economy.

After court battles kept the rule in place, Trump stripped it out in 2020, during his first term, making it legal for logging companies to build roads and cut down trees in the Tongass. President Joe Biden restored the protections, restricting development on roughly 9.3 million acres throughout the forest.

Trump officials have gone further this time, targeting not just the rule’s application in Alaska but its protections nationwide. In her comments Monday, Rollins framed the decision as an effort to reduce the threat of wildfires by encouraging more local management of the nation’s forests.

“This misguided rule prohibits the Forest Service from thinning and cutting trees to prevent wildfires,” Rollins said. “And when fires start, the rule limits our firefighters’ access to quickly put them out.”

The Forest Service manages nearly 200 million acres of land, and its emphasis on preventing wildfires from growing out of control has become more central to its mission as the blazes have become more frequent and intense because of climate change. Yet critics of the administration’s approach have said Trump officials have worsened the danger by firing several thousand Forest Service employees this year.

Advocates for the roadless rule said ending it would do little to reduce the threat of wildfires, noting that the regulation already contains an exception for removing dangerous fuels that the Forest Service has used for years.

Chris Wood, chief executive of the conservation group Trout Unlimited, said the administration’s decision “feels a little bit like a solution in search of a problem.”

“There are provisions within the roadless rule that allow for wildfire fighting,” Wood said. “My hope is once they go through a rulemaking process, and they see how wildly unpopular and unnecessary this is, common sense will prevail.”

4 thoughts on “Trump to strip protections from millions of acres of national forests

  1. Well, we knew he is would do this; he got close to doing it last time he was up there, so this has been coming, and we knew it would, especially after they decimated yet more personnel who did maintenance on we the people’s lands.

    First off, I do not want we the people’s lands opened to private, for profit business, for any purpose. But if that’s what must happen, the government should Sell those lands, as is, to those who want these benefits from the land. The money can go in the US Treasury to help pay for whatever. I don’t think it should stay we the people’s land if we the people, through our government, are not maintaining it ourselves (at no profit to any because the government is not a business.)

    I don’t like that. I’ve enjoyed public parks for all my life, and am still a big Smokey The Bear fan. But Republicans have been chipping away at funding, and privatizing various services for the parks for decades, now, and finally have brought the system to ruin. Fix it, or sell it. No just letting businesses come in and make money, while we continue to pay.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Hi Ali. I do not have the connection to public lands that you do. I still do not want them sold off as they can never be recovered. That was the point of saving them. Plus they do so much good to the world but then maybe that is why some want to destroy them for quick profit.

      A personal story. I was new to my unit. I was already rank advanced and had a car because of my status. But one of the other students took a shine to me. He was often where I went and where I mentioned I wanted to be. He found the courage to ask if we could go away for a weekend or a four day pass together. I agreed but being young soldiers we were not flush with money. That is where the national parks come in. He suggested one of them near us. He said he had a tent so I never gave it a thought because I had never been in a tent before.

      Well we loaded the car and on the drive he told me that two girls were going to join us … now don’t get the wrong idea, they were two lesbians who loaned the boy I was with a tent. It was cover for all of us he explained. They took a pass and said they were with us and we did the same for them. To tell the truth I did not care as I was just so horny and wanted sex with what I felt was a good looking fit guy.

      OK Ali here is where the public parks come in. We were military students and I was making the most of all of us and I could not have afforded the rooms we needed in a hotel. But the public park fees were well with in all our ability so four young people who were technically adults but still struggling to figure out how life worked spent 4 days in a national park exploring who we were. I can tell you one thing I discovered. I do not do well sleeping on the bare ground! After that we took mats. I was so sore which harbored my future body that the guy I was with let me sleep on top of him as a mattress that first time. Or I think that was why. Anyway you are correct, public parks are really needed. If not for their beauty but for the many young people who will find an awaking in them with the friends they bring with them. Hugs

      Liked by 1 person

  2. Drumpf uck can “open it up” to logging but if there are no mills processing timber no one is going to cut it. I think I’ve finally got through too the loudmouths in Oregon we don’t have the five hundred (500) mills we had twenty-five (25) years ago, don’t have the ten thousand (10,000) loggers and forty thousand (40,000) mill-rats to process the timber. Got maybe fifty (50), do the math. All of this talk of opening the woods back up ~ and there’s nothing I’d like better than to get back into the bush ~ is just blowing smoke up peoples’ asses. Logging is over, it’s not coming back …

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Hi Ten Bears. You have a presence / skill with the Forrest that most of us can only imagine. I hear / read all about how the forests are our breathing mechanism. That doesn’t reach the maga who hear from the wealthy that if they had access to rape those lands for everything above and below the ground that their lives will be better. I am sure you have ideas about managing the national forests that no one listens to because you are not wealthy enough to push it against those wealthy who have different ideas.

      Ten Bears when Ron and I spent a summer in New Hampshire in 2001 we found a place that made homes modally. Not mobile homes, but homes with prebuilt segments you could just choose from and have made into a home to the segments you wished. My first home I bought was a mobile home made to my order. I do not understand why so much desecration needs to be made of the forests to ensure human housing.

      I don’t know if others care or not, I would love to read your stance / breakdown on this entire issue, thank you. Hugs

      Liked by 1 person

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.