An executive order, an “emergency” stretched across 112 million acres, and a logging executive installed as chief have remade the U.S. Forest Service into something its founders would not recognize. The pattern is not policy — it is liquidation.
For more than a century, the United States Forest Service operated under a simple founding premise drawn from Gifford Pinchot: the national forests belong to the public, and they exist to provide “the greatest good for the greatest number in the long run.” That was not a slogan. It was a legal and institutional mandate that produced one of the most expansive networks of public conservation lands on Earth — 193 million acres of forest and grassland held in trust by the federal government on behalf of ordinary Americans. Today, that mandate is being dismantled in real time. The agency that was built to balance timber, water, wildlife, and recreation is being converted, by executive fiat and personnel decisions, into what is, in functional terms, a federally subsidized logging operation.
The conversion did not happen accidentally. It happened on the record, in the open, through directives that the administration itself has trumpeted. And it began within weeks of President Donald Trump returning to office.
1. The Order That Started It
On March 1, 2025, the President signed Executive Order 14225, titled “Immediate Expansion of American Timber Production.” The text of the order is unusually candid about its purpose. It directs the Department of Agriculture and the Department of the Interior to scale up timber production on federal lands by 25 percent, to streamline permitting in ways that explicitly bypass standard environmental review, and to invoke the emergency provisions of the Endangered Species Act to override protections the law was designed to provide. According to the Sierra Club’s analysis of the order, the directive instructs federal agencies to log an annual target of 3.3 billion board feet — a quota of the sort the agency has not pursued since the most aggressive industrial logging era of the late 20th century.
The framing offered by the administration was that years of “heavy-handed Federal policies” had locked up American timber, harming domestic industry and increasing wildfire risk. The framing did not match the facts. Independent analyses by the Natural Resources Defense Council and Defenders of Wildlife concluded that the order functionally subordinates all other statutory directions for federal forest management — wildlife, recreation, watershed protection, climate — to a single goal: maximizing the volume of trees cut down.
Within four weeks, Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins implemented the order through a Secretarial Memo issued April 4, 2025, declaring an “Emergency Situation Determination” — an ESD — across 112,646,000 acres of National Forest System land. The Secretary justified the move by claiming a national forest emergency demanded immediate, expanded logging.
“Healthy forests require work, and right now, we’re facing a national forest emergency.”
— Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins, USDA Press Release, April 4, 2025
Health was the word offered. The mechanism was something else.
2. What an “Emergency” Buys You
The Emergency Situation Determination is not a rhetorical flourish. It is a specific legal status created under federal forest law that, when invoked, allows the Forest Service to fast-track logging projects by shortening or skipping environmental reviews that would otherwise be required under the National Environmental Policy Act. As Earthjustice noted in response to the determination, the designation covers 59 percent of the entire National Forest System and is designed to make it easier to log trees deemed “hazardous” while circumventing the public comment processes that have historically allowed communities, scientists, and conservation groups to weigh in.
The geography of the determination is telling. According to mapping produced by RE:PUBLIC and reported by High Country News, the targeted lands overlap with more than half of the area previously protected under the Roadless Rule — the bedrock 2001 regulation that kept industrial logging out of intact, backcountry national forests. The “emergency” allows new roads to be built and timber to be cut on roadless lands while the formal repeal of the Roadless Rule is still working its way through the regulatory process. In plain English: the physical character of the American backcountry is being altered before the legal status of the land has been officially changed.
The same RE:PUBLIC analysis notes that roughly 39 percent of the population of the continental United States gets some of its drinking water from Forest Service lands, and that the current directive specifically targets 32.25 million acres classified by the Forest Service itself as high-importance drinking water landscape. Decades of the agency’s own research has identified roads as the primary cause of water quality degradation in forested watersheds.
Acres of National Forest System land placed under Emergency Situation Determination, roughly 59% of the entire system. (Outdoor Alliance)
Annual board feet of timber the order directs federal agencies to harvest from public lands — a 25% increase. (Sierra Club)
Acres of high-importance drinking water landscape that fall within the emergency zone, per Forest Service classifications. (RE:PUBLIC)
Decline in hazardous fuels reduction treatment in 2025 versus the previous four-year average, despite an asserted “wildfire emergency.” (Sens. Hickenlooper & Bennet)
3. The Logging Executive in Charge
To run the converted agency, the administration installed a logging executive. On February 27, 2025, Secretary Rollins announced the appointment of Tom Schultz as the 21st Chief of the U.S. Forest Service. Schultz’s prior position, as reported by The Hill, was Vice President of Resources and Government Affairs at the Idaho Forest Group — one of the largest privately held lumber companies in the country. He is the first Chief of the Forest Service in the agency’s history to come directly from a senior position in the commercial timber industry.
The Sierra Club’s Anna Medema, who tracks public lands policy, was blunt in her published response:
“Tom Schultz is no outsider — he is the consummate logging industry insider.”
— Anna Medema, Sierra Club Director of Legislative & Administrative Advocacy
Schultz himself has made little effort to obscure the agenda. Speaking to the Congressional Western Caucus in Whitefish, Montana, in August 2025, as reported by Montana Free Press, Schultz outlined a vision of expanded logging, expanded mining, and expanded grazing on federal lands, declaring that “America should mine, mill and manufacture more.” That is not a statement of forest stewardship. It is a statement of extractive policy delivered by the person who now sits atop the largest land management agency in the federal government.
4. Cutting the People Who Prevent Fires
If the administration’s justification for industrial logging were a sincere concern about wildfire, one would expect the agency tasked with preventing wildfires to be expanded, not gutted. The opposite has occurred. In February 2025, the administration terminated roughly 3,400 Forest Service employees as part of a broader federal workforce purge. The fired employees included land managers, fuels reduction crews, trail maintainers, and the broader support workforce that allows actual firefighters to do their jobs. Many of the fired workers held “red card” wildland firefighting certifications and routinely deployed during fire season alongside the official firefighter ranks.
Colorado Senators John Hickenlooper and Michael Bennet, along with Representatives Joe Neguse, Brittany Pettersen, and Jason Crow, wrote to Secretary Rollins immediately demanding the workers be reinstated. The agency was, they wrote, already critically understaffed before the cuts. Reinstatement did not come. The cuts compounded. By the summer of 2025, according to the office of California Governor Gavin Newsom, the Forest Service had lost approximately 10 percent of all positions and roughly 25 percent of positions outside of direct wildfire response.
The downstream effect is now measurable. In a December 2025 letter from Hickenlooper and Bennet based on Forest Service data, the senators documented a 38 percent reduction in wildfire risk reduction work compared with the previous four-year average. Through September 2025, only 1.7 million acres had received hazardous fuels treatment, down from a four-year norm of 3.6 million. As many as 27 percent of wildland firefighting positions remained unfilled. Oregon Senator Jeff Merkley put the contradiction plainly: instead of doing fire mitigation, in a statement to NOTUS, he said the administration has spent months undermining essential fuels mitigation work.
This is the operative contradiction. The administration declared a fire-driven emergency, used that emergency to fast-track commercial logging of mature trees (the most fire-resilient stands), and simultaneously cut the workers and the funding that actually reduce fire risk. The “emergency” justifies the timber sales. The timber sales do not address the emergency. The two are linked rhetorically and uncoupled operationally.
Get Involved Today
Contribute to our mission and turn your concerns into action.
5. The Courts Begin to Push Back
The legal architecture supporting all of this is already failing in court. On January 13, 2026, Judge Michael McShane of the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon issued a ruling vacating a 1992 categorical exclusion known as “CE-6” — the regulatory mechanism the Forest Service has used to approve large logging projects without conducting public environmental review. According to Inside Climate News, a single 2025 Forest Service declaration to the court acknowledged that CE-6 was a key tool for attaining the objectives of Executive Order 14225. The court vacated it.
The Oregon ruling is one front in a much wider legal battle. Bloomberg Law reported in late 2025 that conservation groups had at least 26 separate lawsuits pending across the country challenging various aspects of the administration’s logging program — including its application of the “emergency” designation to specific timber sales in the Pisgah National Forest in North Carolina and to projects threatening the imperiled northern spotted owl in California. The Center for Biological Diversity has sued simply to obtain the public records explaining how the agency developed these plans in the first place — records the administration has refused to produce.
That courts are intervening is necessary. That courts are the only meaningful check is the problem.
6. A Timeline of a Dismantling
7. What This Says About Leadership
It would be tempting to read all of this as ordinary policy difference — a Republican administration that simply favors industry over conservation. That reading is too generous. What is happening at the Forest Service is not a recalibration of priorities; it is a categorical substitution of one mission for another, executed in a manner that breaks the agency’s relationship with its own science, its own data, and its own statutory mandate. The administration declared an emergency to log forests for wildfire safety while firing the people who do wildfire prevention work. It installed a timber industry executive to oversee the public’s forests and treated the appointment as a feature rather than a conflict of interest. It targeted watersheds that supply drinking water to a third of the country while citing forest “health.” It rushed projects to contract before the courts could rule on whether the underlying authority is lawful — and lost the first major case anyway.
This is the conduct of an administration governed by transactional impulse and ideological grievance, not by the responsibilities of office. It is the externally visible portion of a deeper problem, one that Members of Congress are now beginning to describe in constitutional terms.
The 25th Amendment and the Fitness Question
The Twenty-Fifth Amendment, ratified in 1967, sets out the constitutional mechanism for transferring presidential power when a sitting president is unable to discharge the duties of the office. Section 4 — the contested portion — allows the Vice President and a majority of the Cabinet, or another body designated by Congress, to declare a president unfit and transfer authority to the Vice President as Acting President. It exists precisely because the framers and the post-Kennedy Congress understood that the country could not be left without a functioning executive in a moment of incapacity.
The Amendment was written for medical and cognitive incapacity, not for policy disagreement. That distinction matters and we will not pretend otherwise. A president who pursues a logging agenda his critics oppose is not, by virtue of policy disagreement, unfit for office. The constitutional question is something different: whether a president’s pattern of judgment — its impulsiveness, its rejection of expert input, its substitution of slogan for analysis, its evident inability to distinguish stewardship from extraction — reflects a deeper inability to discharge the duties the office requires.
Lawmakers Now Raising the Question
In April 2026, Representative Jamie Raskin, the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, demanded that the White House Physician conduct a full cognitive and neurological evaluation of the President and introduced legislation creating a 17-member bipartisan panel of physicians and former senior officials empowered to assist in a 25th Amendment determination. Raskin cited a broad pattern of conduct — incoherent public statements, volatile foreign-policy posts, demonstrably erratic decision-making — and concluded, in his own words, “We are at a dangerous precipice.”
The Honest Assessment of the Barriers
The political barriers to a Section 4 invocation are real and severe. Section 4 requires the Vice President and a majority of the Cabinet — that is, officials handpicked by the President — to declare him unable to serve. No Cabinet so constituted in modern history has ever taken such a step, and there is no reason to believe this Cabinet will be the first. Raskin’s proposed panel, even if enacted, would face a hostile Senate. The political mechanism, in other words, is constructed to be almost impossible to use.
Why the Barriers Do Not End the Argument
The constitutional case does not rest on whether the mechanism will be triggered. It rests on whether the conditions that warrant the mechanism are present. A Forest Service that has been operationally inverted, an Emergency Situation Determination stretched across the majority of the federal forest estate to enable timber sales, the firing of the workforce that prevents fires while invoking fire risk as the justification for logging — these are not the actions of an executive branch functioning within ordinary policy parameters. They are evidence of a presidency in which judgment has been displaced by impulse and stewardship has been displaced by extraction. The political path to remedy may be closed. The democratic and constitutional question of whether this president meets the obligations of his office is not.
8. The Stakes
What is at risk in the conversion of the Forest Service is not abstract. It is the drinking water of 125 million Americans. It is the habitat of endangered species the Endangered Species Act was written to protect. It is the recreation economy that, by Forest Service accounting, generates tens of billions of dollars annually for rural communities. It is the climate function of mature and old-growth forests, which sequester carbon at rates younger industrial plantations cannot match. It is the principle, embedded in federal law since the Organic Act of 1897, that the national forests are held for the public benefit and not for the benefit of the industry that wishes to harvest them.
It is also the institutional integrity of one of the largest land management agencies in the world — an integrity built over more than a century, dismantled in less than eighteen months.
Editorial Conclusion
An agency built to steward the public’s forests has been remade into a vehicle for liquidating them. The directives are public, the personnel choices are documented, the consequences are measurable, and the legal authority is already cracking under the weight of its own pretexts. This is not a policy dispute. It is a failure of leadership consequential enough to require the country to take seriously the constitutional mechanisms designed for exactly that failure. The forests will not wait. Neither should the citizenry.
Sources & References
- Columbia Climate Law — Summary of Executive Order 14225, “Immediate Expansion of American Timber Production”
- USDA — Secretary Rollins announces Emergency Situation Determination on 112.6M acres
- Earthjustice — Response to the Emergency Forests Directive
- Defenders of Wildlife — Trump’s Timber “Emergency” Paves Way for Logging Conservation Areas
- NRDC — Executive Orders Direct a Massive Expansion of Logging on Public Lands
- Sierra Club — Executive Order and Harmful Legislation Push for Huge Logging Increase
- RE:PUBLIC — The Crisis Loophole: Mapping the ESD Footprint
- Outdoor Alliance — USDA Emergency Announcement on Timber Will Affect Recreation
- The Hill — Former lumber industry executive named Forest Service chief
- Sierra Club — Statement on the Nomination of Tom Schultz
- Montana Free Press — Schultz Outlines Vision for More Logging, Mining, Grazing
- Associated Press / Insurance Journal — How Trump’s Mass Layoffs Raise Wildfire Risk
- Office of Sen. Hickenlooper — Letter Demanding Reinstatement of 3,400 Forest Service Employees
- Office of Sen. Hickenlooper — Senators’ Letter on 38% Decline in Hazardous Fuels Reduction
- Office of Gov. Newsom — California Statement on Forest Service Cuts & Wildfire Risk
- Stocktonia / NOTUS — Forest Service Falling Behind on Wildfire Prevention
- Inside Climate News — Decades-Old CE-6 Rule Ruled Unlawful by Oregon Court
- Bloomberg Law — Trump Logging Plans Stretch “Emergency” Definition, Suits Claim
- Center for Biological Diversity — FOIA Lawsuit on Logging Expansion Records
- House Judiciary Democrats — Raskin Demands Cognitive Evaluation; Calls for 25th Amendment Review
Related News
