Wildfires are getting worse. Trump's logging plan isn't the best solution
The Trump administration and members of Congress propose cutting environmental reviews and public involvement to boost logging. But data show reviews aren't the problem.
Boosting timber harvesting in national forests while cutting public oversight won’t solve America’s wildfire problem
By Courtney Schultz and Tony Cheng, Colorado State University and Forrest Fleischman, University of Minnesota
The western United States is facing another destructive wildfire season, with more acres burned in Colorado alone in 2025 than in the past four years combined. If global warming continues on its current trajectory, the amount of forest area burned each year could double or even triple by midcentury.
In other words, more fire is coming, more often.
As U.S. forests burn, Congress and federal agencies are asking an important question: What role should federal land management play in reducing fire risk?
About two-thirds of forest land in the western U.S. is publicly owned, with the majority of it managed by federal agencies such as the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management. These public lands are treasured for recreation, wildlife habitat, timber production and open space. They are also where many of today’s largest fires burn.
Historically, lightning- and human-ignited fires kept forests less dense and reduced forest litter and undergrowth that can easily burn. While some controlled burning continues today, the violent displacement of Native people, criminalization of Indigenous fire stewardship and more than a century of federal fire suppression have largely removed fire as a critical ecological process in fire-prone forests, leaving fuel to accumulate.
When those forests burn today, the result is often hotter and more severe fires that elude any attempt at control. And rising global temperatures are raising the risk.
Several of the current federal proposals for managing fire risk focus on increasing timber harvesting on federal lands as a solution. They also propose speeding up approvals for those projects by limiting environmental reviews and public oversight.
As experts in fire science and policy, we see some useful ideas in the proposed solutions, but also reasons for concern.
While cutting trees can help reduce the severity of future fires, it has to include thinning in the right places to make a difference. Without oversight and public involvement, increasing logging could skip areas with low-value trees that need thinning and miss opportunities for more effective fire risk-reduction work.
Harvesting timber to reduce fire risk
President Donald Trump cited wildfire risk in his March 2025 executive order calling for “an immediate expansion of American timber production.” And the U.S. Forest Service followed with a commitment to increase timber sales on federal land by 25% over the next four years.
Trump, federal officials and members of Congress who are advancing legislation such as the Fix Our Forests Act have also called for speeding up approval of timber-harvesting projects by reducing public comment periods on proposals, limiting environmental analyses of the plans and curtailing the ability of groups to sue to block or change the projects in court.
These proposals are often framed as pragmatic solutions to clear the way for action to reduce fire risk faster. The urgency is real, and this argument can seem intuitive. No one wants burdensome processes to stand in the way of reducing wildfire damage. But it’s important to take a hard look at the problem and real solutions.
Environmental reviews aren’t the problem
Research shows that environmental reviews are rarely the main barrier to forest projects aimed at reducing fire risk.
The bigger obstacles are the shrinking of the federal forest workforce over the past two decades, the low commercial value of the small trees and brush that need to be removed, and the lack of contractors, processing facilities and markets for low-value wood.
Data from the U.S. Forest Service supports these conclusions.
Between 2005 and 2018, over 82% of the U.S. Forest Service’s land management projects were approved using categorical exclusions. Categorical exclusions allow agencies to skip environmental assessments and are the fastest and least burdensome form of National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA, review, with limited analysis or opportunity for public involvement.
Less than 1% of the projects were challenged in court, and most of those challenges targeted the largest and most complex projects, where public oversight and analysis are critical to getting it right on the ground, such as large mining operations or forest management projects that would cover hundreds of thousands of acres.
An analysis of the bulk of U.S. Forest Service land management projects between 2009 and 2021 found that complying with NEPA took between 7% and 21% of the projects’ timelines, often shorter than the timelines for issuing contracts.
Some degree of planning, intergovernmental coordination and public involvement must happen before starting a fuel-reduction project to know where the work is appropriate and necessary.
Why reviews and public oversight matter
What would be lost if environmental-analysis and public-involvement requirements were curtailed?
Oversight helps ensure that projects happen where they are needed to reduce fire risk. Without that, political and economic pressures can lead to more forest thinning in locations where there are mills and valuable timber – rather than in the areas where wildfire risk is higher but the trees aren’t as valuable.
Environmental review and public comment are among the few tools communities have to shape fire-mitigation projects.
These processes also ensure that the work doesn’t stop at federal boundaries. And they help partners, such as community organizations, state agencies and local fire departments, plan and work together.
Oversight doesn’t just protect the environment — it enables funding and partnerships, safeguards communities and builds shared ownership of adapting to fire.
Solutions that work
So, what can Congress and the federal government do to reduce fire risk to communities? The answer starts with investing in forest management and projects that can reduce fire risk.
Joint projects involving communities and state, tribal and local agencies, like those under the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program, build partnerships to reduce fire risk across large landscapes and lower the risk of fire spreading to homes and federal wildlands. The Good Neighbor Authority, created in 2001, enables federal agencies to contract with states, counties and tribes to provide forest management work on federal lands.
Yet federal funding for state, tribal and private forest management is on the chopping block. Wildfire risk and the capacity to address the challenge are going in opposite directions.
The Wildland Fire Mitigation and Management Commission, a bipartisan group of fire professionals, scientists, tribes, land managers and local officials, recently released recommendations for improving fire management that call for greater funding and collaboration at all levels to reduce the fire risk. The report emphasizes the importance of proactive solutions driven by local communities, shared decision-making and better use of prescribed fire. Achieving these goals will require sustained collaboration across jurisdictions and sectors, with communities engaged as full partners in the process.
Forest and fire management are complex jobs. It is reasonable to yearn for quick solutions to the wildfire crisis, but it’s important that any fixes lead to lasting progress. Deregulation and disinvestment may ultimately exacerbate wildfire risk.
Courtney Schultz, Professor of Forest and Natural Resource Policy, Colorado State University She has received funding from the US Forest Service, Joint Fire Science Program, and National Science Foundation for her research on US forest policy
Forrest Fleischman, Associate Professor of Natural Resource & Environmental Policy, University of Minnesota | He has received funding from the US National Science Foundation and the US Forest Service for his research on national forest policy.
Tony Cheng, Professor of Forest and Natural Resource Policy, Colorado State University | He receives funding appropriated through the Southwest Forest Health and Wildfire Prevention Act administered by the from the US Forest Service and the National Science Foundation for applied research on forest and wildfire resiliency. In addition to his university faculty appointment, he is a senior fellow with the Pinchot Institute for Conservation.
Thanks for that overview. Two other important parts of the wildfire issue to consider. It’s not just forests that burn. Shrublands and grasslands are a major component of areas that burn (or will burn). Second, large areas that have burned, at least in California, are on private or state lands. Federal lands are only one part of the ownership pattern.