Chainsaws Over Science: Trump’s Forest Policy in One Hearing
USFS Chief showcases his old school incompetence
This Tuesday, US Fire Service Chief Tom Schultz testified before the House Natural Resources Committee to address the state of US national forests. Republicans were obviously using the meeting to push the idea that our forests should be opened up to more roads and accelerated timber extraction, but Democratic representatives were not having it.
Schultz is the first ever USFS chief to not have any experience in the agency. He spent his life in the timber industry and has a long history of advocating for states to take over federal forests. During his short time in this new role, he has stayed true to those old loyalties and is now vowing to restructure the USFS to focus on resource extraction and recreational use—not preservation and wildlife management.
Dems held his feet to the fire, highlighting his contradictions and conflicts of interest. They pointed out deficiencies in leadership and questionable actions in protecting the national forests, people who worked for him, and the interests of the American people.
Representative Melanie Stansbury started out with a firm and straightforward pushback to the Republicans’ narrative. She gave Schultz a quick synopsis of her knowledgeable background in natural resource management and cordially discussed the state of his agency. But throughout their dialogue, Rep. Stansbury artfully added in details that called Schultz out for promoting irresponsible forest tactics.
First: fire suppression is malpractice.
“…I agree wholeheartedly with our chairman that our forests are in really bad shape. And we know that’s for a number of reasons. It’s due to fire suppression…”
Schultz has been promoting a forest management practice of quickly stamping out naturally occurring forest fires in areas that don’t threaten structures and people. Timber harvesters really appreciate this because it saves the big trees that they want to harvest.
But science has long negated the idea that it is helpful to forests.
That kind of fire suppression is a problem because forest systems with cyclical fires have adapted to them. Wildlife depends on the fire and its aftermath to propagate, nest, and forage, and some species can’t survive without it. Smaller, cyclical fires also burn up fuel like grasses and small trees that, if left untouched and built up over time, make wildfires really fast, big, and dangerous.
So, best practices say to let fires burn if they are not a danger. Rep. Stansbury didn’t go into all of these details with Schultz, but his agreement with her (or at least his lack of debating the point) led her to the next blow.
Second: Industrial timber harvest isn’t the answer.
Still on the subject of wildfire prevention (talking about the big, destructive ones), Rep. Stansbury asked for Schultz’s agreement on the fact that small diameter trees are the most hazardous materials in the forest. He did.
Next she asked if he also saw that small diameter trees like that are hard to turn into timber products. Schultz, the timber expert, was again in full agreement. He elaborated about the tough business of turning small trees into a profit.
Then, looking to Republicans, she connected the dots for everyone:
“Thanks, Chief. I hope that I never see that chart in this committee again. That keeps getting recycled over and over again, claiming that the reason we have fires on our forest service lands is because we haven’t been doing large timber harvests. Your own chief just said that’s not the case.”
Making everyone feel just a little more humbled, she invited Schultz out to her home state of New Mexico to learn from the Forest Service employees who were struggling with the toxic uncertainty in his agency.
Third point: Republicans are undermining USFS
Rep. Leger Fernandez jumped right into the conversation by acknowledging a part of Schultz’s opening statement that included increasing support for our USFS wildland firefighters, who are increasingly struggling to meet staffing needs.
“I appreciate your comment about raising the cap on wildland firefighters. I will point out that Representative Neguse this morning sought an amendment to do just that, and every single Republican said no. So, I suggest you talk to the Republicans in Congress about taking on that issue.”
And, finally: let’s not forget the budget
Both Reps. Stansbury and Leger Fernandez brought up the President’s FY26 budget that eliminates funding for the State, Private, and Tribal Forestry Program (SP&TF). According to the USFS website, the program provides information and coordination with stakeholders critical to our forests’ health. With it, they tout themselves as a leader in preventing wildfires, and attest that it results in economic and social benefits to all Americans.
Rep. Stansbury asked Schultz if SP&TF was an important program. He said that it was, and that the collaborations and dialogues that happen because of it are a regular part of the Forest Service operations. Then Rep. Stansbury pressed him on the budget that completely eliminated its funding:
“I can’t comprehend how somebody who thinks this program is important would zero out that program.”
Rep. Leger Fernandez elaborated on the importance of resources for the public and its interaction with the USFS. From staffing vacancies to the elimination of the SP&TF, she called out the dangers of his short-sighted budget.
And then she brought in the law. Congress controls the budget. They mandate how to allocate funds. If Congress allocates the money to USFS for these operations, will you commit to using it as directed? In a roundabout way, Schultz said no.
After a pause to let that sink in, she leaned in:
“The justification for zeroing it out was efficiencies. The reality is, if you don’t take care of the forests in advance, it’s gonna cost you a whole lot more money when you have to fight a fire on those lands.”
Let’s show them we won’t take their twisted interpretation of land stewardship.
Hearings like this one showcase the best of our Democratic leadership fighting for the best of America. Keep writing letters to your representatives to support US Forests and Parks. Praise those standing up to Trump’s agenda to sell out public lands.
I also believe a big show of thoughtful, passionate public comments on Roadless Rule will be a powerful show of force—we aren’t backing down! If you haven’t submitted one yet, here is the link.
With love and hope for the future,
Stephanie
Support from readers like you strengthens my work. If you want to help me fight for truth, land, and local voices—against Trump and others—please become a paid subscriber today:
What do you think about these confrontations?
Watch clips from the hearing here:
Rep. Stansbury (9/9/2025):
Rep. Leger Fernandez (9/9/2025)-
Thanks for sharing and staying on top of this. I've posted before that for me of all the horrors the Trump/Project 2025 regime are carrying out, the escalated assault on nature is the hardest and it gets very little media attention. We need to stay abreast of these types of actions so that we can reverse as much as possible when the time comes.
Solid, science backed common sense work on the backend, all the way up to committee. I remain appalled of R's abidaction of congress' power of the purse, allowing exec to countermand and zero out critical funding like this.
Proj2025 is truly unscieentific ruination. I need to read their section on forestry again.