
Trump administration rolls back forest protections in bid to ramp up logging
President Donald Trump 's administration acted to roll back environmental protections around future logging projects on more than half of U.S. national forests under an emergency designation Friday that cites the dangers of wildfires.
Whether the move will boost production remains to be seen. Former President Joe Biden 's administration also sought to ramp up logging on public lands to combat fires that are worsening as the world gets hotter, yet U.S. Forest Service timber sales dipped under the Democrat's tenure.
Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins did not mention climate change in Friday's directive, which called on her staff to streamline environmental reviews. It exempts affected forests from an objection process that allows outside groups, tribes and state or local governments to challenge logging proposals at the administrative level before they are finalized. It also narrows the number of alternatives federal officials can consider when weighing logging projects.
Logging projects are routinely contested by conservation groups, both at the administrative level and in court, which can drag out the approval process for years.
The emergency designation covers 176,000 square miles (455,000 square kilometers), primarily in the West but also forests in the South, around the Great Lakes and in New England. Combined, it's an area larger than California.
Most of those forests are considered to have high wildfire risk, and many are in decline because of insects and disease.
"National Forests are in crisis due to uncharacteristically severe wildfires, insect and disease outbreaks, invasive species and other stressors," Rollins said in her directive, echoing concerns raised by her predecessor under Biden, former Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack. She said those threats — combined with overgrown forests, more homes in wild areas and decades of aggressive fire suppression — add up to a 'forest health crisis" that could be helped with more logging.
Friday's move follows Trump's executive order last month that sought to increase timber and lumber supplies, and possibly lower housing and construction costs.
Concerns about lost safeguards
In response to the emergency designations, environmentalists rejected the claim that wildfire protection was driving the changes to forest policy.
'Don't be fooled: The Trump administration and its allies in Congress aren't trying to solve the wildfire crisis or protect communities threatened by it," Josh Hicks with The Wilderness Society said in a statement. "Instead, they are aiming to deepen the pockets of private industry to log across our shared, public forests, while sidestepping public review."
The Forest Service has sold about 3 billion board feet of timber annually for the past decade. Timber sales peaked several decades ago at about 12 billion board feet amid widespread clearcutting of forests. Volumes dropped sharply in the 1990s as environmental protections were tightened and more areas were put off limits to logging. Most timber is harvested from private lands.
Under Biden, the Forest Service sought to more intensively manage national forests in the West, by speeding up wildfire protection work including logging in so-called 'priority landscapes' covering about 70,000 square miles (180,000 square kilometers).
Much of that work involved smaller trees and younger forests that add fuel to wildfires but are less profitable for loggers.
Biden also proposed more protections for old-growth forests, drawing backlash from the timber industry, but that plan was abandoned in the administration's final days. Rollins' directive did not address old-growth forests.
Timber industry wants more trees available
Industry representatives said they hope the Trump administration's actions will result in the sales of more full-grown stands of trees that are desired by sawmills. Federal law allows for the harvest of about 6 billion board feet annually — about twice the level that's now logged, said Travis Joseph, president of the Oregon-based American Forest Resource Council, an industry group.
'This industry needs a raw supply to remain competitive and keep the doors open,' he said. 'We're not even reaching half of what forest plans currently call for. Let's implement our forest plans across the country, and if we did that, that should increase the volume that's available to American mills and create American jobs and create revenue.'
Trump last month ordered federal officials to investigate the possible harms of lumber imports to national security. The administration said Canada and other countries engage in lumber subsidies that disadvantage the United States. Canadian timber was left out of the president's latest round of tariffs.
___
Associated Press writer Matthew Daly contributed from Washington.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Watch: Trump reacts to news that actors are boycotting his attendance at Kennedy Center
Donald Trump says he is unbothered by actors boycotting his attendance of Les Misérables at the Kennedy Center Wednesday night (11 June). Several 'Les Mis' cast members are expected to sit out the performance fundraiser after news broke that the president would be in the audience. As Trump walked the red carpet with Melania ahead of the show, a reporter asked him how he felt about the actors' protest. 'I couldn't care less, honestly, I couldn't,' Trump said. 'All I do is run the country well.' The president proceeded to list off some of his perceived accomplishments from his second term.


Spectator
an hour ago
- Spectator
In defence of the Trump playbook
The standard explanation for why charges for plastic bags reduced waste is economic. People were reluctant to pay 10p for a bag and so brought their own instead. This is partly true. But it would still be highly effective if the charge for a bag were merely 1p. That's because charging any amount, however trifling, was sufficient to change the implicit assumptions about normal retail behaviour. Previously, if you went into Boots and bought, say, a toothbrush and a tube of Anusol, the default was for the cashier to put them in a new bag – it would have seemed rude not to do so. Suddenly, however, the imposition of a charge meant that shopkeepers had to ask whether you wanted a bag or not. Often the answer was 'no'; you had one already, or, if you were a chap, your clothing was miraculously equipped with things called 'pockets'. There are many ways in which you can achieve large changes in behaviour without imposing large economic penalties. For instance, I contend that you could significantly reduce intergenerational inequality simply by the imposition of a property tax of 0.1 per cent annually on all homes. The relatively small amount raised could be hypothecated to fund child benefit, or to reduce the income tax burden on the young. For the purposes of comparison, the typical property tax levied by those well-known leftists in the State of Texas is slightly over 1.8 per cent. Bear me out. I am borrowing here from the Donald Trump playbook. This is an under-rated approach to legislation where you impose taxes not for their direct effect, but for their symbolic value. By sending a surprising signal, you can change behaviour by unseating the unthinking assumptions people hold about the future. You don't necessarily have to do anything massive – you simply raise the possibility you might. Most human behaviour runs on implicit deterrents of this kind. By sending a surprising signal, you can change behaviour by unseating the unthinking assumptions people hold Before The Donald, it had become an axiomatic assumption in all businesses that no democratic government of any political stripe would ever deviate from the smug Davos neo-liberal globalist consensus in any shape or form. This artificial certainty meant that for decades you could offshore employment with abandon and treat your native staff fairly shabbily, without fear of any adverse consequences. Today it's different: even if you later reduce many tariffs to near zero and stop randomly abusing Canada, the signal has been sent. I hate to say this, but this approach could work well to solve many other problems. For instance, Britons have been lulled into planning for their future on the assumption that three unwritten rules underpin the tax system. 1) If you actually get up in the morning and do some useful work for which you get paid, you'll be taxed to buggery; 2) If you acquire wealth and then ride the wave of asset-price inflation (i.e. you have more money than you need 'cos you're old), you will be treated very generously; 3) If the asset in question is your own home, you won't be taxed at all, and nor will your good-for-nothing kids when they inherit it all. A large part of the reason why young people cannot afford to buy homes is nothing to do with the use value of a home – it is driven by the as-yet-unshaken belief that residential property has been sanctified as an asset class. It is this belief which possibly accounts for 25 per cent of the price of a home and a similarly large part of oldsters' pathological reluctance to downsize. Residential property is seen as Britain's only tax haven. To unseat this assumption, you don't need to rewrite the whole tax code, or go full Henry George – much as I would personally support this. You just have to make the unthinkable suddenly thinkable.


Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
Fears Trump could sink US-UK nuclear subs deal after President ordered review into pact intended to secure the Pacific against Chinese aggression
Royal Navy chiefs voiced concerns last night after Donald Trump ordered a review of the nuclear submarine pact between the UK, the US and Australia. Aukus, as the joint project is known, is intended to secure the Pacific against Chinese aggression and involves multi-billion-pound commitments to build new nuclear-powered submarines. The Ministry of Defence announced its intention to build up to 12 submarines for Aukus and other operations as part of last week's Strategic Defence Review. But these plans have been thrown into doubt after the US defence department announced a review to ensure Aukus meets the President's 'America First' agenda. Relations between the US and Australia have soured over tariffs. America has also demanded Australia increase defence spending and wants to sell older submarines to Australia on favourable terms. Another cause for concern is the review is being led by Aukus sceptic Elbridge Colby, who is close to President Trump. Last night former head of the Royal Navy, Admiral Lord West said: 'Aukus is extremely important for the strategic situation in the Pacific and very important for Britain as a way of us moving into our next generation of submarines. 'The US had had concerns about selling its submarines to Australia, so it is not entirely unexpected that President Trump would want to look at this. Hopefully this can be resolved and we all move on together as part of the alliance.' The deal is regarded as a pillar of security co-operation. But concerns have been raised in the US over the rate of submarine production and Australia's reluctance to commit to a 'no holds barred' response to a Chinese attack on Taiwan. The US is committed to selling up to five boats to Australia, vessels which many in the US believe should be retained by the US Navy.