Trump administration plans to rescind roadless protections for national forests
Image: Salwan Georges/The Washington Post
The Trump administration has announced plans to rescind a decades-old rule that protects nearly 59 million acres of pristine national forest land, including 9 million acres in Alaska's Tongass National Forest. This controversial move, revealed during a meeting of Western governors in New Mexico, has ignited a fierce debate over environmental conservation and the future of logging in the United States.
Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins stated that the administration would begin the process of rolling back protections for these roadless areas, which have been safeguarded since the late 1990s. If the rollback survives potential court challenges, it could open vast swaths of untouched land to logging and road construction. According to the Agriculture Department, this would affect approximately 30 percent of the land in the National Forest System, including 92 percent of Tongass, one of the last remaining intact temperate rainforests in the world.
Critics of the rollback have expressed deep concern over the environmental implications of such a decision. Environmental groups have condemned the administration's plans and vowed to challenge the decision in court. Drew Caputo, vice president of litigation for lands, wildlife, and oceans at Earthjustice, stated, 'The roadless rule has protected 58 million acres of our wildest national forest lands from clear-cutting for more than a generation. The Trump administration now wants to throw these forest protections overboard so the timber industry can make huge profits from unrestrained logging.'
The Roadless Area Conservation Rule, established during President Bill Clinton's administration, aimed to preserve increasingly scarce roadless areas in national forests. Conservationists argue that these lands are vital for protecting wildlife habitats that are threatened by development and large-scale timber harvests. Since the rule's implementation in 2001, it has been the subject of numerous court battles and political disputes.
Video Player is loading.
Play Video
Play
Unmute
Current Time
0:00
/
Duration
-:-
Loaded :
0%
Stream Type LIVE
Seek to live, currently behind live
LIVE
Remaining Time
-
0:00
This is a modal window.
Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window.
Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque
Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps
Reset
restore all settings to the default values Done
Close Modal Dialog
End of dialog window.
Advertisement
Next
Stay
Close ✕
In contrast, the logging industry has welcomed the administration's decision. Scott Dane, executive director of the American Loggers Council, argued that federal forests are overgrown and unhealthy. He stated, 'Our forests are extremely overgrown, overly dense, unhealthy, dead, dying, and burning. To allow access into these forests, like we used to do prior to 2001, will enable forest managers to practice sustainable forest management.'
Monday's announcement follows Trump's March 1 executive order instructing the Agriculture and Interior Departments to boost timber production, aiming to reduce wildfire risks and reliance on foreign imports. The administration frames the decision as a necessary step to enhance local management of forests and mitigate wildfire threats. Rollins claimed, 'This misguided rule prohibits the Forest Service from thinning and cutting trees to prevent wildfires. And when fires start, the rule limits our firefighters' access to quickly put them out.'
However, critics argue that the administration's approach could exacerbate wildfire risks. They point out that the roadless rule already contains provisions for removing dangerous fuels, which the Forest Service has effectively utilised for years. Chris Wood, chief executive of the conservation group Trout Unlimited, remarked that the administration's decision 'feels a little bit like a solution in search of a problem.'
As the debate continues, the fate of the roadless rule remains uncertain. The implications of this decision extend beyond logging and timber production; they touch upon the broader issues of environmental conservation and climate change. The outcome of this policy shift could have lasting effects on the nation's forests and the ecosystems they support.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
IOL News
11 hours ago
- IOL News
SA caught in East-West tug-of-war after military chief's Iran visit
Pretoria's foreign policy under scrutiny amid Iran relations Image: GCIS The South African government's distancing from recent Iran–RSA military cooperation has intensified diplomatic and economic headwinds, just as Western capitals press Pretoria to realign away from Eastern partners. The controversy hinges on remarks by South African National Defence Force (SANDF) chief General Rudzani Maphwanya during a visit to Iran, and the government's current posture on the broader foreign policy balance between East and West. The episode began to unfold after General Maphwanya's trip to Iran, a move that has since been disavowed by both the Department of International Relations and Cooperation (DIRCO) and the Department of Defence and Military Veterans. The government maintained that President Cyril Ramaphosa, with DIRCO's guidance, remains the architect of South Africa's foreign policy. 'President Cyril Ramaphosa confirmed he would meet the general to discuss his 'ill-advised' trip,' a government source said, signalling that the visit has become a political flashpoint rather than a simple military exchange. DIRCO spokesperson Chrispin Phiri declined to comment on potential disciplinary steps against those who disregarded international protocol, noting the department's role in policy implementation rather than battlefield diplomacy. The political weather has grown even cloudier as Western powers press Pretoria to clarify its stance amid fears of mixed messages on the country's alignment. The US Congress has repeatedly questioned South Africa's closeness to BRICS partners and - by extension - its relationships with China, Russia, and Iran. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ Political analyst Joe Mhlanga offered a stark assessment: Maphwanya's public remarks about potential military cooperation indicated a broader 'evidence that the country's foreign policy is not solid.' He warned that a pattern of swinging toward the East or West - 'going to the East to do something when they want to go to the West they just do' - could undermine confidence in South Africa's policy coherence. 'What we're saying is that countries seem to be taking positions when it comes to certain issues, so we cannot state that we are a country that is neutral,' Mhlanga said in paraphrase of his analysis. 'We need to have a clear foreign policy stance… You cannot be standing on both legs and stating that you support both Iran and the US.' The domestic response has been swift and pointed. The Democratic Alliance (DA) criticised Maphwanya's remarks as stepping beyond military-to-military dialogue into foreign policy. DA Defence spokesperson Chris Hattingh said: 'This is not the role of a military chief. Foreign policy is the domain of the elected Government of National Unity and must be conducted through DIRCO, not by an unelected general freelancing on the world stage.' The broader concern is that the public dispute over the Iran/RSA relationship comes at a sensitive juncture.
The Citizen
12 hours ago
- The Citizen
Trump to meet Putin in high-stakes Alaska summit
In their first meeting since 2019, Trump and Putin hold high-risk talks in Alaska with Ukraine's fate hanging in the balance. US President Donald Trump and Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin meet Friday in Alaska in a high-stakes, high-risk summit that could prove decisive for the future of Ukraine. Putin will step onto Western soil for the first time since he ordered the invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, a war that has killed tens of thousands of people and on which Russia has not relented, making rapid gains just before the summit. Trump extended the invitation at the Russian leader's suggestion, but the US president has since been defensive and warned that the meeting could be over within minutes if Putin does not compromise. Every word and gesture will be closely watched by European leaders and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, who was not included and has publicly refused pressure from Trump to surrender territory seized by Russia. Trump has called the summit a 'feel-out meeting' to test Putin, whom he last saw in 2019. 'If it's a bad meeting, it'll end very quickly, and if it's a good meeting, we're going to end up getting peace in the pretty near future,' Trump said Thursday. ALSO READ: Ramaphosa speaks to Putin on Ukraine crisis, bilateral issues He gave the summit a one-in-four chance of failure. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov responded to a question from Russian state TV by saying that Moscow would not make guesses on the outcome of the meeting. 'We never make any predictions ahead of time,' Lavrov said after he reached Alaska, wearing what appeared to be a shirt with 'USSR' written across it in Cyrillic script. '… our position is clear and unambiguous. We will present it,' he said. Trump has promised to consult with European leaders and Zelensky, saying that any final agreement would come in a three-way meeting with Putin and the Ukrainian president to 'divvy up' territory. Trump's latest shift Trump has boasted of his relationship with Putin, blamed predecessor Joe Biden for the war and vowed before his return to the White House in January to bring peace within 24 hours. ALSO READ: Ukraine is becoming the wedge driving US and Europe apart But despite repeated calls to Putin, and a stunning February 28 White House meeting in which Trump publicly berated Zelensky, the Russian leader has shown no signs of compromise. Trump has acknowledged his frustration with Putin and warned of 'very severe consequences' if he does not accept a ceasefire — but also agreed to see him in Alaska. The talks are set to begin at 11:30 am (1900 GMT) Friday at the Elmendorf Air Force Base, the largest US military installation in Alaska and a Cold War base for surveillance of the former Soviet Union. Adding to the historical significance, the United States bought Alaska in 1867 from Russia — a deal Moscow has cited to show the legitimacy of land swaps. The Kremlin said it expected Putin and Trump to meet alone with interpreters before a working lunch with aides. Neither leader is expected to step off the base into Anchorage, Alaska's largest city, where protesters have put up signs of solidarity with Ukraine. ALSO READ: Ukraine war 'existential,' Kremlin says, launching revenge strikes Exiled Russian opposition figure Yulia Navalnaya — whose husband Alexei Navalny died in prison last year — urged the two leaders to strike a deal to 'release Russian political activists and journalists, Ukrainian civilians, (and) those who were imprisoned for anti-war statements and posts on social media.' A 'personal victory' for Putin? The summit marks a sharp shift from the approach of Western European leaders and Biden, who vowed no discussion with Russia on Ukraine's future unless Ukraine was also at the table. Putin faces an arrest warrant from the International Criminal Court, leading him to curtail travel sharply since the war began. However, the United States is not party to the Hague tribunal and Trump's Treasury Department temporarily eased sanctions on top Russian officials to allow them to travel and use bank cards in Alaska. Zelensky said on Tuesday that the Alaska summit was a 'personal victory' for Putin. With the trip, Putin 'is coming out of isolation' and he has 'somehow postponed sanctions,' which Trump had vowed to impose on Russia without progress. ALSO READ: Russia signals severe retaliation after Ukraine's strikes Secretary of State Marco Rubio has also called for security guarantees for Ukraine — an idea downplayed by Trump at the start of his latest term. Daniel Fried, a former US diplomat now at the Atlantic Council, said Trump had the means to pressure Putin but that the Russian could distract him by seeming to offer something new. Putin, Fried said, 'is a master of the new shiny object which turns out to be meaningless.' – By: © Agence France-Presse
IOL News
14 hours ago
- IOL News
Poetic Licence: When the whip hand claims the wounds
America has discovered a new export from South Africa: not wine, not platinum, not coal, but victimhood. In the latest US human rights report, Afrikaners are cast as the persecuted minority, their fate packaged for American audiences as a morality tale of white farmers under siege. It's a story that plays neatly into the anxieties of Trump's conservative base: white Christian families displaced, driven from "their ancestral lands", "refugees" waiting to be saved. But like most exports, this one has been stripped, refined, and rebranded for foreign consumption. In this telling, land reform becomes theft, and the farmer's hand is always the one that bleeds. What goes missing is the other half of the story: the millions dispossessed of land through centuries of conquest, war, and apartheid laws. Their wounds are too messy, too dark, too political to make it into the glossy packaging of a Washington report. There is an absurdity here, the kind that only history can provide. The descendants of colonisers, beneficiaries of forced removals and racial privilege, are suddenly reimagined as the dispossessed. The narrative flips like a coin, and somehow, those who once held the whip now wear the cloak of victimhood. It is the ghost of colonial inversion: the old order rearranged to look like a new injustice. The Trump Administration has gone further, turning the myth into policy. By opening its doors to Afrikaner refugees, the US offers sanctuary to white farmers while keeping its borders shut to Haitians, Palestinians, and Mexicans fleeing real wars, famines, and state collapse. Refugee status becomes a privilege extended selectively, not a human right, but a political tool. Suffering, it seems, only counts when it comes in the right shade. This weaponisation of human rights reporting reduces the global conversation to theatre. America plays the role of saviour, while South Africa is cast as the villain; its land reform recast as persecution, its attempts at justice reframed as vengeance. In the process, the real crises, gender-based violence, township poverty, shack fires, and the daily grind of inequality slip off the stage entirely. It is easier to cry for the farmer than for the domestic worker. Easier to imagine exile than to confront the stubborn reality of shacks without toilets, schools without books, hospitals without medicine. White tears travel better across the Atlantic; black wounds are too easily ignored. Perhaps this is the most dangerous part of the narrative: it silences the majority by amplifying the myth of minority persecution. It makes the knife of dispossession vanish from the body of the nation, leaving only the hand that once gripped the blade to be bandaged and comforted. America may choose to buy this export, but South Africa cannot afford its price. Our future doesn't depend on comforting illusions, but on confronting the truth of our history, and finally, after centuries, returning the land to those from whom it was stolen.
