Oklahoma governor backs down on forestry abolishment proposal after backlash
Gov. Kevin Stitt on Wednesday suggests elimination of the Oklahoma Forestry Service, criticizing its response to historic wildfires that swept across the state last month. His remarks were made during his weekly briefing with reporters in the Blue Room at the Capitol. (photo by Barbara Hoberock/Oklahoma Voice)
OKLAHOMA CITY – A key legislative leader said Tuesday he is pleased that Gov. Kevin Stitt has backed off his call to abolish the Forestry Service following historic March wildfires.
During a Tuesday interview with Oklahoma City television station News 9, the Republican governor said he no longer plans to abolish that state agency tasked with wildland fire detection and preserving the state's forests. Stitt's about-face came less than a day after he doubled down on his controversial call to shutter the agency and reallocate the funding to volunteer fire departments.
'It's encouraging to hear the governor's shifting position of abolishing the forestry department,' said House Speaker Kyle Hilbert, R-Bristow. 'I think Oklahomans said loud and clear that is not a good idea.'
Stitt told the television station Tuesday that he threatened to close the Forestry Service because his administration was not getting answers about the deployment of resources.
'Listen, we are not going to get rid of forestry,' Stitt told the station on Tuesday. 'I love our forestry. Those guys are doing what they are told. The bureaucracy at the top, their management let them down by not deploying them accurately.'
He told the TV station Tuesday that he had fired 'a couple more people at the top level at forestry because – they were – it was insubordination.'
Stitt said Agriculture Secretary Blayne Arthur could not get answers from administrators in Forestry Services for three weeks.
Stitt's office did not respond to Oklahoma Voice's requests for comment on Tuesday.
During a press availability last week, Stitt first expressed frustration over how the agency responded to historic wildfires that began March 14. He lost a ranch in the fires.
Nearly 158 wildfires swept across the state, killing four and destroying more than 500 homes.
Stitt has previously said he fired the agency's head, Mark Goeller, who denied wrongdoing. Many have expressed support for Goeller.
'I didn't think they did a really good job,' Stitt said last week. 'Here's the deal. Why do I even have a Department of Forestry? Let's just get rid of the whole thing.'
Goeller could not be reached for comment Tuesday.
Stitt's remarks drew criticism from legislative leaders, including Hilbert, and local and volunteer fire departments.
When asked about Stitt's claims that other Forestry Service leaders had been disciplined, Kirsten Hollansworth, a spokeswoman for the Oklahoma Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry, said Tuesday that the agency does not comment on personnel matters.
Stitt was also asked why he didn't declare a burn ban.
'It didn't hit the threshold at that point, is what they told me,' Stitt said.
Stitt's office did not respond to a question from Oklahoma Voice on Tuesday about whether he was out of town in March.
A Tulsa television station reported that Senate President Pro Tem Lonnie Paxton, R-Tuttle, was acting governor during a portion of the fires.
While Stitt has said half of the resources were not deployed, his office did not respond to a request for additional information.
Stitt's office said Tuesday afternoon in a press release that he had formed a fire response working group to 'enhance Oklahoma's wildfire mitigation, suppression, and recovery capabilities.'
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
41 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump's palace coup leaves NASA in limbo
When President-elect Donald Trump nominated Jared Isaacman to become NASA administrator, it seemed like a brilliant choice. Business entrepreneur, private astronaut, Isaacman was just the man to revamp NASA and make it into a catalyst for taking humanity to the moon, Mars and beyond. Isaacman sailed through the confirmation process in the Senate Commerce Committee, chaired by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), by a vote of 19 to 9. He was poised to be confirmed by the full Senate when something so bizarre happened that it beggars the imagination. The White House suddenly and with no clear reason why, pulled Isaacman's nomination. After months of a confirmation process, NASA was back to square one for getting a new leader. Ars Technica's Eric Berger offered an explanation as to why. 'One mark against Isaacman is that he had recently donated money to Democrats,' he wrote. 'He also indicated opposition to some of the White House's proposed cuts to NASA's science budget.' But these facts were well known even before Trump nominated Isaacman. Trump himself, before he ran for president as a Republican, donated to Democrats and was close friends with Bill and Hillary Clinton. Berger goes on to say that a source told the publication that, 'with Musk's exit, his opponents within the administration sought to punish him by killing Isaacman's nomination.' The idea that Isaacman's nomination is being deep-sixed because of Musk runs contrary to the public praise that the president has given the billionaire rocket and electric car entrepreneur. Trump was uncharacteristically terse in his own social media post. 'After a thorough review of prior associations, I am hereby withdrawing the nomination of Jared Isaacman to head NASA,' he wrote. 'I will soon announce a new nominee who will be mission aligned, and put America First in Space. Thank you for your attention to this matter!' CNN reports that Isaacman's ouster was the result of a palace coup, noting that a source said, 'Musk's exit left room for a faction of people in Trump's inner circle, particularly Sergio Gor, the longtime Trump supporter and director of the White House Presidential Personnel Office, to advocate for installing a different nominee.' The motive seems to be discontent about the outsized influence that Musk has had on the White House and a desire to take him down a peg or two. Isaacman was profoundly gracious, stating in part, 'I am incredibly grateful to President Trump @POTUS, the Senate and all those who supported me throughout this journey. The past six months have been enlightening and, honestly, a bit thrilling. I have gained a much deeper appreciation for the complexities of government and the weight our political leaders carry.' The idea that a man like Isaacman, well respected by the aerospace community, who was predicted to sail through a confirmation vote in the full Senate, could be taken down by an obscure bureaucrat in White House intrigue, motivated by petty spite, is mind boggling. Even Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), who has not been fond of Trump's space policy, was appalled. He posted on his X account that Isaacman 'ran into the kind of politics that is damaging our country.' 'Republicans and Democrats supported him as the right guy at the right time for the top job at NASA, but it wasn't enough.' NASA is in for months more of turmoil and uncertainty as the nomination process gets reset and starts grinding its way through the Senate. The draconian, truncated budget proposal is certainly not helpful, either. Congress, which had been supportive of Trump's space policy, is not likely to be pleased by the president's high-handed shivving of his own nominee. Whoever Trump chooses to replace Isaacman as NASA administrator nominee, no matter how qualified, should face some very direct questioning. Trump's NASA budget proposal should be dead on arrival, which, considering the cuts in science and technology, is not necessarily a bad thing. China must be looking at the spectacle of NASA being mired in political wrangling, a leadership vacuum and budget uncertainty with glee. Beijing has its own space ambitions, with a planned crewed lunar landing by 2030. It's possible that the Chinese will steal a march on NASA, with all the damage that will do to America's standing in the world. It didn't have to be this way. Isaacman could be settling in as NASA administrator, deploying his business acumen and vision to lead the space agency to its greatest achievements. Instead, America's space effort has received a self-inflicted blow from which it will be long in recovering, Mark R. Whittington, who writes frequently about space policy, has published a political study of space exploration entitled 'Why is It So Hard to Go Back to the Moon?' as well as 'The Moon, Mars and Beyond,' and, most recently, 'Why is America Going Back to the Moon?' He blogs at Curmudgeons Corner.
Politico
an hour ago
- Politico
Ken Martin privately expressed doubt about ability to lead DNC, blaming David Hogg
Democratic National Committee Chair Ken Martin told party leaders in a recent private conversation that he's unsure about his ability to lead the party because of infighting created by Vice Chair David Hogg. 'I'll be very honest with you, for the first time in my 100 days on this job … the other night I said to myself for the first time, I don't know if I wanna do this anymore,' he said in a May 15 Zoom meeting of DNC officers, according to a recording obtained by POLITICO. In the recording, an emotional Martin describes being deeply frustrated by the fallout over Hogg, who has ignited a firestorm in the party by vowing to spend $20 million in safe-blue primaries to oust incumbent Democrats he believes are ineffective. Martin paused twice while appearing to choke up. The intraparty feud, Martin said on the recording, is making it more difficult for the party to do its work — and had ruined his ability to demonstrate leadership. 'No one knows who the hell I am, right? I'm trying to get my sea legs underneath of me and actually develop any amount of credibility so I can go out there and raise the money and do the job I need to to put ourselves in a position to win,' Martin said, addressing Hogg. 'And again, I don't think you intended this, but you essentially destroyed any chance I have to show the leadership that I need to. So it's really frustrating.' It was an extraordinary admission from the chair of the Democratic Party, just a few months after being elected to lead the party through its post-2024 crisis. The nearly two-minute clip does not include the entire conversation, including how Hogg and others may have responded to Martin. Asked for an interview, Martin, 51, sent a statement through a spokesperson. In it, he said, 'I'm not going anywhere.' 'I took this job to fight Republicans, not Democrats,' he added. 'As I said when I was elected, our fight is not within the Democratic Party, our fight is and has to be solely focused on Donald Trump and the disastrous Republican agenda. That's the work that I will continue to do every day.' Hogg, 25, did not respond to a request for comment. The Zoom meeting took place a few days after a DNC panel recommended holding new elections for the seats held by Hogg and another vice chair, Malcolm Kenyatta, on procedural grounds. DNC members will decide whether to do so in a vote set to begin on Monday. Roughly 10 people attended the May 15 Zoom meeting, including DNC officers and staff, according to two people familiar with the call who were granted anonymity to describe the private conversation. Asked for comment, party leaders rallied behind Martin, expressing confidence in his leadership. In a statement, DNC Associate Chair Shasti Conrad, who attended the Zoom meeting and was briefly mentioned on it, said Martin 'showed vulnerability in a private conversation' and 'stood up' for the Democratic Party. 'He shows up with authenticity. Always,' she said. 'That's what you'll hear on the tape.' Jane Kleeb, president of the Association of State Democratic Committees, was on the call and said she was 'proud of' Martin and the work the party is doing. Kenyatta, who was also at the meeting, similarly stood by Martin: 'Breaking news: a human being had a frustrating day at work. That's all Ken expressed on that call.' After POLITICO reached out to Martin and the DNC, three party officers who were on the call but not contacted by POLITICO sent statements of support for Martin: DNC Associate Chair Stuart Appelbaum, DNC Secretary Jason Rae and Rep. Joyce Beatty (D-Ohio), a DNC associate chair and former chair of the Congressional Black Caucus. Martin, who won a contested election to be DNC chair in February, formerly led the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party for about 14 years. He was also previously president of the Association of State Democratic Committees. When Martin campaigned for the DNC post, he called for a 'massive narrative and branding project' to boost the party's image. As chair, he has traveled the country for canvassing, fundraisers and other events to rally Democrats, including on Saturday in New Jersey. But that work has been overshadowed in recent months by the intraparty dispute that Hogg and Martin have been locked in. Many Democrats said party officers shouldn't take sides in primaries, and Martin proposed requiring party leaders to remain neutral in them. Hogg had pitched a compromise, suggesting an internal 'firewall' that would bar him from access to sensitive information in primaries his group, Leaders We Deserve, were involved with. But Martin rejected that deal. 'Party officers have one job: to be fair stewards of a process that invites every Democrat to the table — regardless of personal views or allegiances,' Martin said, urging Hogg to stay neutral. As the controversy played out, Hogg's position in the party was separately challenged by Oklahoma DNC member Kalyn Free, who filed a complaint in February that Hogg's and Kenyatta's election in February didn't follow DNC rules and made it harder for a woman to be elected vice chair. After the DNC panel's vote in support of another election, Hogg said in a statement that it is 'impossible to ignore the broader context of my work to reform the party which loomed large over this vote' and that the 'DNC has pledged to remove me, and this vote has provided an avenue to fast-track that effort.' The tension within the DNC comes as Democrats grapple with the best way to regroup after devastating electoral losses in November. Hogg, a survivor of the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Florida, frames his efforts as a way to reinvigorate the party. Hogg previously told POLITICO 'we have a culture of seniority politics that has created a litmus test of who deserves to be here' and 'we need people, regardless of their age, that are here to fight.' He has won some influential supporters, including longtime Democratic strategist James Carville and radio host Charlamagne tha God. But an intense backlash from other Democrats has accused Hogg of hurting, not helping, the party. Several of the Democratic Party officers leveled that criticism at Hogg in their statements supporting Martin. 'Instead of helping to rebuild the party he's supposed to serve, he's attacking it for personal gain,' said Kleeb. 'That might boost his PAC's fundraising, but it erodes trust in the very institution we're trying to reform and strengthen.' Others emphasized that Hogg is an outlier among party officials, and both Appelbaum and Beatty used the word 'distraction' in their statements. 'The stakes are so high right now that we can't afford distractions like the ones that David is creating,' Appelbaum said. In the Zoom meeting, Martin appeared to acknowledge complaints some had with how the party had operated, but told Hogg the 'fight' was getting in the way. 'It has plenty of warts, and we're all trying to change those, for sure, but the longer we continue this fight, the harder it is for us to actually do what we all want to do, which is make a difference in this country again,' he said in the recording. 'I deeply respect you, David. I, too, was looking forward to working with you, but this has created a situation.'
Los Angeles Times
an hour ago
- Los Angeles Times
Letters to the Editor: Don't get distracted by the President Trump-Elon Musk breakup circus
To the editor: Really, Los Angeles Times? Why would you put an argument between President Trump and Elon Musk, who are behaving like 8-year-olds, on the front page when these two men don't give a hoot about the American people (''Have a nice day, DJT!': Trump's breakup with Musk devolves into a war of insults,' June 5)? Outside of this feud, there's the unnecessary deportations of men, women and children; the destruction of USAID and the resulting starvations; and the unnecessary firing of thousands of federal employees with the excuse of cleaning up fraud and abuse (but actually accomplishing very little). I could go on and on. But personally, I think this argument is just another tactic by Trump and Musk to distract us from the 'One Big Beautiful Bill' and the looming loss of medical insurance for millions of Americans. Sheryl Kinne, Van Nuys .. To the editor: While the feud between Musk and Trump has a train wreck-like appeal, we forget that the world is also watching. This high school showdown is foolish and irresponsible, but the blame lies directly with the Republican Party. They kissed the ring of this clown and allowed the White House to become the laughingstock of the entire world, not to mention the destruction that has occurred at home: a drop in stock prices, costly tariffs and mass deportations — sometimes of innocent people. Every Republican who has been part of these antics needs to go. It is time for America to get smart and say to the Republican Party the only two words that have me in agreement with Trump: 'You're fired!' Paula Petrotta, Rancho Palos Verdes .. To the editor: Gee, Trump is heading for his third divorce, this time with Musk. I wonder who will get custody of the chainsaw. Bob Canning, Petaluma, Calif.
