SQUAWK/NEWS
Account
Theme
Account
Menu
Live News REGULATION ARTICLE H impact

USFS: 43% Budget Cut Proposed

The US Forest Service faces a proposed 43% budget cut, which could eliminate state and private forestry programs and reduce forest and rangeland research

CLIMATEX

Forest Service identified 100M+ acres of National Forest land needing treatment in coming years; witnesses broadly argued current staffing, funding, permitting and litigation frameworks are not sufficient to execute at that scale. - Hazardous fuels work is already declining: Forest Service treated roughly 25% fewer acres from 2024 to 2025, and Oregon treatments were down 47%; witnesses tied this to staffing losses, policy uncertainty and reduced agency capacity. 7M acres already burned nationwide, above the 10-year average for both fires and acres burned to date.

- House-passed 2026 Farm Bill would expand forestry tools: reauthorizes Landscape Scale Collaborative Forest Landscape and Joint Chiefs programs, authorizes hazardous fuel reduction/cross-boundary wildfire mitigation/insect and disease work, expands categorical exclusions, supports wood innovation grants, biochar demonstration and Timber Production Expansion Program.

- Secure Rural Schools remains a key near-term funding risk for counties: witnesses urged long-term or permanent reauthorization before another lapse in 2027, saying delays force counties to defer road maintenance, school projects and public-safety staffing in areas with large federal land bases and limited tax revenue. 5% of that eligible base.

- Industry and Republican members argued regulatory constraints are the biggest barrier to delivering timber and completing forest-health work; examples cited include wilderness, Roadless Rule and Northwest Forest Plan restrictions that prevent salvage/replanting after fires, leaving some burned stands unlikely to regenerate naturally for generations. - Conservation witness cautioned that staffing cuts plus growing use of categorical exclusions/emergency determinations may backfire: bypassing NEPA/public input can erode trust and make litigation the only accountability path, while robust collaboration can reduce conflict and improve project durability.