There goes another dusty regulation, as the Trump administration scraps a nearly quarter-century-old rule blocking logging and road-building on vast swaths of national forest land, according to The Washington Examiner.
The move, announced by Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins on Monday, targets a Clinton-era policy from 2001 that locked up roughly 59 million acres of forest from timber harvesting and infrastructure development, all in the name of reducing wildfire risks amid ongoing tensions with progressive state leaders like California Governor Gavin Newsom.
Let’s rewind to the origins of this so-called “roadless rule,” birthed in the final days of Bill Clinton’s presidency.
It was sold as a way to protect pristine wilderness, but critics have long argued it tied the hands of responsible land managers. Now, the Trump team is stepping in to cut through the red tape.
Fast forward to 2018, when President Trump visited a California wildfire disaster site alongside Newsom, pointing out the critical need for better forest floor care. “You gotta take care of the floors,” Trump said, emphasizing a practical approach over bureaucratic overreach. While some scoffed, others saw it as a call to action against years of neglect.
That same year, tensions flared between Trump and Newsom, especially after California endured its costliest wildfire ever in January.
Trump didn’t mince words, pinning blame on poor state resource management despite earlier warnings. It’s hard not to wonder if federal overreach like the roadless rule played a role in tying local hands.
Enter Brooke Rollins, who dropped the bombshell at the Western Governors Association’s annual meeting, declaring an end to what she called an “overly restrictive” policy.
“President Trump is removing absurd obstacles to commonsense management of our natural resources,” Rollins stated. And frankly, isn’t it about time someone challenged the idea that locking up land solves every environmental woe?
Rollins doubled down, promising “a new era of consistency and sustainability” for America’s forests. “It is abundantly clear that properly managing our forests preserves them from devastating fires,” she added. If only the left’s obsession with regulation could match this enthusiasm for actual results.
Yet, not everyone’s popping champagne over this decision. Environmental groups like The Wilderness Society are sounding the alarm, with conservation campaigns director Josh Hicks calling it “an attack on the air and water we breathe.” Respectfully, though, isn’t it worth asking if decades of fire suppression and climate-focused excuses have done more harm than good?
Then there’s Rachael Hamby from the Center for Western Priorities, who slammed the move as “a massive giveaway to timber companies.”
That’s a spicy take, but let’s be real—timber production isn’t just about profit; it’s about jobs and clearing fuel loads that turn forests into tinderboxes. Balance matters, even if progressive critics refuse to see it.
Now, let’s talk wildfires, because that’s the heart of this policy shift. The Trump administration argues that lifting logging bans and allowing road construction will help prevent catastrophic blazes by thinning out overgrown areas. It’s a logical step when you consider how many communities have been ravaged by unchecked fires.
Still, the science isn’t settled, as some researchers point to climate change and past fire suppression policies as bigger culprits behind worsening wildfires. Fair enough—climate’s a factor. But shouldn’t we at least try active management before blaming every spark on global warming?
Environmentalists warn that easing logging restrictions could backfire in certain regions, and they’re not entirely wrong to raise concerns.
The Wilderness Society and others deserve a seat at the table to hash out where and how these changes roll out. Thoughtful caution isn’t the same as paralyzing regulation, after all.
Looking ahead, the Agriculture Department plans to issue a formal notice in the coming weeks to officially rescind the roadless rule. That’s a big step toward unshackling forest management from outdated mandates. But it’s also a signal that the fight over America’s natural resources is far from over.
For now, the debate rages on between those who see this as a pragmatic fix and those who view it as a betrayal of environmental stewardship. On one hand, you’ve got a policy rooted in common sense; on the other, genuine fears about losing untouched landscapes. Both sides have points worth wrestling with, even if the progressive narrative often drowns out practical solutions.