Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins has proposed reorganizing the U.S. Forest Service, moving its headquarters away from Washington and significantly reducing the agency's research infrastructure. The plan would shutter approximately three-quarters of Forest Service research facilities and cut millions from their budgets, according to critics of the proposal.
The reorganization is part of a broader effort by the Trump administration to downsize the federal workforce. In public comments submitted during an agency evaluation period, 82 percent of respondents opposed the plan while only 5 percent expressed support, according to figures cited in an opinion column published in The Hill.
"Moving the Forest Service closer to the forests we manage is an essential action that will improve our core mission of managing our forests," Rollins stated in defense of the proposal. She has described government downsizing as "a top-of-the-list priority" since taking office.
What the Right Is Saying
The administration argues that moving agency operations closer to the lands being managed represents common-sense reorganization rather than an attack on environmental protection.
"It's time to downsize government," Rollins said after taking office. The America First Policy Institute, where Rollins served as head between her roles in Trump's first term and current position, has advocated for reducing the federal workforce as a top priority.
Tom Schultz, chief of the Forest Service, testified before House appropriators that the plan prioritizes tangible resource production: timber sales, critical minerals permitting, and grazing allotment management. "Timber sales are vital to the nation's well-being," Schultz stated in his testimony.
"The country needs to increase energy production from Forest Service lands to ensure a stable supply of energy for current and future generations," Schultz told appropriators.
Supporters contend that regional relocation would reduce bureaucratic overhead, improve operational efficiency, and save taxpayer dollars. They argue critics are exaggerating the impact on research capabilities while ignoring potential benefits of decentralization.
What the Left Is Saying
Conservation groups and Democratic lawmakers have sharply criticized the reorganization plan, calling it an attack on public lands stewardship. Opponents argue the proximity-to-forests rationale lacks evidentiary support.
Critics contend that Forest Service professionals earn expertise through education and experience rather than geographic proximity to national forests. An opinion column published in The Hill drew a comparison: "someone living near an airport should deserve pilot's wings, or a person near a courthouse a law degree."
"This is forest science extinction," wrote one commentator. "Not organizational efficiency."
The administration has also faced scrutiny over previous similar moves. When Secretary Sonny Perdue, Trump's first Agriculture secretary, relocated key research offices from Washington during the first term, critics described the outcome as a "nightmare." Former employees reported that critical research was delayed or halted entirely and valuable researchers left the department.
"The agencies have been decimated and their ability to perform the functions they were created to perform — it doesn't exist anymore," one former employee told The Hill. Non-white workers were disproportionately affected by Perdue's moves, with Black workers declining from almost half the workforce to less than 20 percent, according to figures cited in the report.
Conservation advocates note that recreational benefits from national forests exceed $12 billion annually, according to Forest Service research, a figure they say dwarfs the value of resource extraction. National forests are held in public trust under more than a century of federal law requiring management for the benefit of all Americans, critics emphasize.
What the Numbers Show
According to Forest Service data cited in reporting on the proposal:
Only 6 percent of the total timber supply in the United States comes from national forests, undermining arguments that expanded logging is essential to domestic supply.
Just 1 percent of U.S. oil production originates from national forest lands, and less than one-half of 1 percent of natural gas supply comes from those same lands.
Recreational spending on national forest lands generates more than $12 billion annually, according to Forest Service research figures.
Public comment analysis conducted during the evaluation period showed 82 percent of respondents opposed the reorganization plan while only 5 percent supported it.
During previous similar restructuring under Secretary Perdue in Trump's first term, Black workers at the Agriculture Department fell from almost half the workforce to less than 20 percent, a demographic shift critics attribute to the relocation decisions.
The Bottom Line
The USDA Forest Service reorganization proposal represents one of the most significant structural changes proposed for natural resource management agencies under the current administration. Secretary Rollins has framed the move as improving forest management through geographic proximity; critics argue the plan would gut scientific capacity and transfer public assets toward private-sector interests.
Congress is expected to weigh in on any funding changes required for relocation or facility closures. Several Democratic lawmakers have already called the proposal "half-baked," and oversight hearings examining the plan's impacts are likely.
What remains clear: national forests, which span 193 million acres across 44 states, serve multiple constituencies — from outdoor recreationists to energy producers to timber interests. How those competing demands balance under a restructured agency will be determined through ongoing policy debates in Washington and the courts.