New Federal Contract Requirements Impact Wildfire Funding
A recent initiative mandates that states must align with the Trump administration’s stances on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), transgender athletes, and immigration when entering contracts with the U.S. Forest Service. This requirement raises concerns about jeopardizing millions in wildfire grant funding and essential fire mitigation projects on federal lands.
Forestry professionals are warning that states with more liberal policies may find it impossible to comply with these new mandates because they contradict existing state laws.
Reports indicate that at least one state has already experienced setbacks in its efforts to enhance wildfire resilience and support projects on national forest land. Meanwhile, several other states have expressed confusion regarding the ambiguous guidelines, leaving them uncertain about how to meet the new criteria. Timber industry leaders have also stated that these conflicts could adversely affect profitability.
“We’re somewhat at a standstill,” said George Geisler, Washington State Forester. “Progress is slowing or coming to a halt.”
These updated requirements for federal partnerships have been introduced during a crucial time, as many Western states brace for a potentially devastating wildfire season, following a winter marked by record temperatures and minimal snowfall.
On December 31, Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins announced the new general code governing USDA partnerships, which includes numerous stipulations requiring partner organizations to comply with executive orders from former President Trump.
Implications for State-Level Forestry Programs
Though this new policy encompasses all USDA agencies, it remains unclear whether it will directly affect food assistance programs. The Forest Service has indicated that the new rules apply to various grants and contracts aimed at wildfire risk reduction, forest health restoration, and timber production enhancement.
Industry veterans believe the situation has created an impasse, particularly with states led by Democratic administrations. “This is incredibly damaging,” claimed Robert Bonney, a former undersecretary of agriculture for natural resources and the environment during the Obama administration. “This seems specifically designed to target Democratic states and partners.”
A coalition consisting of 20 states and the District of Columbia initiated a lawsuit in March, arguing that the restrictions are unlawful. The lawsuit predominantly centers on federal food assistance programs such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and the Women, Infants, and Children’s Nutrition Program.
In April, Rollins stated in a court filing that the new conditions have not yet been implemented for food assistance programs and that the agency has not reached a final conclusion regarding the withholding of nutrition funding from non-compliant states.
Challenges for Community Wildfire Protection Grants
The new policy is already causing disruptions in some Forest Service-administered programs. For instance, Washington state has been unable to issue the latest round of Community Wildfire Protection Grants, a critical federal initiative designed to help communities reduce wildfire risks.
According to Geisler, around 10 Washington communities were poised to receive substantial funding through this program, but federal support has been delayed as the state has declined to sign the new terms. “This reflects a pattern of the federal government harming its own interests,” asserted David Park, coordinator of the Washington State Land Task Force. “Denying wildfire funding adds insult to injury.”
The deadlock also threatens the U.S. Forest Service’s reliance on states and other partners to conduct vital work on national forests. The agency has increasingly depended on initiatives like the Office of Good Neighbors, which allows state agencies to manage wildfire mitigation, restoration, and timber projects on federal land. Observers believe the latest reorganization of the Forest Service indicates that state involvement will be crucial to future operations.
However, the new requirements jeopardize these essential partnerships. Geisler emphasized that Washington State cannot finalize a new Good Neighbor Authority agreement due to the introduced conditions.
Widespread State Concerns and Legislative Response
Many state forestry officials approached by Stateline either declined to comment or cited ongoing legal proceedings as a reason for their silence. However, one timber industry representative highlighted that Oregon is facing similar challenges, obstructing the state’s ability to form new agreements with the Forest Service.
Nick Smith, communications director for the U.S. Forest Resources Council, expressed concerns in an email. “This will lead to a decline in revenue for the state Forestry Department,” he noted. “If current or future timber sales linked to these agreements are halted or canceled, our industry will face repercussions.”
Though many officials have hesitated to publicly discuss the situation, some have participated in legal declarations supporting the multistate lawsuit. Scott Bowen, director of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, disclosed that his agency has over $87 million in active grants from the Forest Service. These funds are critical for wildfire response, forest health, invasive species management, and urban vegetation restoration.
“If these funds were to be withheld, our department would be forced to curtail essential services that underpin fire preparedness and response in rural areas,” Bowen stated, adding that the Forest Service has already indicated that one grant program, aimed at protecting vital forests from conversion, will be subject to the new compliance terms.
Legal Challenges and Ambiguities
In the ongoing lawsuit, numerous state officials contend that the new compliance mandates are so ambiguous they become nearly impossible to obey. Several declarations submitted in court indicate that the requirements lack clarity regarding the definitions of “gender ideology” that the Department of Agriculture aims to ban.
Many states have also raised objections regarding the stipulation that prohibits anyone without legal immigration status from obtaining “taxpayer-funded benefits.” Josh Kurtz, Secretary of the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, emphasized the difficulty in ensuring that grants designed to mitigate wildfire risk and enhance urban tree canopies will not inadvertently assist Marylanders lacking legal status.
Kevin Hood, executive director of Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics, criticized the new conditions as a means to divert a greater share of federal funds toward allies of President Trump. “We may see a tipping point where red states receive subsidies, while blue states are sidelined,” he noted.
Clarifications Needed from the Forest Service
In March, the National Association of State Foresters reached out to Forest Service Commissioner Tom Schultz regarding the new contract terms, voicing their concerns. Jason Hartman, the organization’s president and a Kansas state forest ranger, characterized the situation as chaotic. “To date, the Forest Service has not provided sufficient guidance on interpreting the new terms,” Hartman remarked. “Meetings at the national level have raised more questions than they have answered.”
Among the challenges faced by state forestry officials is the need for federal approval before issuing contracts or subawards, creating excessive bureaucratic hurdles. This requirement directly contradicts the Forest Service’s reliance on state partnerships to streamline processes.
The new terms also necessitate an environmental review to be completed prior to establishing partnership agreements. Hartman pointed out that while states often conduct their own environmental reviews, they cannot proceed without signing an agreement first. Wyoming State Forester Kelly Norris confirmed that she anticipates an update to the environmental review section of the policy soon.
