Heinrich Blasts U.S. Forest Service Chief for Trump Budget that Guts Funding for Wildfire Response and Public Safety
Ranking Member Heinrich to U.S. Forest Chief Tom Schultz on slashing funding for state firefighting assistance: “If we don't have that funding, that's not shared responsibility - that's abdicating our federal responsibility.”
WASHINGTON — During a U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing, U.S. Senator Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), Ranking Member of the Committee, blasted U.S. Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz for the Trump Administration’s Fiscal Year 2026 (FY 26) budget request. The budget cuts funding for the Forest Service by 65% and would gut funding for critical firefighting programs, forcing cash-strapped states and local communities to fend for themselves and bear the cost of wildfires, endangering families and communities.
On Cuts to U.S. Forest Service Programs That Keep Families Safe
Heinrich opened his questions, “Chief, you've talked recently about how your budget is constrained because you need to pay out accrued vacation time for the 5,000 Forest Service employees who opted into the Deferred Resignation Program, basically 5,000 people that we’re paying not to do work in our forests. Which programs are being affected this year because of the need to pay out that leave?”
Schultz responded, “Senator Heinrich, we're using primarily IRA and IIJA funds to pay those out. Those are the funds that are being used for that.”
Heinrich followed, “So it had no impact on the decision to zero out the State and Volunteer Fire Assistance Program?”
Schultz denied, “Sir, no. Those funds were not used directly. They were not directly earmarked for SFA and VFA funding. Those were not those funds.”
Heinrich pushed back, “You told the Senate Appropriations Committee a few weeks ago that the Forest Service would be quickly releasing the FY 25 funds for these programs for state and state and volunteer fire assistance. But now we're hearing that states have been told to prepare to receive zero funding this year. Is that correct?”
Schultz responded, “Sir, you're correct in what my testimony was, and what we're telling states right now is we don't have an answer just yet. But we're not telling them they're not going to get it. We're saying we're still in discussion on that. So, we're not saying they're not going to get it, but we're still in discussion.”
Heinrich challenged Schultz’s claims, “Well, what I would say, is that states need that funding. That is an example of a successful partnership. If we don't have that funding, that's not shared responsibility - that's abdicating our federal responsibility. And not every state has even an agency in place to sort of replace that capacity at the state level, at a time when their budgets are also being decimated by Medicaid cuts thanks to the ‘Big Whatever Bill.’ So, I would think very seriously about our responsibility to continue to maintain positive relationships with those states and meet our federal responsibility. You have any thoughts?
Schultz responded, “So I can tell you is your sentiments have been reflected by the State Foresters, and we're in close communication with them, and we're aware of their concerns, and we're taking those into consideration as we work through this issue. Yes, sir.”
On Forest Management and Reorganization
Heinrich asked, “Last year, the Forest Service predicted it would accomplish about 4 million acres of hazardous fuels reduction in 2025. You’re three quarters of the way through the Fiscal Year. What's your number right now?”
Schultz failed to provide a number, “Sir, I don’t have that number at, with—but I’ll give it to you.”
Heinrich responded, “I think I have the number, and you can tell me if I'm wrong. It's about 1.7 million acres, so not even 50% of the way towards our goal, despite the fact that we're almost through the Fiscal Year. So, I, you know, one of the things we agree on in this Committee, is we'd like to see more fuels reduction as a way to deal with our fire risk, and yet, we are abysmally behind our goals. We have 5,000 fewer people working for the Forest Service now, and there are many of us on this Committee that are worried that the current budget is a recipe for more trees burned and fewer trees cut. What would you say to my constituents who are worried that this budget blueprint is going to result in fewer hazardous fuels being treated?”
Schultz responded, “Senator Heinrich, what I would say is that, overall, we're still going to maintain our fuels program, as we have done. This budget, what it does, though, is it transfers fuels program to Department of Interior. So that work would be done in the future by Department of Interior. That's part of what happens in this budget. That fuels program goes there. So, we would be working with Department of Interior to accomplish those objectives on Forest Service grounds. So, the intent is we still have the same amount of funding. The funding doesn't shift for fuels, it just shifts from Forest Service to Department of Interior. So the intent would still be to accomplish those goals.”
Heinrich replied, “So as the firefighting efforts are shifted to Interior, would the hazardous fuels treatments go with them?”
Schultz stated, “Senator Heinrich, yes, sir. So, the funding for that program, the 170 million does transfer Interior so the large bulk of that would transfer with that program, yes, sir.”
On the Administration’s New Firefighting Approach:
Heinrich asked for details, “When are we going to get a detailed blueprint of what this new firefighting approach is going to look like?”
Schultz answered, “Senator, we have been requested through the Executive Order within the next 90 days to develop a plan that would identify the structure of this. So, that's something that we've just started discussions internally and with Department of Interior. So, we will meet the timelines that are established in the Executive Order. So, as you work through that, in 90 days, we'll have a plan of what this would look like.”
Heinrich concluded, “Irrespective of how long it takes to put that plan together, I think there are many of us who are more concerned about the adequacy of that plan and would like to see that plan before we start making budgetary decisions about whether it's a good idea or not. I am very open to different ways of organizing how we fight fires on our national forests and our public lands, but I want to see the plan because peoples’ lives and livelihoods are at stake. We have to get that right. And irrespective of whether the White House wants it in two weeks or 90 days, I know that members of this Committee are going to want to see the details, and know that this has actually been thought through, unlike some of the you know, early decisions about letting people go who are critical to the management of our public lands.”
###
