Political Maneuvering in Federal Land Management: Analyzing the USDA's July 2025 Reorganization

USDA file photos

Introduction

The USDA's July 25th memorandum ordering a comprehensive reorganization of the $203 billion agency raises serious questions about the true motivations behind this restructuring. While framed in terms of efficiency and customer service, the proposed changes appear to represent a strategic power shift that could undermine effective federal land management and scientific forestry practices.

The Reorganization Framework

The memorandum outlines the restructuring through two primary "principles":

Principle 1: Workforce Alignment

The USDA claims to "Ensure the Size of USDA's Workforce Aligns with Financial Resources and Priorities," citing that "over the last four years, USDA's workforce grew by approximately 8% and employees' salaries increased by 14.5%." However, these figures are presented without any supporting documentation or source citation, raising questions about their accuracy and context.

Principle 2: Resource Relocation

The second principle promises to "Bring USDA Closer to Its Customers by Relocating Resources." Yet the proposed changes suggest the opposite outcome—a geographic and political realignment that distances forest management from the communities most affected by these decisions.

Geographic Redistribution: A Political Analysis

The establishment of new administrative centers reveals a troubling pattern when examined alongside the political landscape and Forest distribution:

Proposed Administrative Centers:

1. Raleigh, North Carolina - Senators Ted Budd (R) and Thom Tillis (R) - 1.25 million acres of National Forest

2. Kansas City, Missouri - Senators Josh Hawley (R) and Eric Schmitt (R) - 1.5 million acres of National Forest

3. Indianapolis, Indiana - Senators Jim Banks (R) and Todd Young (R) - 204,000 acres of National Forest

4. Fort Collins, Colorado - Senators John Hickenlooper (D) and Michael Bennet (D) - 14 million acres of National Forest

5. Salt Lake City, Utah - Senators John Curtis (R) and Mike Lee (R) - 6.1 million acres of National Forest

The Geographic Disconnect

This redistribution becomes more problematic when considering where America's National Forests are actually located. The seven largest National Forests—Tongass, Chugach, Humboldt-Toiyabe, Salmon-Challis, Bridger-Teton, Okanogan-Wenatchee, and Beaverhead-Deerlodge—are situated in Alaska, Nevada, California, Idaho, Wyoming, Washington, and Montana respectively.

The western states contain the vast majority of National Forest lands:

Oregon: 16 million acres

California: 20.8 million acres

Washington: 4 million acres

These states, predominantly represented by progressive senators, are notably absent from the new administrative center locations. This raises the question: why eliminate regional offices in the states that contain most of the National Forest system?

Project 2025 Connections

The reorganization appears to align closely with recommendations found in Project 2025, particularly regarding Forest Service wildfire management. Page 308 of that document states "The Forest Service should instead be focusing on addressing the precipitous annual amassing of biomass in the national forests that drive the behavior of wildfires. By thinning trees, removing live fuels and deadwood, and taking other preventive steps, the Forest Service can help to minimize the consequences of wildfires."

Scientific Concerns

The document goes on to advocate for increasedtimber sales as a wildfire prevention strategy, pointing to the dramatic decrease in timber harvesting since the early 1990s—from 11-12.6 billion board feet in 1988 to just 2.4-2.8 billion board feet in 2021.

However, there is no established scientific connection between increased timber sales and decreased wildfire risk. Instead, climate research consistently demonstrates a clear relationship between rising temperatures (approximately 2 degrees of warming) and the increased acreage and severity of wildfires.

Regulatory Rollback Agenda

The reorganization also appears designed to facilitate the regulatory changes outlined in President Trump's Executive Order 13855, which sought to "reduce regulatory obstacles to fuel reduction in forests created by the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act." This is pure fiction. The main obstacle to fuel reduction is republican budget cuts.

The Trump approach scapegoats environmental laws and de-funds scientific forest management, potentially undermining decades of conservation progress and crippling rational fire prevention.

Conclusion

The USDA reorganization, while presented as an efficiency measure, appears to be a strategic redistribution of power that:

1. Moves decision-making authority away from states with the most National Forest land

2. Concentrates power in politically aligned regions

3. Advances an anti-regulatory agenda unsupported by climate science

4. Prioritizes timber extraction over sustainable forest management

Rather than bringing the USDA "closer to its customers," this reorganization seems designed to distance forest management from the communities, scientists, and stakeholders who understand these ecosystems best. The American public deserves transparency about the true motivations behind this restructuring and a commitment to science-based forest management that addresses the realities of climate change.