Forest Service Overhaul Labelled 'Illegal' by Union as Regional Offices Face Closure
The Trump administration's sweeping restructuring of the US Forest Service has been condemned as "illegal" by union leaders, who warn it will create "chaos" across America's vast public lands. The controversial plan, announced on 30 March, will close all regional offices of the agency that manages 78 million hectares (193 million acres) of land – an area roughly equivalent to the size of Texas.
Massive Relocations and Consolidations Planned
The overhaul includes relocating the Forest Service headquarters from Washington DC to Salt Lake City, Utah, consolidating 57 research facilities into a single Colorado site, and replacing regional offices with 15 politically appointed "state directors." Steve Lenkart, executive director of the National Federation of Federal Employees (NFFE), which represents 20,000 Forest Service workers, declared the moves violate congressional appropriations.
"Trump's moves are illegal because this kind of activity was explicitly prohibited in fiscal year 2026 appropriations," Lenkart stated. "The Republican Congress is allowing the White House to break the law and violate the constitution without so much as a peep from our big, brave, so-called freedom-seeking Republicans."
Workers Face 'Relocate or Resign' Ultimatum
Union leaders argue the restructuring effectively forces employees to choose between uprooting their lives or leaving their careers. "For many employees, it feels like relocate or resign," said Steven Gutierrez, a former Forest Service firefighter and NFFE business representative. "They're going to take these folks that are typically in rural areas of the country and move them into the city, which doesn't make a lot of sense."
Randy Erwin, NFFE national president, condemned what he called "a mass workforce disruption dressed up as commonsense management." He warned: "Uprooting their careers and blowing up the structure they work within is not a reform. It is chaos, and the American public and our public lands will pay the price."
Research and Safety Programs at Risk
The Forest Service conducts critical research into fire safety, improved wood products, and better safety equipment – work that Gutierrez says will be jeopardized if experienced staff are forced out. "A lot of their work is out there in these rural areas of our national forest, and it's tremendously important work," he noted. "Now they don't even know if they're going to be able to continue the research they've been doing for years."
The agency has already faced significant staffing reductions under the second Trump administration. Although a court decision blocked the attempted firing of 3,400 probationary employees in February 2025, hundreds left through early retirements or resignation buyouts. This resulted in the loss of more than a quarter of the agency's full-time workforce, including approximately 1,400 wildfire-certified employees.
Declining Performance Metrics
An analysis revealed that wildfire mitigation work declined by 38% in 2025 compared to the previous four years. Additionally, an internal agency report obtained by the Washington Post showed trail maintenance had fallen by 22% – the lowest level in 15 years.
The USDA, which oversees the Forest Service, defended the restructuring. Secretary Brooke Rollins stated: "Establishing a western headquarters in Salt Lake City and streamlining how the Forest Service is organized will position the chief and operation leaders closer to the landscapes we manage and the people who depend on them."
A USDA spokesperson added that the changes aim to "unify research priorities, accelerate the application of science to management decisions, and reduce administrative duplication." The department acknowledged that "all regional offices will close" but said several facilities would be retained for ongoing mission needs.
Union representatives were informed of the changes less than 30 minutes before the public announcement, according to Gutierrez. The USDA has not commented on the allegations of illegality, nor specified how many employees will be required to relocate.
