5-02-2026 5:02am

States risk losing wildfire funds under Trump’s new DEI and immigration conditions

Chris Clasen Editor

A new Trump administration policy is putting millions of dollars in wildfire funding and forest restoration work at risk by requiring states to agree with federal positions on diversity programs, transgender athletes, and immigration before signing U.S. Forest Service contracts.

Forestry officials say some Democratic-led states cannot sign the new agreements because the language conflicts with state law. As a result, wildfire prevention projects are already slowing.

“We’re kind of at an impasse,” said Washington State Forester George Geissler. “It’s already starting to slow down or shut down work.”

The policy comes as Western states prepare for a potentially severe wildfire season after a warm winter and low snowpack.

On Dec. 31, Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins quietly issued new partnership terms for the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Buried in the updated language are requirements that grant recipients comply with President Donald Trump’s executive orders. USDA described the changes as a way to streamline regulations, protect national security, and eliminate what it called “radical left ideology.”

At the Forest Service, the new rules affect grants and contracts tied to wildfire mitigation, forest restoration, and timber production. Former USDA official Robert Bonnie called the move “significantly disruptive” and said it appears aimed at Democratic states.

A coalition of 20 states and the District of Columbia filed a lawsuit in March, arguing that the requirements are unlawful. While much of the lawsuit centers on food assistance programs, the policy is already affecting Forest Service projects.

In Washington, the state has been unable to release a new round of Community Wildfire Defense Grants that would help roughly 10 communities reduce wildfire hazards and strengthen homes in fire-prone areas. Washington also cannot sign new agreements under the Good Neighbor Authority, which allows states to carry out wildfire reduction, restoration, and timber work on federal lands.

“If you are looking for work to be done by the state on federal lands, we’re not doing it,” Geissler said. “If we’re not able to sign, both sides lose.”

Washington is still completing projects approved under earlier agreements, but Geissler warned that work could begin to stall within 6 to 8 months if new contracts are not signed.

Oregon is facing similar problems. Nick Smith of the American Forest Resource Council said delays could reduce revenue for state forestry agencies and disrupt timber sales.

Michigan officials also warned of major consequences. The state currently has more than $87 million in active Forest Service grants covering wildfire response, forest health, invasive species, urban forestry, and revegetation. State officials said losing those funds would weaken rural fire preparedness and emergency response.

State forestry leaders say the federal guidance has been vague and inconsistent. Several officials argue that the new rules do not clearly define what it means to “promote gender ideology,” making compliance difficult. Others say the requirement that no one in the country illegally receive taxpayer-funded benefits is nearly impossible to verify in programs that broadly benefit communities.

In March, the National Association of State Foresters told Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz that the agency had provided “more questions than answers.” State foresters also objected to new rules requiring federal approval before states can issue contracts and requiring environmental reviews before agreements are signed—even though states often help conduct those reviews.

Critics say the result could be a political divide in federal wildfire funding, with conservative states moving ahead while liberal states fall behind.

As wildfire danger grows across the West, state officials warn that the standoff is delaying exactly the kind of work meant to protect forests, rural communities, and homes.