
As US wildfires rage, Trump staff cuts force firefighters to clean toilets, critics say
Remove Ads
Tired of too many ads?
Remove Ads
'THEY ARE READY'
Tired of too many ads?
Remove Ads
FIREFIGHTERS MOW LAWNS
The U.S. Forest Service faced criticism from current and former employees who say federal workforce reductions under the Trump administration have left fire teams understaffed, as the country grapples with decade-high U.S. wildfire numbers this year.The agency, which oversees the nation's largest wildland firefighting force, rejected those claims, saying it has sufficient resources.However, more than a dozen active and retired U.S. Forest Service employees told Reuters the agency is struggling to fill critical roles after approximately 5,000 employees - roughly 15% of its workforce - quit in the past five months.Accounts from firefighters in Oregon and New Mexico, as well as a fire chief recruiting support staff in the Pacific Northwest , said the vacancies have led to personnel held back from supporting frontline firefighting because of administrative duties.The crew leader on an Oregon blaze said her team went hungry for several days, ran short of medical supplies, and had to scrounge for chainsaw fuel after support staff quit the agency during two rounds of "fork in the road" buyouts."I had guys who were going to bed hungry after working 16 hours," said the crew leader on the Alder Springs Fire, who asked not to be named for fear of losing her job.National and local USFS officials say, however, the force is ready for what is expected to be a worse-than-average fire year in California, the Pacific Northwest, and the northern Rockies , according to National Interagency Fire Center forecasts."Our fire staff feels very confident in our staffing levels going into this fire season," said USFS public affairs officer Isabella Isaksen, who represents USFS operations in central Oregon.Isaksen said food problems on the Alder Springs Fire were due to a new caterer and were quickly resolved. She said medical, chainsaw, and other supplies were available on the 3,400-acre blaze that triggered evacuations in two counties.The Trump administration pledged not to cut firefighting positions and other public safety jobs in firings, voluntary resignations, and early retirements meant to raise efficiency at the USFS, which manages 193 million acres of land (78 million hectares), roughly the size of Texas.USFS employees that Reuters interviewed for this story said the loss of thousands of foresters, biologists, trail builders, and campground managers was having a knock-on effect on firefighters.Not only are firefighters having to cover empty positions at ranger stations, but they also have lost hundreds of peers who each year switched from regular jobs to take on firefighting support roles during the fire season, which typically runs from spring to fall, these people said.USFS Chief Tom Schultz on Wednesday told agency managers to make all of these fire-qualified, so-called "red-carded" staff available for what he called an "extremely challenging" fire year, according to a memo seen by Reuters. Year to date, wildland firefighters have been called to nearly 41,000 blazes, by far the highest number in federal data going back to at least 2015. Wildfires have burned 2.9 million acres year to date, below the 10-year average of 3.3 million acres.Last month, Schultz told a U.S. Senate committee he was trying to temporarily hire back some 1,400 fire-qualified, "red-carded" support staff who took buyouts."I do believe they are ready," Schultz said when asked about preparedness for the 2025 fire year.Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins, who oversees the USFS, said in June at a meeting of Western state governors in New Mexico that the agency was on target to hire 11,300 firefighters by mid-July, outpacing hiring over the past three years.As of June 29, 11,236 or 99% of that number had been hired, slightly below last year's level, according to the most recent USDA data.The USDA disputed claims that staff shortages are endangering communities, forests, and firefighters."Any suggestion that firefighting responsibilities are being delayed or deprioritized is simply incorrect," a USDA spokesperson said. "This is not a secondary mission - it is the core of our public safety work, and every decision reflects that urgency."New Mexico U.S. Senator Martin Heinrich has criticized the Trump administration's firing and rehiring of 3,400 USFS probationary staff, three-quarters of whom were red-carded, as well as what he called its indiscriminate, agency-wide staff buyouts."Wildfire season is well underway, and thanks to DOGE and Donald Trump, the U.S. Forest Service is being gutted, leaving communities ill equipped to fight deadly wildfires," Heinrich said in an emailed statement on July 11.The Forest Service says it does not have enough wildland firefighters for the country's "wildfire crisis" and relies on red-carded staff to "boost wildland firefighting capacity."Not everyone close to the Forest Service sees problems.Steve Ellis, chairman of the National Association of Forest Service Retirees , said his checks with fire staff in Oregon turned up no reports of firefighters going hungry or other support issues.But Riva Duncan, a fire duty officer on a New Mexico blaze, said even firefighters were being used to plug gaps left by job losses, exacerbating longstanding shortages of personnel to operate fire engines."They're answering phones at the front desk, or cleaning toilets at campgrounds or mowing the lawn at administrative sites," said Duncan, a retired USFS fire chief who reenlists during fire season and helps run Grassroots Wildland Firefighters, a federal firefighter advocacy group.The fire staff officer in the Pacific Northwest said support staff had been told by managers they had to meet the Trump administration's increased timber sales and oil and gas production targets, with fewer employees, before helping firefighters."They can claim we get all the support we need, but in reality, it isn't even close," said the fire chief, who asked not to be named for fear of retaliation.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Economic Times
10 minutes ago
- Economic Times
U.S EU Trade deal: Who wins after tariff agreement - Donald Trump or Europe?
Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads FAQs U.S EU Trade deal agreement has finally been chalked. In the end, Europe found it lacked the leverage to pull Donald Trump 's America into a trade pact on its terms and so has signed up to a deal it can just about stomach - albeit one that is clearly skewed in the U.S.'s favour. As such, Sunday's agreement on a blanket 15 per cent tariff after a months-long stand-off is a reality check on the aspirations of the 27-country European Union to become an economic power able to stand up to the likes of the United States or has long portrayed itself as an export superpower and champion of rules-based commerce for the benefit both of its own soft power and the global economy as a whole. For sure, the new tariff that will now be applied is a lot more digestible than the 30% "reciprocal" tariff which Trump threatened to invoke in a few it should ensure Europe avoids recession, it will likely keep its economy in the doldrums: it sits somewhere between two tariff scenarios the European Central Bank last month forecast would mean 0.5-0.9 per cent economic growth this year compared to just over 1% in a trade tension-free this is nonetheless a landing point that would have been scarcely imaginable only months ago in the pre-Trump 2.0 era, when the EU along with much of the world could count on U.S. tariffs averaging out at around 1.5%.Even when Britain agreed a baseline tariff of 10% with the United States back in May, EU officials were adamant they could do better and - convinced the bloc had the economic heft to square up to Trump - pushed for a "zero-for-zero" tariff took a few weeks of fruitless talks with their U.S. counterparts for the Europeans to accept that 10% was the best they could get and a few weeks more to take the same 15% baseline which the United States agreed with Japan last week."The EU does not have more leverage than the U.S., and the Trump administration is not rushing things," said one senior official in a European capital who was being briefed on last week's negotiations as they closed in around the 15% official and others pointed to the pressure from Europe's export-oriented businesses to clinch a deal and so ease the levels of uncertainty starting to hit businesses from Finland's Nokia to Swedish steelmaker SSAB ."We were dealt a bad hand. This deal is the best possible play under the circumstances," said one EU diplomat. "Recent months have clearly shown how damaging uncertainty in global trade is for European businesses."That imbalance - or what the trade negotiators have been calling "asymmetry" - is manifest in the final only is it expected that the EU will now call off any retaliation and remain open to U.S. goods on existing terms, but it has also pledged $600 billion of investment in the United States. The time-frame for that remains undefined, as do other details of the accord for talks unfolded, it became clear that the EU came to the conclusion it had more to lose from all-out retaliatory measures it threatened totalled some 93 billion euros - less than half its U.S. goods trade surplus of nearly 200 billion a growing number of EU capitals were also ready to envisage wide-ranging anti-coercion measures that would have allowed the bloc to target the services trade in which the United States had a surplus of some $75 billion last even then, there was no clear majority for targeting the U.S. digital services which European citizens enjoy and for which there are scant homegrown alternatives - from Netflix to Uber to Microsoft cloud remains to be seen whether this will encourage European leaders to accelerate the economic reforms and diversification of trading allies to which they have long paid lip service but which have been held back by national the deal as a painful compromise that was an "existential threat" for many of its members, Germany's BGA wholesale and export association said it was time for Europe to reduce its reliance on its biggest trading partner."Let's look on the past months as a wake-up call," said BGA President Dirk Jandura. "Europe must now prepare itself strategically for the future - we need new trade deals with the biggest industrial powers of the world."A1. President of USA is Donald Trump.A2. US is levying 15 per cent tariffs on Europe.


Time of India
27 minutes ago
- Time of India
U.S EU Trade deal: Who wins after tariff agreement - Donald Trump or Europe?
U.S EU Trade deal agreement has finally been chalked. In the end, Europe found it lacked the leverage to pull Donald Trump 's America into a trade pact on its terms and so has signed up to a deal it can just about stomach - albeit one that is clearly skewed in the U.S.'s favour. As such, Sunday's agreement on a blanket 15 per cent tariff after a months-long stand-off is a reality check on the aspirations of the 27-country European Union to become an economic power able to stand up to the likes of the United States or China. U.S EU Trade Deal Face-saver for Europe? Explore courses from Top Institutes in Please select course: Select a Course Category Finance Technology others Data Analytics Data Science PGDM MCA healthcare MBA Public Policy Product Management Leadership Healthcare Project Management Others Digital Marketing Design Thinking CXO Operations Management Management Cybersecurity Data Science Artificial Intelligence Degree Skills you'll gain: Duration: 9 Months IIM Calcutta SEPO - IIMC CFO India Starts on undefined Get Details Skills you'll gain: Duration: 7 Months S P Jain Institute of Management and Research CERT-SPJIMR Fintech & Blockchain India Starts on undefined Get Details EU has long portrayed itself as an export superpower and champion of rules-based commerce for the benefit both of its own soft power and the global economy as a whole. For sure, the new tariff that will now be applied is a lot more digestible than the 30% "reciprocal" tariff which Trump threatened to invoke in a few days. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Nazlat Alsman: Unsold Sofas Prices May Surprise You (Prices May Surprise You) Sofas | Search Ads Search Now Undo While it should ensure Europe avoids recession, it will likely keep its economy in the doldrums: it sits somewhere between two tariff scenarios the European Central Bank last month forecast would mean 0.5-0.9 per cent economic growth this year compared to just over 1% in a trade tension-free environment. But this is nonetheless a landing point that would have been scarcely imaginable only months ago in the pre-Trump 2.0 era, when the EU along with much of the world could count on U.S. tariffs averaging out at around 1.5%. Live Events Even when Britain agreed a baseline tariff of 10% with the United States back in May, EU officials were adamant they could do better and - convinced the bloc had the economic heft to square up to Trump - pushed for a "zero-for-zero" tariff pact. It took a few weeks of fruitless talks with their U.S. counterparts for the Europeans to accept that 10% was the best they could get and a few weeks more to take the same 15% baseline which the United States agreed with Japan last week. "The EU does not have more leverage than the U.S., and the Trump administration is not rushing things," said one senior official in a European capital who was being briefed on last week's negotiations as they closed in around the 15% level. That official and others pointed to the pressure from Europe's export-oriented businesses to clinch a deal and so ease the levels of uncertainty starting to hit businesses from Finland's Nokia to Swedish steelmaker SSAB . "We were dealt a bad hand. This deal is the best possible play under the circumstances," said one EU diplomat. "Recent months have clearly shown how damaging uncertainty in global trade is for European businesses." Big Win for Donald Trump? That imbalance - or what the trade negotiators have been calling "asymmetry" - is manifest in the final deal. Not only is it expected that the EU will now call off any retaliation and remain open to U.S. goods on existing terms, but it has also pledged $600 billion of investment in the United States. The time-frame for that remains undefined, as do other details of the accord for now. As talks unfolded, it became clear that the EU came to the conclusion it had more to lose from all-out confrontation. The retaliatory measures it threatened totalled some 93 billion euros - less than half its U.S. goods trade surplus of nearly 200 billion euros. True, a growing number of EU capitals were also ready to envisage wide-ranging anti-coercion measures that would have allowed the bloc to target the services trade in which the United States had a surplus of some $75 billion last year. But even then, there was no clear majority for targeting the U.S. digital services which European citizens enjoy and for which there are scant homegrown alternatives - from Netflix to Uber to Microsoft cloud services. It remains to be seen whether this will encourage European leaders to accelerate the economic reforms and diversification of trading allies to which they have long paid lip service but which have been held back by national divisions. Describing the deal as a painful compromise that was an "existential threat" for many of its members, Germany's BGA wholesale and export association said it was time for Europe to reduce its reliance on its biggest trading partner. "Let's look on the past months as a wake-up call," said BGA President Dirk Jandura. "Europe must now prepare itself strategically for the future - we need new trade deals with the biggest industrial powers of the world." FAQs Q1. Who is President of USA? A1. President of USA is Donald Trump. Q2. How much tariffs USA is levying on Europe? A2. US is levying 15 per cent tariffs on Europe.

Hindustan Times
40 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Explained: Donald Trump's landmark $1.35 trillion trade deal with EU before tariff deadline
In a significant breakthrough, President Donald Trump on Sunday announced that the United States and the European Union have reached a comprehensive trade deal, just days before a 30 per cent tariff on European imports was due to take effect. U.S. President Donald Trump and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen announced a trade deal between the US and the EU.(REUTERS) After high-stakes negotiations in Scotland's Turnberry with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, the two leaders revealed a new trade framework aimed at averting a full-blown transatlantic trade war. The deal, according to CNN, hailed by both sides as 'powerful' and 'historic', centers around new tariffs, large-scale energy purchases, and significant investment commitments. Also read: Donald Trump turns up to play golf amid protests against his Scotland trip What does the US-EU deal include? Under the terms of the agreement, the EU will purchase $750 billion worth of US energy, marking a massive expansion in transatlantic energy cooperation. Additionally, the 27-member bloc has committed to investing $600 billion more into the US than its current levels, stated another CNBC report. The report added that in exchange, Trump has agreed to impose a 15 per cent tariff on most European imports to the US, down from the 30 per cent rate he previously announced. The deal is expected to significantly ease trade tensions between the long-time allies. A CNBC report quoted Donald Trump declaring that this was a 'very big deal, biggest of all' as he stood alongside von der Leyen. Meanwhile, the European Commission chief, speaking after the meeting, acknowledged the difficulty of the talks and said, 'It is a good deal, it is a huge deal, with tough negotiations.' Donald Trump-EU deal impact The agreement was finalized just before the August 1 deadline, after which the Trump administration had vowed to raise tariffs on most EU goods from 10 per cent to 30 per cent. Earlier in the day, US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick had reaffirmed that Washington would not give further extensions, calling the deadline 'firm', reported CNN. Had the talks collapsed, Brussels was prepared to launch a major counter-tariff package targeting a wide range of US exports and invoke its new Anti-Coercion Instrument, a legislative mechanism designed to push back against economic pressure. Also read: Trump says US will work with Thailand and Cambodia, adds both 'want to settle' A fractured trade relationship The US-EU trade relationship is among the world's largest, valued at nearly $1.97 trillion in 2024, including both goods and services. While the EU ran a goods trade surplus, it faced a deficit in services, resulting in an overall $58.7 billion surplus with the US. Trump repeatedly criticized the imbalance and used it to justify tougher trade terms. 'The US and EU have one of the largest trade deficits,' he had said, defending the imposition of tariffs as leverage. FAQs What is the latest trade deal Trump announced? Trump and EU President Ursula von der Leyen finalized a deal where the EU will buy $750 billion in US energy and invest $600 billion more into the country in exchange for lower tariffs. Why was this deal considered urgent? It came just days before Trump was set to increase tariffs on European imports from 10 per cent to 30 per cent on August 1. What was at stake in the US–EU trade balance? The EU had a $58 billion overall surplus with the US in 2023, mainly due to goods exports, prompting Trump to demand fairer trade terms. What other trade deals has the Trump administration secured? The administration has renegotiated NAFTA (now USMCA), reached agreements with Japan and South Korea, and imposed tariffs on China during its broader trade overhaul. What is the proposed new tariff structure? Instead of the planned 30 per cent hike, the new deal imposes a 15 per cent across-the-board tariff on most EU imports. What are the key risks or criticisms? Critics argue the deal may strain diplomatic ties, shift costs to consumers, and provoke retaliation from other trading partners not offered similar terms.