As US braces for ‘significant' wildfires, Trump's agriculture secretary addresses Forest Service departures
The Trump administration is prepared for what could be a "significant fire season," despite thousands of Forest Service employees departing under Trump's deferred resignation offer, according to U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins.
"It did not compromise and will not compromise at all, 1%, what needs to be done to make sure that we are ready," Rollins told Fox News Digital Friday.
More than 4,000 U.S. Forest Service employees voluntarily resigned under buyouts offered by the Trump administration, according to a POLITICO report.
Wildland firefighters were largely exempt from the buyouts and a federal hiring freeze, but blue state leaders say President Donald Trump's slash-and-burn approach cuts key support staff.
Sen. Schiff Urges Trump Admin To Exclude Firefighters From Federal Hiring Freeze
"The reality is that Trump has decimated the U.S. Forest Service," Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., said in a May press conference. "Nearly every single Forest Service employee supports fire operations in some capacity."
Read On The Fox News App
Many of the workers who departed held Red Cards, meaning they have special training to either fight fires or "provide essential frontline support to the firefighting crews," Sen. Jeff Merkley, a Democrat from Oregon, said.
But Rollins said the Biden administration wasted taxpayer funds on unsustainable and irresponsible hiring of people who "really had no job description."
"That was in the — not hundreds — in the thousands of hirings that went on just in the Forest Service in the last administration," she said, adding that the service is becoming "more lean" but no less effective.
La Mayor Karen Bass Accused Of Deleting Texts In Wake Of Wildfire Disaster
Rollins and U.S. Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum signed a memo on May 20 signaling the Trump administration's wildfire response strategy. It calls for the elimination of barriers and "unnecessary procedures" to ensure a rapid response when wildfires threaten life and property.
The memo also directs the Forest Service to examine the impact of "voluntary departures" on the firefighting workforce and propose a plan to "remedy critical vacancies."
Non-fire staff should also be deployed to support frontline firefighters as wildfire activity increases, allowing for a "more robust and more intentional and more effective force as we move into this season," Rollins said.
"But we are not going to waste taxpayer dollars the way that we've seen happen in the past," she said.
Wildfires have already scorched more than one million acres across the country so far this year, according to the National Interagency Fire Center. The center's outlook shows higher temperatures and drier conditions than typical across much of the West this summer.
"Our prayer is that it won't actually happen, that it will be lighter than usual, but indicators are showing that it actually may be a heavy fire season," Rollins said.
She added she's confident Americans will see "an unprecedented level of coordination" among federal, state and local governments as the summer progresses.
"There is zero compromising [on] having the most prepared, most effective [firefighters]," Rollins said. "And we'll do everything possible to ensure that they have every tool they need to be successful this season."Original article source: As US braces for 'significant' wildfires, Trump's agriculture secretary addresses Forest Service departures
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
21 minutes ago
- USA Today
Thom Tillis, key Republican holdout on Trump's tax bill, won't seek reelection
Republican Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina, a key holdout on President Donald Trump's sweeping legislation on taxes, Medicaid, border resources and more, will not seek reelection. Tillis, first elected to the Senate in 2014, said it was "not a hard choice" and that leaders who want bipartisan solutions have become an "endangered species" in Washington. "As many of my colleagues have noticed over the last year, and at times even joked about, I haven't exactly been excited about running for another term. That is true since the choice is between spending another six years navigating the political theatre and partisan gridlock in Washington or spending that time with the love of my life Susan, our two children, three beautiful grandchildren, and the rest of our extended family back home." "It's not a hard choice and I will not be seeking re-election," he said in the statement. Tillis hinted that he may break from Republicans and Trump again in the coming year and a half. "I look forward to having the pure freedom to call the balls and strikes as I see fit," he said in the statement. The Republican's seat in battleground North Carolina was already a top target for Senate Democrats in the 2026 midterm elections. He faced a potentially brutal fight to keep the seat as the left pushed to reclaim control of the chamber. After Tillis voted against advancing the GOP's massive domestic policy bill June 28, Trump threatened to embrace potential primary challengers in a series of social media posts. 'Thom Tillis is making a BIG MISTAKE for America, and the Wonderful People of North Carolina!' Trump said on his social media platform Truth Social. Tillis said June 28 that he could not support the bill because of it's expected impacts on Medicaid and rural hospitals. 'I did my homework on behalf of North Carolinians, and I cannot support this bill in its current form. It would result in tens of billions of dollars in lost funding for North Carolina, including our hospitals and rural communities,' Tillis' statement read. 'This will force the state to make painful decisions like eliminating Medicaid coverage for hundreds of thousands in the expansion population, and even reducing critical services for those in the traditional Medicaid population,' he added The House approved significant changes to Medicaid that were expected to save at least $625 billion − potentially causing 7.6 million Americans over the next decade to lose health insurance. The Senate sought even deeper cuts, and lawmakers are expected to vote on the push early June 30.
Boston Globe
21 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Appeals court to consider Trump's use of Alien Enemies Act
On Monday, a federal appeals court in New Orleans will consider those questions, as well, in what is likely to be the decisive legal battle over Trump's use of the Alien Enemies Act. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up The hearing, before the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals, will almost certainly reprise legal arguments that the Trump administration and lawyers for the Venezuelan men have made repeatedly in lower courts. But the 5th Circuit's case is likely to be the first to reach the Supreme Court, where it will get a full hearing on the substantive question of whether Trump has used the act unlawfully. Advertisement Passed in 1798 as the nascent United States was threatened by war with France, the Alien Enemies Act gives the president expansive powers to detain and expel members of a hostile foreign nation. But the act grants those powers only in times of declared war or during what it describes as an invasion or a 'predatory incursion.' Advertisement From the start, the administration has sought to use the law in an unusual way, turning it against scores of Venezuelan men accused of belonging to the street gang Tren de Aragua, which Trump has designated as a foreign terrorist organization. The president and his aides have repeatedly maintained that the men were not mere criminals but were working hand in glove with the Venezuelan government. Moreover, they have argued that their presence on US soil was tantamount to an invasion by a hostile foreign country. The American Civil Liberties Union, which has been representing the men, has scoffed at those claims in case after case, saying that they have no connection to reality. Lawyers for the ACLU have pointed out that mass migration, regardless of its scale, is not the same as an invasion. They have also argued that there is no conclusive evidence that their clients, many of whom have no criminal record, are working for anyone, let alone for the Venezuelan government. So far, a majority of federal courts have agreed with the ACLU, deciding that Trump invoked the act unlawfully and that his vision of the Venezuelans posing a military threat to the United States did not line up with the facts. Two courts, however, have sided with the administration, essentially arguing that the White House should be granted wide latitude in conducting foreign affairs, especially when they concern a gang that has been deemed a terrorist organization. The ACLU could face an uphill battle in its effort to win over the 5th Circuit, which has a reputation as one of the most conservative appeals courts in the country. But no matter who prevails in the oral arguments set for Monday, the case is likely to move on to the Supreme Court. Advertisement The case took an unusual path in reaching the 5th Circuit. In mid-April, the ACLU filed an emergency lawsuit in US District Court in Abilene, Texas, after suddenly getting news that the Trump administration was preparing to use the Alien Enemies Act to deport a group of Venezuelans being held at the Bluebonnet Detention Facility in nearby Anson. The move to expel the men, the ACLU maintained, appeared to be an opportunistic effort to bypass orders barring similar removals from courts in New York, Colorado, and another part of Texas, which covered only those local jurisdictions. After the district court judge in Abilene failed to act quickly, the ACLU filed a flurry of follow-up petitions, asking the 5th Circuit and then the Supreme Court to help the men at Bluebonnet. The lawyers argued that the men were in imminent danger of being shipped off to El Salvador, where an earlier group of Venezuelan immigrants were sent in March and remain today. In an unusual ruling issued well after midnight, the Supreme Court ultimately put the deportations from Bluebonnet temporarily on hold. The justices declined to weigh in on the larger question of whether Trump's invocation of the Alien Enemies Act was lawful, saying only that the government had skirted due process by failing to give the Venezuelan men enough time and opportunity to contest their removal. Last month, the Supreme Court issued another decision in the case, maintaining the freeze on the deportations and sending the matter back to the 5th Circuit, with marching orders on how to proceed in the upcoming hearing. Advertisement The appellate judges were instructed to consider two issues: the substantive question of whether Trump's use of the act was legal in the first place and a narrower one about how much — and what sort — of warning immigrants should be given before being expelled under the law. This article originally appeared in
New York Times
21 minutes ago
- New York Times
We Shouldn't Have Billionaires, Mamdani Says
Zohran Mamdani, who campaigned for mayor on the theme of making New York City more affordable, said in a major national television interview that during a time of rising inequality, 'I don't think we should have billionaires.' Mr. Mamdani, the likely winner of the Democratic primary for mayor of New York, said in an appearance on 'Meet the Press' on Sunday that more equality is needed across the city, state and country, and that he looked forward to working 'with everyone, including billionaires, to make a city that is fairer for all of them.' At the same time, Mr. Mamdani, a democratic socialist, asserted that he is not a communist, a response to an attack from President Trump. 'I have already had to start to get used to the fact that the president will talk about how I look, how I sound, where I'm from, who I am — ultimately because he wants to distract from what I'm fighting for,' Mr. Mamdani said. But one question he continued to sidestep was whether he would denounce the phrase 'globalize the intifada,' after he declined to condemn it during a podcast interview before the primary. The slogan is a rallying cry for liberation among Palestinians and their supporters, but many Jews consider it a call to violence invoking resistance movements of the 1980s and 2000s. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
