59 Million Acres of National Forests Opened Up for Logging
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources.
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has announced it is rescinding the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule, removing longstanding federal protections that barred road construction and logging on nearly 59 million acres of national forest land.
Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins announced the decision at a meeting of the Western Governors' Association in Santa Fe, New Mexico on Monday.
The move will end over two decades of restrictions, immediately permitting road building and timber harvest in undeveloped stretches of federal forests—including vast tracts in Alaska, Utah and Montana.
Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins, center, announced during a meeting of the Western Governors' Association in Santa Fe on June 23, that the U.S. Department of Agriculture is rescinding the 2001 Roadless Rule.
Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins, center, announced during a meeting of the Western Governors' Association in Santa Fe on June 23, that the U.S. Department of Agriculture is rescinding the 2001 Roadless Rule.
USDA
Why It Matters
The elimination of the rule will affect almost 30 percent of all National Forest System lands, with critics warning of harm to wildlife, water quality and habitats. Supporters, including several Western state officials, said lifting the restrictions would improve wildfire management and boost rural economies.
The decision reflected broader Trump administration efforts to promote domestic resource extraction and deregulation.
What To Know
The Roadless Area Conservation Rule, enacted in 2001, had prohibited road construction and timber harvest on approximately 58.5 million acres of designated "roadless" national forests. The USDA called the rule "outdated" and argued that it contradicted Congressional intent and limited forest managers' ability to address threats like wildfire.
The USDA stated that nearly 60 percent of Utah's national forest lands, 58 percent of Montana's, and 92 percent of Alaska's Tongass National Forest had been subject to Roadless Rule protections, inhibiting what the agency described as "properly managed" forest activity, such as fire prevention and responsible timber production.
Rollins said the rule posed "real harm" to millions of forest acres and claimed it resulted in a 25 percent decrease in forestry sector economic development in Utah, according to the state's own estimate. She further argued that the change would open "a new era of consistency and sustainability" for forest management, with local managers making "the best decisions to protect people, communities, and resources based on their unique local conditions."
Environmental organizations denounced the rollback, warning that it exposed nearly 60 million acres of wildlands—some of the nation's largest roadless and old-growth forests—to logging, road construction and environmental degradation.
A file photo shows Misty Fjords National Monument, part of the Tongass National Forest in Alaska, on July 11, 2012.
A file photo shows Misty Fjords National Monument, part of the Tongass National Forest in Alaska, on July 11, 2012.
Jon Elswick/AP Photo
What People Are Saying
Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins said: "Once again, President Trump is removing absurd obstacles to common sense management of our natural resources by rescinding the overly restrictive roadless rule. This move opens a new era of consistency and sustainability for our nation's forests. It is abundantly clear that properly managing our forests preserves them from devastating fires and allows future generations of Americans to enjoy and reap the benefits of this great land."
Republican Alaska Representative Nick Begich wrote on X: "Alaska's forests are one of our state's greatest natural assets and the "Roadless Rule" has long stifled responsible forest management, blocked access to critical resources, and halted economic opportunity particularly in Alaska, where 92% of the Tongass National Forest was off-limits. The Roadless Rule was never about responsible conservation; it was about bureaucratic overreach that undermined the ability of local forest managers and communities to effectively manage their lands."
Alex Craven, forest campaign manager for environmental organization Sierra Club, said in a statement: "Once again, the Trump administration is ignoring the voices of millions of Americans to pursue a corporate giveaway for his billionaire buddies. Stripping our national forests of roadless rule protections will put close to 60 million acres of wildlands across the country on the chopping block."
What Happens Next
A formal notice rescinding the Roadless Rule is expected from the USDA in the coming weeks. Legal challenges and further policy debates over federal forest management are anticipated.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
22 minutes ago
- USA Today
The '12-Day War,' World War III, and how we describe what's happening in Iran
USA TODAY interviewed experts about what is happening in the world, and how it should be described. Here's what they said. President Donald Trump wants to call the most recent round of fighting between Iran and Israel the "12-Day War," but he may not get his wish. That's because journalists and historians are usually the ones who put names on wars, and they often don't choose the titles that government officials put on them. It's even less likely that the conflict could be named World War III, even though Trump has been warning about it for more than a decade, and even told the leader of Ukraine this year he was risking starting it. 'There's no official naming body, international or national,' said David Sibley, a military historian for Cornell University who is based in Washington, D.C. 'It's really just kind of agreed on by historians, by countries, and sometimes not even that.' USA TODAY interviewed experts on international relations and military history to talk about what is happening in the world, and how it should be described. Here's what they said. The '12-Day War' Howard Stoffer, a professor at the University of New Haven in Connecticut, said the most recent fighting between Iran and Israel marks a "historic turning point in the Middle East,' comparable to the Six-Day War in 1967 or the Yom Kippur War in 1973. Trump's suggested title might be a way to invoke 1967, "where Israelis used a preemptive airstrike to defeat the Arab countries around them," Sibley said. Israel emerged politically stronger and with more land. 'It certainly would invoke that in Israel and in the Middle East," Sibley said. "It certainly has that sort of pithiness that is appealing, and so it would be interesting to see. I don't know. It might stick." On June 26 and June 27, the news wire Reuters used the phrase '12-day war' to describe the sparring between the two countries earlier in the month, but not as the official name of the war, which would have a capitalized the "D" and "W." USA TODAY has used the term in quotation marks. Bryon Greenwald, a professor at National Defense University in Washington, D.C., questioned whether the attacks between Iran and Israel amounted to a war at all, or just a flare-up of a long-simmering conflict the countries have engaged in for decades. He pointed to airstrikes between Iran and Israel in March, predating the most recent conflict that led the United States to drop bombs on nuclear facilities. 'Does that shift the start date to the left, so it is now longer (than) 12 Days?' he asked. Peter Singer, a political scientist and author specializing in 21st-century warfare, said if Trump wants the name to catch on, he needs "better marketing." Graphic: How 70 years of history led to the U.S. bombing in Iran Who names wars? Even if the the name a president or military leader catches on, names catches on, journalists and historians may change them over time. 'WWI was commonly called the Great War until the media needed to name its successor,' said Don Ritchie, a former Senate historian. 'Historians are usually writing long after the fact and follow the common usage.' Wayne Lee, a professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, points to the usage by President George H.W. Bush's administration of 'Operation Desert Shield" and 'Operation Desert Storm' to describe early 1990s conflicts in the Middle East. Most people refer to those conflicts as the Gulf War, the First Gulf War, or the Persian Gulf War. When President George W. Bush invaded Iraq in 2003, his administration named it 'Operation Iraqi Freedom,' but most people call it the Iraq War. 'Sometimes even the names of wars aren't agreed on,' said Sibley, from Cornell. 'What we call the American Civil War, it depends on where you are what you call it − 'The War Between the States,' 'The War of Northern Aggression,' things like that.' Is World War III happening? When the U.S. bombed Iran on June 21, Americans grew anxious that World War III had started. Experts caution against declaring armed conflicts worldwide "world war." 'I would be really surprised if this morphed into something that looks anything like the past world wars we've had,' said Will Todman from the Center for Strategic and International Studies. 'But that does not mean peace is likely around the world. … I just don't think those will all be connected in the same way it was in World War I or World War II.' Russia has been at war with Ukraine for more than three years, at times threatening to use nuclear weapons but never following through. Experts said tensions between North Korea and South Korea could escalate. Or they said China, another nuclear country, could invade Taiwan. 'Forces were fighting just about everywhere around the globe,' during both world wars, Sibley said. 'So even a conflict in the Middle East between two sets of alliances, I don't know that that would rise to the level. I don't know. It retroactively could be labeled that if it gets bad enough.' Sibley said nuclear weapons act as a deterrent to attack, because countries fear having those weapons used against them. But he said, if two major powers exchanged nuclear weapons it could warrant the moniker "World War III." Sibley said countries tend to be more cautious about invading or attacking nuclear powers because they fear having those weapons used against them. But he said, if two major powers exchanged nuclear weapons it could warrant the moniker "World War III." 'Post-1945, the assumption has been that World War III is going to be a nuclear one,' Sibley said. 'And, so, short of that, it's hard to see something getting that label.' Singer pointed to the massive casualties from world wars, numbers that the world has not seen in several of the most recent conflicts combined. "As many as 22 million people died in World War I and 85 million people in World War II,' he said. 'Stop trying to make World War III happen.'
USA Today
22 minutes ago
- USA Today
The businesses that are, and aren't, shifting production under Trump's tariffs
New York-based manufacturer Gear Motions purchases the majority of its parts from U.S. suppliers, with roughly 4% of inputs imported from other countries. It's a small fraction, but with a 10% base tariff in effect since early April, President and CEO Dean Burrows said his company, which specializes in custom cut and ground gears, will have to pass down those price increases to customers. That's not for lack of trying to find new suppliers. 'We have not been able to find a U.S. source that can make the product, and we have searched globally,' Burrows said. Tariffs are meant to fix that, with the Trump administration aiming to 'reverse the decades of globalization that has decimated our industrial base,' according to an April White House press release. But reviving the U.S. manufacturing base would take years, and economists have doubts that President Donald Trump's tariffs will be enough to bring it back to its former glory. Meanwhile, many U.S. manufacturers that rely on imports may be more likely to pass on tariff costs to consumers than reshore their supply chains. Nearly one-third of U.S. manufacturers' intermediate inputs are imported from other countries, according to a 2022 report from the Commerce Department. 'In the short run, it's going to hurt manufacturers. It's going to hurt the factory owners. It's going to hurt the workers,' said Nancy Qian, an economics professor at Northwestern's Kellogg School of Management. 'And that's on top of the pain the workers will feel when they go to the store and need to pay more for their imported (items).' Why shifting to US suppliers isn't always an easy solution Trump's tariffs are meant to position the U.S. as a 'global superpower in manufacturing' by drawing in new factories and manufacturing investments. 'The president has said early and often that the best way to avoid tariffs is to just come here and produce," Trump's top trade adviser, Peter Navarro, told CNBC in early April. 'We're going to get to a place where America makes stuff again.' But moving supply chains to the U.S. can be costly. Nearly two-thirds of 380 surveyed companies say building a new domestic supply chain would at least double their current costs, according to an April CNBC survey. Sixty-one percent said it would be more cost-effective to relocate to a lower-tariffed country. 'If the U.S. continues its focus on China, it will be successful in moving production out of China to some extent, but it won't move so much of it back to the U.S.,' Qian said. 'There are many other countries out there that can manufacture at costs lower than the U.S.' Even if tariffs boost U.S. manufacturing, it'll take years for new factories to get up and running. That could leave U.S. companies searching for domestic suppliers struggling in the meantime. Take 000Skin, a beauty company launched by Hannah Chang earlier this year. While 000Skin is based in New York, Chang has been sourcing the containers for her skin care products in China, where she says manufacturing capabilities are unmatched. 'I think people are not aware how much work and infrastructure even creating a plastic jar takes,' Chang said. But rising import costs from tariffs have thrown her for a loop. Chang has looked for alternative suppliers in the U.S., but says she has yet to find options that match the quality and price of what Chinese manufacturers can supply. She's considered shifting to a Mexican producer, but said it's been difficult finding one willing to work with smaller businesses. 'I'll probably just continue to look at China-based partners,' Chang said, adding that she's considering raising prices to cover at least some of the 30% tariff rate. Courtney Rivenbark looked into working with U.S. manufacturers when she created her apparel and jewelry brand, Coco Clem, in 2018. The high production costs turned her away, and she eventually pivoted to a partnership with a Chinese factory she said aligned with her ethical and environmental goals. 'China is just very advanced with their machines and equipment and technology,' Rivenbark said. 'The whole supply chain exists in China – the knits, the yard, the GOTS (Global Organic Textile Standard) certified organic cotton yarn.' After Trump announced new tariffs earlier this year, Rivenbark said she compared pricing from China with U.S. manufacturers. She said it would cost her three times more to create the same sweater in the U.S., and local manufacturers didn't have the technology to create certain garments in plus sizes. 'I would move (production to the U.S.) if the infrastructure was here,' Rivenbark said. But 'it's just so much more expensive. ... I'm not really interested in moving it outside of China because of a potential short-term policy switch.' How many factories, jobs are coming to the US? That's not to say tariffs aren't pressuring some businesses to increase their investments in the U.S. Whether those moves will lead to a dramatic influx of manufacturing jobs is another question. Cra-Z-Art – a New Jersey-based manufacturer that produces toys, activities and school supplies – in March announced plans to grow production space by 50% to 1.5 million square feet to combat the cost of tariffs. Lawrence Rosen, chairman of Cra-Z-Art, said it's too early to say how many jobs the move will create, but the company is looking to use automation 'wherever possible' to reduce direct labor costs. 'I need to control my 102-year-old company's destiny by controlling its future and not relying on global tariffs when things could change daily,' Lawrence said. 'By manufacturing in the USA, we save on freight, we save with automation. ... With automation, we can produce many of our products at a similar cost compared to increased costs with even 10% tariffs on freight.' A White House website claims Trump's policies have spurred trillions of dollars in new U.S. manufacturing investments that are 'fueling job growth, innovation, and opportunity across every corner of the country.' A number of those investments were in the works before Trump took office. A $5 billion investment from automaker Stellantis, for instance, includes plans to restart an idled plant in Belvidere, Illinois, to make trucks, a deal first announced in 2023. While there were talks of delays in 2024, the company in January confirmed that it would stick to the 2027 opening agreed to in union negotiations years prior. And a spokesperson for German medical technology company Siemens Healthineers, another company listed on the website, told USA TODAY that several of the initiatives included in its $150 million investment in new and expanded U.S. facilities have been underway for 'well over a year," although projects were accelerated to address rising economic and geopolitical uncertainty. Michael Strain, director of economic policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank, doesn't expect to see much reshoring tied to tariffs. 'For a business to set up a factory in the United States, that's a 10-year investment or longer,' Strain said. 'How can a business possibly know whether or not that would be profitable if tariff rates are changing every week?" Some data suggests the domestic manufacturing industry has actually taken a hit from tariffs, with trade policy uncertainty prompting some companies to tighten their purse strings. Economic activity in the manufacturing sector contracted in May for the third consecutive month to reach its lowest level since November, with both orders and output contracting, according to a survey by the Institute for Supply Management. Meanwhile, the manufacturing sector lost about 8,000 jobs between April and May despite an overall increase in employment, according to the Labor Department. Susan Helper, an economics professor at Case Western Reserve University in Ohio who served on the White House staff in both the Obama and Biden Administrations, believes tariffs can be a useful tool, but the uncertainty surrounding trade policy has been 'a real problem.' "I think what companies are doing is just not investing anywhere in anything and just waiting to see how things shake out,' she said.
USA Today
22 minutes ago
- USA Today
Tariffs are meant to boost US manufacturing. Is America ready?
Winton Machine, an Atlanta-based manufacturer, is desperate to hire. So far, there are few takers. CEO and co-founder Lisa Winton has been searching for a salesperson since March. A mechanist job has been open even longer, with less than a dozen applications over the past year – none of whom had the skillset required for the job. Winton has done what she can to attract workers, like forming a relationship with local technical colleges, offering applicants flexible hours and rehiring retirees. Still, keeping her staffing up has been a challenge. The push for more domestic manufacturing through tariffs, Winton worries, will only make matters worse. 'If more factories move into an area, who are they competing with? They're competing with other factories," she said. "Whether it be machinists or maintenance or assembly, all of the different types of jobs that are available – they have to come from somewhere.' President Donald Trump has said his tariffs, which range from a 10% baseline tariff on trade partners to 50% on steel imports, will have jobs and factories 'come roaring back.' 'The end game is to have production here. Any country that wants to produce here doesn't pay a tariff. That's the ultimate solution,' Trump's top trade adviser, Peter Navarro, told ABC News in early April. It's not clear that America is prepared for that shift. Building new manufacturing facilities can take up to 10 years, depending on the industry, and experts say the country's infrastructure isn't primed to handle additional factories. Meanwhile, a manufacturing labor shortage could mean new factories have a hard time filling roles. 'If the Trump administration's vision is to bring manufacturing back to America en masse – not just in a few sectors, but en masse – that vision isn't realistic," said Nancy Qian, an economics professor at Northwestern's Kellogg School of Management. Why building factories will take time It's not clear how many businesses will shift production to the U.S. because of tariffs. Those that do reshore face a lengthy process. 'Most companies do not make a decision to onshore or to build a new factory or plant lightly,' said Erin McLaughlin, a senior economist at the Conference Board, a nonprofit business-research group. 'This is something for most companies that they strategize many years in advance.' First, companies must figure out where to build. The location needs to be close to transportation corridors, good water supplies and on a stable electric grid – something easier said than done with current U.S. infrastructure, which earned a C in its 2025 report card from the American Society of Civil Engineers, according to McLaughlin. Then, companies must purchase the land, obtain proper permits and inspections, design their factory, purchase equipment and select a construction team. Only then can they start construction. The process generally takes three to 10 years, depending on the industry, McLaughlin said. Certain projects can be done in less time, although the timeline can be challenged by growing competition for sites with access to a stable electric grid, according to Jeff Bischoff, chief sales officer at Lexington, Kentucky-based designer-builder Gray. 'Power generation is not keeping up right now with demand,' Bischoff said. 'All the utilities are doing their best to try to keep up and get ahead of that. But it's a several-year process.' Trump has acknowledged that infrastructure changes will be necessary, and believes it would take roughly two years to get his vision for manufacturing up and running. 'You've got to build a thing called a factory. You have to build your energy. You have to do a lot of things,' Trump said on April 7, adding that he would give businesses approvals for electric plants in 'record timing.' But McLaughlin believes a two-year turnaround for bolstering the U.S. manufacturing sector could be optimistic. Even if executive orders speed up federal approvals, she said, factories would likely still need to worry about state and local permits. More complications could arise if the Trump administration continues to crack down on immigration, with roughly 20% of manufacturing workers in the U.S. foreign-born, according to labor market analytics firm Lightcast. An even higher share – roughly 30% – are foreign-born in construction. "We don't want to be over reliant on one trading partner for certain things,' McLaughlin said. But 'I don't think the U.S. is prepped and primed for everything to be manufactured here.' Are tariffs worth the pain? Trump says the ultimate fruits of tariffs will be worth the pain. Experts disagree. Why manufacturers are struggling to hire Trump's push for more factories comes after a dramatic decline in manufacturing jobs. After accounting for roughly 22% of total nonfarm employment in 1979, manufacturing work makes up just 8% today. Even if tariffs were able to eliminate the entire U.S. trade deficit in manufacturing, that would still only bump that share up to about 10% of employment – still less than half of its share in the late 1970s, according to Robert Lawrence, a Harvard professor of international trade and investment and author of 'Behind the Curve: Can Manufacturing Still Provide Inclusive Growth?' 'Even in its most successful form, this is barely noticeable,' Lawrence said. Other experts warn that even that level of growth could exacerbate the hiring challenges manufacturers face today. Manufacturers have been struggling to fill jobs for years, including during a post-pandemic construction boom, when supply chain issues pushed more manufacturers to build facilities closer to home. The number of manufacturing establishments in the U.S. increased by more than 11% between the first quarter of 2019 and the second quarter of 2023, according to a 2024 report from Deloitte. Despite the growth, manufacturing jobs have remained essentially flat since 2019, discounting a pandemic-era dip. That's partially due to automation; factories today need fewer workers. But nearly half of manufacturers say attracting and retaining talent has been a major challenge, according to a first-quarter survey from the National Association of Manufacturers. Bureau of Labor Statistics data shows there were 381,000 manufacturing job openings as of April. By 2033, manufacturing could have 1.9 million unfilled jobs – roughly half of open positions – due to a skills and applicant gap, according to Deloitte. 'We absolutely do not have enough people ready to take these jobs,' said Rachel Sederberg, senior economist at Lightcast. 'That is going to be a very significant challenge if more and more manufacturing – or more and more of anything – comes back to the U.S.' One issue is that manufacturing workers are aging out of the workforce. Just over one-third of manufacturing employees in the U.S. are 55 or older and nearing retirement, according to a recent report from Lightcast, which is expected to make the shortage even more acute. And attracting new talent to backfill these positions hasn't been easy. As factories turn to more automation, manufacturers say they're having trouble finding talent with the right skillset to manage the more advanced technology. 'Not every manufacturing job today requires a degree, but every single manufacturing job today requires skills,' said Carolyn Lee, executive director of the Manufacturing Institute, a nonprofit focused on workforce development and education within the industry. Lee said obtaining those skills can take anywhere from a day or two for a forklift certification to up to four years of education and apprenticeship programs for maintenance technicians, one of the most in-demand manufacturing jobs today. There are some signs of renewed interest in trade jobs. Enrollment in public two-year institutions that focus on vocational programs was up 14% year-over-year in 2024, outpacing the 3% growth in public four-year schools, according to a May 12 Wells Fargo report. But Lightcast found there are still not enough students learning relevant skills to keep up with job demand. For instance, there were just 400 machinist program completions in Texas in 2023 compared to roughly 16,000 related job openings in the state. Research suggests manufacturing's reputation as dirty and dangerous has made the industry less appealing to younger Americans, especially amid a period of low unemployment. The Deloitte report says 'a different set of expectations' among millennial and Generation Z workers, many of whom were pushed to go to college instead of working in the trades, has made it difficult for manufacturers to attract and retain workers. 'The consensus among American manufacturers is this generation of Americans just don't want these jobs anymore," said Qian of Northwestern. Fear of lower wages may also be keeping workers away. Manufacturing work today can pay well, and some research finds it tends to pay better than other sectors that don't require college degrees. But as of 2018, the average hourly earnings for manufacturing employees fall short of average overall employee earnings, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. What kind of jobs would more manufacturing create? There's a reason so many American companies rely on factories abroad; operating in the U.S. tends to be more expensive. For one, labor costs are higher. Take the average annual machine operator salary, which is nearly $45,000 in the U.S. compared to $15,000 in China and less than $5,000 in Vietnam, according to the Reshoring Institute, a nonprofit that supports expanded U.S. manufacturing. And tariffs are expected to hike production costs for many domestic manufacturers, since companies will need to pay more for inputs shipped in from other countries. That could leave manufacturers increasingly turning toward automation to trim costs. 'If you need to pay anyone you employ as a factory worker an average of $36 an hour with benefits, then you are inclined to hire very few of them and instead buy automated equipment and robots,' said Farok Contractor, a professor at Rutgers' management and global business department. Winton of Winton Machine said she's already seeing an increased demand for automation from her company, which designs and produces factory automation for manufacturers in HVAC, aerospace, construction and other industries. Winton still expects to see jobs created if manufacturing gets a boost through tariffs. She just believes automation will allow fewer, high-quality positions as opposed to a large influx of manual labor. Already, manufacturing is relying on more college-educated workers; nearly 32% of civilian manufacturing workers had at least a bachelor's degree in 2023, up from 22% in 2006, according to a USA TODAY analysis of the Census Bureau's American Community Survey data. 'I need the people to build all the parts and pieces and the engineers to design and the software to build this factory automation,' Winton said. 'I think we have the people. Do we have the skillset? That's the question.'
