Trump Administration Plan to Lift Protections Puts Southern California National Forests at Risk, Critics Say

The Trump administration’s decision to repeal a longstanding rule that protects millions of acres of undeveloped national forest land is drawing sharp criticism from conservation groups and fire officials in Southern California, where more than 700,000 acres across three national forests stand to lose critical protections.

Announced in late June by Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins, the plan would rescind the 2001 Roadless Rule, a Clinton-era policy that bars road construction, logging, and other development on 58.5 million acres of national forest land across the country. About 4.4 million of those acres are in California—including large portions of the Angeles, San Bernardino, and Cleveland national forests.

Rollins called the rule “absurdly outdated,” saying the repeal would allow for better forest management and wildfire mitigation. “This move opens a new era of consistency and sustainability for our nation’s forests,” she said in a statement.

But many conservation experts and public officials say the rollback could open the door to new logging operations and road building that would fragment ecosystems, endanger wildlife, and increase wildfire risks in Southern California’s already vulnerable backcountry.

“These are some of the last remaining wild places in the state,” said Randi Spivak, public lands director for the Center for Biological Diversity. “Removing protections makes them more accessible not only to loggers, but also to more people and more sparks — and that’s a recipe for more catastrophic fires.”

While the administration argues that more roads could improve access for firefighting efforts, fire officials in the region are skeptical.

Dusty LaChapelle, an engineer with the Lake Valley Fire Protection District near Lake Tahoe, told CalMatters his crews already use helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft to access remote fires. “We can get a hold of a lot of the fires already without having to build more roads,” he said. “Personally, that’d be hard for me to justify going in there to punch in more roads for the possibility of a fire happening there.”

Critics also say the administration’s wildfire justification ignores the ecological risks of industrial logging in arid Southern California forests, where shade, soil stability, and natural moisture retention are key to limiting fire spread. Studies cited by the Wilderness Society show that the presence of roads increases the likelihood of human-caused wildfires by as much as four times.

“These protections weren’t just about stopping logging,” Josh Hicks of the Wilderness Society, told the LA Times. “They’ve been instrumental in safeguarding watersheds, wildlife habitat, and the air and water that millions of Californians rely on.”

Southern California’s national forests serve as headwaters for critical watersheds and provide habitat for hundreds of species, including the California spotted owl, mountain lions, and rare amphibians. The roadless areas also offer a haven for outdoor recreation in a region with few remaining undeveloped public lands.

The Department of Agriculture has not released a timeline for implementation, and legal challenges are expected. Environmental groups including Trout Unlimited and Defenders of Wildlife have signaled plans to fight the repeal in court, arguing that the original rule had broad public support and provided essential environmental protections.

Chris Wood, CEO of Trout Unlimited and a former U.S. Forest Service advisor, called the move “an assault on one of the most significant conservation victories of the last century.”

“The roadless rule was about keeping our last wild places intact — for wildlife, for clean water, and for future generations,” Wood said. “Tearing that down in the name of short-term profit is not sound forest management. It’s political theater at the expense of public lands.”

While the immediate impact in Southern California may be limited, the broader concern is what could follow: expanded logging access, weakened oversight, and more pressure on already stressed ecosystems.

State officials have remained cautious in their response. A spokesperson for the California Natural Resources Agency said the agency is still evaluating the federal decision’s impact on the state’s forests and fire strategy.

But Rep. Jared Huffman, a Democrat who represents parts of Northern California’s national forests, was blunt: “This is a giveaway to logging companies disguised as fire management,” he said in a statement. “It’s reckless and deeply unpopular — especially in a state that knows all too well the cost of mismanaging our forests.”

Last month, a seperate provision in the Trump administration budget to sell off millions of acres of public land, which sparked strong opposition from many conservation and recreation advocates, was removed from the budget bill prior to its passage last week.