The Politics of Prevention: Executive Orders and Partisan Forest Management
Wildfires do not discriminate. As flames threaten Idaho’s breathtaking landscapes and rural livelihoods, the politics of prevention too often break cleanly along party lines — with profound consequences for those in the path of disaster. On Tuesday, Governor Brad Little signed the so-called “Make Forests Healthy Again Act”, an executive order aligning Idaho with the Trump administration’s controversial push to expand state-led forest management on federal lands. Supporters herald this as a lifeline for a region beset by record-setting wildfires: according to the National Interagency Fire Center, Idaho faced over 1,400 wildfires in 2024, with nearly a million acres scorched. In a state defined by its wild, forested expanses, these numbers are more than statistics —
looming reminders of the stakes involved.
But behind the governor’s order lies a profound question: Does shifting more control to states and ramping up timber extraction genuinely improve forest health and wildfire resilience, or does it risk deepening the very vulnerabilities the policy claims to address? The new directive compels the Idaho Department of Lands to expand collaboration with the U.S. Forest Service, effectively scaling up logging and land-clearing in the name of “active management.” Close alignment with President Trump’s March executive order, the “Freeing our Forests Act,” is no coincidence. Little’s office explicitly praises the Trump administration’s efforts, citing recently tapped Idahoans for federal posts as further evidence of the state’s influence over national policy.
It’s a bold move — one that raises red flags for environmental advocates, and questions about the real drivers of fire risk in the era of climate change. How much of this is sound forest science, and how much is partisan theater?
Science or Slogan? The Real Roots of Wildfire Risk
The refrain from conservative leaders is familiar: “Forests are overgrown. Logging is the answer.” Yet every credible forest ecologist knows that reality is far more nuanced. More than a century of aggressive fire suppression policies — urged by industry interests in decades past — have left western forests choked with undergrowth. But the science of wildfire prevention has evolved since the 1920s, and with it, our understanding of how best to protect both people and landscapes.
The executive order touts Idaho’s Forest Action Plan, deploying mapping technology to pinpoint diseased or high-risk forested areas allegedly in need of “treatment.” In theory, using risk maps makes sense. Yet what often gets lost in conservative talking points is that no amount of timber harvest can substitute for smart, strategic, long-term fire management. According to Harvard forest ecologist Dr. Alyssa Friedman, “Mechanical thinning and controlled burns, when thoughtfully deployed, are vital. Problems arise when economic incentives — not ecological goals — drive the pace and scale of intervention. We’ve seen that targeted prescribed burns and natural regeneration work far better than blanket logging.”
Beyond that, a closer look at the recent fire data complicates the narrative. The vast majority of Idaho’s fires in 2024 ignited not in unmanaged wilderness, but in the so-called “wildland-urban interface” — those transitional zones where careless human activity and climate-fueled drought converge. “The idea that our forests are simply ‘untouched tinderboxes’ ignores both history and current risks,” notes University of Idaho fire historian Michael Everett. “If we only focus on cutting trees, we miss the real drivers: rapid warming, invasive pests, and people building homes where they never used to.”
“The idea that our forests are simply ‘untouched tinderboxes’ ignores both history and current risks. If we only focus on cutting trees, we miss the real drivers: rapid warming, invasive pests, and people building homes where they never used to.”
Idaho’s new order, like Trump’s before it, draws heavily from the Good Neighbor Authority and Shared Stewardship programs — collaborative frameworks that could, if wielded with ecological wisdom, boost cross-jurisdictional projects. But under the current federal approach, too often environmental review and scientific consensus are sidelined, replaced with “streamlined” processes tailor-made for accelerated timber extraction. Critics recall that after similar policies were championed by the Bush administration, many treated acres saw little benefit in terms of fire risk reduction — but plenty of profit for logging companies.
Whose Forests? Public Policy, Timber Profits, and the Future
Why does this tension between ecology and economy persist? Conservative policymakers, emboldened by the new Trump order, routinely invoke private sector “efficiency” and the peril of “untouched” lands. Yet, historical and scientific evidence provides a stark counterpoint. In California and Montana, intensive logging in the 1990s and 2000s failed to prevent some of the largest wildfires on record. “When you conflate forest health with harvest quotas, you risk leaving forests and communities more vulnerable than ever,” says former U.S. Forest Service regional director Ellen Fitzgerald.
Idaho’s order proclaims transparency and public accountability, promising that progress will be tracked openly. A laudable pledge, but as environmental attorney Rachel McVay warned in a recent op-ed, “Without robust environmental review and genuine public input, transparency is just a slogan. We need plans that privilege ecosystem resilience over industry profit.”
So what would a truly progressive, science-based approach for Idaho look like? Experts urge a mix of prescribed fire, targeted thinning, Indigenous stewardship practices, and — crucially — confronting the root causes of our fire crises: climate change and unsustainable development at the wildland-urban edge. Communities deserve forests that are healthy not just for timber, but for air quality, biodiversity, and future generations.
The politics of wildfire management reflect timeless debates about who controls public resources and whose interests are prioritized. This executive order, cloaked in urgent rhetoric, runs the risk of doubling down on old mistakes — repeating the cycle of industry-driven “solutions” that leave forests, and the people who depend on them, at ever-greater risk.
