The summer of 2025 has thrown a curveball at the western United States. After a slow start, wildfire season has suddenly ramped up, putting pressure on already stretched firefighting resources. But as the flames spread, another firestorm brews in Washington—one over the future of the agencies tasked with fighting these blazes. President Trump’s push to consolidate and downsize the U.S. Forest Service, the country’s lead wildfire-fighting agency, has sparked intense debate among policymakers, agency veterans, and those on the front lines of America’s wildfire crisis.
The year started with a harrowing omen. On January 7, a fierce windstorm in Los Angeles whipped up an inferno that tore through multiple neighborhoods. According to NPR, planes were seen “scooping water out of the ocean to pour on urban wildfires racing through multiple jurisdictions.” The response was massive and chaotic: local, state, and federal agencies—including FEMA—scrambled to evacuate residents and search for survivors. At press briefings, LA Mayor Karen Bass stood shoulder-to-shoulder with county, state, and federal officials. “I think it is a perfect example of how we are speaking with one voice. We will unify our city,” she declared, reflecting the urgency and unity needed in such crises.
This kind of multi-agency response isn’t new; it’s been the norm for decades. Yet, as wildfires become more frequent and destructive, there’s a growing chorus calling for change. For years, policymakers and experts have floated the idea of consolidating the country’s patchwork of federal wildfire agencies into a single, unified U.S. fire service. The reasoning? Reduce duplication, improve efficiency, and modernize protocols that were designed for a time when wildfires were mostly a forest problem, not an urban or suburban threat.
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) weighed in as far back as 2009, recommending such a consolidation to streamline operations. Fast forward to February 2025, and the idea gained fresh momentum when Senators Alex Padilla of California and Tim Sheehy of Montana introduced a bill to establish a national wildland firefighting service. Matt Weiner, head of the advocacy group Megafire Action and a former staffer for California Democrats, is one of the bill’s most vocal supporters. In his words, “I don't think anyone is looking at our current system for managing fire and thinking that we're getting it done.” He argues for a federal approach akin to the Army Corps of Engineers’ role in managing floods, saying, “What we need is a federal wildland fire approach that looks like what we've seen from the Army Corps of Engineers on flood.”
Yet, despite the urgency, the Padilla-Sheehy bill has languished in Congress, with no hearings or votes scheduled. The legislative gridlock didn’t stop President Trump from taking matters into his own hands. In June, he signed an executive order demanding that the five federal agencies with firefighting operations be consolidated within 90 days. With about a month left before the deadline, there’s little public information about who’s working on the merger or what progress, if any, has been made. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), which oversees the Forest Service, responded to inquiries with little more than a shrug, offering no additional details.
This lack of transparency has fueled suspicion and criticism—especially among those who’ve spent their careers battling wildfires. Rich Fairbanks, a retired federal firefighter from Oregon, is blunt in his assessment: “I'm very suspicious of these reorganization proposals.” He’s not alone. The Trump administration is also downsizing the USDA and closing most of the Forest Service’s regional offices in the Western U.S., a move that’s left many longtime agency employees unsettled. Fairbanks, for his part, questions the timing and motives behind the shakeup: “This administration wants to create chaos and to break federal agencies. I'm sorry. It's the only explanation that makes sense.”
More than two dozen former U.S. Forest Service managers echoed these concerns in a letter to congressional leaders. They argue that the proposed consolidation wouldn’t have prevented disasters like the deadly Los Angeles fires earlier this year. Cheryl Probert, who retired last year as supervisor of the Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forest in Idaho, is skeptical that a national fire service would bring the promised efficiencies. “I have trouble looking at any big incident and seeing how this is going to be more efficient,” she said. Probert warns that shifting wildland firefighters away from their day jobs managing local forests and into a vast federal bureaucracy could backfire. She explains that a “suppression-only mindset is ultimately why we’re here in the situation we are now”—in other words, focusing only on fighting fires after they ignite, rather than investing in land management and prevention, is a recipe for more frequent and intense wildfires.
The debate has spilled over into Congress, where lawmakers are now moving to slow down President Trump’s executive order. According to NPR, Congress has called for another GAO study to determine whether a national fire service would actually save money or improve outcomes. This isn’t the first time lawmakers have sought a pause; previous attempts at consolidation have foundered on concerns about cost, effectiveness, and the risk of losing local expertise.
Supporters of consolidation argue that the current system is outdated and inefficient. They point to the growing scale and complexity of wildfires, which increasingly threaten urban areas and demand rapid, coordinated responses across multiple jurisdictions. Advocates like Matt Weiner see a unified federal agency as the best way to marshal resources, standardize training, and cut through bureaucratic red tape. They envision a modern, nimble firefighting force that can tackle everything from prevention to suppression—much like the Army Corps of Engineers does for floods.
Opponents, however, worry that consolidation could create more problems than it solves. They fear a one-size-fits-all bureaucracy would be slow to adapt to local conditions and would strip away the expertise of those who know their forests best. There are also concerns that the current push is more about shrinking government than improving wildfire response. As Fairbanks and others have pointed out, the closure of regional offices and the lack of clear communication from the USDA suggest that cost-cutting, not public safety, may be driving the agenda.
With wildfires burning hotter and faster each year, the stakes for getting this right couldn’t be higher. The coming weeks will reveal whether the Trump administration can deliver on its promise of a more efficient federal firefighting force—or whether Congress will succeed in hitting the brakes. For now, as flames lick at the edges of western towns and cities, the men and women on the front lines are left waiting for answers—as are the millions of Americans whose lives and homes hang in the balance.
As the debate rages, one thing is certain: the way the United States prepares for and responds to wildfires is at a crossroads, with big decisions ahead that will shape the future of the West for years to come.