In a significant turn of events for a South Dakota ranching family, the Trump Administration has officially dropped criminal charges against Charles and Heather Maude, who faced allegations stemming from a long-standing land dispute with the U.S. Forest Service. The charges, which included theft of federal property, were dismissed following a press conference held on April 30, 2025, at the USDA Whitten Building in Washington, D.C., where federal officials and state leaders gathered to celebrate the decision.
The Maude family, fifth-generation ranchers who have been raising cattle and hogs in western South Dakota since 1907, found themselves at the center of a controversy over a fence line that the USDA claimed obstructed access to the Buffalo Gap National Grasslands. This fence, which has been in place for over 70 years, was reportedly built before Charles and Heather were born, and the dispute began in 2024 when the U.S. Forest Service notified the couple that their fencing was blocking access to federal land.
Initially, after a survey of the property lines was agreed upon, the Maudes were indicted on charges of theft of government property, facing potential penalties of up to $250,000 in fines and 10 years in prison. U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins, who attended the press conference, stated emphatically, “The Maudes are not criminals. They have worked their land since the early 1900s and something that should have been a minor civil land dispute that was over and done with quickly turned into an overzealous criminal prosecution on a hardworking family that was close to losing their home, children, and livelihood.”
Rollins’ comments echoed the sentiments of many who viewed the case as a politically motivated prosecution initiated by the previous administration. The USDA described the charges as a “senseless politically motivated prosecution waged by the Biden Administration over 25 acres of federal land.”
During the press conference, attended by notable figures such as U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, South Dakota Governor Larry Rhoden, U.S. Senator Mike Rounds, and U.S. Representative Dusty Johnson, the Maude family expressed their relief and gratitude. Heather Maude remarked, “We have done nothing wrong. We went through the appropriate channels [to challenge the charges]. We did stand up and we fought this for more than a year now with help from a lot of amazing people.”
The Maudes’ legal troubles began after a complaint was lodged regarding a no-trespassing sign on their property, which led to a visit from U.S. Forest Service officials. The couple was subsequently served with indictments that alleged they converted federal land “to their own use.” The case drew significant public attention and support from ranchers across the country, who viewed the situation as emblematic of broader issues facing agricultural producers.
U.S. Representative Harriet Hageman of Wyoming, who has been vocal about the Maudes’ situation, expressed satisfaction with the dismissal of charges, stating, “I’m excited for the Maudes. I’m very pleased that we were able to get this resolved for them and that the Trump administration and Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins has taken this so seriously.” Hageman criticized the actions of the U.S. Forest Service, suggesting that they sent a strong message to livestock producers that the agency was not necessarily their ally.
Despite the dismissal of charges, questions remain about the implications of the case and the conduct of federal employees involved. Hageman called for accountability, saying, “Those employees should be fired. They abused their authority. They abused their power. They conducted themselves in a highly unprofessional manner. They do not belong in this administration.”
As the Maudes prepare to move forward, the case has raised broader concerns about the relationship between ranchers and federal agencies. South Dakota Representative Karla Lems commented on the absurdity of the situation, questioning how a minor land dispute escalated to criminal charges. “You kind of ask the question, how did we get to this point with a criminal indictment over land that literally is maybe worth like $15,000?” she asked, emphasizing that such disputes should be resolved amicably rather than through legal battles.
The Maude family’s experience is not an isolated incident. Many ranchers across the United States have expressed concerns about federal overreach and the increasing criminalization of agricultural practices. Lems noted that actions like those taken against the Maudes are detrimental to the agricultural community, saying, “Criminalizing ranchers over a simple dispute isn’t supporting agriculture producers. This is wrong, wrong, wrong.”
As the dust settles on this contentious case, the Maudes are expected to meet with Secretary Rollins to discuss the way forward. The dismissal of charges has been a relief for the Maude family and their supporters, who view it as a victory not only for themselves but for ranchers everywhere facing similar struggles against federal regulations.
In the end, the Maude family’s ordeal highlights the complexities of land use, federal oversight, and the challenges faced by those who work the land. As they continue their ranching operations, they carry with them the lessons learned from a year of legal battles and public scrutiny, hopeful for a more cooperative relationship with federal agencies in the future.
