As wildfires intensify across the American West, a storm is brewing not just in the forests but also in the halls of Washington. President Trump’s recent push to overhaul the nation’s wildfire response—by consolidating federal firefighting resources into a new, single agency—has ignited heated debate among lawmakers, agency veterans, and fire experts. With federal wildfire response resources stretched to the brink as of August 15, 2025, the administration’s proposal is both timely and contentious, raising fundamental questions about how the country should fight its most destructive blazes.
The summer wildfire season, after a slower-than-expected start, has surged in activity. According to NPR, a dry winter in the western states set the stage for dangerous conditions. The year began ominously on January 7, when a windstorm in Los Angeles transformed into a raging inferno. Planes were seen scooping water from the Pacific, dousing urban fires that tore through neighborhoods and forced chaotic evacuations. The response, which involved local, state, and federal agencies, was a familiar scene—one that LA Mayor Karen Bass described as a display of unity. “I think it is a perfect example of how we are speaking with one voice. We will unify our city,” Bass said at a briefing, as reported by NPR.
This kind of multi-agency coordination has been the norm for decades, but it’s also long been criticized as inefficient. Calls to consolidate the country’s patchwork of federal wildfire agencies into a single U.S. fire service have echoed for years. A 2009 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report recommended such a move, arguing it could reduce duplication and improve efficiency. The idea is to streamline response and update outdated protocols—many of which were designed for a time when wildfires were mostly confined to forests, not sprawling urban areas.
Matt Weiner, who leads Megafire Action, a group lobbying Congress for wildfire reform, summed up the frustration: “I don’t think anyone is looking at our current system for managing fire and thinking that we’re getting it done.” Weiner, a former staffer for California Democrats, points to the need for a federal approach modeled on the Army Corps of Engineers’ work on flood control. In February, California Senator Alex Padilla and Montana Republican Tim Sheehy introduced a bipartisan bill to establish a national wildland firefighting service. But as of mid-August, the bill remains stalled and has not been considered by Congress, according to NPR.
President Trump, meanwhile, has pressed forward. In June, he signed an executive order mandating the consolidation of five federal agencies with firefighting operations into a single entity within 90 days. With just about a month left before the deadline, there’s a notable lack of transparency about who’s leading the charge or whether any real progress has been made. The U.S. Department of Agriculture, which oversees the Forest Service, has been particularly tight-lipped, offering no substantive updates when pressed for information.
The timing and manner of the administration’s actions have drawn sharp criticism. Rich Fairbanks, a retired federal firefighter in Oregon, voiced deep skepticism about the rationale behind the reorganization. “I’m very suspicious of these reorganization proposals,” Fairbanks told NPR. He went further, suggesting that the administration’s real intent might not be reform at all: “This administration wants to create chaos and to break federal agencies. I’m sorry. It’s the only explanation that makes sense.”
The plan is also part of a broader effort to downsize and remake the Forest Service, the nation’s lead agency for fighting wildfires. Trump’s administration is moving to consolidate and shrink the U.S. Department of Agriculture and close most of its regional offices in the West, a move that has alarmed agency veterans and local officials alike.
The skepticism isn’t limited to former firefighters. More than two dozen retired U.S. Forest Service managers have openly opposed the consolidation, sending a letter to congressional leaders. Their message: the proposed shakeup would not have prevented 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 among those sounding the alarm. “I have trouble looking at any big incident and seeing how this is going to be more efficient,” Probert told NPR. She warns that a national fire service could pull wildland firefighters away from their regular land management duties, shifting their focus to fire suppression at the expense of prevention. “That suppression-only mindset is ultimately why we’re here in the situation we are now,” she said.
Congress has taken notice of the growing backlash. Lawmakers recently moved to delay President Trump’s executive order, calling for another GAO study to determine whether creating a national fire service would actually save money and improve outcomes. This move is designed to tap the brakes on the administration’s fast-tracked consolidation, giving time for a more thorough evaluation of the potential impacts—both positive and negative.
The debate over how to best organize federal wildfire response is hardly new, but it’s reached a fever pitch as climate change fuels longer, more destructive fire seasons. Proponents of consolidation argue that the current system is outdated and ill-equipped to handle the scale of today’s wildfires, especially as fires increasingly threaten urban areas. They point to the 2009 GAO report and the bipartisan Padilla-Sheehy bill as evidence that reform is overdue.
Opponents, however, caution against hasty action that could undermine existing expertise and local knowledge. The experience of Los Angeles this January—where coordination between agencies was credited with saving lives—serves as a reminder that unity doesn’t always require uniformity. Critics fear that centralization could breed bureaucracy, slow response times, and neglect the crucial work of prevention and land management.
As the deadline for the executive order approaches, uncertainty hangs over the future of federal wildfire management. With the U.S. Department of Agriculture silent on specifics and Congress pushing for more study, the nation’s firefighters remain on the front lines—doing their best with the resources and systems they have, even as those systems themselves are up for debate.
In a season marked by both literal and political firestorms, the question of how America should fight its wildfires remains as urgent—and as unresolved—as ever.