The 90% Logging Mandate: How Trump’s Executive Order Threatens Forests, Tribes, and the Future

Detailed Breakdown:

1. The Executive Order
President Trump signed an executive order that opens up 113 million acres of U.S. national forest land—including tribal lands—to logging. This represents roughly 90% of all U.S. national forests, signaling a sweeping shift in federal environmental policy.

2. The Justification
The administration framed the order as a strategy to:

Boost domestic lumber supply for construction (e.g., houses),
Stimulate economic growth in logging-related industries,
Prevent wildfires by reducing the amount of flammable material in forests.

3. The Reality of Lumber Economics
Contrary to political rhetoric, the decision won’t automatically reduce housing costs or make better-quality lumber available.

Not all trees are equal: The U.S. has trees, yes—but not always the right kind of trees.
Canadian lumber dominates because slow-growing trees in colder climates (like those in Canada) create denser, stronger wood ideal for home building.
U.S. forests, especially in Washington State, may not yield timber of equivalent quality, particularly if no proper survey is done before logging begins.

4. The Inclusion of Tribal Lands
Perhaps most controversially, tribal lands are being lumped into this executive order.

No meaningful consultation appears to have been conducted with Native tribes.
Tribal sovereignty and environmental stewardship knowledge are being ignored.
Indigenous communities have longstanding traditions of managing forests sustainably, with approaches that consider fire prevention, biodiversity, and spiritual reverence for the land.

5. The Fire Prevention Argument
The idea that “cutting down trees prevents wildfires” is misguided and scientifically flawed:

Undergrowth and brush, not just trees, are the primary sources of wildfire fuel.
Younger, newly planted trees are more flammable, not less.
Deforestation can actually worsen fires by disrupting natural fire cycles and removing shade that keeps undergrowth moist.
Tribal ecological knowledge, if consulted, could have presented fire-smart forest management strategies such as controlled burns and selective clearing.

6. Environmental and Recreational Fallout

These lands are not just timber zones—they are ecosystems, tourism hubs, and spiritual sanctuaries.
Logging invites erosion, mudslides, and habitat destruction, particularly in high-rainfall areas like Washington State.
National parks and forests serve millions of visitors annually and are home to endangered species.
Opening them up to commercial logging sacrifices public goods for private profit.

Analysis:

I. A Shortsighted Economic Gambit

This order is a classic example of economic thinking divorced from ecological and social context.
It presumes:

More trees cut = more usable lumber = cheaper homes.
But that logic oversimplifies the long-term sustainability, processing timelines, and actual quality of the wood being harvested.

Lumber isn’t just about availability—it’s about:

Quality (density, dryness, grain structure),
Processing capacity,
Supply chain readiness,
Market demand,
And international trade policy.

This move may enrich timber companies in the short run but does not guarantee any downstream consumer benefit.

II. Erasure of Tribal Sovereignty and Wisdom

The most troubling dimension is the dismissal of tribal nations’ rights and expertise:

For centuries, Indigenous peoples have practiced sustainable forest management.
Their knowledge systems are deeply attuned to local ecosystems.
Failing to consult them not only violates treaty obligations—it undermines proven ecological methods that could benefit everyone.

This isn’t just an oversight—it’s a pattern of governmental disregard for Native voices in national policy.

III. Ecological Consequences: A Chain Reaction

When you log aggressively:

Wildlife habitats collapse.
Water tables shift.
Soil destabilizes, leading to mudslides and floods.
Carbon sequestration drops, worsening the climate crisis.
Biodiversity declines, and once it’s gone, it’s gone.

Even well-managed logging requires careful planning, time, and ecological assessment. Blanket access to 90% of our forests is not management—it’s ecological negligence.

IV. Recreational and Cultural Loss

National forests are also:

Places of healing, meditation, and outdoor recreation.
Sites for family memories, scientific research, and cultural storytelling.
A part of the American identity—not a commodity to be auctioned off.

To reduce them to profit margins is to betray the public trust.

V. Fire Management: Myths vs. Science

The claim that cutting trees prevents fires is overly simplistic:

Yes, fire needs fuel—but the fuel most responsible is brush and deadfall, not healthy trees.
Clear-cutting removes stabilizing vegetation and exposes the land to rapid undergrowth, which can be even more flammable.
In contrast, controlled burns—practiced for centuries by Indigenous communities—mimic natural cycles and restore balance.

Conclusion: An Order That Cuts More Than Trees

Trump’s executive order opens the door not just to logging, but to a larger erosion of values:

The value of scientific expertise,
The value of Indigenous sovereignty,
The value of biodiversity and public land,
And the value of long-term environmental stewardship over short-term economic gains.

The move is framed as patriotic and practical—but it’s neither.
It’s an act of environmental vandalism, cloaked in economic nationalism, blind to science, and deaf to Indigenous wisdom.

We must ask:
Who really benefits from cutting down 90% of our national forests?
And who pays the price?