May 7, 2025
(Montana Free Press)
–
Taking aim at “climate ideologies antithetical to the American way of life,” President Donald Trump’s proposed 2026 federal budget would reduce spending on public lands, shift some national park facilities and forest management to states, and consolidate federal wildland firefighting into a new service inside the
Department of the Interior
.
Trump wants to spend about
$1.7 trillion
next year, with
$1.1 trillion
of that going to military defense. Overall the proposal reduces non-defense discretionary federal spending by
$163 billion
, or 22.6% compared to last year. At the same time, it allocates
$175 billion
in new spending for the
Department of Homeland Security
to “at long last, fully secure our border,” according to the budget proposal.
If
Congress
approves the proposed budget, the cuts would go into effect on
Oct. 1
, when the federal fiscal 2026 budget year begins. However,
Congress
has routinely rejected controversial elements of presidential budgets from both Republican and Democratic administrations. Trump’s proposal would bring domestic spending to its lowest level in decades.
Those cuts could have particular impact on the Rocky Mountain West, where the federal government oversees huge swaths of national forests and grasslands, underground mineral resources, parks and wildlife refuges, and vital public infrastructure.
The Interior Department
would take an overall
$3.8 billion
reduction from its 2025 budget of
$18 billion
. That includes a
$1.2 billion
cut to
National Park Service
operations,
$724 million
from the
Bureau of Indian Affairs
,
$564 million
from the
U.S.
Geological Service, and
$207 million
from the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
.
However, the Trump “skinny budget” released on Friday does not offer a dollar figure for its proposed Federal Wildland Fire Service.
Its Interior Department
section recommends combining five existing firefighting agencies into one, citing “significant coordination and cost inefficiencies that result in sub-optimal performance … to combat the wildfire crisis.” While the recommendation echoes many of the suggestions found in a draft executive order for a consolidated wildfire service circulating in March, it does not mention that document’s call for full suppression of all wildfires.
The Department of Agriculture
had a
$132 billion
budget in 2025. That included
$5.7 billion
for the
Forest Service
. Trump’s budget recommends
$4.7 billion
in cuts department-wide, including
$1.4 billion
from
Forest Service
activities and research.
On Friday morning,
Office of Management and Budget
Director
Russell Vought
sent the preliminary budget letter to
Senate Appropriations Committee
Chairwoman
Susan Collins
, R-
Maine
.
“The recommended funding levels result from a rigorous, line-by-line review of FY 2025 spending, which was found to be laden with spending contrary to the needs of ordinary working Americans and tilted toward funding niche non-governmental organizations and institutions of higher education committed to radical gender and climate ideologies antithetical to the American way of life,” Vought wrote in the letter. “We also considered, for each program, whether the governmental service provided could be provided better by State or local governments (if provided at all).”
The proposal does not appear to include an anticipated suggestion to sell or transfer federal lands. But in its
Department of Housing and Urban Development
section, the Trump plan calls for a new state-based rental assistance program that “In combination with efforts related to opening up Federal lands … would incentivize States and the private sector to provide affordable housing.”
The
Environmental Protection Agency
would see a
$4.2 billion
reduction, amounting to 54.2% of its 2025 budget.
In its
National Park Service
proposals, the letter calls for prioritizing work at “crown jewel national parks,” but also recommends “transferring smaller, lesser visited parks to State and tribal governments.” While no parks are mentioned by name,
Yellowstone National Park
and
Grand Teton National Park
are among the nation’s top tourist destinations, while places like Little Bighorn National Battlefield or
Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge
might qualify for transfer to state control.
“The President has pledged to manage national forests for their intended purpose of producing timber,” the letter states, adding that the proposed budget would reduce spending where it is “out of step with the practical needs of forest management for timber production.”
The
USDA
section of the proposal also envisions “restoring federalism by empowering States to assume a greater role in managing forest lands within their borders.” But it reduces
Forest Service
salaries by
$342 million
, eliminates the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program’s
$50 million
allocation, and reduces “funding for recreation, vegetation and watershed management, and land management regulation.”
The proposed budget cites “allegations of impropriety” to justify taking
$303 million
away from State, Local, Tribal and NGO Conservation Programs, adding “these partners should be encouraged to fund their own community preparedness and risk mitigation activities.”
USDA
would see increases of
$15 million
for the
Food Safety Inspection Service
and
$74 million
for Rental Assistance Grants. But a number of its other agriculture-related services would take cuts. Those include
$358 million
from the
Farm Service Agency
,
$754 million
from the
Natural Resource Conservation Service
,
$721 million
from
Rural Development
, and
$159 million
from the
Agricultural Research Service
. It eliminates
$602 million
from the
National Institute of Food and Agriculture
, calling those initiatives “wasteful, woke programming … related to climate change, renewable energy and promoting DEI in education.”
The public lands provisions raised many questions among former Forest Service officials.
Mary Erickson
, recently retired supervisor of the
Custer Gallatin National Forest
, said she’d seen many presidential recommended budgets in her 45-year career, but “never one with so much political rhetoric in it.”
Former Helena-Lewis and Clark National Forest Supervisor
Bill Avey
added that some proposals seem to contradict their own intentions. For example, calls to increase timber production on federal lands come alongside cuts to federal timber managers. And the recommendations to give more state authority for timber production, park supervision and wildfire control occur in budget cuts to state programs.
“In Montana’s [
Department of Natural Resources and Conservation
], in fire they hire 180 firefighters,” Avey said. “The Forest Service puts 1,000 firefighters in
Montana
. The
Forest Service
traditionally had 5,000 employees. DNRC has less than 500. How are they going to manage more land? If you cut funding for the states, are you just going to pass that on to state taxpayers? It’s head-scratching.”
LATEST STORIES
A day before the implementation of Real ID, Secretary of Homeland Security
Kristi Noem
in testimony before the U.S.
House Appropriations Homeland Security Subcommittee
said that a Real ID will not be required to fly on commercial airlines. Noem said that the
Transportation Security Administration
may divert those who are not Real ID-compliant to a different security line for “an extra step.” Noem also confirmed that passports and tribal IDs would be accepted in lieu of Real IDs.
Following Montana Republicans’ dominance in the 2024 election, a group of
GOP
lawmakers kicked off the 2025 Legislature with an unexpected move: ceding power to
Democrats
. The minority took full advantage, remaking legislative committees and banding with a handful of moderate
Republicans
to thwart
GOP
leaders’ efforts to make Montana’s judicial system more partisan. Similar alliances bolstered Medicaid expansion, raised teacher pay and passed a state budget increase that includes investments in affordable housing and health care.
The settlement is a major development in a years-long class action lawsuit regarding the implementation of Indian Education for All.
The views expressed in content distributed by Newstex and its re-distributors (collectively, "Newstex Authoritative Content") are solely those of the respective author(s) and not necessarily the views of Newstex et al. It is provided as general information only on an "AS IS" basis, without warranties and conferring no rights, which should not be relied upon as professional advice. Newstex et al. make no claims, promises or guarantees regarding its accuracy or completeness, nor as to the quality of the opinions and commentary contained therein.
* All content is copyrighted by Industry Intelligence, or the original respective author or source. You may not recirculate, redistribute or publish the analysis and presentation included in the service without Industry Intelligence's prior written consent. Please review our terms of use.