The Surprising Truth About Logging: Environmental Benefits and Economic Realities
The immense value of forest ecosystems cannot be overstated. Covering approximately one-third of the United States, these vital landscapes provide clean water and air, absorb carbon dioxide that warms the planet, offer habitat for endangered wildlife, and serve as peaceful recreational spaces for hunting and fishing. It is precisely for these reasons that environmental advocates strongly opposed a plan announced by the Trump administration last spring.
Trump's Executive Action and Emergency Declaration
In early March, through an executive action, former President Donald Trump directed his administration to significantly increase logging activities in public forests, including those managed by the US Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management. Trump argued that failing to fully exploit forests for timber weakens economic security, degrades fish and wildlife habitats, and increases the risk of catastrophic wildfires.
A month later, Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins, who also oversees the US Forest Service, declared an unexpected emergency across more than half of the agency's forests, citing threats from wildfires, diseases, and other dangers. This emergency declaration allows the USFS to conduct logging with far fewer environmental restrictions.
These moves provoked strong reactions from environmental groups. Robert Dewey, former Vice President of government relations at Defenders of Wildlife, stated last spring, "The Trump administration is brazenly sacrificing our forests and the species that depend on them. There is no legitimate reason or emergency to justify rubberstamping logging projects." Critics labeled the emergency declaration a gift to the timber industry.
Logging Isn't Always the Environmental Villain
At first glance, the administration's logging push appears to be a recipe for environmental disaster. However, concerns often overlook two crucial points. First, logging is not always the environmental boogeyman it is portrayed to be. Many public forests are not in a natural state due to decades of misguided fire suppression and extensive post-World War II logging. This has resulted in dense forests with trees of similar age, making them vulnerable to intense wildfires and pest infestations.
Selective logging or thinning—removing some trees while leaving others—can actually enhance forest health. In thinned forests, trees experience less competition for water and sunlight, increasing their resilience to drought and beetles, while reducing the destructiveness of fires, according to Mark Ashton, a professor of silviculture and forest ecology at Yale University.
Indigenous Americans have long understood this, practicing thinning through controlled burns for thousands of years to prevent fuel buildup. In the absence of industrial logging and fire suppression, forests can self-thin naturally. Additionally, logging, and even clear-cutting in some cases, can mimic natural disturbances that shape forest ecosystems. For instance, many Western forests, like those dominated by lodgepole pine, evolved with fires that eliminate large tracts of trees, with some cones only releasing seeds during a fire. Strategic clear-cutting followed by burning can emulate this process while producing usable timber.
"It's gotten a bad rap, but, I mean, basically you're emulating a natural process," said Todd Morgan, a forest industry researcher at the University of Montana, regarding strategic clear-cuts.
The Economic Reality Behind Trump's Timber Push
Regardless of logging's potential impacts, Trump's plan to expand timber production on public lands faces significant economic challenges. A major obstacle is the lack of logging infrastructure near public forests. After World War II, the US intensively logged its national forests, primarily in the American West. By the late 20th century, environmental regulations and conservation efforts shifted most logging to private lands with fewer protections.
Today, around 90 percent of timber comes from private forests, including tree plantations concentrated in the southeastern US. Consequently, there are few operational sawmills near public forests, and many of these forests are remote and difficult to access. "There's just not going to be an easy route for getting those logs out of the woods into a mill at a cheap price," said Brent Sohngen, an environmental economist at Ohio State University.
Building new mills is expensive and only viable if public lands remain open to substantial exploitation long-term, which is uncertain given changing policies. Environmental regulations like the Endangered Species Act and the National Environmental Policy Act also pose hurdles, as timber harvest proposals on public lands often face litigation.
Perhaps the biggest impediment is low demand for timber. The US housing market is stagnant due to high interest rates, driven in part by inflation exacerbated by the Trump administration's policies. Additionally, countries like China are importing fewer logs from the US due to retaliatory tariffs. Should demand rise, private forests can easily increase production, while logging on federal lands may require taxpayer subsidies, offering little economic incentive.
The Very Big Caveat: Loss of Expertise and Safeguards
Despite these obstacles, public lands will likely see increased timber harvesting under Trump. Responsible logging requires smart planning, experienced personnel, and resources—elements the Trump administration has undermined. Last year, the US Forest Service lost at least 5,800 of its approximately 35,000 employees, including over 20 percent of its PhD scientists. The administration also moved the agency's headquarters from Washington, DC, to Utah and closed 57 of its 77 research facilities.
"Here's my worry: Where are all the foresters in the forest service?" Ashton remarked last fall. "The whole institution has been gutted. That's ominous. If you want to manage these forests sustainably, you have to have the knowledge and technical professionalism to do it right." Managing forests without adequate staff and research is like "trying to fly a plane without a pilot," added Martin Dovciak, a forest ecologist at the State University of New York.
Simultaneously, the administration is attempting to rescind the Roadless Rule, which protects wilderness and old-growth forests from logging. Logging in these areas could be environmentally disastrous and economically unsound. The administration has also sought to bypass safeguards, such as potentially convening the God Squad to override the Endangered Species Act for logging plans.
In response to inquiries, a Forest Service spokesperson emphasized that active forest management, including logging, helps reduce threats from wildfires, insects, disease, and drought. The Interior Department stated that under Trump's leadership, it is committed to supporting the timber industry to boost supply chains, clear dead timber, and protect communities from wildfires. However, experts remain concerned about the administration's environmental priorities.
"I do not doubt that there are still going to be good people left in the agency who are going to try to do the best they can under the circumstances," Dovciak said. "But the circumstances are getting worse. I really worry about that."
