I was trying to find the other Timber Executive Order and ran across this by Snopes.
It’s supposed to be a fact check. Snopes claims
We are the internet’s go-to source for discerning what is true and what is total nonsense. Before you scroll further, a few tips on how to “snopes”:
So what did they say about the Executive Order?
The order allows federal agencies to bypass environmental protection laws in an effort to increase production but doesn’t call for clear-cutting.
It doesn’t take a Ph.D. in government to know that Admins can’t bypass statutes just by issuing EOs. There is the whole “separation of powers” thing, that we learned about in high school.
What’s TrueTrump signed an executive order allowing federal permitting agencies to ignore environmental protection laws in an effort to increase domestic timber and lumber production. The executive order also calls for expanding domestic logging production on federal lands.
What’s False
The executive order does not directly call for 280 million acres of national forests and other protected public lands to be clear-cut.
(my bold)
Which may remind you of the Murray Gell-Mann Amnesia effect (according to Wikipedia):
Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray’s case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the “wet streets cause rain” stories. Paper’s full of them.
In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.
That is the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect. I’d point out it does not operate in other arenas of life. In ordinary life, if somebody consistently exaggerates or lies to you, you soon discount everything they say. In court, there is the legal doctrine of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, which means untruthful in one part, untruthful in all. But when it comes to the media, we believe against evidence that it is probably worth our time to read other parts of the paper. When, in fact, it almost certainly isn’t. The only possible explanation for our behavior is amnesia.
— Michael Crichton, “Why Speculate?” (2002)[2]
Snopes has long been nothing but a left-wing political organization that goes after anything they politically disagree with (Trump being their long time nemesis). They are no longer a reliable source for skeptics or people tracking down urban legends.
Remember when Snopes went after the Babylon Bee for being misinformation! For those that don’t know, the Babylon Bee is a parody/humorous/satire website leaning right, and whose motto is “Fake News You Can Trust”.
Your snoops article was much ado about nothing. The use of the word bypass verses the word ignore will have the same effect. Snoops states that it does not include clear cutting. So you must have clearly misread and misunderstood it.
Here’s what the EO says..
5(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
It didn’t say “bypass” or “ignore”. I stand by my reading.
Maybe it boils down to whether Categorical Exclusions are “part of NEPA” or a path around its core requirements?
I just feel that Commercial Thinning is the line where Categorical Exclusions are drawn. An EA for Commercial Thinning isn’t really an obstacle to getting work done. CE for non-commercial thinning is fine with me. Yes, CEs are part of NEPA. That much is obvious.
Hope these links work for folks. Sorry if it is a double-up.
U.S. Timber Production; Expansion Efforts (EO 14225) to be published 03/06/25 pdf
https://www.federalregister.gov/public-inspection/2025-03695/us-timber-production-expansion-efforts-eo-14225
Timber, Lumber, and Derivative Products; Efforts To Address National Security Threat From Imports (EO 14223) to be published 03/06/25 pdf
https://www.federalregister.gov/public-inspection/2025-03693/timber-lumber-and-derivative-products-efforts-to-address-national-security-threat-from-imports-eo
Executive Orders
https://www.federalregister.gov/presidential-documents/executive-orders
USDA
https://www.usda.gov/about-usda/policies-and-links/departmental-directives
Was this supposed to cast doubt on Snopes in general based on a sample of 1? Maybe this was just a bad mismatch of a topic and a reporter. I have encountered enough articles where I know more about the material than the reporter to know it makes sense to never do anything important based on what one reporter says.
It’s also possible that the terms “bypass” and “ignore” were not intended to be taken literally or legally, but to convey the broader intent. I wouldn’t look to Snopes for legal interpretations.