There has been no Executive Order (EO) regarding wildfires that has been issued yet, but the National Wildfire Alliance (NWA, formerly NWI) submitted a proposal several weeks ago, including a cover letter and request to President Trump signed by 15 wildfire experts, including several with many decades of USFS and wildfire fighting experience.
(Note: I can’t control the bolded text or acronyms. Here is the link to the referenced and indexed 37-minute video of the edited testimonies of 15 NWA experts, several of whom have also signed the following cover letter to their proposal: https://youtu.be/UPg61jDRd94)
To: Donald J. Trump, President of the United States
Dear President Trump,
The National Wildfire Alliance (NWA) is a coalition of experts with decades of experience in wildfire and forest management. Our affiliates include organizations and citizens who share our concerns about the accelerating degradation of our nation’s forests, prairies, rangelands and rural economies.
In recent years, US wildfires have killed hundreds of citizens while countless thousands more continue to die from deadly smoke toxicity. Billions in taxpayer dollars have fueled the destruction of trillions in public and private property, including 100 million forested acres and thousands of homes. These fires also damage critical wildlife habitat and key watershed needed for clear water supplies. This devastation was predictable, documented, and largely preventable.
In response to the continued escalation of unrelenting fire, NWA has declared a National Wildfire Emergency in 2025 to advocate and implement real and lasting solutions. This video testimony features insights and critical information from NWA leadership.
The following executive order is crucial for the restoration of rational wildfire policy and operations across the nation. Decades of politically driven agendas have led to soaring economic costs and human suffering. This crisis will only escalate unless we take urgent action now!
Mr. President, your recent visits to the Southern California fires and the Camp Fire underscore the urgent need for an Emergency Order to protect our federal lands and ensure nationwide commitment to prioritize: First put out the fire!
NWA stands ready to provide data-driven insights and essential guidance in support of effective forest restoration and wildfire emergency response. Our commitment is to help regenerate healthy forests through proven strategies that mitigate risks.
In service to our great nation,
National Wildfire Alliance (NWA)*
/s/William A. Derr, President, National Wildfire Alliance (NWA)* USFS, Special Agent in Charge [ret.]
/s/ Michael T. Rains, Deputy Chief, USDA Forest Service [ret.]
/s/ Ray Haupt, Siskiyou County Supervisor CA RPF #2938, USFS District Ranger [ret.]
/s/Jen Hamaker, President, Oregon Natural Resource Industries
/s/ Philip S. Aune, Retired USFS Research Program Manager
/s/ Ted Stubblefield, [ret.] Forest Supervisor Fire Quals: Type I Command
/s/ Nadine Bailey, COO Family Water Alliance J
/s/James A. Marsh, e -PEAK LLC “A Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business” “
/s/Anton R. Jaegel, USFS District Engineer [ret.] County Supervisor, Trinity Co. CA [ret.]
/s/Bob Zybach, PhD. Program Manager, ORWW
/s/ Jim Petersen, Founder, Evergreen Foundation
/s/ Chuck Sheley, Editor, Smokejumper Magazine
*National Wildfire Alliance, Formerly NWI
Cc: Elon Musk, Department of Government Efficiency Secretary of Agriculture
National Wildfire Alliance Executive Order 2025*
EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. [INSERT NUMBER]
BOLD ACTION TO COMBAT CATASTROPHIC WILDFIRE & REFORM FEDERAL LAND MANAGEMENT POLICIES
By the authority vested in me as President of the United States by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in recognition of the unprecedented wildfire crises devastating communities, natural ecosystems, and economies across the country, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Policy and Purpose
Wildfires have grown in frequency, intensity, and destructiveness, endangering the lives, properties, and livelihoods of countless Americans. This crisis demands immediate, bold, and coordinated federal action to mitigate risks, prevent disasters, and ensure the resilience of our landscapes and communities. Inefficient federal land management practices, coupled with the accumulation of hazardous fuels, have exacerbated this crisis. To protect public safety, preserve natural resources, and mitigate environmental degradation, this order establishes a framework for swift and decisive action.
Section 2. Reinstating the 10 a.m. Rule
(a) Federal agencies, including the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture (USDA), shall immediately adopt wildfire suppression strategies prioritizing containment of wildfires by 10:00 a.m. the morning following detection, wherever feasible. (b) Agencies shall employ advanced technologies, satellite-based detection systems, and modern firefighting techniques to achieve this goal.
Section 3. Active Forest and Rangeland Management
(a)The USDA and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) shall implement a comprehensive hazardous fuel reduction program within 90 days, which shall include:
- Identification of all lands that have been deforested by wildfires in the past 25 years;
- Development and implementation of programs to remove remaining hazardous fuels;
- Responsible thinning of overgrown forests;
- Mechanical and hand-fuel treatments;
- Restoration of site adaptive vegetation on lands damaged by wildfire; and
- Targeted grazing and invasive species management;
- Utilization of controlled burns in previously treated areas where fuel loads have been reduced;
- Implementation of prompt salvage and restoration of burned landscapes.
(b) Federal land management agencies shall work collaboratively with state, tribal, and local governments to tailor these measures to regional needs and ensure rapid implementation.
Section 4. Advocacy for Legislative Reforms
(a) The Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with the Attorney General and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, shall propose amendments to the Federal Tort Claims Act and the Tucker Act within 60 days, enabling victims of federally linked wildfires to seek appropriate compensation for damages and losses.
(b) Federal agencies shall review and recommend changes to existing policies that hinder effective wildfire prevention and suppression, ensuring that state and local expertise is prioritized.
Section 5. Emergency Resource Allocation
(a) The Secretary of Homeland Security, through the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), shall allocate additional federal funds to enhance wildfire suppression, evacuation readiness, post-fire recovery, and disaster resilience in affected states. (b) Federal agencies shall prioritize infrastructure hardening projects and ecosystem restoration efforts to mitigate long-term wildfire risks.
Section 6. Public Awareness Campaign
(a) The Department of the Interior and USDA, in partnership with state and local governments, shall launch a nationwide public awareness campaign within 60 days. (b) The campaign shall educate Americans about wildfire risks, prevention strategies, and emergency preparedness, with an emphasis on the role of federal land management in wildfire mitigation.
Section 7. Establishment of a Wildfire Resilience Task Force
(a) A Wildfire Resilience Task Force is hereby established, chaired by the Secretary of the Interior and co-chaired by the Secretary of Agriculture, to coordinate federal, state, tribal, and local efforts. (b) The Task Force shall include representatives from state forestry departments, tribal governments, professional foresters, wildfire suppression experts, and scientists. (c) The Task Force shall submit a report within 120 days detailing innovative, actionable strategies to reform federal land management and address wildfire risks.
Section 8. Accountability and Transparency
(a)Federal agencies shall report quarterly to the President on progress made under this Executive Order, including measurable outcomes related to wildfire suppression, prevention, and recovery. (b) The Office of Management and Budget shall oversee the allocation of funds to ensure that resources are used efficiently and effectively.
Section 9. General Provisions
(a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
- The authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or
- The functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals. (b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
Section 10. Effective Date
This Executive Order is effective immediately.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this [Day] of [Month], [Year], in the year of our Lord [Year], and of the Independence of the United States of America the [Year].
Donald J. Trump, President of the United States
*Formerly National Wildfire Institute (NWI)
Not buying the return of the 10am policy when we all know there are times and places somewhere in the US where there is tremendous opportunity for the use of wildfire to help meet land and resource management objectives. Society accepted the 10am policy during the height of our timber harvesting days. Times and conditions have changed significantly since then and so should we.
We all have been witness to the devastating impacts of full suppression for the last 125 years. It’s no wonder we have highly vulnerable landscapes due to over zealous suppression when in fact the beneficial use/indigenous use of fire is a known antidote to help reduce high severity and high intensity wildfires. The use of Beneficial Fire (Right Fire, Right Place, Right Time) is URGENTLY NEEDED to help our forests receive future low to moderate intensity wildfires. Our fire deficit is huge and will continue to grow much bigger with a return to the 10am policy. We are simply not in a place to return to our short sighted ‘good ole days’.
Hi Kelly: I understand that a lot of people think the 10:00 AM Rule and/or Global Warming is responsible for the great increase in US catastrophic wildfires the past 35 years, so I’m not going to argue with your beliefs.
On the other hand, so-called “Beneficial Fires” are based entirely on personal values, not facts, and the same is true of most folks who talk about “indigenous” fire practices. In those regards, I don’t think you know too much about either topic, based on your other statements and opinions.
I have studied — and reforested — PNW wildfires and fire history for more than 55 years and have written books and received academic credentials on the topics. During my career as a reforestation contractor my crews conducted thousands of acres of “prescribed fires” — which most everyone in the industry considered “beneficial.” They require set boundaries, fuel treatments (“site prep”), and a planned and carefully timed ignition pattern.
Wildfires have none of these three required conditions, and hardly anyone thinks they are “beneficial” under almost all circumstances. They are dangerous, costly, and deadly in almost all circumstances, no matter the rationale.
American Indians burned millions of acres every year before white immigration, and the resulting oak savannas, berry fields, and camas prairies covered millions of acres and formed protective barriers against wild forest fires. These maintained landscapes had an enormous variety of native plant and animal species and, in addition to protecting people and wildlife from wildfire, they also provided abundant food for all of the animals, including people.
Bob –
You have made some unfair assumptions here on my comment. I did not reference “global warming” in my comment; an unfortunate stretch to put that into your comment, but so be it if that’s what you want people to believe. And it was not lost one me that you capitalized Global Warming implying an “Urgent Issue” – thank you!
The use of “Beneficial Fire” was a supported primary theme during our deliberations in the Wildland Fire Mitigation and Management Commission. It includes prescribed fire, cultural use of fire and the use of wildfire to help meet Land and Resource Management Objectives. The concept of beneficial fire, as we were deliberating the pros and cons, is based on solid natural resource science and fire ecology. Clearcutting during the turn of the 20th century; 1000am policy of full suppression of all wildfires beginning in 1935 – almost 100 years of failed fire policy (aggressive suppression of ALL fires); 150 years of second growth stands, in many cases unable to withstand current and future perturbations, has set the stage for unnatural large wildfires defying human intervention no matter the cost or effort.
It’s unfortunate that in a public forum you decided to take a swipe and make a snarky comment about my personal as well as professional integrity stating that “I do not know about these topics”… Having worked for both the USFS and NPS as a full-time federal employee for 35 years (and counting outside my federal experience) and working as the Chief of Fire and Aviation at Yosemite National Park for 14 years before I retired, I can confidently say, and others will affirm, I do know a thing or 2 about beneficial fire and the indigenous fire practice.
Wildfires do have beneficial outcomes and can and do achieve resource and cultural objectives if you choose to reference the research and scientific data supporting the use of large landscape fire for current and future ecosystem health. Fear mongering wildfires to the public and elected officials will not get us to urgently needed climate adaptive landscapes. Not all trees are good; not all fires are bad….
Hi Kelly: First, I sincerely owe you an apology. You are definitely correct that I made an “unfair assumption” and I am also sorry I didn’t recognize or remember your significant practical experience, and apologize for my failure in that regard, too.
So far as putting caps on “Global Warming,” it was probably for the exact seem reason you capitalized “Beneficial Fire.” I have been co-moderator of the Global Warming Realists blog former than a dozen years and treat the topic — including science, politics, and wildfire history of 30 years — as a proper noun.
I will admit to being reactionary when I come across terms such as “beneficial fire” and “indigenous burning” because I have strong concerns with how our language has been distorted in these regards during my lifetime. Other words and phrases that have been concerning to me have been “conservationist,” “forest health,” and “wildlands” — invented acronyms such as WUI, TEK, and HCP only make it worse. George Orwell stuff.
While some people, apparently including yourself, believe that wildfires can be “managed” for “beneficial” outcomes — “it’s an ill wind that blows no good” — I am not one that thinks the proven risks or subsequent rationales are justification for “playing with fire.” FAFO is one acronym that comes to mind.
In summary, I sincerely apologize for being snarky and underestimating your experience, but remain very skeptical about “beneficial fire” and “ecosystem health” supporters — and whether these types of value statements really represent “solid natural resource science and fire ecology,” or are just political statements justifying certain perspectives. Our experiences have led us to entirely different conclusions, and our working vocabularies illustrate that difference.
Kelly – –
I have yet to meet a person who has lost their life or their home or their property from an escaped timber sale!
To qualify fire as “beneficial” is a rhetorical tool. Fire is fire and it can’t be “controlled” even with arrogance.
The successful “indigenous use” of fire is cultural appropriation like much like the crying Indian “Iron Eyes Cody” commercial of the early “earth day’ movement.
Joe –
Okay, nice try at a sarcastic comment that adds little to this conversation.
Can you state for the record that no foresters, cutters or heavy equipment operators have lost their lives while working a clear cutting timber harvest? Crushing accidents? Tree felling? Chainsaw kickbacks? Improper rigging? I’m sure you get my point.
I guess you will have to define your definition of “control”. Do we implement controlled burns? Yes. 99% of prescribed fires go as planned – I think that is a pretty good record:
https://www.fs.usda.gov/inside-fs/leadership/chiefs-desk-reviewing-our-prescribed-fire-program
Will flying be 100% free of accidents and fatalities? How about driving a car?
I’m not following your logic with indigenous use of fire as cultural appropriation… I am merely stating the fact that tribal people have been burning on National Forest lands since time immemorial on lands they consider their ancestral territory. Our society and communities should support the ability for tribal people to burn on federal lands to improve conditions for gathering medicines, teas, basket material, improve hunting grounds and to use fire for ceremonial purposes (just to name a few) without the interference of federal/state government oversight and approvals.
In a First, California Tribe May Freely Burn Its Ancestral Lands
https://e360.yale.edu/digest/california-karuk-tribe-cultural-burns#:~:text=Until%20recently%2C%20tribes%20would%20need,to%20reach%20such%20an%20agreement.
Hi Kelly:
Which “tribal people” do you know that consider National Forests as “ancestral territory,” thereby giving them additional rights or knowledge? And what does that even mean? That there is some kind of genetic ability for some people to acquire skills based on distant ancestry? How about American Indians who have more recent African or European ancestors than Indian? What special skills or privileges have they inherited from those sources?
My name came from my Swiss grandfather. Does that give me the ability to milk cows, or claimed ownership of the family’s alpine pastures? Of course not. I have more numerous ancestors that arrIved by Oregon Trail in 1851 and 1852 and have never been in a covered wagon. However, I have done significant research for several Tribes regarding historical landscape conditions during the time of their ancestors eight and 10 generations ago, in the 1700s and early 1800s. Most of their more immediate ancestors have been loggers, ranchers, and farmers — not basket weavers, camas bakers, or prescribed burners.
That being said, I think all federal lands within or adjacent to reservations should be turned over to the relevant Tribes without restriction — as if these lands really do belong to “sovereign nations.” For similar reasons, I think other federal lands within counties and states, and otherwise outside reservations, should be returned to local control. At the very least,I think BLM and USFS supervisors should be on equal footing with local elected representatives when it comes to making management and planning decisions on our public lands. And that residents of other states have similar responsibilities for their own lands.
You put a smile on my face today as I pictured you milking cows! Many of us long for a simpler life and if that’s what draws you to your roots, I would say go for it!
The Land Back movement is a very interesting Indigenous-led campaign that I can get behind as tribal people advocate for the return of decision-making power and, in some cases, actual land ownership of ancestral territories. A very laudable aim to restore Indigenous sovereignty, self-determination, and stewardship over lands that were taken through colonization. You are not too far off with stating some of our federal lands belong to sovereign nations.
Fix Our Forest Act – You will likely find some sections in this bill you may like
https://www.congress.gov/119/bills/hr471/BILLS-119hr471eh.pdf
Thanks for your comments/10-7
10-4 Kelly: In a separate response you note that: “The more I discuss the importance of beneficial fire with communities, the more I see people nodding in agreement, recognizing how crucial it is to strike a balance between fire suppression and allowing fire to fulfill its natural role in the ecosystem. Fire has always been an essential part of our landscapes, and that will never change. Using fire to achieve positive outcomes is here to stay.”
The fact is, when one is preaching to the choir, yes, they mostly “nod along in agreement.” However, if you were peddling that perspective to the choir I sing in, you would be getting mostly frowns and people shaking their heads “no.” And the choir seems to be growing daily lately, and maybe in large part due to the statements of the new administration.
I’m not sure of your vision of the “natural role of fire in the ecosystem,” but I have always believed in people being actively involved in that process. Which makes your concluding statement of: “Using fire to achieve positive outcomes is here to stay” so confusing. Kelly, it’s been that way for more than 50,000 years, and you are just stating the obvious.
Kelly – –
Thanks for your response to my comment. You understand that the purpose of sarcasm is to mock, and, in this case, it is to mock the empress with her new clothes. There is no such thing as a plume dominated timber sale, backing timber sale or a wind driven timber sale. Unlike fire.
Tree cutting in all its forms is forest management for which employees (foresters, loggers and machine operators) work on for remuneration. Any loss of life is a tragedy, it is regrettable and of course some have lost their lives from industrial accidents. However, those individuals knowingly chose a high hazard occupation for which they were compensated for. That is why there are occupational safety and health agencies. This though is quite different from civilian life loss and private property destruction brought on by government agencies for either igniting “controlled burns” or failing to quickly suppress wildfires. So, the point you try to make is tangential.
The “pretty good” record has caused billions of dollars in damage to our rural communities and in the last 22 years (2000 – 2022) $6.5 billion (Cerro Grande, Cerro Pelado, Hermits Peak/Calf Canyon) alone in New Mexico and that is only because the government could not pass the “red face” test and claim the discretionary function exception.
The Forest Service fire statistic of 99.84 % of “controlled” burns reminds me of the Ivory soap commercial of 99 44/100 pure. Both advertising! Peering behind the numbers of the fallacious statistics of 2022 are the multi-billion-dollar problems – Hermits Peak/Calf Canyon and the Cerro Peldo fires just on one national forest.
Wildfire risk whether from lightening, arson or “beneficial” “controlled burning” is not a risk society wants to take, unlike aviation or driving, which are both individual risks. The unacceptable societal risk is because of the widespread damage, potential loss of life and the air pollution which affects long-term health and well-being. All societal impacts.
For a physical phenonomen “pretty good” does not cut it! The United States has not constructed one nuclear power plant since Three Mile Island and that incident was hardly a meltdown. Yet, the public has little confidence in the nuclear energy industry. The same with, as you call it, beneficial burning, there is no social license.
The cultural appropriation comes from your statement of “beneficial use/indigenous use” as if all indigenous use of fire was as “controlled” as the former Forest Service Chief states. You do recognize that the myth of indigenous/archaic fire is just that, a myth. Like Iron Eyes Cody and his tear.
Nice form Joe! I like how you try even harder with your entertaining reply to me.
The more I discuss the importance of beneficial fire with communities, the more I see people nodding in agreement, recognizing how crucial it is to strike a balance between fire suppression and allowing fire to fulfill its natural role in the ecosystem. Fire has always been an essential part of our landscapes, and that will never change. Using fire to achieve positive outcomes is here to stay. Thank you for sharing your thoughts – 10-7
Nice form Joe! I like how you try even harder with your entertaining reply to me.
The more I discuss the importance of beneficial fire with communities, the more I see people nodding in agreement, recognizing how crucial it is to strike a balance between fire suppression and allowing fire to fulfill its natural role in the ecosystem. Fire has always been an essential part of our landscapes, and that will never change. Using fire to achieve positive outcomes is here to stay. Thank you for sharing your thoughts – 10-7
Touché Kelly, enjoy your 10-7! Let us know when you are 10-8
Best