When I first started reading this E&E News piece
More than a month after the Senate confirmed Michael Boren as an Agriculture Department undersecretary overseeing the Forest Service, the Trump administration won’t say when he’ll actually step into the job. Instead, USDA said, Boren remains in a temporary position at the Interior Department as an acting assistant secretary for policy, management and budget that doesn’t require Senate confirmation.
I thought “what’s the problem? Chief Schultz seems to have a good handle on what’s going on and much work got done during the shutdown. Does he need political oversight? Would Boren be an asset (representing the FS to USDA) or a political shifter with the wind, or just lead to Secretary-Chief miscommunication and confusion? Boren is no Jim Hubbard, experience-wise. Maybe it’s better this way.
Uncertainty around Boren’s status continues to swirl within the Forest Service, two current employees told POLITICO’s E&E News. The ambiguity comes as USDA faces a reorganization that might ultimately pull some or all of the forest agency into Interior and make it more political in nature. Employees who discussed the situation at the Forest Service were granted anonymity because they’re not authorized to speak with reporters. Asked whether Boren has been or is scheduled to be sworn in as undersecretary, a USDA spokesperson said in an email, “Mr. Boren is currently serving on a temporary basis within the Department of Interior.”
****
Outside organizations that work with the Forest Service said they’ve seen no indication Boren has taken on the USDA duties.
Republican lawmakers were eager to see Boren step into the USDA position as wildfire season was settling in and the administration was seeking to increase the pace and scale of forest management. At the nomination hearing, committee Chair John Boozman (R-Ark.) said lawmakers would look to Boren to quickly implement the “Fix Our Forests Act,” a forest management bill that’s passed in committee and awaits action by the full Senate. “Your leadership and background will be critical in ensuring the Forest Service is efficient and effective in carrying out the critical job of the mission area,” Boozman said at the hearing.
“His leadership and background will be critical”.. those are just political buzzwords. The FS has been following and testifying on FOFA since long before Boren was a gleam in whomever’s eye.
The delay leaves the Forest Service without the political appointee who would typically be the direct channel to the Agriculture secretary. Kristin Sleeper remains deputy undersecretary for natural resources and environment, a position not subject to Senate confirmation.
Kristin has worked for the Forest Service, BLM and the State of Montana as well as NAFO, but perhaps doesn’t carry the political weight of a contributor like Boren. Still, last Trump Admin we had Jim Hubbard (former State Forester), and there have been several Undersecs who worked in States (Harris Sherman, DNR Director) or came from Congressional Staffs.. Mark Rey, Jim Lyons. Seems like there is potentially a deep field to choose from.
As undersecretary for natural resources and environment, Boren’s responsibilities — once sworn in — will be solely over the Forest Service. A reorganization during the first Trump administration switched conservation programs from the NRE mission area to a farm programs mission area.
The Trump administration has sought to blur the lines between the Interior Department and the Forest Service, although the two agencies have long cooperated on wildfire management, for instance. The administration has proposed moving wildfire management entirely into Interior, and there’s narrow support in Congress — mainly from Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chair Mike Lee of Utah — for moving the entire Forest Service there. Having Boren in place at the Interior Department could help facilitate the migration of the Forest Service, either in pieces or wholesale, according to former senior USDA employees.
I’m not sure that I agree that “the Trump Admin has sought to blur the lines”. Some R’s want to move the FS to Int, but then so do some D’s like Megafire Action. I totally understand where they are coming from, it’s very rational. At the same time, there’s only so much change people can handle at once, and much low-lying fruit of coordination that would only take some focused attention to achieve.
Just like the last Admin, there are varying forces with varying druthers battling it out for dominance. And forces in Interior have always had eyes on the FS, either by piecemeal action (e.g. Great Basin National Park) or wholesale.
In fact, if we go back to this 1994 (!) piece in High Country News
Babbitt also said he is the first secretary of Interior who doesn’t harbor an ambition to snatch the Forest Service back into Interior.
It is an interesting story, how much has changed in the last 30 years and how much.. not.
This statement of Babbitt’s seems a bit hyperbolic..
At his press conference, Babbitt told the reporters, “The most under-reported story is how the Forest Service and Interior came together to make the Northwest forest plan. Compare it to the 1980s, when the Forest Service, the BLM and the Fish and Wildlife Service were standing in separate corners in Judge Dwyer’s courtroom blaming each other for gridlock. Now, the federal boundaries have literally been erased in Washington, Oregon and northern California.”
Perhaps this is the first use of the term “literally” to mean “not literally?”
********
Back to the story..
All leadership roles at the Forest Service are presently considered nonpolitical, career jobs. But the administration in September announced that President Donald Trump had appointed two people to the agency with the open-ended title of “senior adviser.”
Like I said, I do remember political folks showing up in the WO during the Clinton Admin, don’t remember any in the Bush Admin (but perhaps they were there and I wasn’t interacting with them). I’m curious as to whether there were any during the Obama, Biden or Trump I Administrations. Anyone remember?
Boren has a contentious history with the FS and some of his neighboring Idaho land owners for constructing an airstrip within (presumambly the exterior boundaries of) a national recreation area and constructing an unauthorized cabin on FS land.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/03/climate/michael-boren-agriculture-nominee-idaho-airstrip.html (might be paywalled)
As Sharon points out, Schultz seems to be navigating some very choppy waters reasonably well so far. Also Rollins appears to be an energetic and ambitious USDA secretary; it isn’t clear she needs much help from an undersecretary either. Assuming Boren has generated some trepidation among FS employees and perhaps some private landowners as well, I can see why the administration would be in no hurry to move forward with this nomination.
Friends, my recent contacts with Folks at the Forest Supervisor level and above leave me, as a non-USDA citizen whom 55 years of discussion of Forest Management and friendships with folks who had to make the decisions, have given a deep affection and respect for the people who don’t talk about how to do it… They do it. As a citizen, thank you.
— As a former manager of personnel, my admiration and sympathy for the Service managers, who have to stay ahead of the breaking wave, but also do what they can for their staff in a hostile workplace.
In the middle of this I call up with worries about the reach and stealth of the Mountain Planning Service Group, and when MPSG’s finished work is laced with false statements. It’s a bad situation. But in there times it is not top of the list.
— Replies from the FS to citizen commenters used always to conclude, “Tour continued interest in Forest Management is appreciated.” Let me return that appreciation!
— I’ve worked with the public lands and their stewards, and with Congress for a while. When there is so much uncertainty it’s hard to keep belief in anything. But I bet the recurring fantasy of a Department of Natural Resources will Not happen. a
— This,. too shall pass. Persevere.
— Phil Hocker –
Jackson, WY and Alexandria, VA.
Hi Phil, who or what is the Mountain Planning Service Group?
My understanding is that it is a staff created during the Biden administration when BIL and IIJA helped fund the hiring and development of a planning superstructure under Chris French to tackle larger/complex planning efforts such as Forest Plan Revision on various forests throughout the agency.
Thanks, Mike! I had heard of those staffs, but I didn’t understand exactly whether it was one national group, or several super-Regional groups.
to Mike D – from Phil Hocker: Thanks, Mike. That matches what I know, as far as it goes.
The MPSG appears to have its home in R-2. I must be asking the wrong questions, because I can’t seem to get past that. “AI” answers complicate finding anything nowadays, because they never say, “Gee, I dunno.” But the answers are wrong.
I understand that staff in a Forest office have many demands on their time, and it’s hard to get long-term projects done when the emergency of the day can break your workflow. The “Assessment” that MPSG released this Summer for the Bridger-Teton NFMA Plan Revision has many errors of fact. The B-T has Zero planning staff of its own. Supervisor Chad Hudson assures me the ‘phone calls he and other S.O. folks have with MPSG in Fort Collins are enough.
But removing planners and their work from the “front-lines” at the Forest being planned creates problems. The MPSG document factory cranks out ignorant mistakes. Some are minor, but the “Supplemental Assessment Information…” issued July 2025 states the Teton County (Wyoming) Commissioners “approved a motion to recommend the WSAs [established by the Wyoming Wilderness Act of 1984 on the B-T and C-T] be released for multiple use.” That is false. The link in the text ties to a Staff Draft for the Commissioners. If the MPSG author (Not named, as seems to be typical) had the academic rigor check the Minutes of that BCC meeting, she/he would have found that the Resolution adopted was quite different from the staff draft.
If someone is to prepare an NFMA Plan Revision, the position of the County Commission is important. If the next authors for the B-T work from an Assessment so wrong in a key area of Forest Management – and an issue with history in Jackson Hole that predates Bob Marshall – the B-T will be stuck with a document that does not help them at all.
I worked hard on the First round of NFMA plans in Northwest Wyoming. Then… time passed. Is a fifteen-year Revision Cycle the right period? I’m not sure, but it’s the law. The Shoshone got its first Revision done in 2014. I had objected to some points, but I congratulated Supervisor Joe Alexander for finally getting it done. There was no NPSG involved.
Is the actual keystroking, the writing, done in MPSG offices? Or, does the Group subcontract to non-USDA commercial groups?
This is the sort of question I am troubled by. Thanks for sharing anything you all know. John Haber has done some nice study on this. Hope for the best. — Persevere,Phil Hocker
“I thought “what’s the problem? Chief Schultz seems to have a good handle on what’s going on and much work got done during the shutdown.” That doesn’t seem to fit with this: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/682782f2a74ed97f7aa5152e/t/6903d8e5e156c029545a838e/1761859813133/GWF+Memo+on+Declines+in+Wildfire+Preparedness+Oct+2025.pdf?
A. I’ve covered this already.. and the WaPo story on it. https://forestpolicypub.com/2025/11/03/why-are-some-regions-still-doing-so-well-digging-into-the-grassroots-wildland-firefighters-report-and-the-wapo-story/
Again, my question was “why couldn’t Grassroots have waited until the end of the year to make comparisons?”- as you can tell by the data, fall and winter are seasons for PF. and I agree with the professor quoted in the WaPo article, “the acres are probably going to be down and lack of employees contributed” abut why not wait until we can see the whole story? And why were some Regions apparently doing so well and others not?