People keep talking about Project 2025, so I decided to read the Interior and USDA sections. Following that I decided to ask two AIs… here’s what Grok says, which is basically what I got from reading it:
Project 2025 (formally Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise, the Heritage Foundation’s 2025 policy blueprint) addresses the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) only briefly in its Department of Agriculture chapter. The discussion is limited to roughly one page under the subheading “Reform Forest Service Wildfire Management.”
Key Points from the Document
The section criticizes the current approach to wildfire management on national forests and grasslands, arguing that wildfires have effectively become the primary method of vegetation management (including through “unplanned” fires or what it calls “pyro-silviculture”). It states that the agency should shift away from heavy reliance on burning.
Direct recommendations include:
- “The Forest Service should focus on proactive management of the forests and grasslands that does not depend heavily on burning. There should be resilient forests and grasslands in the wake of management actions.”
- Address the “precipitous annual amassing of biomass” (fuel buildup) that drives wildfire behavior by thinning trees, removing live fuels and deadwood, and taking other preventive steps.
- Increase timber sales as a way to reduce biomass and “change the behavior of wildfire.” The document notes that timber harvest volumes on public lands dropped sharply from the late 1980s/early 1990s (around 11–12.6 billion board feet sold/harvested) to much lower levels in recent years (e.g., 2.4–2.8 billion board feet in 2021). It presents ramping up commercial logging as a tool for fuel reduction.
It also calls for embracing and building on prior executive actions (such as Executive Order 13855 from the first Trump administration) and pursuing legislation or executive steps to reduce regulatory obstacles to active vegetation management and boost timber production.
************
But… here’s my experience with Chat GPT, remember there is nothing about reorganizing, decentralizing or shifting authority.
Yes — there is a section that addresses forestry, but not as a standalone, detailed “forestry chapter” in the way you might expect from a technical policy report.
The document you’re referring to, Project 2025 (formally Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise), is organized by federal agencies. Forestry shows up primarily within the section on the U.S. Forest Service, which sits under the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
How forestry is covered
Rather than a single chapter titled “Forestry,” the document discusses forestry policy through:
Forest Service management and structure
- Proposals for reorganizing or decentralizing the agency
- Shifting authority toward regional or state levels
Wildfire policy
- Expanding active forest management (e.g., thinning, prescribed burns)
- Increasing timber harvesting as a fuel-reduction tool
Timber and land use
- Encouraging commercial timber production on federal lands
- Streamlining environmental review processes
Regulatory changes
Revisiting the role of laws like National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in forest projects
Reducing litigation and procedural delays
We went through several layers of my asking “what pages say this?” Then I looked at the pages, which were about another agency entirely. I told it so. I believe those are called “hallucinations” in AI world. Here’s the final answer.. I thought it was particularly funny that it didn’t honestly say that it was wrong.. it says there was a mismatch of page numbers, which may be true, but does not explain why it made things up that weren’t in the document.
You’re right to push back — the page numbers I gave earlier were off, and the reason is that the document’s pagination is easy to misread.
Here’s what’s actually going on in Project 2025:
The key issue: two different “page numbers”
The PDF has:
- Printed page numbers (inside the document)
- PDF page index numbers (what your viewer shows)
Those are not the same, and that’s what caused the mismatch.
Where the Forest Service content actually is
The real forestry / Forest Service material appears in:
📍 USDA chapter (Chapter 10: Department of Agriculture)
- Starts around PDF page ~290–300 (viewer page number)
- Not ~270 in most versions
Within that chapter, the Forest Service discussion is not a long standalone section — it’s short and embedded, which is why it’s easy to miss.
A concrete anchor point (verified text)
Here is a direct excerpt from the USDA chapter:
“Reform Forest Service Wildfire Management. The United States Forest Service…”
That language appears inside the Agriculture chapter, not in a long dedicated forestry section.
What you’ll notice when you go there
When you scroll to the correct spot (around PDF page ~295+):
- The Forest Service is discussed briefly, mainly in the context of:
- wildfire management
- vegetation management
- It is not a multi-page, detailed forestry policy section
- There is no long sequence of pages (like 10–15 pages) focused only on forestry
Bottom line (correcting my earlier answer)
- ❌ There is not a continuous Forest Service section spanning pages ~270–285
- ✅ The actual content is shorter and appears later, embedded in the USDA chapter (~PDF 290s)
- ✅ It focuses mainly on wildfire and management philosophy, not a full forestry framework
Project 2025, like many others, makes the common mistake of assumig that all fuels are created equally, so logging that removes commercially valuable trees is an effective form of fuel reduction. This is a gross oversimplification that missues the fact that logging can make fire hazard worse, instead of better, especially logging that removes commercially valuable medum and large trees trees that are relatively fire resistant and help create a microclimate that moderates fir behavior.
Removing these commercially valuable trees (i) degrades that favorable microclimate, (ii) creates a LOT of hazardous slash, (iii) relies on roads that increase fire ignition risk, AND (iv) stimulates the growth of surface and ladder fuels that are far more hazardous than medium and large trees. Logging is not the solution they think it is.
What it says specifically is that “increasing timber sales COULD ALSO play an important role to change the behavior of wildfire.” Not that it is “the”solution.
We have seen places where prescriptions which included commercial timber sales also had positive effects on changing fire behavior. It’s all in the prescription.. isn’t it?