Trump to move Forest Service headquarters from DC to Salt Lake City |…

archived 15 Apr 2026 17:28:43 UTC
mq-lg
MORE

Trump plans to move Forest Service headquarters to Utah and shutter research sites

Trump plans to move Forest Service headquarters to Utah and shutter research sites

President Donald Trump listens to Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins speak during an event with farmers on the South Lawn of the White House, Friday, March 27, 2026, in Washington. (AP Photo/Julia Demaree Nikhinson)
1 of 3 | 
President Donald Trump listens to Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins speak during an event with farmers on the South Lawn of the White House, Friday, March 27, 2026, in Washington. (AP Photo/Julia Demaree Nikhinson)
Updated 12:16 AM UTC, April 1, 2026
Comments 92
SALT LAKE CITY (AP) — President Donald Trump’s administration will move the U.S. Forest Service headquarters out of the nation’s capital to Salt Lake City as part of an organizational overhaul that involves shuttering research facilities in 31 states and concentrating resources in the West, the agency announced Tuesday.
Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins said the move, which is expected to be completed by summer 2027, will bring leaders closer to the landscapes they manage and the people who depend on them.
“Effective stewardship and active management are achieved on the ground, where forests and communities are found — not just behind a desk in the capital,” Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz said.
Nearly 90% of National Forest System land is in the West, though Utah is only the 11th-ranked state for national forest coverage, with about 14,300 square miles (37,000 square kilometers).
Advertisement
During his first term, Trump moved the Bureau of Land Management to Colorado, citing many of the same reasons, including a desire to put top officials closer to the public lands they oversee. But it wasn’t long before the Biden administration reversed course, moving BLM headquarters back to Washington, D.C., after two years.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture has been moving thousands of employees out of Washington over the past year and eliminating layers of management as part of Trump’s push to slim down the federal workforce and make it more efficient.
With the move to Utah, about 260 Forest Service positions currently located in Washington are expected to relocate, and 130 workers will stay put, the agency said.
Deputy Agriculture Secretary Stephen Vaden said Salt Lake City stuck out for its reasonable cost of living, proximity to an international airport and the state’s “family-focused way of life.” It’s a Democratic-led capital city in a red state with values rooted in the locally headquartered Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, known widely as the Mormon church.
Advertisement
Utah Gov. Spencer Cox, a Republican, celebrated the move Tuesday as “a big win for Utah and the West,” while environmental groups viewed it as a precursor to the agency’s dismantling.
Taylor McKinnon at the Arizona-based Center for Biological Diversity described the move as “a costly bureaucratic reshuffle” that will put more power in the hands of corporations and states to log, mine and drill public lands.
“National forests belong to all Americans,” said McKinnon, the environmental group’s Southwest director. “Our nation’s capital is where federal policy is made and where the Forest Service headquarters belongs.”
Josh Hicks, conservation campaigns director at The Wilderness Society, predicted that the move will lead to less access to public forests and threats to wildlife habitat, clean water and air.
“At a time when wildfires are getting worse, and access to public lands is already under strain, the last thing we need is an unnecessary reorganization that creates chaos and confusion for the land managers, researchers and wildland firefighters who help keep our forests healthy now and for future generations,” he said.
Advertisement
The Wilderness Society also pointed to Trump’s prior attempt with the BLM, saying that resulted in many staffers leaving who had valuable years of management experience. The group said this could end up hollowing out the Forest Service.
Many regional offices will close in the reorganization, and their services will shift to hubs in New Mexico, Georgia, Colorado, Wisconsin, Montana and California. Instead of maintaining multiple dispersed research stations with their own leadership, the agency will anchor its research at a single location in Fort Collins, Colorado.
The Forest Service said it did not yet know how many workers in regional offices will need to relocate. A spokesperson did not answer whether the transition would involve layoffs.
U.S. Rep. Teresa Leger Fernández, a New Mexico Democrat who sits on the House’s Natural Resources Committee, echoed the idea that it’s the wrong time for upheaval as the Mountain West is facing historically low snowpack, extreme heat and the prospect of a dangerous fire season.
Advertisement
But she expressed cautious optimism that the Forest Service reorganization could be positive if leadership and jobs are ultimately brought closer to New Mexico and other states.
A Republican on the committee, U.S. Rep. Celeste Maloy of Utah, welcomed the move to her state, saying it could improve responsiveness to wildfires and ensure decisions are informed by on-the-ground realities.
The Forest Service’s deputy chief of fire and aviation management, Sarah Fisher, said on a podcast Tuesday that there will be no changes to the agency’s operational firefighting workforce.
___
Montoya Bryan reported from Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Schoenbaum is a national reporter for The Associated Press, based Salt Lake City, Utah. She covers politics, policy and breaking news in the Mountain West and beyond.

Conversation

|

All Comments

    1. Comment by Sturgeonblue.

      National Park or Forest Service land:
      The easiest way to explain the difference is by looking at the goal of each agency:
      National Parks (Preservation): Think of these as "Living Museums." The goal is to keep the land exactly as it is, untouched and "unimpaired," so future generations see the same thing we see today.
      National Forests (Conservation): Think of these as "Working Lands." The goal is "Multiple Use"—balancing nature with human needs like timber, grazing, and more flexible recreation.
      Here are some examples of "Neighbor" pairs where you can literally walk from a Park into a Forest:
      The Yellowstone Complex: Yellowstone NP is surrounded by six different National Forests including Custer Gallatin and Bridger-Teton,
      The Grand Canyon / Kaibab: The Kaibab National Forest borders both the North and South rims of the Grand Canyon.
      The Smokies / Pisgah & Nantahala: Great Smoky Mountains NP is bordered by several forests.
      Olympic NP / Olympic NF: In Washington, the National Forest wraps around the National Park like a donut
      If you see a Brown sign with an Arrowhead, you are in a Park. If you see a Green sign with a Shield, you are in a National Forest.
      This lis not all encompassing, but I hope it offers some clarification.
      • Comment by Spyderman21.

        Solving the water issue is simple. Put more money into research and development for desalinization. The oceans hold plenty of water 👍
        • Reply by toxcrusadr.

          Research? A foreign concept in Washington these days.
      • Comment by Vwkafer.

        The young folks looking for affordable housing much take issue with the comment about reasonable cost of living as they are priced out, can’t afford to buy a house and rents are up. But that really is minor as there is a serious water shortage issue. The Great Salt Lake is drying up and the winds blowing across the dry lake bed will cause serious air quality issues. The Colorado river basin has seen historic low levels in both snow and rain and Lake Powell is almost 200 feet below what would be considered normal. Hydroelectric production may have to end in the near future and water rationing may be necessary as the various states that rely on the Colorado River can’t seem to get their act together.
        Capitalism, uncontrolled will destroy us. Why is there talk of building a Micro Chip factory, which needs large quantities of water, in Arizona? Well there was news recently of restrictions on alpha farm water usage, that alpha being shipped to Saudi Arabia for feed their dairy cows. People living close to the farms have wells running dry and sinking a well deeper costs more then many can afford.
        But then climate change is a hoax, wind turbines drive whales crazy and we have plenty of oil.
        • Reply by ContraryCat.

          I believe the war over water has already quietly begun. If you live in an area with sufficient water, expect to be called on to share. If you live in an area with insufficient water, you will soon be looking to save every drop. As a kid I lived on a rural farm with only a well. No water in the house, every drop had to be carried in. You can bet we saved water, including the gray water because if it didn't rain on the garden, the bathwater was good enough.
        • Reply by T_wes.

          Alpha? Do you mean alfalfa? 😳
      • Comment by SFD295.

        From a veteran wildland and structural firefighter perspective, I support the changes to the wildfire command staff. Moving from a geographic district to a state model simplifies jurisdiction and resource organization for mutual aid. Most wildfire responses are already managed at the state level, so federal resources organized similarly make sense. It should streamline resource requests, getting more firefighters and equipment on scene faster. This is vital, especially when fires are small. Smaller fires equal lower suppression costs, less damage, and fewer injuries/fatalities. The headline about shutting research sites is intentionally misleading; they’re being consolidated where most research personnel are, reducing costs and improving information sharing. Reducing unnecessary Overhead and overall agency bloat is always beneficial. Many federal wildland firefighters feel completely disconnected from agency command. Hopefully, this may help reduce command staff bloat, helping to bridge the gap between frontliners and leadership.
        • Reply by T_wes.

          It is about Trump. If you’re not aware of that by now, you’re not paying attention. While the end result might provide some improvement, that is never the motivation for Trump. It’s about the grift. It’s always about Trump, and grifting. If there’s a way to divert money to benefit Trump or his cabal, he will do it.
        • Reply by SilverGirl.

          According to the USDA announcement, this will not affect the fire management structure: "Under this reorganization, the agency’s Fire and Aviation Management program will retain its existing Geographic Area Coordination Center structure, which remains the backbone of national incident coordination... It will reinforce the unified, national approach essential to effective wildland fire response until the Forest Service’s wildland fire management operations are unified into the U.S. Wildland Fire Service (USWFS) within the Department of the Interior (DOI)."
      Powered by
      0%
      10%
      20%
      30%
      40%
      50%
      60%
      70%
      80%
      90%
      100%