The Ramifications of Logging and Plotting: At What Cost?

Logging industry Plum Creek Northwest Plywood Montana. Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.

The recent threat to end conservation efforts and reverse protections for roadless areas has sparked a sense of urgency and widespread uproar, highlighting a broader movement across the United States. 

Following World War II, the US has stood as a leader in globalization. Globalization, a term to describe the exchange of goods and ideas between different regions of the world, may not seem like a concern; an interconnected world has both economic and social advantages, making it feasible for people to share and relate across borders and boundaries. However, globalization may also bear devastating drawbacks.  

Recently, the Trump administration has been logging federal forests to facilitate the reauthorization of the construction of new roads. In an attempt to increase infrastructure, the president has reversed pivotal protections that government officials previously instated to safeguard our ecosystem. 

A critical question to consider when analyzing the effects of such actions is at what cost? At what cost will we pave new streets while destroying the habitats of organisms? At what cost will we reach our destinations faster while polluting our planet through carbon emissions? At what cost will we participate in an AI revolution while compromising our environment's safe water supply? 

Following these recent developments, the Trump Administration has exemplified its lack of interest in environmental conservation, viewing natural resources as a source of economic gain, while neglecting and attempting to evade scientific knowledge of the inherent role and value of ecosystems, which span a multitude of everyday resources, from access to clean drinking water to protecting our likelihood of contracting fatal diseases. 

In 2001, President Clinton instituted the Roadless Rule, which "established prohibitions on road construction, road reconstruction, and timber harvesting in nearly 60 million acres inventoried roadless areas, with limited exceptions." This legislation effectively halted nearly all logging, road building, and mineral leasing on 58 million acres of national forest lands—its purpose was to protect the existing land by limiting new development. Today, the Roadless Rule applies to nearly 45 million acres of National Forest System lands across the US. 

In 2020, during President Trump's first term, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced a rule to exempt the Tongass National Forest in Alaska from the "2001 Roadless Rule's" protections. This decision allowed for the potential exploitation of the Tongass National Forest—an action that was met with both significant approval from Alaskan state officials who believed that this move would allow for developmental and economic progress, as well as opposition from environmental groups and local citizens. 

However, on Jan. 25, 2023, the Biden-Harris administration reinstated the protection of the 2001 Roadless Rule, stating the "USDA's final rule, announced today, repeals the 2020 Alaska Roadless Rule and restores longstanding roadless protections to 9.37 million acres of roadless areas that support the ecological, economic, and cultural values of Southeastern Alaska," signaling a high prioritization of ecological concerns

On Mar. 1, 2025, Trump passed an executive order titled 'Immediate Expansion of American Timber Production,' as an urgent cry to increase timber output in an attempt to boost the American economy. This order, while potentially beneficial for the economy, again raised concerns about its environmental impact. The president also initiated related directives, such as Executive Order 14192, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation, to "get rid of overcomplicated, burdensome barriers that hamper American business and innovation," prompting the US to produce and subsequently export a significantly larger share of timber. 

Finally, on June 23, 2025, Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins formally rescinded the Roadless Rule, claiming it was "overly restrictive" and an "absurd obstacle," erasing decades of work that had removed "prohibitions on road construction, reconstruction, and timber harvest on nearly 59 million acres of the National Forest System, allowing for fire prevention and responsible timber production."

The Trump administration has committed to acting rapidly in quick phases of implementation and prompt, public comment windows—timeframes for the general public to report written feedback to the government, demonstrating either support, objection or neutrality. According to the Washington Post, “Ninety-six percent of the comments during the U.S. Forest Service's environmental review opposed lifting the existing safeguards.” Additionally, in the Federal Register Volume 86, Number 223 published on Tuesday, November 23, 2021, the USDA found that out of  “Approximately 411,000 comments were received during the development of the Alaska Roadless Rule. The large majority of comments supported retaining the 2001 Roadless Rule and opposed the full exemption,” suggesting a widespread public pushback to the plan. 

The scope of the affected areas under Trump's legislation is vast, with many targeted areas already volatile, including the Tongass National Forest in Alaska, which is one of the most carbon-rich forests in the world, containing an abundance of salmon and brown bears. Additionally, the Sam Houston National Forest in Texas, where forest lands are now losing protection from logging and road construction. Ultimately, the George Washington National Forest, which encompasses parts of the Virginia and Appalachian regions, will face logging and road construction, potentially impacting the watersheds that supply drinking water to the local area. 

The recently enacted "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" also enacts massive efforts to increase timber output increasingly each year between fiscal years 2026 and 2034, stating “the Secretary shall sell timber annually on National Forest System land in a total quantity that is not less than 250,000,000 board-feet greater than the quantity of board-feet sold in the previous fiscal year.” 

This reveals that the administration aims to nearly double the current timber output in nine years. 

Trump also claimed "We are freeing up our forests so we are allowed to take down trees and make a lot of money…We have massive forests. We just aren't allowed to use them because of the environmental lunatics who stopped us." Through the bill’s provisions and his comments, the President demonstrated his motives. 

Given that a significant goal of the roadless rule is to curb deforestation, as new roads often allow for invasive species that destroy native plants and organisms, advocates of the roadless rule argue these areas should not be viewed as mere sources of timber, pointing to their crucial ecological role in protecting and filtering the streams and rivers that provide clean drinking water to millions of Americans.

Proponents of logging these forests also claim that this will suppress the rampant wildfires that have been plaguing parts of the West. However, since the 1990s, wildfires have been four times as likely to begin in forests that have roads compared to roadless areas, according to research done by the Wilderness Society. 

According to Ellen Stuart-Haentjens, executive director of Virginia Wilderness Committee, since extreme storms and hurricanes are more prevalent as of recent, having roadless areas with intact roots to absorb water as it comes in quickly is crucial." These measures will protect against intense flooding that has been experienced in the greater Appalachia region. 

Justifications offered by proponents for these actions are, namely, economic arguments for reduced costs and job creation in the US. In addition to claims regarding improved forest management, wildfire prevention, thinning, fuel reduction, and administrative efficiency, there are also arguments for reducing red tape. 

Opponents, on the other hand, argue that the damage will be colossal and irreversible. From disrupting watersheds to soil erosion and sedimentation affecting drinking water, to forest fragmentation leading to biodiversity loss, threats to endangered and invasive species, carbon storage, and climate impact, roads increase fire ignitions and may exacerbate fire spread.

Critics also point to a past precedent in which courts have invalidated Trump's forest rule changes for procedural or substantive violations, where numerous judges concluded these actions violate the law. They also point to the existing federal road network as having already faced maintenance challenges due to Trump's "purge of the federal workforce" budgetary constraints, staff cuts, and backlog has impeded on the government's ability in maintaining roads, begging the question of aiding in the fixing of these roads before taking on significant new endeavors.

From these proponents and critiques, we can see that, at large, opponents and proponents do not disagree with one another; however, they disagree on value. Some value economic opportunities in our lifetime, while others have emphasized a planet for the future and are not willing to give that up to bolster the American economy. 

Questions have also been raised about whether the timber industry or private actors will utilize the new access. The timber industry, which currently gets more than 90% of its product from private, rather than federal, lands, may choose not to expand into all of the currently protected areas, and economic constraints may limit actual extraction. 

Looking ahead, Trump's agenda to increase lumber production will fundamentally alter how US forests are managed, with long-lasting consequences and ultimately, through both legislation and public action, the fate of millions of acres of forests across the US will be determined.