Andrea Salinas

U.S. Rep. Andrea Salinas, D-Oregon, pressed U.S. Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz during a House hearing Wednesday over the Trump administration’s reorganization of the agency, arguing that staffing cuts and employee relocations could undermine wildfire preparedness as another severe fire season unfolds across Oregon and much of the western United States.

The questioning comes after the Forest Service announced plans earlier this year to close its Portland office in favor of a new Salem facility and consolidate the Pacific Northwest Research Station in Portland, along with seven other regional research stations, into a single hub in Colorado.

Salinas said she has heard concerns from constituents and Forest Service employees that the sweeping restructuring, which has coincided with significant staffing losses across the agency, could result in the loss of institutional knowledge and weaken wildfire preparedness in the years ahead.

Schultz pushed back, arguing that the agency does not anticipate significant staff losses and that the reorganization could ultimately save money through lower building and lease costs.

“What we’re looking at overall is how do we run government in a way that provides the services to the public, the American public that they want, in a way that we can sustainably manage that long term with the appropriate amount of funding,” Schultz said.

Salinas also criticized what she described as the administration’s focus on commercial timber harvest over hazardous fuels reduction and wildfire prevention. Schultz pushed back on concerns that the reorganization would result in widespread job losses, telling Salinas that employees affected by the Portland office closure would likely be able to remain in the Portland area without relocating their homes.

As part of the changes to the department, the Trump administration has proposed creating a new Wildland Fire Service within the Department of the Interior to consolidate federal wildfire response efforts. Currently, the Forest Service is responsible for both maintaining forests and fighting wildfires.

The proposal has met swift pushback from many Democrats, including Salinas, who says creating a new department would strip longtime Forest Service employees of their firefighting abilities, potentially causing the loss of the experience and knowledge those workers have built over years of responding to wildfires. Salinas on Wednesday called the move “disruptive” and said it was making communities “less safe.”

“I frequently hear from Oregonians and stakeholders that this administration is causing chaos on our public lands,” Salinas said. “Current employees of the Forest Service are demoralized and confused about what the future holds.”

In June 2025, President Donald Trump signed an executive order directing the Departments of Agriculture and Interior to consolidate federal wildfire programs, arguing that wildfire response is slowed by bureaucracy and outdated technology. The order also called for expanded use of artificial intelligence, satellite data, wildfire detection systems and advanced mapping tools to improve wildfire response.

The administration has argued the changes would streamline firefighting efforts and improve coordination, citing disasters such as the 2025 Los Angeles wildfires as evidence that the current system needs reform.

Salinas pushed back, arguing the restructuring could weaken the Forest Service by removing experienced firefighters from the agency and creating uncertainty during increasingly severe wildfire seasons.

With more than 3.9 million acres burned nationally in 2026, Salinas also told the committee that now was not the time to undertake a major restructuring of federal wildfire agencies during such an active fire season.

Interior Secretary Doug Burgum has previously argued that worsening wildfire seasons make the changes all the more urgent.

“For too long, outdated and fragmented systems have slowed our ability to fight fires and protect lives. Under President Trump’s leadership, we are cutting through the bureaucracy and building a unified, modern wildfire response system that works as fast and as fearlessly as the men and women on the front lines,” Burgum said when announcing the proposal last fall.

Salinas also said the Department of Agriculture received more than 14,000 public comments on the proposal. Of the comments concerning the Forest Service, 82% expressed negative views of the reorganization, according to Salinas, including feedback from conservationists, former Forest Service employees and tribal representatives.

Schultz said that, out of the agency’s roughly 30,000 employees, fewer than 500 would be expected to relocate. He added that “most, if not all” employees affected in Portland would remain within commuting distance of their new workplace.

No changes were announced following Wednesday’s hearing. The administration is already moving forward with the reorganization, but critics including Salinas say key details have yet to be disclosed. Salinas argued the process has lacked transparency, noting that thousands of employees were told their jobs could be affected while “there are still no details, only anxiety and uncertainty for these workers and their families.”

According to Salinas, a 2019 Bureau of Land Management reorganization led 87% of affected employees to leave the agency, while the relocation of the Economic Research Service and National Institute of Food and Agriculture from Washington, D.C., to Kansas City resulted in roughly 85% of employees declining to move. She also cited a 2026 survey showing 76% of USDA employees would not relocate.

“It seems clear that requiring staff to relocate results in staff leaving and the loss of critical expertise and institutional knowledge. So, Chief, you are on the record, and I want to give you an opportunity to revise your prior testimony. Do you now admit that, based on recent history, survey data, and internal documentation, the reorganization plan will likely result in a significant number of employees declining geographic reassignment?” Salinas pressed.

Schultz declined to revise his prior testimony, pointing instead to the small number of relocations he expects the reorganization will require. Salinas remained unconvinced, arguing that recent history suggests the administration may be underestimating the number of employees who could leave rather than relocate.