U.S. Forest Service Reorganization and Budget Cuts Threaten Vital Research

The U.S. Forest Service has announced a sweeping reorganization that threatens to dismantle its global research network. On March 31, the agency revealed plans to close numerous research facilities, a move followed by a 2027 budget proposal that would allocate $0 to Forest Service research—a significant drop from the $309 million provided in 2026. More than 100 facilities are currently under evaluation for potential closure.

Forest Service Chief Tom Schulz defended the move during an April 16 budget hearing, citing a need for “fiscal responsibility” and a desire to move staff closer to the lands they manage. The reorganization also includes proposals to relocate the agency’s headquarters to Salt Lake City, Utah and shutter all 10 regional offices.

Did You Know? The Forest Service manages 193 million acres of national forest and grassland, yet some of its research facilities are remarkably inexpensive to maintain. For example, the agency holds a 65-year lease for a 30,000-acre site in Hilo, Hawaii, for which the federal government paid a one-time fee of just $1.

The Human and Scientific Cost

The proposed closures place 229 employees at risk of relocation or job loss. Internal documents and interviews with researchers suggest the consolidation may be counterproductive. Many of the facilities slated for closure are either owned outright by the government or leased for nominal fees, such as $1 per year, while the proposed consolidation site in Fort Collins, Colorado, costs the agency $1 million annually in rent.

Beyond the financial implications, scientists warn of the “hyperlocal” nature of their work. Researchers like former Forest Service scientist Morgan Grove noted that projects—such as studying white oak regeneration in Baltimore or managing wood recycling programs like Camp Small—rely on long-term, place-based relationships. Moving these operations to a centralized hub in Colorado could make it impossible to maintain these vital community partnerships.

Expert Insight: The consolidation of research facilities represents a fundamental shift in how the federal government approaches land management. By prioritizing centralized administration over place-based scientific inquiry, the agency risks losing irreplaceable data sets and the specialized knowledge required to manage diverse ecosystems, from urban forests in Baltimore to wild landscapes in the Pacific Northwest.

What Happens Next?

The reorganization faces significant hurdles, including ongoing negotiations with the Forest Service Council of the National Federation of Federal Employees. The union argues that the proposal violates laws requiring congressional approval for the reprogramming of funds. If the plan proceeds, analysts expect a substantial loss of personnel, as many researchers have indicated they would leave the agency rather than relocate.

WATCH LIVE: U.S. Forest Service chief testifies at House budget hearing as Trump moves to gut agency

In the long term, the shuttering of these facilities could lead to a collapse of the agency’s research capacity. With one-third of Forestry Inventory Analysis staff working in facilities marked for potential closure, the agency may face high costs related to travel and per diem expenses if those projects are to continue. The loss of these research stations could leave the public with less information regarding wildfire prevention, forest health, and the management of vital green spaces.

Frequently Asked Questions

Why is the Forest Service closing these research facilities?
Chief Tom Schulz stated the move is intended to achieve “fiscal responsibility” and to relocate staff closer to the lands they manage.

Are all the facilities being closed expensive to lease?
No. Internal documents show that many facilities are owned by the government, and some leases cost the agency less than $1 per year.

What is the primary concern regarding the research data?
Scientists warn that the research is “hyperlocal” and tied to specific landscapes; moving staff to a central location could lead to the loss of irreplaceable data sets and the disruption of long-term ecological studies.

How do you believe the loss of local, place-based research will affect the health and sustainability of your own community’s green spaces?