Trump administration formally proposes rescinding 2001 Roadless Rule

Public comment period on draft environmental impact statement closes Sept. 21

The Trump administration on Aug. 18, 2026 formally proposed rescinding the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule, which prohibits roadbuilding, commercial logging, and mineral extraction on more than 58 million acres of national forest. Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins announced the proposal, arguing that road construction in currently protected areas is needed to fight wildfires. The Forest Service has opened a 30-day public comment period ending Sept. 21 on a 240-page draft environmental impact statement.

The proposal would open inventoried roadless areas — primarily in the western United States and including nearly 14.8 million acres in southeast Alaska’s Tongass National Forest — to potential road construction and expanded timber production. The administration argues roads are needed to fight wildfires, while the draft EIS finds wildfire frequency is significantly lower in roadless areas.

The Roadless Rule, adopted by the U.S. Forest Service in January 2001 in response to a directive from President Bill Clinton, is one of the most important conservation measures in the history of the national forests. It covers roughly 30 percent of land within the national forest system and protects habitat for species including wolves, grizzly bears, wolverines, Pacific salmon, and jaguars. Roadless areas safeguard more than 80,000 miles of rivers in the continental United States and serve as drinking-water sources for 25 million Americans.

Building roads in these areas would add to an existing maintenance burden. The national forest system already contains more than 368,000 miles of roads — eight times the length of the U.S. interstate highway system — and the deferred maintenance backlog for roads and bridges that can carry passenger vehicles reached $6.9 billion in 2024, according to the draft environmental impact statement.

About 99 percent of comments submitted to the government opposed rescinding the rule. Conservation organizations and tribal nations, including the Alliance of Sovereign Tribes of Southeast Alaska, which represents communities living within the Tongass, have pledged to fight the proposal.

The rule has withstood a series of legal and political challenges over 25 years. In January 2001, three days after the original Roadless Rule was published, the timber industry, the Kootenai Tribe, and Western state and local governments sued, alleging the rule violated the National Environmental Policy Act and the Administrative Procedure Act. The U.S. District Court for Idaho issued a preliminary injunction blocking the rule two months later. Conservation groups, including Earthjustice and the nonprofit Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics, intervened to defend the rule when newly inaugurated President George W. Bush’s administration declined to appeal. The court ultimately upheld the rule in 2002 and established precedent allowing conservation intervenors to defend long-standing environmental rules when the government declines to do so.

If the administration finalizes the rescission after the comment period closes, lawsuits are likely. Under Supreme Court precedent, reversing a long-standing policy becomes arbitrary when the explanation “runs counter to the evidence before the agency.” Parenteau argues that standard could apply here, given that the draft EIS finds lower wildfire frequency in roadless areas.

Parenteau has identified several procedural and substantive concerns with the proposal. The 30-day public comment period on the 240-page environmental impact statement, with no additional public meetings, is shorter than the 59-day period with more than 400 public meetings that accompanied the original 2001 rule. The draft statement eliminated several reasonable alternatives because they would not satisfy a March 2025 executive order directing expanded timber production, and it does not detail the foreseeable impacts on endangered species, historic and cultural properties, or community water supplies from opening these areas to extractive industries.

Patrick Parenteau, a professor of law emeritus at Vermont Law and Graduate School who represented intervenors in the original legal challenge, has written that the administration will face a difficult legal fight if it proceeds with the rescission. The Conversation published his analysis; United Press International republished it under a Creative Commons license.