WATCH: Padilla Slams Proposed USFS Budget Request, Closure of Critical Research Facilities, Elimination of Funding for Fire Assistance Programs in the Run Up to Peak Fire Season

WATCH: Padilla to Schultz on FY 2027 budget proposal: "Please explain to the committee how you expect state and volunteer fire departments to make up for this staggering cut."

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Today, during a Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing, U.S. Senator Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), co-chair of the Senate Wildfire Caucus, slammed the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) Chief Tom Schultz on President Trump's Fiscal Year 2027 budget request, which would eliminate funding for state and local fire assistance programs and undermine hazardous fuels reduction efforts. Padilla criticized the lack of coordination and Congressional consultation regarding the newly launched U.S. Wildland Fire Service and highlighted the impact the cuts would have on communities across the country.

Padilla pressed Schultz on the closure of six of the eight research facilities in California. USFS research stations provide the science that allows for more effective fuel treatments such as prescribed fire, and better post fire recovery to establish more resilient forests. Padilla criticized the proposed elimination of the existing State and Volunteer Fire Assistance programs. Under the proposed FY 2027 funding request, State and Volunteer Fire Assistance programs' would be cut from a combined $97 million and be replaced with $2.8 million in a new single "Rural Fire Assistance grants" program - a 97% cut. These programs provide vital support to state and local fire entities, which together respond to and suppress the vast majority of ignitions across the country.

Trump's budget proposal also includes relocating the Hazardous Fuels budget line item, which has been previously used for wildfire risk reduction projects, to the newly launched U.S. Wildland Fire Service. Padilla questioned Schultz how relocating the funding will separate USFS landscape managers with critical expertise from fire officials.

"Less resources, less capacity, increased risk. It's going to lead to more loss and negative impact for our communities," said Senator Padilla. "Not just me, not just my side of the aisle - you've heard this concern from both sides of the aisle: that separating wildfire risk reduction from landscape managers, who have the expertise to actually reduce risk, creates problems."

The Trump Administration recently announced its plans to reorganize USFS, which would result in the closure of six of the eight research facilities in California. After expressing concern about the reorganization, Padilla secured a commitment from Schultz to provide written justification and assurance that ongoing research will not lapse due to the closures.

In the aftermath of the catastrophic Southern California fires, Senator Padilla introduced more than a dozen bills to help prevent and respond to future wildfires, including the Senate version of the Fix Our Forests Act, bipartisan legislation to combat catastrophic wildfires, restore forest ecosystems, and make federal forest management more efficient and responsive. Padilla highlighted the Senate Fix Our Forests Act after joining federal and state emergency officials for a tour of the Pacific Palisades fire recovery area led by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. In 2025, the Senate Agriculture Committee advanced the Fix Our Forests Act, marking a significant step forward in federal wildfire policy to protect communities while restoring forest health.

Video of Senator Padilla's full questioning is available here.

A full transcript of Padilla's questioning is below.

PADILLA: Chief, first of all, thank you for your service. Let me begin my statements and questioning by sharing my concerns regarding the recent reorganization announcement. I know there's a lot in there to pick apart, but I want to focus specifically on the closure of six of the eight research facilities in California. Mr. Chairman, I actually ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a letter from California Natural Resources Agency Secretary Wade Crowfoot that echoes many of my concerns. Now, Chief, I appreciate that you've briefed my staff on the reorganization, but I want to ask that you follow up with your rationale for the closures in writing, as well as to provide a clear cost-benefit analysis and assurances that ongoing research will not lapse due to these closures. Is that something you think you can provide?

SCHULTZ: Mr. Chairman, Senator Padilla, yes, sir.

PADILLA: Thank you very much. Now, elsewhere in the budget proposal, you suggest eliminating the existing State and Volunteer Fire Assistance programs, which were funded in fiscal year 26 at levels of $76 million and $21 million respectively, and that's suggested to be replaced with just $2.8 million for a new category of "rural fire assistance grants." Based on my math, this is functionally more than a 97 percent cut. These programs provide vital support to state and local fire entities, which together respond to and suppress the vast majority of igniters across the country, not just in California. Please explain to the committee how you expect state and volunteer fire departments to make up for this staggering cut. And please don't point to AI. I've asked this question to a lot of folks that have sat in this chair on budget proposals before - AI is not going to get there.

SCHULTZ: Mr. Chairman, Senator Padilla, I'm not an expert on AI, so I won't point to AI. I think what we've seen is, in general, in the '27 budget, the fire program is moved from the Forest Service to the Department of the Interior. So, in the '27 budget, we don't have the fuels program, we don't have the firefighting program. So, I think what you did see is there was $2.8 million of Department of Interior funding that would pick that up. And that other programs that you're referencing - the State Forestry Fire Assistance and the Volunteer Fire Assistance - that program is not continued, so there is not replacement funding. So in terms of how that would get replaced, it would have to be done at a local level, but it would not be available. We do have other programs. We have the excess property program, that local government can pick up excess equipment from the military at no charge and that can transfer to those entities. So, there are other programs in addition to the VFA and the FFA fund.

PADILLA: Right, other programs, but not making them whole with this cut.

SCHULTZ: That's right.

PADILLA: I don't hear you disagreeing with my assessment that this is being cut, so you understand my concern: less resources, less capacity, increased risk. It's going to lead to more loss and negative impacts for our communities. Now, elsewhere in the proposed budget, you propose moving the hazardous fuels budget line item to a new U.S. Wildland Fire Service. The hazardous fuels budget has previously been used to accomplish prescribed fire and other risk-reduction projects on land managed by the Forest Service. Not just me, not just my side of the aisle - you've heard this concern from both sides of the aisle: the concern is that we're separating wildfire risk reduction from landscape managers who have the expertise to actually reduce risk is my specific concern here today. So, Chief, how will the new U.S. Wildland Fire Service partner with land managers and the Forest Service experts to accomplish critical fuels reduction projects, including but not limited to prescribed fire?

SCHULTZ: Mr. Chairman, Senator Padilla, that's a very good question.

PADILLA: That's why I'm asking.

SCHULTZ: I know, it's a good one. So right now, those functions are integrated basically within the Forest Service.

PADILLA: And you seek to disintegrate them.

SCHULTZ: That's right and the focus there would be more on the Forest Service folks handling more of the land management and the Wildland Fire Service focusing more on suppression and the fuels work as well. So that program would transfer over there, but it's going to require coordination. There's no doubt.

PADILLA: So how's that coordination going to happen?

SCHULTZ: Well, right now, we don't have it worked out yet because it's not implemented yet.

PADILLA: Well, it is proposed. Don't you think you need to work that out before you suggest the change?

SCHULTZ: Well, the Department of the Interior is doing it right now. So the Department of Interior has already implemented the Wildland Fire Service. So, the land managers and the Fire Service are having to coordinate there.

PADILLA: So they are implementing or they're not implementing? You just contradicted yourself.

SCHULTZ: So, no, the Department of Interior, within the Department of the Interior, has implemented the Wildland Fire Service. So, they've consolidated the fire program within DOI. So we're going to look to DOI and see what lessons they've learned this year, and that would then inform how we proceed.

PADILLA: So you agree? This is -

SCHULTZ: It's definitely a change. Yes.

PADILLA: And an area for follow-up on how we're going to maintain the integration of the land management experience and expertise.

SCHULTZ: Yes sir.

PADILLA: Into prescribed fires and other mitigation efforts.

SCHULTZ: Yes, sir. And that's one of the prime questions for the RFP - the study that's going to go out at the end of this week - is going to ask some of those very questions.

PADILLA: I look forward to the follow-up. Thank you very much, sir.