The wildfire that consumed the Grand Canyon’s North Rim last summer was one of the most destructive in its history. Named the Dragon Bravo fire, it burned through more than 145,000 acres of the park and destroyed dozens of historic buildings — including the Grand Canyon Lodge. It closed much of the park for months.
In the immediate aftermath, many observers asked how a wildfire spread out of control at one of the country’s most popular national parks. Even Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs weighed in, demanding an investigation into the National Park Service’s actions.
This week, during testimony before a House committee, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum placed the blame squarely on the National Park Service (NPS).
“This catastrophic loss was something that occurred after we’d already begun the process of saying we need more leadership,” Burgum told the House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies. “In retrospect, an approach of suppression versus containment might have saved hundreds of millions of dollars of historic properties.”
That’s why the White House has made broad overhauls to how federal agencies approach firefighting. In January, the Interior Department launched the Wildland Fire Service. The new agency brings together multiple firefighting operations traditionally overseen by the NPS and Fish and Wildlife Service, among others.
In Monday’s hearing, House Republicans applauded the plan. But Democrats — and some parks advocates — remain skeptical.
A New Plan for Firefighting
Traditionally, firefighting on America’s public lands has been handled by various federal agencies. They include the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the NPS, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Office of Aviation Services, and the Office of Wildland Fire.
Now it will be overseen by top officials at the Interior Department as part of the new Wildland Fire Service. It would receive a $4 billion budget and a staff of 4,500 under White House plans. That change comes after large-scale firings at most of those agencies in 2025, soon after President Trump took office. It also coincides with additional proposed cuts to the Interior Department’s 2027 budget, including further reductions to the NPS.
In Monday’s hearing, Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho) said that “moving firefighting to the DOI might be the greatest idea since sliced bread.”
But many Democrats and park advocates are skeptical that the Dragon Bravo fire is solely the result of poor decisions by NPS employees. For starters, that incident occurred just months after the White House fired a quarter of the NPS workforce and executed large-scale layoffs at the Forest Service and other land management agencies.
The White House has claimed that only non-firefighting personnel were included in those firings. But Forest Service employees have said that the cuts to those agencies have “strained firefighting force by hitting support staff who play crucial roles in preventing and battling blazes,” ProPublica reported last year.
There have also been direct impacts on firefighting, according to industry publication FireRescue1. The White House has cut funding and training to the National Fire Academy, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and several National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) programs focused on firefighter health and safety.
Democrats Question Funding Cuts
During Monday’s hearing, Burgum faced scrutiny from Democrats about the White House’s proposed additional cuts to the Interior budget.
Representatives Chellie Pingree (D-Maine) and Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) both grilled Burgum. They questioned how he could blame the national parks for failures like the Dragon Bravo fire after making deep cuts to several land management agencies, including the NPS.
“The future that this administration envisions with this budget proposal is one of fewer national parks, shrinking public lands, more endangered species, dirtier air and water and higher profits for fossil fuel executives — who are the only people who stand to benefit from these disasters,” DeLauro said.
Burgum, however, countered that most of the layoffs weren’t of people who actually work in the parks. Rather, it was of those who merely support them.
“We all care deeply about the national parks,” Burgum said. “How many people actually work in a park?… The goal we had was to get more people working in a park. We need less people at districts, regions, service centers, etc., and more people in the parks.”
Read the full article here