Keep Deforestation Out of the Defense Bill

Riders have been a congressional shortcut since the 1800s, allowing lawmakers to hitch sometimes controversial provisions to must-pass legislation. Essentially, if a member of Congress wants a law passed that is unlikely to be considered on its own, they can try to attach it to another, larger piece of legislation.

One frequent vehicle for riders is the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), an annual bill that sets policies and authorizes funding for the nation’s national security-related programs. Two amendments proposed for inclusion in the Senate’s FY2027 NDAA are SA 5890, the Fix Our Forests Act, and SA 6039, the Save Our Sequoias Act. Neither amendment has been adopted. If included, these provisions would rewrite how the federal government manages millions of acres of forest through a bill meant primarily to address national defense, not public lands.

Are riders good? Let’s look at some history and then consider the two proposed amendments.

When the Shortcut Pays Off: FY2023 NDAA

Riders are not inherently bad. In 2022, Congress used the FY2023 NDAA to carry a package of ocean conservation provisions, including provisions drawn from the BLUE GLOBE Act and the National Ocean Exploration Act, which authorized programs supporting marine technology, workforce development, ocean exploration, and ocean mapping.

Among them was the Shark Fin Sales Elimination Act, which prohibits the possession, acquisition, receipt, transport, sale, or purchase of shark fins or products containing shark fins in the United States, with narrow exceptions for scientific research and certain subsistence uses. It built on existing federal restrictions against removing a shark’s fins at sea and discarding the rest of the animal, closing a gap that had allowed the U.S. market to remain part of the global fin trade even after finning itself was banned.

The shark fin bill shows the upside of the rider: for advocates who had pushed this bill for years, the NDAA was the vehicle that finally got it across the finish line.

When the Shortcut Backfires: The 2011 Wolf Rider

However, the same mechanism that made shark fin protections possible has also been used to strip protections from other vulnerable animals.

In 2011, Congress attached a rider to a budget bill that legislatively removed Endangered Species Act (ESA) protections for gray wolves in Montana, Idaho, and portions of Washington, Oregon, and Utah. Wyoming’s wolves were not covered by that rider and were delisted separately in 2012. A recent study published in Wildlife Biology describes the 2011 action as an unusual departure from the typical ESA process because Congress, rather than the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, directed the outcome through legislation.

The consequences far outlasted the legislation. In February 2022, a federal court vacated a separate nationwide delisting rule, requiring the Fish and Wildlife Service to restore protections across much of the contiguous United States. The Service formally reflected that decision in a 2023 final rule, but Northern Rocky Mountain wolves remained delisted. In 2024, the agency found that the Northern Rocky Mountain population was not itself a valid listable entity and that listing the broader western U.S. population was not warranted. More than a decade later, a single rider is still shaping which wolves receive federal protection and which do not.

One disadvantage to riders is that they may not go through the process of full consideration, either in committee or as part of the full bill, which means members of Congress are voting on something on which they may not have developed a full understanding. And constituents may not have had an opportunity to express their opinions of the rider, because riders are often added without much fanfare and frequently without much public notice.

SA 5890 and SA 6039: The Same Pattern, Aimed at Our Forests

This is the position SA 5890 and SA 6039 are in now. The amendments were filed for possible inclusion in the Senate’s FY2027 NDAA but have not been adopted. If included, they would rewrite federal forest management through a bill that is supposed to be about national defense.

SA 5890, the Fix Our Forests Act, would expand authority for “hazardous fuels management,” including the removal of dead or dying trees and treatment of overstocked or crowded forest stands. The problem is in the breadth of the definition. Earthjustice and other environmental organizations warn that it could encompass large-scale vegetation removal, mechanical thinning, and commercial logging. Some qualifying projects could be categorically excluded from preparing an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement. That would reduce the analysis and formal public participation normally associated with those reviews before projects move forward.

The inclusion of “overstocked or crowded forest stands” is also significant because it treats thinning those stands as hazardous fuels management. Research shows that targeted thinning combined with prescribed fire can reduce fire severity in some forests. Other studies have found that poorly designed or overly broad logging can, in some circumstances, increase fire intensity. In its advocacy letter, EARTHDAY.ORG argues that high tree density alone should not be enough to classify a stand as hazardous fuel or justify expedited logging without project-specific review.

SA 6039, the Save Our Sequoias Act, applies a similar approach specifically to giant sequoia groves. It would establish conservation programs aimed at protecting sequoias from wildfire, insects, drought, and disease. Giant sequoias evolved alongside low-intensity fire, developing thick bark and high crowns that help mature trees survive. Fire also plays an essential role in sequoia regeneration. Heat dries their cones and releases seeds onto exposed soil. Recent research also shows that carefully designed prescribed burning and fuel reduction can protect mature sequoias. The concern is whether projects affecting these ancient ecosystems should bypass a full, project-specific environmental review.

Furthermore, the act would streamline and expedite environmental review and consultation requirements for qualifying forest-management projects, similarly to SA 5890. Certain projects of up to 2,000 acres within giant sequoia groves and 3,000 acres on specified adjoining lands could be categorically excluded from an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement. The amendment requires online public notice, but that is not the same as the formal review and comment process an assessment or impact statement can provide. Earthjustice raised a similar objection to an earlier version of the proposal in 2022, warning about effects on soil, streams, habitat, and wildfire risk.

The amendments go beyond efforts to reduce wildfire risk. Opponents argue that the broader management authorities, together with stewardship contracting and markets for removed vegetation, could facilitate additional commercial logging on public lands. By expanding the government’s authority while limiting environmental review and shortening the time for certain legal challenges, the amendments could reduce public oversight of forest-management decisions. Environmental organizations warn that these changes could weaken protections associated with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the ESA.

Tell Your Senators: Keep Forest Riders Out of the NDAA

Are riders a good thing? It depends on your point of view. Every rider is going to have supporters and opponents based on the text of the legislation. In this case, EARTHDAY.ORG believes the environmental risks of these two proposed amendments outweigh their benefits.

SA 5890 and SA 6039 would change how millions of acres of federal forests are managed, expanding the use of expedited environmental review and giving the federal government broader authority to carry out potentially detrimental logging projects with fewer formal opportunities for public participation and tighter limits on legal challenges. Those are consequential changes to public lands policy, and they deserve to be debated on their own merits, not through an unrelated bill.

Contact your senators today and ask them to oppose including SA 5890 and SA 6039 in the NDAA. Tell them forest management is too important to be lumped in with a defense bill, and that wildfire prevention should not be used as a reason to unnecessarily limit public input, environmental review, or access to the courts.

Protecting our forests also means investing in their recovery. Through the Canopy Tree Project, EARTHDAY.ORG is helping restore forests and strengthen communities facing the impacts of wildfires and other natural disasters. By supporting this work, you can help bring damaged forests back to life, restore essential habitat, and build healthier, more resilient landscapes for the future.

This article is available for republishing on your website, newsletter, magazine, newspaper, or blog. The accompanying imagery is cleared for use with attribution. Please ensure that the author’s name and their affiliation with EARTHDAY.ORG are credited. Kindly inform us if you republish so we can acknowledge, tag, or repost your content. You may notify us via email at [email protected]. Want more articles? Follow us on substack.