Each report pulls together the peer-reviewed science, primary government documents, and the public record behind one piece of the rescission story. Open any to read it in full.
USDA's case for rescinding the Roadless Rule rests on a wildfire-management argument the peer-reviewed science directly refutes — and on a Wildland-Urban Interface claim that overstates reality by nearly nine to one.
National forests supply drinking water to 124 million people in more than 3,400 communities. Roads are the single largest controllable source of forest sediment. Repealing the Roadless Rule puts both at risk.
USDA's own Federal Register notice says it plainly. The rescission of the Roadless Rule is not about wildfire. It is about facilitating domestic production of timber, energy, and minerals "to the maximum possible extent."
USDA gave Americans 21 days to weigh in on rescinding the Roadless Rule. Roughly 600,000 responded — and a detailed roadless.org analysis found more than 99.8% opposed. February 2026 polling confirms the public is on the same page.
Wood harvest is one of the largest unaccounted-for sources of carbon emissions on the planet — comparable to all global agricultural land-use change. Repealing the Roadless Rule would convert intact carbon sinks into long-lived emissions on a continental scale.