Last month, the President signed into law a three-bill minibus for Commerce, Justice, Science; Energy and Water Development; and Interior and Environment. The delayed appropriations package followed continuing resolutions which kept the agencies running since September 30th.

While many agencies include federal spending to address wildfires, the most significant funding for federal wildfire programs is housed within the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and the Department of the Interior (DOI). Those agencies received their appropriations for fiscal year 2026 in the Interior and Environment bill.

Notably, the President’s proposal to create a new agency for wildfire programs was not funded. The U.S. Wildland Fire Service, as proposed by the President’s FY2026 budget request, would create a new agency within DOI to consolidate all federal wildfire responsibilities. In the absence of a new agency, Congress called for a feasibility study and funded wildfire programs as they’re currently structured.

Most direct federal wildfire spending is currently appropriated to USFS, primarily under the Wildland Fire Management (WFM) account. Other wildfire-related programs, like Hazardous Fuels Management and the Joint Fire Science Program, fall under other USFS accounts. DOI also manages a WFM account, which includes department-wide wildfire spending line items but is significantly smaller than the USFS WFM account—$1.15 billion in FY2026 compared to $2.43 billion for USFS. Both USFS and DOI draw from the Wildfire Suppression Operations Reserve Fund, with approximately 87% of annual funding allocated through USFS and the remaining 13% through DOI.

A massive consolidation of federal wildfire spending and programs was first proposed in May 2025 in the Administration’s “Skinny” Budget Request—an abbreviated version of the budget, typically released in the first year of a new administration, that outlines its priorities and signals what lawmakers can expect in the forthcoming full budget request. Consolidation of wildfire management resources into a single agency within DOI was one of its most drastic proposals. The proposal—while still light on details—was later expanded in a FY2026 Interior Budget in Brief released in June. At the same time, the President issued an executive order ordering DOI and USDA to consolidate their wildland fire programs “to the maximum degree practicable and consistent with applicable law.”

Appropriators weren’t so sure. In a July 2025 report accompanying the House-approved appropriations bill, policymakers expressed appreciation for “the Administration’s goal of reducing waste and improving efficiency across Federal agencies” but cautioned against major changes in the current budgetary and management structure that “spark concerns about impacted agencies’ abilities to consistently meet critical performance benchmarks.” The committee also called for a Government Accountability Office report on the feasibility of consolidation.

This approach carried through to the final minibus. While the bill did not direct funds to the newly proposed Wildland Fire Service, the explanatory statements accompanying the bill included directions for a Wildland Fire Consolidation study. The bill directs the Secretary of Agriculture and Secretary of the Interior to hire an independent nonpartisan research organization with expertise in federal land management to conduct a comprehensive study on the impacts of consolidation, particularly on:

• proposed timber targets
• continued cohesion between fire management and hazardous fuel reduction programs
• continued use of available red card-certified workforce
• how a consolidated service would differ from the role of the National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC)
• States, localities, and Tribes

The Secretaries are required to meet with appropriators prior to the start of the study and submit comprehensive response after, including funding estimates, staffing plans, and a legislative proposal to complete the transfer. No deadline was stipulated in the bill.

Calling for an independent, nonpartisan study is a reasonable approach to understand the impacts of such a large shift in the organization of federal wildfire management before actually committing to it. There are significant taxpayers risks yet to be scrutinized. As noted above, most federal wildfire spending is currently housed in USFS. Transferring full wildfire management responsibilities to DOI risks a rocky transition amid a year-round fire season, creating significant impacts for state, localities, and tribes. Additionally, continuing to house mitigation activities, such hazardous fuels reduction, within USFS while shifting all suppression to DOI may have profound impacts on the effectiveness and costs of both programs.

There are also potential taxpayer benefits. We noted, as early as when the President’s FY2026 budget first came out, that, in theory, a single agency could streamline federal wildfire response and coordination—both between federal agencies and with state, local, and other external partners. TCS has supported efforts to break down bureaucratic silos, improve interagency coordination, and make it easier for communities and individuals to access federal resources. A single agency could also improve transparency and allow better tracking of wildfire spending. TCS has repeatedly documented how the current fragmented system makes it difficult to track federal wildfire spending. We have called for a comprehensive budget crosscut to help policymakers identify where spending is going and where it’s needed most.

So all in all, a study on the impacts of consolidation is reasonable first step.

At the same time, while Congress has decided to fund federal wildfire activities under their current structure and request a study, DOI is moving forward with an internal consolidation—setting the groundwork for full cross-agency consolidation. On January 12, DOI announced it is “taking the next step to establish the U.S. Wildland Fire Service” and appointed a new leader to oversee its implementation. While this latest action does not currently affect USFS, it does begin to build a framework for future, cross-agency consolidation.

We need to improve federal wildfire spending and programs. As the frequency and magnitude of wildfires increase, the systems we have put in place are no longer sufficient to properly manage the rising costs. A consolidated Wildland Fire Service poses both risks and advantages. We look forward to the findings of the feasibility study.