Fight all fires or let some burn? Trump wildfire strategy ignites pushback

Hotter, wilder and more destructive fires in America’s dry West are forcing a reckoning in how to manage the blazes, prompting a cascade of disagreements between the Trump administration and some states.

Reporters from half a dozen newsrooms spanning six states, including Rachel Becker of CalMatters, collaborated on two stories that unpack the central tension in how Western states contend with the new-normal of constant conflagrations.

In the main story, we learn that the Trump administration consolidated firefighting crews from four agencies to pursue a suppression-first strategy, meaning they battle blazes as they happen. Such an approach protects communities and reduces harm to firefighters, federal officials say. Critics argue this is the wrong approach because it leaves behind a more preventive game plan of clearing wide swaths of land overgrown with dry, flammable flora. They want more prescribed burns to clear the fire fuel — or allowing moderate fires to burn naturally and clear the fuel.

Some say the new federal focus echoes a discredited tactic known as the 10 a.m. rule, which called on crews to knock out any fire by the next morning.

Western state officials have mixed views on the federal blueprint.

• Jamie Barnes of Utah’s Department of Natural Resources supports the full suppression policy, “mainly because of where we’re at condition-wise, the historical drought, the dry fuels, and the intensity of these fires,” to protect firefighters and communities.

California has concerns, however, with further proposed consolidation of federal agencies.

• California Natural Resources Secretary Wade Crowfoot said in a letter to the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins in May: “While I understand the intention to operate a more efficient federal agency, many of these changes could impact our state’s wildfire readiness and create added public safety risks.” 

But California’s also a powerhouse: The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, or Cal Fire, is the largest firefighting force among all states. 

Check out our two stories today here and here. And come back tomorrow for an additional piece.

The California Supreme Court will hear oral arguments at 10 a.m. today on whether former GOP candidate for governor and Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco unlawfully seized about 650,000 ballots cast in last year’s statewide vote on redistricting.

The hearing combines two cases. In one, California Attorney General Rob Bonta is suing Bianco, alleging the sheriff illegally seized and recounted ballots. Bianco maintains his actions were lawful because he obtained judicial warrants to investigate alleged election irregularities. Bonta says the warrants didn’t justify Bianco’s actions. A key question is whether a county sheriff must cease election enforcement operations when the state attorney general demands it. 

The election was the result of Newsom and state Democrats seeking to neutralize the Texas GOP after state leaders there redrew districts in a way to improve the likelihood more Republicans are voted into the House of Representatives. California voters decidedly approved Proposition 50 to redraw districts in a way to help more Democrats head to Congress. Other states underwent their own redistricting battles, complicating the picture for prognosticators over which party is likely to win the House this November.

A rural California county in the Sierra Nevada has a high-tech problem: Its prosecutors were writing legal briefs with generative artificial intelligence tools that inserted mistakes in criminal cases. 

Now a California appeals court has appointed a judge to investigate how the errors affected cases, reports CalMatters’ Khari Johnson.

The artificial intelligence kerfuffle is playing out in Nevada County, where roughly 100,000 people live. Prosecutors there last fall filed falsehoods in documents for four separate cases after using AI for writing or proofreading purposes. 

A former county prosecutor who is behind some of the errors filed a sworn declaration in which she wrote that her supervisor wouldn’t let her immediately report and apologize for those mistakes to the court, defense lawyers, and suspects. She also said her office had no AI policy but prosecutors were encouraged to rely on the tools, which other reports show regularly hallucinate.

Read more by Khari here.