Forest Service Chief claims he does not need to follow the law, says his lawyers tells him his is cool to just ignore congress and the law.
So, basically, trust me bro.
Forest Service reorganization: understanding the “asset stripping” argument
Democracy Now interviewed conservationist Jim Pattiz about the Trump administration’s Forest Service overhaul—and why he believes employees should look beyond individual office closures to the larger strategy.
The agency manages approximately 193 million acres of public forests and grasslands. According to the interview, the plan would:
The administration describes these changes as making the Forest Service more efficient and closer to the communities it serves. Pattiz argues that the combined effect could be to hollow out the agency, weaken its scientific capabilities, and shift influence toward states and resource extraction industries.
What does “asset stripping” mean here?
Pattiz draws an analogy to asset stripping associated with some private equity transactions: extracting valuable assets while leaving behind an organization less capable of functioning.
Applied to the Forest Service, his argument is that the valuable assets include more than land and timber. They also include research, experienced employees, institutional knowledge, public accountability, and management authority.
For employees, the larger strategy he describes unfolds through several connected steps:
None of this requires selling a single acre at the outset. An agency can lose its practical ability to protect the public interest through the loss of people, science, oversight, and decision-making authority.
Pattiz also alleges that the changes violate congressional appropriations restrictions on reorganizations and office relocations. The interview does not establish a court ruling on that allegation.
His account is an argument about the administration’s strategy, rather than proof of its intent. But it connects what employees experience individually—an office closure, a relocation order, a departing colleague—to a broader concern about who will ultimately control public forest management.
The question for Forest Service employees and the public.
Contact your Senators, House Members, and vote.
I encourage everyone to listen to the attached link for yourself, but here is some of the most interesting bits I took away from the talk today
No mention of UHF 2.0 anymore. I assume that since it never appeared in official press releases, stoplights and stop signs that were discussed for Q3 is now simply all being rolled into point to point.
“Very much on track” for point to point
“Initial rollout” end of the year.
Some more detail about what this initial rollout looks like:
- Begin rollout to early adopter customers end of this year.
-Continue expanding into next year.
-Full widespread rollout across all vehicles expected next year
Probably some features will remain out of operational domain in first version “such as parking lots.”
After point to point, the big focus on uber taxi, to fully driverless. Dependent on improved disengagement rates
Model is end to end, with domain specific fine tuning. Some of this is being built in expert fleet deployments happening already in initial cities of San Fran, Chicago and Miami.
Rap 1 chips will have priority into r2 later this year for employees, then to customers’ deliveries next year. (Makes sense given the chip validation timetable - there won’t be that many chips available in Dec to deliver and that shouldn’t hold back R2 ramp).
Focus for the autonomy stack is not on boring highway models - but in interesting edge cases. Beginning next year they expect to be increasingly leaning into large scale simulation for both measurement and improvement
Eyes off has big regulatory burden because US is a patchwork. For example - NY state there is no level 3 eyes off pathway.
Level 4 service goal remains late 2028
Uber or fleet partner will purchase the L4 vehicle, but then Rivian will get a software license fee tied to the utilization of the robotaxi, as it’s the Rivian model driving the car.
Robotaxi to come before personal L4, because there will be more domain constraints with that taxi. But it’s mostly the same work so the personal L4 release should be very close after robotaxi.
Nothing in the Uber relationship constrains the ability to monetize personal level 4.
For now, the focus with R2 ramp is on quality in order to make sure customers are very very happy. Then they can start pushing Rivian brand visibility.
Autonomy is separate from the agreement with VW - but Rivian is open to working with other OEMs. The autonomy stack can be tuned for different vehicles and sensors
110 members of Congress have now signed a letter asking congressional leadership to reject the 2027 federal civilian pay freeze and provide a pay raise of at least 3.8%.
The letter asks Congress to enact the 4.1% raise proposed in the FAIR Act, or at minimum give civilian federal employees the same 3.8% increase proposed for federal law enforcement personnel.
Senate signers (12):
Chris Van Hollen (MD) Brian Schatz (HI) Tim Kaine (VA) Mark Warner (VA) Mazie Hirono (HI) Angela Alsobrooks (MD) Ron Wyden (OR) Ed Markey (MA) Bernie Sanders (VT) Richard Blumenthal (CT) Tammy Duckworth (IL) Alex Padilla (CA)
House signers (98):
The letter includes members from across the country, led by Reps. James Walkinshaw (VA) and Steny Hoyer (MD), with Republican Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (PA) also signing.
Rather than making this post enormous, the complete list of all 98 House signers is included in the letter linked below.
Check whether your senators and representative signed.
If they signed and you support the effort, you can contact their office and thank them.
If they aren't listed, you can contact their office and ask where they stand on the proposed 2027 civilian pay freeze and whether they support the 3.8% minimum inflation adjustment or the 4.1% FAIR Act increase.
This letter doesn't guarantee a raise. The next important question is whether Congress puts a civilian pay adjustment into the FY2027 appropriations legislation.
Full congressional letter and complete list of signers:
https://walkinshaw.house.gov/uploadedfiles/federal_pay_raise_letter_to_leadership_final.pdf
Rivian to Participate at Upcoming Investor Conferences - Newsroom -
https://rivian.com/newsroom/article/rivian-to-participate-at-upcoming-investor-conferences-092026
For anyone following the USDA/Forest Service reorganization, the unions have now filed a new lawsuit specifically challenging the plan.
One of the biggest issues for the Forest Service: the complaint argues that Congress specifically prohibited USFS funds from being used for reorganizations, workforce restructuring, transfers of functions, downsizing, closures, consolidations, or relocations affecting 10 employees or 10% of an office/program without advance notification and approval from the House and Senate Appropriations Committees.
That seems pretty significant considering the plan includes eliminating all 9 Forest Service regional offices, relocating functions/employees, and closing research locations.
The lawsuit also says roughly 500 employees in Regions 6, 8, 9 and the Washington Office were identified for relocation, with additional regional-office reassignment letters expected.
The big legal question seems pretty simple: Did USDA actually receive the congressional approval required by the appropriations law? If not, the Forest Service portion of this reorganization could have a serious legal problem.
This is only the plaintiffs' complaint, so these are allegations—not a court ruling.
Full complaint: https://www.afge.org/globalassets/documents/generalreports/2026/ecf-001-complaint.pdf
​
After watching Rivian's share count climb, I figured we might as well start predicting the reasons for the next round of dilution.
R2 demand was stronger than expected. Dilution.
R2 demand was weaker than expected. Also dilution.
Georgia needs another billion. Dilution.
Autonomy is ahead of schedule. Better raise some money.
Autonomy is behind schedule. Definitely raise some money.
RJ has a 100-year time horizon. Apparently your cost basis does too.
RIVN hits $25: "Great opportunity to strengthen the balance sheet."
RIVN falls to $10: "Great opportunity to strengthen the balance sheet."
Rivian finally reaches positive free cash flow... and immediately discovers another factory it wants to build.
Copper wire shortage.
RJ: "Unfortunately, due to unforeseen copper constraints, we had no choice but to manufacture another 100 million shares."
At this point, Rivian's only production line without a bottleneck is the share printer. 😂
Bullish on R2. Bearish on the number of shares I'll own by the time R3 gets here.
Most federal employees get 0%, while federal law enforcement gets 3.8% and the military roughly 5–7%.
Nothing against those raises, but carving out two highly visible groups seems to make it politically easier to freeze everyone else—and weakens the unified push in Congress for a broader federal pay raise.
The part that really stands out is the justification. Recruitment and retention are being used to support the 3.8% LEO increase. If that logic is valid, why wouldn't it also apply to engineers, scientists, IT/cyber, wildland fire, aviation, medical staff, and other hard-to-fill federal jobs?
Intentional or not, it seems like a pretty effective divide-and-conquer strategy at exactly the time federal employees need a unified argument for a meaningful raise, not another real-pay cut.
Most federal employees get 0%, while federal law enforcement gets 3.8% and the military roughly 5–7%.
Nothing against those raises, but doesn't carving out two highly visible groups make it much easier politically to freeze everyone else?
It also weakens the unified argument to Congress for a federal pay raise. And if recruitment and retention justify 3.8% for LEOs, why wouldn't that same argument apply across the federal workforce?
Intentional or not, it seems like a pretty effective divide-and-conquer strategy.
Rivian is on the right path.
My name is Ian Kullgren, and I’m a Bloomberg reporter covering the Trump administration’s changes to the federal government. I’m working on a story with a colleague about the reduction in the regulatory workforce — specifically, how the exodus is affecting agencies that write, review, and promulgate regulations.
Oct. 1 will mark one year since the DRP cuts. We’re interested in hearing from current federal employees and those who have recently left about the changes they’ve seen. What work is taking longer? Which expertise has vanished from your agency? How is AI filling the void? Can agencies really carry out President Trump’s deregulatory agenda with fewer people to make it happen?
We’re interested in specific, firsthand examples. It doesn't need to be dramatic or opinionated — just about how regulators' jobs have changed. Conversations with us can be entirely on background, i.e. not for attribution. We’ll discuss precise sourcing terms to make sure you’re protected.
TL;DR, we’d love to hear from career employees who work on the mechanics of rulemaking and can tell us about the impact of staffing cuts.
If this is you — or if you know someone we should talk to — reach me and my colleague, Stephen Lee, on Signal at IanKullgren.38 and stephen_lee.86, respectively.
Who should they hire and why?
How much revenue do you think it can generate for the Pac 12? How much is it worth? Can it grow to be a major sports production company? Possible future customers?
Federal employees have been having essentially the same conversation for years:
What will our raise be next year?
1%? 2%? 3%? Will locality pay increase? Will Congress intervene? Will the president propose something different?
I think we're asking the wrong question.
The real question should be:
Why doesn't federal pay have a reliable mechanism that protects employees' purchasing power and keeps compensation reasonably competitive with the broader labor market?
This isn't something that started with the current administration. Federal employees have experienced periods of pay freezes, below-inflation increases, and growing pay-comparability concerns across Democratic and Republican administrations and multiple Congresses.
The cumulative effect matters.
If your salary increases 1% while prices increase 4%, you didn't really receive a raise. Your paycheck got larger, but your real purchasing power declined.
Do that repeatedly over many years and the difference compounds.
Congress already recognized this problem when it passed the Federal Employees Pay Comparability Act (FEPCA) of 1990.
The idea was that federal compensation should remain reasonably competitive with nonfederal employment, including geographic differences through locality pay.
Yet decades later, federal employees are still debating every year whether their next adjustment will keep up.
That's not a functioning long-term compensation strategy.
Rather than fighting every December over another temporary percentage, Congress should consider a permanent reform built around three principles:
1. Protect purchasing power
Federal salaries shouldn't be allowed to substantially fall behind inflation for years and then require employees to beg Congress for a catch-up adjustment.
There should be a mechanism that considers cumulative inflation and prevents persistent erosion of real wages.
2. Maintain labor-market competitiveness
Inflation isn't the only issue.
The federal government competes with private companies, state and local governments, universities, hospitals and other employers for engineers, accountants, firefighters, scientists, healthcare professionals, IT specialists, cybersecurity professionals and countless other occupations.
Federal compensation needs to reflect that reality.
3. Fix pay comparability instead of ignoring it
If the existing FEPCA system isn't going to be implemented as originally envisioned, Congress should reform it.
Create a transparent formula incorporating inflation, comparable labor-market wages and locality differences—and actually use it.
Absolutely. Compensation costs money.
But underpaying employees isn't necessarily free either.
Vacancies cost money.
Turnover costs money.
Recruiting and training replacements cost money.
Overtime costs money.
Contracting out work can cost money.
Losing experienced employees means losing years of institutional knowledge.
And agencies that cannot offer competitive compensation eventually have difficulty attracting the people needed to perform their missions.
We should be evaluating the total cost of maintaining an effective federal workforce, not simply asking how little we can spend on salaries this year.
For decades, American economic policy has frequently emphasized tax reductions and incentives at the top with the expectation that the benefits eventually work their way through the economy.
Whatever your political philosophy, there's another side worth considering:
What happens when middle-class workers simply have more real disposable income?
Workers spend money on housing, groceries, childcare, restaurants, vehicles, home repairs and businesses in their communities.
A federal pay system that preserves real middle-class purchasing power isn't just an employee issue. Federal workers live and spend money in communities throughout the United States.
Federal employees serve under Republican presidents and Democratic presidents.
We work for Republican administrations and Democratic administrations.
And federal employees live in red states, blue states and everywhere in between.
You don't have to be a Democrat or Republican to believe the United States government should be able to recruit and retain competent employees.
So maybe we should actually make some noise.
It takes a few minutes.
Tell them you want Congress to address long-term federal pay reform, not simply next year's adjustment.
Ask for:
And personalize your message.
Tell them what you're seeing at your agency.
Are experienced employees leaving?
Are positions difficult to fill?
Are younger employees declining offers?
Are people leaving for state government or private-sector positions?
Are vacancies creating more overtime and workload for everyone who remains?
Those stories matter.
There are millions of civilian federal employees, plus retirees, spouses and family members.
That's a substantial number of constituents.
One email probably doesn't change federal pay policy.
Thousands of constituents contacting congressional offices about the same specific issue can make it an issue congressional offices have to pay attention to.
So contact your senators.
Contact your representative.
Republican or Democrat.
Don't just ask:
"What's my raise next year?"
Ask:
"Why are we still using a system that allows federal employees' real purchasing power to erode for years at a time?"
Federal employees shouldn't have to fight the same battle every year.
Restore the lost ground. Fix federal pay comparability. Protect real purchasing power. And build a compensation system designed for the next 30 years instead of the next budget cycle.