Wildfire Response and Preparedness Act of 2025

Download PDF
Bill ID: 119/hr/4038
Last Updated: January 14, 2026

Sponsored by

Rep. Kim, Young [R-CA-40]

ID: K000397

Follow the money

The bill

Wildfire Response and Preparedness Act of 2025

HR. 4038, 119th Congress — read as touching Construction & Engineering.

The sponsor

Rep. Kim, Young [R-CA-40]

Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.

The money

$110,460 raised

30 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.

The alignment

62% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Introduction" section, p. 341-343 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Subcommittee Hearings Held

January 13, 2026

Introduced

Committee Review

📍 Current Status

Next: The bill moves to the floor for full chamber debate and voting.

🗳️

Floor Action

Passed House

🏛️

Senate Review

🎉

Passed Congress

🖊️

Presidential Action

⚖️

Became Law

📚 How does a bill become a law?

1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.

2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.

3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.

4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.

5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.

6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.

7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!

Bill Summary

Another masterpiece of legislative theater, courtesy of the 119th Congress. The Wildfire Response and Preparedness Act of 2025 is a shining example of how politicians can take a genuine concern (wildfires) and turn it into a bureaucratic farce.

Let's dissect this mess:

**New regulations:** The bill creates a new standard for response time to wildfire incidents, because apparently, the current system of "try not to let everything burn down" wasn't working. The Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior will establish a response time goal of 30 minutes or less, with deployment of fire suppression assets within 3 hours. Because, you know, setting arbitrary timelines is always effective in complex emergency situations.

**Affected industries:** Federal land management agencies (Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, etc.), firefighting services, and contractors providing wildland firefighting assets will be impacted by this bill. Expect a surge in lobbying efforts from these groups to "streamline" contracting mechanisms and secure more funding for their services.

**Compliance requirements and timelines:** The Secretaries concerned have 90 days to establish the new response time standard, which is roughly the same amount of time it takes for Congress to forget about this bill. Agencies will need to submit reports on their progress, because nothing says "accountability" like a bunch of bureaucrats writing reports.

**Enforcement mechanisms and penalties:** Ah, the teeth of the legislation! Or rather, the lack thereof. There are no explicit enforcement mechanisms or penalties mentioned in the bill. I'm sure the agencies will just magically comply with these new regulations out of the goodness of their hearts.

**Economic and operational impacts:** The real impact of this bill will be felt by taxpayers, who will foot the bill for increased funding to support the new response time standard. Expect a surge in spending on firefighting assets, contracting services, and bureaucratic overhead. Meanwhile, the actual effectiveness of these measures will remain dubious at best.

In conclusion, this bill is a classic case of "legislative placebo": it makes politicians feel good about addressing a pressing issue, but ultimately accomplishes little more than creating new bureaucratic hurdles and opportunities for special interests to profit from the chaos. The real disease here is not wildfires, but the chronic incompetence and self-interest that plagues our legislative system.

Diagnosis: Terminal case of bureaucratic bloat, with symptoms including arbitrary timelines, lack of enforcement mechanisms, and a healthy dose of special interest pandering. Prognosis: more of the same ineffective, expensive, and self-serving legislation that has come to define modern politics.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Kim, Young [R-CA-40]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions
$110,460
23 donors
PACs
$0
Organizations
$37,860
Committees
$0
Individuals
$72,600

No PAC contributions found

1
PECHANGA BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS
2 transactions
$6,600
2
HABEMATOLEL POMO OF UPPER LAKE
1 transaction
$3,300
3
OTOE MISSOURIA TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA
1 transaction
$3,300
4
TURTLE MOUNTAIN BAND OF CHIPPEWA OF NORTH DAKOTA
1 transaction
$3,300
5
AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS
1 transaction
$3,300
6
SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
2 transactions
$3,300
7
AT&T INC & ITS AFFLIATES
1 transaction
$3,000
8
SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
2 transactions
$3,000
9
ABBVIE PAC - FEDERAL PAC
1 transaction
$2,500
10
ISE-SHIMA
1 transaction
$1,760
11
BARONA BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
1 transaction
$1,500
12
MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
1 transaction
$1,000
13
PIONEER PHARMACY
2 transactions
$1,000
14
JACKSON FAMILY TRUST
1 transaction
$500
15
LAW OFFICES OF PETER CHEN
1 transaction
$500

No committee contributions found

1
DRESNER, LINDA
2 transactions
$13,200
2
LEVY, EDWARD
2 transactions
$13,200
3
SILVERMAN, JEFFREY
2 transactions
$13,200
4
AMBROSE, JOAN
1 transaction
$6,600
5
WEEKLEY, RICHARD
1 transaction
$6,600
6
REGIABA, ADAM
1 transaction
$6,600
7
VANDER SLOOT, FRANK
1 transaction
$6,600
8
VANDER SLOOT, BELINDA
1 transaction
$6,600

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 2 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Rep. Gray, Adam [D-CA-13]

ID: G000605

Top Contributors

10

1
ACTBLUE
OrganizationSOMMERVILLE, MA
$1,000
Aug 27, 2023
2
ACTBLUE
OrganizationSOMMERVILLE, MA
$1,000
Aug 14, 2023
3
ACTBLUE
OrganizationSOMMERVILLE, MA
$1,000
Aug 14, 2023
4
ESPARZA FOR BOARD OF EQUALIZATION 2026
OrganizationFRESNO, CA
$1,000
Jun 4, 2024
5
FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA
OrganizationROHNERT PARK, CA
$1,000
Aug 1, 2024
6
TONY THURMOND FOR GOVERNOR 2026
OrganizationOAKLAND, CA
$999
Nov 4, 2024
7
TIM GRAYSON FOR SENATE 2024
OrganizationSACRAMENTO, CA
$500
Mar 14, 2024
8
ACTBLUE
OrganizationSOMMERVILLE, MA
$500
Apr 21, 2024
9
ANGEL BARAJAS FOR SUPERVISOR
OrganizationWEST SACRAMENTO, CA
$250
Aug 11, 2024
10
ACTBLUE
OrganizationSOMMERVILLE, MA
$100
May 5, 2024

Rep. Vindman, Eugene Simon [D-VA-7]

ID: V000138

Top Contributors

10

1
LUX FOR VIRGINIA
OrganizationLADYSMITH, VA
$500
Mar 29, 2024
2
LUX FOR VIRGINIA
OrganizationLADYSMITH, VA
$500
Mar 31, 2024
3
FORSTER-BURKE, DIANE
NOT EMPLOYEDNOT EMPLOYED
IndividualCOTTONWOOD HEIGHTS, UT
$4,000
Apr 20, 2024
4
FORSTER-BURKE, DIANE
IndividualCOTTONWOOD HEIGHTS, UT
$4,000
May 5, 2024
5
VON STEIN, THOMSON
IndividualROCKVILLE, MD
$3,500
Aug 7, 2024
6
HULL, MEGAN
SELFACTIVIST
IndividualWASHINGTON, DC
$3,300
Nov 2, 2024
7
KAISER, GEORGE
GBK CORPORATIONEXECUTIVE
IndividualTULSA, OK
$3,300
Oct 25, 2024
8
PARSONS, KATHLEEN
NOT EMPLOYEDNOT EMPLOYED
IndividualPOTOMAC, MD
$3,300
Oct 18, 2024
9
STAPLE, HARISE
SELFMD
IndividualLOS ALTOS, CA
$3,300
Oct 18, 2024
10
HOLMES, LAURA
SELFREAL ESTATE INVESTOR
IndividualBOCA RATON, FL
$3,300
Oct 22, 2024

Donor Network - Rep. Kim, Young [R-CA-40]

PACs
Organizations
Individuals
Politicians

Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.

Loading...

Showing 69 nodes and 36 connections (72 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $118,460

Top Donors - Rep. Kim, Young [R-CA-40]

Showing top 23 donors by contribution amount

15 Orgs8 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 3 helped.

  • Section 2(b)(1) requires establishing a standard for response time to wildland fire incidents on Federal land, which will likely increase demand for firefighting resources, equipment, and infrastructure, benefiting construction and engineering firms involved in building firefighting facilities, roads, and support systems.

  • +Defense Contractorsconfidence 0.70

    Section 2(c)(4)(B) estimates the size of the aviation and ground wildland firefighting fleet needed to meet response time goals, which may lead to increased contracts for firefighting aircraft, vehicles, and equipment, benefiting defense contractors that produce such assets.

  • +Telecommunicationsconfidence 0.60

    Section 2(c)(5) describes necessary changes to the Federal ordering and dispatch system to enable faster dispatch of firefighting assets, which may involve upgrades to communication and coordination systems, benefiting telecommunications providers.

Who funds the sponsor on these industries

For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Rep. Kim, Young [R-CA-40])received from donors associated with that industry during the 2022–present cycles. Donations are not proof of intent — they are a record of who funds the people writing the law.

Industries this bill HELPS

Project 2025 Policy Matches

This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.

Introduction

Moderate61.5%
Pages: 341-343

— 308 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Reform Forest Service Wildfire Management. The United States Forest Service is one of four federal government land management agencies that admin- ister 606 million acres, or 95 percent of the 640 million acres of surface land area managed by the federal government.115 Located within the USDA, the Forest Service manages the National Forest System, which is comprised of 193 million acres.116 As explained by the USDA, “The USDA Forest Service’s mission is to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the nation’s forests and grasslands to meet the needs of present and future generations.”117 The Forest Service should focus on proactive management of the forests and grasslands that does not depend heavily on burning. There should be resilient forests and grasslands in the wake of management actions. Wildfires have become a primary vegetation management regime for national forests and grasslands.118 Recognizing the need for vegetation management, the Forest Service has adopted “pyro-silviculture” using “unplanned” fire,119 such as unplanned human-caused fires, to otherwise accomplish vegetation management.120 The Forest Service should instead be focusing on addressing the precipitous annual amassing of biomass in the national forests that drive the behavior of wildfires. By thinning trees, removing live fuels and deadwood, and taking other preventive steps, the Forest Service can help to minimize the consequences of wildfires. Increasing timber sales could also play an important role in the effort to change the behavior of wildfire because there would be less biomass. Timber sales and timber harvested in public forests dropped precipitously in the early 1990s and still remain very low. For example, in 1988, the volume of timber sold and harvested by volume was about 11 billion and 12.6 billion board feet (BBF), respectively.121 In 2021, timber sold was 2.8 BBF and timber harvested was 2.4 BBF. In 2018, President Donald Trump issued Executive Order 13855 to, among other things, promote active management of forests and reduce wildfire risks.122 The executive order stated, “Active management of vegetation is needed to treat these dangerous conditions on Federal lands but is often delayed due to challenges associated with regulatory analysis and current consultation requirements.”123 It further explained the need to reduce regulatory obstacles to fuel reduction in forests created by the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act.124 The next Administration should: l Champion executive action, consistent with law, and proactive legislation to reduce wildfires. This would involve embracing Executive Order 13855, building upon it, and working with lawmakers to promote active management of vegetation, reduce regulatory obstacles to reducing fuel buildup, and increase timber sales. — 309 — Department of Agriculture Eliminate or Reform the Dietary Guidelines. The USDA, in collaboration with HHS, publishes the Dietary Guidelines every five years.125 For more than 40 years, the federal government has been releasing Dietary Guidelines,126 and during this time, there has been constant controversy due to questionable recommenda- tions and claims regarding the politicization of the process. In the 2015 Dietary Guidelines process, the influential Dietary Guidelines Advi- sory Committee veered off mission and attempted to persuade the USDA and HHS to adopt nutritional advice that focused not just on human health, but the health of the planet.127 Issues such as climate change and sustainability infiltrated the process. Fortunately, the 2020 process did not get diverted in this manner. How- ever, the Dietary Guidelines remain a potential tool to influence dietary choices to achieve objectives unrelated to the nutritional and dietary well-being of Americans. There is no shortage of private sector dietary advice for the public, and nutrition and dietary choices are best left to individuals to address their personal needs. This includes working with their own health professionals. As it is, there is constantly changing advice provided by the government, with insufficient qualifications on the advice, oversimplification to the point of miscommunicating important points, questionable use of science, and potential political influence. The Dietary Guidelines have a major impact because they not only can influence how private health providers offer nutritional advice, but they also inform federal programs. School meals are required to be consistent with the guidelines.128 The next Administration should: l Work with lawmakers to repeal the Dietary Guidelines. The USDA should help lead an effort to repeal the Dietary Guidelines. l Minimally, the next Administration should reform the Dietary Guidelines. The USDA, with HHS, should develop a more transparent process that properly considers the underlying science and does not overstate its findings. It should also ensure that the Dietary Guidelines focus on nutritional issues and do not veer off-mission by focusing on unrelated issues, such as the environment, that have nothing to do with nutritional advice. In fact, if environmental concerns supersede or water down recommendations for human nutritional advice, the public would be receiving misleading health information. The USDA, working with lawmakers, should codify these reforms into law. ORGANIZATIONAL ISSUES Based on the recommended reforms identified as ideal solutions, the USDA would look different in many respects. One of the biggest changes would be a USDA that is not focused on welfare, given that means-tested welfare programs would

Introduction

Moderate61.5%
Pages: 341-343

— 308 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Reform Forest Service Wildfire Management. The United States Forest Service is one of four federal government land management agencies that admin- ister 606 million acres, or 95 percent of the 640 million acres of surface land area managed by the federal government.115 Located within the USDA, the Forest Service manages the National Forest System, which is comprised of 193 million acres.116 As explained by the USDA, “The USDA Forest Service’s mission is to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the nation’s forests and grasslands to meet the needs of present and future generations.”117 The Forest Service should focus on proactive management of the forests and grasslands that does not depend heavily on burning. There should be resilient forests and grasslands in the wake of management actions. Wildfires have become a primary vegetation management regime for national forests and grasslands.118 Recognizing the need for vegetation management, the Forest Service has adopted “pyro-silviculture” using “unplanned” fire,119 such as unplanned human-caused fires, to otherwise accomplish vegetation management.120 The Forest Service should instead be focusing on addressing the precipitous annual amassing of biomass in the national forests that drive the behavior of wildfires. By thinning trees, removing live fuels and deadwood, and taking other preventive steps, the Forest Service can help to minimize the consequences of wildfires. Increasing timber sales could also play an important role in the effort to change the behavior of wildfire because there would be less biomass. Timber sales and timber harvested in public forests dropped precipitously in the early 1990s and still remain very low. For example, in 1988, the volume of timber sold and harvested by volume was about 11 billion and 12.6 billion board feet (BBF), respectively.121 In 2021, timber sold was 2.8 BBF and timber harvested was 2.4 BBF. In 2018, President Donald Trump issued Executive Order 13855 to, among other things, promote active management of forests and reduce wildfire risks.122 The executive order stated, “Active management of vegetation is needed to treat these dangerous conditions on Federal lands but is often delayed due to challenges associated with regulatory analysis and current consultation requirements.”123 It further explained the need to reduce regulatory obstacles to fuel reduction in forests created by the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act.124 The next Administration should: l Champion executive action, consistent with law, and proactive legislation to reduce wildfires. This would involve embracing Executive Order 13855, building upon it, and working with lawmakers to promote active management of vegetation, reduce regulatory obstacles to reducing fuel buildup, and increase timber sales.

Introduction

Moderate60.0%
Pages: 566-568

— 533 — Department of the Interior order to fulfill the yet-unaltered congressional mandate contained in federal law, to provide for jobs and well-paying employment opportunities in rural Oregon, and to ameliorate the effects of wildfires, the new Administration must immedi- ately fulfill its responsibilities and manage the O&C lands for “permanent forest production” to ensure that the timber is “sold, cut, and removed.”79 NEPA Reforms. Congress never intended for the National Environmental Policy Act to grow into the tree-killing, project-dooming, decade-spanning mon- strosity that it has become. Instead, in 1970, Congress intended a short, succinct, timely presentation of information regarding major federal action that signifi- cantly affects the quality of the human environment so that decisionmakers can make informed decisions to benefit the American people. The Trump Administration adopted common-sense NEPA reform that must be restored immediately. Meanwhile, DOI should reinstate the secretarial orders adopted by the Trump Administration, such as placing time and page limits on NEPA documents and setting forth—on page one—the costs of the document itself. Meanwhile, the new Administration should call upon Congress to reform NEPA to meet its original goal. Consideration should be given, for example, to eliminat- ing judicial review of the adequacy of NEPA documents or the rectitude of NEPA decisions. This would allow Congress to engage in effective oversight of federal agencies when prudent. Settlement Transparency. Interior Secretary David Bernhardt required DOI to prominently display and provide open access to any and all litigation settlements into which DOI or its agencies entered, and any attorneys’ fees paid for ending the litigation.80 Biden’s DOI, aware that the settlements into which it planned to enter and the attorneys’ fees it was likely to pay would cause controversy, ended this policy.81 A new Administration should reinstate it. The Endangered Species Act. The Endangered Species Act was intended to bring endangered and threatened species back from the brink of extinction and, when appropriate, to restore real habitat critical to the survival of the spe- cies. The act’s success rate, however, is dismal. Its greatest deficiency, according to one renowned expert, is “conflict of interest.”82 Specifically, the work of the Fish and Wildlife Service is the product of “species cartels” afflicted with group- think, confirmation bias, and a common desire to preserve the prestige, power, and appropriations of the agency that pays or employs them. For example, in one highly influential sage-grouse monograph, 41 percent of the authors were federal workers. The editor, a federal bureaucrat, had authored one-third of the paper.83 Meaningful reform of the Endangered Species Act requires that Congress take action to restore its original purpose and end its use to seize private prop- erty, prevent economic development, and interfere with the rights of states over their wildlife populations. In the meantime, a new Administration should take the following immediate action:

Showing 3 of 4 policy matches

About These Correlations

Policy matches are calculated using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text. A score of 60% or higher indicates meaningful thematic overlap. This does not imply direct causation or intent, but highlights areas where legislation aligns with Project 2025 policy objectives.

Full Policy Text

Related Bills