As millions of acres burn across the western United States, experienced wildland firefighters are raising alarms that aggressive suppression tactics mandated by the Trump administration—combined with extreme fire behavior—could place crews in mortal danger as conditions worsen this month. Western fire seasons have grown longer and more destructive over the past two decades, with annual area burned trending well above late-20th-century levels according to federal fire data—a shift scientists attribute in part to warming temperatures and earlier spring snowmelt that dry out forests earlier in the year.

The destructive potential of those conditions became clear in Eastern Washington on Saturday, when a fast-moving wildfire leapt across the Spokane River and tore through residential neighborhoods, destroying more than 600 structures and prompting the evacuation of 60,000 residents. Incident Commander Tom Clemo described the blaze as "probably the largest, most destructive fire in Washington's history."

No fatalities have been confirmed in Spokane as of reporting time, though Mayor Lisa Brown told local journalists the city is "still assessing the potential for lives to be lost."

"I will tell you, in a wind-driven event there is not a fire department in the U.S. that can handle a wind-driven event this size," said Spokane Assistant Fire Chief Lance Dahl, speaking to the Spokesman-Review.

Federal Directive for 'Full Suppression'

In April, ahead of the summer wildfire season, Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins and Interior Secretary Doug Burgum issued directives to agency leadership instructing them to pursue a "full suppression" strategy.

"Accelerate initial attack and use a full suppression strategy, in coordination with our interagency partners, across all land jurisdictions to suppress fires early and limit growth," Rollins wrote.

Burgum called for "prompt, decisive" suppression, adding that decisions should be "balanced with firefighter safety and a clear assessment of probability of success."

Federal land managers justified the approach by pointing to a hot, dry winter that left much of the West parched, arguing that rapid containment is essential before fires can spread. However, following several dangerous incidents this season—including the deaths of four federal firefighters in Colorado in June—some veteran wildland fire leaders are openly questioning the strategy.

Many see it as a revival of the U.S. Forest Service's decades-old "10 a.m." policy, which aimed to extinguish all fires by the morning after they were first reported. While many states follow their own suppression mandates, federal officials previously exercised greater discretion to allow fires to burn under supervision when they posed no threat to communities.

"No one in the agencies have said it, but it sure looks like a return to the 10 a.m. policy when you read the directions," said Jane Darnell, a wildfire veteran who spent more than 30 years with the Forest Service before retiring in 2020. "We lived with the 10 a.m. policy for 100 years, and we got here. This full suppression promise to the public is a promise that can't be kept."

Decades of federal policy aimed at extinguishing all fires quickly are now widely recognized by foresters as a major contributor to the current wildfire crisis. Forests that historically experienced fire at regular intervals have grown denser than historical norms, with trees competing for scarce water and thick underbrush accumulating on forest floors—creating abundant fuel for fast-moving, intense blazes. The Forest Service had been gradually expanding prescribed burning and managed fire programs in recent years to reduce those hazardous fuel loads, a trend the new directive effectively reverses.

Pressure From the Top

Beyond the written directives, wildfire veterans expressed concern that rhetoric from Trump administration officials is pressuring fire crews into adopting aggressive tactics to meet suppression targets. President Donald Trump has additionally threatened to impose tariffs on Canada as retaliation for wildfire smoke crossing the border.

"I found it disturbing," said Riva Duncan, a former wildland fire chief with more than 30 years of service at the U.S. Forest Service. "You've got somebody in a suit in an office who's never fought fires saying you've got to go direct attack." Duncan serves as president of Grassroots Wildland Firefighters, a nonprofit advocacy organization for wildfire professionals.

"If managers and leaders are hearing from the politicos, 'put them all out, put them all out,' are we putting people in where we shouldn't be?" said Bobbie Scopa, who served a 45-year career as a firefighter and is now vice president of Grassroots Wildland Firefighters. "I'm hearing from some young firefighters who feel like they are getting pressure to take actions. It's stupid and you're scratching your head and people are getting hurt."

The Department of the Interior did not respond to a Stateline interview request. The Forest Service declined to comment, stating that its resources are focused on fire response.

Dangerous Incidents Mount

Fire crews across the country have already been involved in multiple dangerous incidents this year. The most devastating occurred in Colorado, where four firefighters died after a fast-moving blaze overran their position. Federal officials have confirmed that an investigation team is reviewing the incident.

"We've already had nine entrapments this year. That's crazy," Duncan said, referring to incidents where firefighters' positions are surrounded by fire. "That suggests to me that fires are moving quickly and growing so fast."

"I do trace the tragedy in Colorado to that policy that compelled them to go out and aggressively attack the fires even when conditions did not favor safety or success," said Timothy Ingalsbee, a former wildland firefighter who now serves as executive director of Firefighters United for Safety, Ethics & Ecology, a group advocating for ecological fire management.

"This policy that compels crews to blindly rush out and attack all fires is just not smart and it's very unsafe," Ingalsbee continued. "They're throwing back to the policy of the 1930s, ignoring everything we've learned about fire ecology and fire behavior."

Other veterans urged caution before attributing the Colorado deaths directly to federal strategy. "It's just really hard to connect that at this time," Duncan said. "I have faith that the investigation team is looking at that."

Loss of 'Managed Fire' as a Tool

Many former firefighters are particularly critical of the federal government's abandonment of "managed fire" as a practice. Under that approach, federal land managers in previous years had the discretion to allow certain fires to burn under careful supervision, provided they did not threaten homes or infrastructure. Advocates argue that this strategy recognized fire's ecological benefits while reducing the risk of future catastrophic blazes.

"The problem is not fire itself, it's our relationship with it," said Darnell. "We can work with these fires that are highly unlikely to have catastrophic effects on infrastructure, keep them on there until the weather puts them out."

Ingalsbee echoed that perspective: "Excluding fire from the landscape and attacking all fires, that policy ended in the '70s because it was failing. It's performative firefighting, it's failing to accomplish tangible goals and it's putting lives in danger. Fire is nature's recycling."

State Foresters Respond

At the state level, foresters in the Pacific Northwest—the region hardest hit by fires this year—say they have not yet seen evidence that federal directives are causing firefighters to take excessive risks. Most state agencies are legally required to suppress rather than manage fires.

Oregon State Forester Kacey KC said the state's landscape is too parched this year to safely manage fires for ecological benefit. "Every fire we can keep small is good," she said. "Especially in conditions like this, there is not good fire right now on this landscape."

Washington State Forester George Geissler said he had not heard of federal crews taking extra risks, but cautioned federal leaders about their messaging. "If you set goals, but you don't set a good leadership tone related to safety, you can have those type of decisions being made," he said.

Geissler identified the larger concern this year as institutional upheaval within federal agencies. Under Trump, both the Forest Service and the Department of the Interior have undergone severe staff reductions. The Forest Service is in the midst of a major reorganization, and firefighting operations from multiple Interior Department agencies have been consolidated into the U.S. Wildland Fire Service—an entity established by Trump this year without congressional approval. The cuts come after years of well-documented struggles to recruit and retain federal wildland firefighters, whose base pay has historically trailed that of many state and municipal fire departments despite the seasonal, hazardous nature of the work.

"In the past, you knew who to go to, you knew which position had what," Geissler said. "Now with the rapid changes, the loss of personnel, it's a little bit scattered."

Federal crews are not alone in facing dangerous situations. Two separate incidents in Washington state left firefighters injured when fires overran their positions. One of those, the Lyons Ferry Fire, involved a Washington Department of Natural Resources helicopter crew. Geissler described it as a wake-up call.

"When the weather is this bad, all of those safety protocols become more and more critical," he said. "We did a full safety standdown over it, because that was an extremely close call for those firefighters."

Darnell said she would not be surprised to learn of further incidents in which firefighters are forced to deploy individual emergency shelters—last-resort devices that can save lives but do not provide full protection in extreme conditions.

"We've got conditions on the ground that are so explosive, it really begs us to be really careful about where we put people," Darnell said. "I hope we don't see any significant loss of life for firefighters."