In late 2019, a seemingly localized dispute involving two Montana ranchers and the U.S. Forest Service ignited a broader examination of the persistent political pressures that frequently impede federal agencies from enforcing crucial environmental regulations across America’s vast public lands. The ranchers, permitted to graze their cattle on federal property, faced scrutiny after Forest Service personnel documented multiple instances of their livestock straying into unauthorized areas, alongside neglected fences and improperly placed salt licks that drew animals to sensitive creek and spring habitats. After repeated attempts at communication, the agency issued a formal "notice of noncompliance," citing a "willful and intentional violation" of their grazing permit and warning of potential revocation. This incident, while minor in isolation, quickly escalated into a prolonged political battle, revealing deep-seated tensions in Western land management.

Despite not being major political donors or influential figures within the powerful ranching industry, the Montana permittees swiftly garnered support from well-connected individuals. Leveraging assistance from a former Forest Service employee, they reached out to their congressional representatives in early 2020. This intervention prompted immediate action from staffers for then-Representative Greg Gianforte and Senator Steve Daines, both Republicans, initiating over a year of intense back-and-forth communication between the senator’s office and high-ranking Forest Service officials. This pattern of political intercession, often observed when local regulators attempt to enforce environmental standards, underscores the formidable challenge federal agencies face in balancing economic interests with ecological preservation. As one exasperated Forest Service official noted in a 2021 email to colleagues, when ranchers "hear something they don’t like," they often bypass local channels to seek redress from supervisors and congressional offices "to get what they want."

Public-lands ranching represents one of the most expansive land uses in many Western states, with Montana, for instance, boasting more cattle than human residents. The economic and cultural significance of this industry often translates into remarkable political responsiveness from elected officials at all levels. Ranchers facing citations or resisting regulations frequently mobilize a network of allies, including pro-grazing legal counsel, powerful trade group lobbyists, and sympathetic politicians ranging from county commissioners to state legislators and U.S. senators. These advocates, some of whom have ascended to influential positions within recent presidential administrations, consistently push for the deregulation of environmental rules and, in certain cases, advocate for reduced consequences for those who violate existing guidelines.

Multiple current and former employees of both the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Forest Service have voiced concerns, indicating that these politically potent alliances pose a significant obstacle to the consistent enforcement of grazing regulations. When faced with intense political pushback, regulators frequently find themselves compelled to compromise. One anonymous BLM employee, fearing retaliation, articulated the pervasive sentiment: "If we do anything anti-grazing, there’s at least a decent chance of politicians being involved. We want to avoid that, so we don’t do anything that would bring that about." This chilling effect can lead to a systemic reluctance to uphold regulations, ultimately compromising the ecological integrity of federal lands. Mary Jo Rugwell, a former director of the BLM’s Wyoming state office, acknowledged that while most public-lands ranchers adhere to regulations, a segment is "truly problematic," breaking rules and leveraging political connections to circumvent enforcement. "Ranching interests," she observed, "can be very closely tied to folks that are in power."

Public records requests have revealed that since 2020, members of Congress from both sides of the aisle have contacted the BLM and Forest Service more than 20 times regarding grazing issues. Beyond Senators Daines and Lee, and Representatives Gianforte and Gosar, these communications include former Senator Dianne Feinstein, demonstrating that while often partisan, the issue can also cross political divides. These inquiries addressed a spectrum of concerns, from "Request for Flexibility with Grazing Permits" to broader discussions on the "Public Lands Rule Impact on Ranchers and Rural Communities." The constant political scrutiny adds another layer of complexity for agencies already navigating legal challenges from environmental organizations, which frequently sue over perceived lax enforcement of grazing rules. Rick Danvir, a long-time wildlife manager on a major Utah ranch, described the BLM as perpetually "kicked" from all sides, emphasizing that the agency often adopts a defensive posture to avoid litigation.

In the Montana case, Senator Daines’ office maintained a relentless stream of emails to Forest Service officials from March 2020 through February 2021, demanding granular details about the agency’s interactions with the ranchers. The political pressure reached a peak in April 2021 when a Daines staffer made an unannounced appearance at a meeting between the ranchers and the Forest Service, only to be turned away. Despite this, the interventions clearly had an impact. While constituent services are a legitimate function of elected officials, the local Forest Service staff recognized that the external political forces were leading to preferential treatment for these specific ranchers. One official lamented in 2020, "If this issue was solely between the (ranger district) and the permittee, we should administer the permit and end the discussion there. Unfortunately, we have regional, state and national oversight from others that deters us from administering the permit like we would for others. It is very unfair to the top notch operators that call/coordinate/manage consistently." Another official articulated the frustration: "It leaves a sour taste to think I am expected to hold all other permittees to the terms of their permits/forest plan/forest handbook… yet be told to continually let it go with another."

By June 2020, the acting district ranger signaled a willingness to "cut (the ranchers) some slack" in hopes of improving relations. Despite finding further permit violations in December 2020, including evidence of overgrazing detrimental to vegetation and soil health, the agency opted against issuing another formal notice. This pattern continued, with the ranchers being in violation for four consecutive years by late 2022. Agency staff, wary of reigniting the political conflict, again declined to officially recommend a citation in their year-end report for 2022, effectively allowing the violations to persist. This exemplifies the "drama continues" sentiment expressed by one agency official during the protracted dispute, highlighting the significant erosion of regulatory authority under political duress. A spokesperson for Senator Daines confirmed his office’s advocacy, stating the senator "advocates tirelessly on behalf of his constituents to federal agencies" and "was glad to be able to advocate" for the ranchers.

The current political landscape further amplifies these challenges. The recent administration has actively positioned itself as a staunch ally for ranchers advocating against perceived government overreach. This includes the appointment of Karen Budd-Falen, a self-described "cowboy lawyer" with a history of suing the federal government over grazing regulations, to a high-level post at the U.S. Department of the Interior. Budd-Falen, who comes from a prominent ranching family and holds a stake in a large Wyoming cattle ranch, notably used the RICO anti-corruption law in one case to sue individual BLM staffers over their enforcement of grazing regulations, a case she ultimately lost at the Supreme Court in 2007. Similarly, Michael Boren, a tech entrepreneur and rancher with a contentious history with the Forest Service, was nominated and confirmed as undersecretary of agriculture for natural resources and environment at the U.S. Department of Agriculture, a position overseeing the Forest Service. Boren had previously received a cease-and-desist letter from the agency for allegedly clearing national forest land and constructing a private cabin.

The administration has also moved swiftly to dismantle Biden-era reforms aimed at strengthening environmental protections for public rangelands. In September, it proposed rescinding the "Public Lands Rule," finalized in May 2024, which sought to elevate conservation and wildlife habitat restoration to equal footing with traditional uses like oil drilling, mining, and grazing on federal lands. This rule would have allowed diverse entities to lease BLM land for conservation and enhanced environmental impact analysis for economic activities. Concurrently, the administration effectively nullified a Biden-era BLM memo that prioritized environmental review for degraded grazing lands and sensitive wildlife habitats. The Interior Department and BLM, in a statement, affirmed that "any policy decisions are made in accordance with federal law and are designed to balance economic opportunity with conservation responsibilities across the nation’s public lands." However, critics argue these actions fundamentally shift the balance away from conservation.

In a broader effort to re-center grazing in federal land management, the administration is pushing to open vacant federal grazing lands, estimated at 24 million acres nationwide, to ranchers. Many of these allotments were left vacant for critical recovery periods following wildfires, due to insufficient water or forage, or while awaiting the removal of invasive species. Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz, in May, gave staff a mere two weeks to compile lists of unused allotments for rapid refilling, a policy that directly caters to organizations like the Public Lands Council, which advocates for swiftly re-populating vacant allotments. While a USDA spokesperson stated that "vacant grazing allotments have always been open and available to permitted grazing," the aggressive push signals a clear shift in priorities.

The political power of ranching interests is not a new phenomenon. Decades ago, presidential administrations that attempted to raise grazing fees or strengthen regulations faced fierce opposition. In the mid-1990s, the Clinton administration famously retreated from a proposal to increase fees amidst widespread outrage from public-lands ranchers and their Republican allies in Congress. Many in the industry viewed then-Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt’s reforms as an existential threat, with one rancher famously declaring, "The government is trying to take our livelihood, our rights and our dignity. We can’t live with it." This historical context illustrates the enduring nature of this conflict and the deep-seated resistance to federal intervention in ranching practices.

While ranching industry groups do not command the same lobbying budgets as pharmaceutical or fossil fuel giants, their influence in Washington D.C. is significant. J.R. Simplot Co., the largest holder of BLM grazing permits, spent approximately $610,000 lobbying Congress from 2020 through 2025 and recently hired David Bernhardt, former Interior Secretary under the first Trump administration, to lobby on its behalf. Smaller permittees often rely on powerful trade groups like the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, which boasts affiliates in 40 states and engages in extensive lobbying and campaign contributions, overwhelmingly favoring Republican candidates in recent election cycles. This association vociferously opposed the Public Lands Rule and filed a lawsuit to halt its implementation, with its then-president, Mark Eisele, calling it "a stepping stone to removing livestock grazing from our nation’s public lands." Nada Culver, a former BLM deputy director, points out that beyond direct financial contributions, ranchers wield considerable "cultural power" as "icons of the American West," a factor that politicians are keenly aware of.

The support for ranchers extends beyond federal politics, encompassing state and local officials. In Utah, a prolonged dispute between ranchers and the Fishlake National Forest saw a local sheriff express willingness to jail Forest Service personnel, echoing the infamous 2014 Cliven Bundy standoff in Bunkerville, Nevada. In that incident, Bundy, who owed nearly $1 million in grazing fines and fees for two decades of chronic trespassing, engaged in an armed confrontation with federal agents attempting to round up his cattle. He claimed, without legal basis, that the U.S. government had no jurisdiction over public lands in Nevada. Bundy’s defiance garnered widespread support from regional political figures, including Nye County commissioners and members of the Nevada and Arizona legislatures. The Bundy family’s political ties have only strengthened, with Celeste Maloy, Bundy’s niece, elected to represent Utah’s 2nd Congressional District in 2023. Maloy has since advocated for selling federal lands and easing access to vacant grazing allotments for ranchers, receiving substantial campaign contributions from the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association.

Wayne Werkmeister, a long-serving BLM employee who retired in 2022 after overseeing federal grazing lands, recounts the immense difficulty of enforcing public-lands protections. In a case near Grand Junction, Colorado, Werkmeister and his team spent years documenting habitat damage across a 90,000-acre allotment due to overgrazing by approximately 500 cattle. When he pushed to reduce livestock numbers, the ranchers hired former BLM employees and copied then-U.S. Senator Cory Gardner, a Colorado Republican, on their correspondence. Werkmeister found himself justifying agency actions to senatorial aides. In October 2018, Budd-Falen Law Offices intervened, arguing that reducing grazing would "unnecessarily force them out of business." Werkmeister’s superiors ordered him back to the field for more data, despite years of existing documentation. Ultimately, Werkmeister was unable to sufficiently reduce grazing, and the allotment continued to be reapproved for grazing as recently as 2024. During a recent visit, he pointed to the denuded ground and invasive cheatgrass, lamenting, "Overgrazed to the point of gone." This encapsulates the profound and often irreversible environmental consequences when political influence consistently trumps scientific evidence and regulatory enforcement, leaving vast tracts of the American West vulnerable to degradation.