New 'CLEAR Act' Voids Forest Service Criminal Rules, Raising Concerns Over Enforcement on Federal Lands

The “Community Law Enforcement Authority Restoration Act of 2025,” or the CLEAR Act, gets right to the point in its opening sections: it immediately invalidates a specific rule the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) put in place regarding criminal prohibitions. Specifically, Section 2 declares the USFS rule titled “Law Enforcement. Criminal Prohibitions” (published in the Federal Register) to have no legal force or effect right now. This is a direct legislative strike at an existing federal regulation, essentially removing a set of criminal rules designed to keep things in line on federal forest lands.

What Just Got Erased?

Think of the USFS as the landlord of vast tracts of public land—national forests, hiking trails, campgrounds, and timber areas. Like any landlord, they set rules, and some of those rules carry criminal penalties to deter activities that harm the environment or endanger the public. This bill wipes out one of those key rule sets. While the bill doesn't detail which specific prohibitions are gone, the effect is that whatever was considered a criminal act under that specific USFS rule is no longer enforceable by the Forest Service.

A Ban on Future Rulemaking

Here’s where it gets interesting, and potentially messy. Section 2 doesn't just invalidate the existing rule; it also explicitly prohibits the Secretary of Agriculture—who oversees the Forest Service—from ever administering, implementing, or enforcing that invalidated rule again. More importantly, it bans any future rule that is “substantially similar” to it. This is a legislative muzzle on the agency, preventing them from simply rewriting the rule and putting it back on the books.

The Real-World Impact on Public Lands

For the millions of people who use national forests—whether you’re a hiker, a camper, a logger, or a rancher—this creates immediate uncertainty. If the invalidated rule covered things like illegal dumping, specific types of unauthorized off-road vehicle use, or other activities that cause damage, there is now a gap in enforcement. For instance, if a rule penalized someone for illegally cutting down trees or polluting a stream, the Forest Service’s ability to issue a criminal citation for that specific offense is now gone. This could mean more work for local or state law enforcement to pick up the slack, or it could mean that certain destructive activities simply go unpunished on federal land until a new regulatory framework is established.

The Vague Problem of “Substantially Similar”

The prohibition against creating any “substantially similar” rule is a significant concern for agency function. It’s vague enough to become a legal headache down the road. If the Forest Service tries to create a new rule to regulate, say, the use of drones over sensitive wildlife areas, opponents could challenge it in court, claiming it’s “substantially similar” to the old, banned rule. This kind of ambiguity often leads to regulatory paralysis, where agencies hesitate to act for fear of immediate legal challenge, ultimately leaving the public lands less protected or less efficiently managed. Essentially, this bill is curtailing the agency’s ability to adapt and respond to new threats on the land they manage.