by Bernie Kluger and Andrea Delgado

New analysis by Prospect Partners and Hawk Eye Strategies confirms federal public land agencies reduced contract spending by $1.3B between 2024 and 2025,  impacting nearly two thousand vendors, and with the steepest declines among contractors in Western states and rural counties. How will this policy shift transform local economies, public safety, and the enjoyment of public spaces?

Over the past several months, we have been digging into the impact of personnel cuts on federal public land management. But personnel is just one part of the story. Each year, federal agencies rely on thousands of contractors, small and large firms, nonprofits, universities, Tribes, and state and local governments, to advance their missions. These entities contribute to various aspects of public land management, from building dams, conducting research, and supporting vegetation management for wildfire risk reduction, to manufacturing personal protective equipment for wildland firefighters. If there’s a thing land management agencies do, there’s a contractor supporting that work.  

Figure 1: Net Change in New Funding of Vendors by Federal Public Land Agencies Between 2024 and 2025 (County Level Impact)

Figure 2: Net Change in the Number of Vendors Receiving New Funding from Federal Public Land Agencies Between 2024 and 2025 (County Level Impact)

Contracting is one of the ways in which federal agencies advance their missions and fulfill Congressional mandates. Understanding federal contracting behavior can shed light on agency priorities and performance. For this reason, Prospect Partners and Hawk Eye Strategies conducted an analysis of recent shifts in contracting across federal agencies and bureaus responsible for the management of public lands. Using recently available public data on federal contracting, our analysis intends to provide visibility into agency stewardship of taxpayer dollars and support fact-based dialogue, inquiry, and oversight from the public, NGOs and elected officials into the implications of contracting changes for critical infrastructure within public lands, water supply, outdoor recreation, and wildland fire mitigation and management.

Chart 1: Contracting by Federal Public Land Agencies by Product and Service Group Contracting Period: February 2024 to January 2025, February 2025 to January 2026, Small Business (SB) Vendors, Western States

This article serves as an introduction to the research and analysis Hawk Eye Strategies and Prospect Partners have conducted into the shifts in contracting by federal public land agencies and bureaus between 2024 and 2025. Our research, which we have consolidated into this report, provides the first comprehensive analysis of changes in contract spending, vendor participation, and geographic distribution across ten federal land management agencies, bureaus, and offices under the Trump Administration.  

Chart: Contracting by Federal Public Land Agencies by Agency Contracting Period: February 2024 to January 2025, February 2025 to January 2026, Small Business Vendors, Western States

What we found:

• Western states: Businesses in Western states shouldered $1 billion of federal contracting cuts (a 19.6% reduction).
• Rural counties: Of 553 rural counties with federal contracting in 2024, one in five counties saw all net spending with local vendors fall to zero in 2025.
• Small businesses: The number of small businesses doing contracting work for federal land management agencies fell by 1,751 businesses between 2024 and 2025

Collectively, these findings point out that between 2024 and 2025, the federal contracting landscape contracted in scope and concentrated in fewer hands. The communities most affected include rural counties, small businesses, and vendors across the Western states where the bulk of federal public lands are located.

Conclusions:

Our analysis of federal contracting data for 2024 and 2025 suggests two notable shifts in public land agency procurement. The first is a shift of wildland fire and aviation contracting dollars away from small business in parallel with an increase in contracting dollars with a small number of companies engaged in large-scale air-based fire suppression. The second shift is a potential realignment of the nation’s largest water infrastructure investments, including what may be a pause in long-term rural and Tribal water supply initiatives concurrent with increased investments in wastewater systems replacement at high profile national forests and parks. 

Our analysis does not establish the reasons for these shifts, which could reflect changing agency priorities, the natural ebb and flow of spending for multi-year projects, completion of prior phases of work, or other factors. Our analysis did consider the impact of impoundment, reprogramming, and rescission of funds related to the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), which provided one-time supplemental funding that flowed through normal agency contracting. Although significant, IRA accounts for only one quarter to one third of declines in spend and vendor counts. 

No matter the source of these declines in federal contract spending, their impact is significant. Given the potential implications on local economies, taxpayer cost, and public safety, and the delivery of public services, these shifts warrant transparency.  Questions that concerned citizens or oversight bodies can consider asking include but are not limited to:

• Do these spending patterns reflect formal changes in agency priorities, and if so, when and how were they decided?
• What is the status of the projects and commitments associated with the reduced spending, including those tied to existing federal obligations?
• How are agencies measuring the operational and service-delivery effects of these shifts?
• What effect, if any, might the recent transfer of approximately 345 agency contracting staff to headquarters supervision have on contracting practices at the Department of the Interior?

Our hope is that our analysis can serve as a starting point for other researchers, advocates, and stakeholders who are trying to understand through spending priorities the policy priorities behind those choices. If you have been following our research, you will know that we are strong believers in the saying that personnel is policy. We agree.  But for anyone trying to understand an administration’s priorities, we also encourage you to follow the money.

Prospect Partners, LLC is a network of senior executives in public policy and organizational development, committed to public service and improving real-world outcomes for working people and their communities. Prospect Partners equips leaders in complex, rapidly evolving environments to make informed decisions and act with confidence. Our clients are leaders in industry, government, community, and labor. We partner with our clients to achieve, with efficient use of limited resources, direct, concrete, and positive social outcomes for their stakeholders. We create opportunities for our clients to pursue a fair, just, and inclusive economy and a democratic society.

Hawk Eye Strategies, LLC is a Western-based strategic advisory firm serving clients across the United States and Indian Country. A majority Native- and Latina-owned firm, Hawk Eye Strategies brings more than 65 years of combined partner experience advising leaders in high-stakes environments, including the White House, federal Cabinet agencies, Tribal Nations, Native-led organizations, unions, and grassroots movements. The firm’s work is grounded in integrity-driven strategy, precise execution, and results that are both values-aligned and operationally realistic.