A US Forest Service firefighter works on the Gifford fire in San Luis Obispo County, California, on August 10. The US Government is providing wildfire fighters with masks to protect against smoke — reversing a decades-long ban that exposed workers to toxins known to cause cancer and other serious diseases. Photo / Loren Elliott, The New York Times
The United States Government will provide wildfire fighters with masks to protect against smoke — reversing a decades-long ban that exposed workers to toxins known to cause cancer and other serious diseases.
The Forest Service posted new guidance on Tuesday acknowledging for the first time that masks can protect firefighters against harmful particles in wildfire smoke.
The move is part of a flurry of safety improvements in recent weeks as the Government faces increasing pressure to aid firefighters.
For years, the Forest Service had barred workers from wearing masks, arguing that they were too cumbersome for the job.
However, current and former officials have said the agency did not want to deal with the potentially costly consequences of admitting the long-term dangers of smoke exposure.
In an about-face, the agency now says it has stockpiled some 80,000 N95 masks and will include them in the standard set of equipment for all large fires.
It is encouraging firefighters to mask up and even suggesting that they shave their facial hair for a better fit. Previously, they were only allowed to wear bandannas, which offer no protection against toxins.
“This is going to make a huge difference in protecting people’s health,” said Timothy Ingalsbee, executive director of the non-profit group Firefighters United for Safety, Ethics and Ecology.
The shift comes after a series of articles in the New York Times documented a growing occupational health crisis among wildfire crews.
As climate change makes fire season longer and more intense, firefighters are spending more time in smoke. Many are developing cancer or lung disease at young ages, and some are dying.
The Forest Service, which employs the largest share of the country’s 40,000 wildland firefighters, has come under intense scrutiny by Congress in the wake of that reporting.
Lawmakers have begun crafting safety legislation and sent the agency multiple rebuking letters. A group led by Senator Jeff Merkley, (Democrat-Oregon), asked why the agency had continued to ignore calls to give workers masks, “a recommendation that researchers have been making to Forest Service since at least 1997”.
The Forest Service chief, Tom Schultz, was summoned to a House oversight hearing yesterday. Members of the Federal Lands subcommittee grilled him about what he was doing to protect firefighters.
Representative Jared Huffman, (D-California), pressed Schultz to inform workers that smoke can cause long-term illness. The Times has reported that this warning is not included in firefighter training. “We’ve talked about the New York Times piece. Chief, do you feel like the Forest Service is doing everything that it can to make the safety risk of smoke inhalation known to firefighters?”
Schultz responded that there was room for improvement. “We need to continue to focus on safety as we move forward, including this issue.”
The new guidance encourages masks for light duty. They remain banned during arduous work, like digging trenches to contain wildfires, because the Forest Service says they may cause overheating.
But permission to wear them at all is a major step, Ingalsbee said, noting that his worst exposures as a Forest Service firefighter had come while travelling old logging roads choked with smoke. “I wish I’d had the option to wear a mask,” he said.
The new mask policy is part of a wave of changes this month aimed at helping wildfire workers.
The organisation that develops US fire safety standards rolled out an emergency rule yesterday to protect firefighters from smoke even while they are doing gruelling fire-line work.
That group, the National Fire Protection Association, will now allow the certification of facial coverings that offer more protection than cotton bandannas but are not sealed respirators, like N95s.
Fire agencies across the country generally prohibit gear that is not approved by the association, so the change paves the way for firefighters to use more protective coverings, like neck gaiters with built-in filters.
“People might say this is just a Band-Aid, but right now we have an open wound, and we have to do something,” said Rick Swan, who represents the International Association of Fire Fighters, a labour union. Swan said manufacturers were already reaching out to get their products certified against the new standard.
In an internal memo, the Forest Service said it was exploring how it might also allow masks during arduous work. The agency has begun drawing up a budget for a full mandatory mask programme.
It is also exploring ways to filter smoke from the cabins of heavy equipment like bulldozers used to contain fires.
In California, state regulators may soon require an even bigger change.
This week, the state Division of Occupational Safety and Health began circulating a draft proposal that would require employers to provide wildland firefighters with half- or full-face respirator masks with built-in filters. The requirement would extend to so-called contract firefighters, who are employed by private companies the government hires to shore up its ranks.
The proposal also suggests mandating regular lung capacity tests to monitor damage.
Safety officials are expected to meet later this month with fire agencies, including representatives from the Forest Service, to kick off a rule-making process.
The Times reported that cutbacks by the Trump Administration had stalled research into cancer among wildland firefighters.
Governor Gavin Newsom of California has announced a project intended to fill that gap. A study of 3500 firefighters backed by US$10 million ($16.8m) in funding will look into how occupational exposures may increase cancer risk, with a particular focus on the 2025 Los Angeles fires.
Congress is weighing additional changes to improve firefighters’ health.
When wildland firefighters fall ill with cancers linked to smoke exposure, many have a hard time funding their treatment.
One of them, Fernando Allende, 33, developed an aggressive cancer in his lungs this year, the Times reported. He attributed his illness to the time he spent in January fighting the Los Angeles fires without a mask. He filed for workers’ compensation but had to skip chemotherapy as his claim was held up.
Last month, Senator Adam Schiff, (D-California), intervened in the case, and Allende’s claim was approved. Allende said he was grateful for the help but also frustrated by the delay. “It should not have taken an act of Congress,” he said.
Schiff said he was developing a bill to improve respiratory protection and smoke research for wildland firefighters. “Fernando and so many like him are heroes, and I want each of them to know that we have their back,” he said in a statement.
The thousands of firefighters who work on contract with the federal government will also be provided with masks. The Times reported that these workers often go without coverage when they get sick — unlike federal firefighters, who are supposed to get workers’ compensation benefits for smoke-related cancers and lung disease because of a 2022 law.
The Congress member who introduced that law, Representative Salud Carbajal, (D-California), said he would consider whether the coverage should be expanded. “More must be done to ensure firefighters across the board are getting access to the care they need and deserve,” he said.
Wildfires across the West are currently stretching the nation’s firefighting ranks, with thousands of workers deployed.
Andy Vanderheuel, a longtime Forest Service firefighter based in Michigan, said he thought the new rules could help protect the next generation.
During his 22 years fighting fires, he said, he has often been stuck in smoke at base camp with no way to avoid breathing in toxins.
“The Forest Service has never really recognised our exposures.”
He said he was glad the Government was going to pay to hand out masks. “If we all start getting cancer, we’re probably going to cost the Government more.”
This article originally appeared in The New York Times.
Written by: Hannah Dreier
Photograph by: Loren Elliott
©2025 THE NEW YORK TIMES