EXCLUSIVE: Heather Maude on where her case stands, her experience with USDA, and why it's not over yet
Six months after the press conference in D.C., Heather fills us in on what's happened since and answers your questions.
For ranchers in the West, Heather Maude became the reluctant face of government overreach when she and her husband Charles were threatened with 20 years in prison over a fence on their South Dakota ranch.
It wasn’t a fight she saw coming.
That fence, built decades before either were born, had passed routine annual Forest Service (USFS) inspections for years, when out of the blue in June 2024 the couple were served with criminal charges for trespassing on government land.
Their case was an example of the degrading lawfare many working American families say they experienced under the Biden regime, with ranchers viewing the Maudes as symbolic of the all-too-familiar government persecution and injustice that has driven so many out of business and off the range.
On April 28 of this year, Trump’s new Secretary of Agriculture announced criminal charges against the couple had been dropped. Two days later, Brooke Rollins hosted a press conference in D.C. outside the USDA building. Her speech was not measured or nuanced, it was cutting and precise: What happened to the Maudes was wrong. She compared their experience to the persecutions that sparked the American revolution.
Heather told the crowd of reporters that her case wasn’t over. They were back to square one. The family still had a fenceline dispute to negotiate with the USFS, and there were rumors the agency was planning to bring civil charges down on the couple. Privately, she feared they would try to bankrupt her family, having failed to imprison them.
I caught up with Heather for an update on where her case stands, what has happened with those civil charges, whether she believes the agents in her case were held accountable, how her family has coped in the aftermath, what she learned about D.C. in the process, her opinion on top Trump officials, and how we can begin to bridge the gaps in understanding that still exist between East Coast leaders and our Western producers and ranching families. Monday, October 27, her family received the official purchase agreement.
Let’s start with an update. You were threatened with civil charges that were still unresolved in our last interview. Where does your case stand?
Thank you for asking.
The criminal charges against both Charles and I were dropped in late April 2025.
Immediately following that action, the South Dakota U.S. Attorney’s office reached out to my criminal lawyer, asking if he would accept civil charges on my behalf. My lawyer would not accept civil charges without being told what the civil charges were—something they were unable to provide him when they called.
To my knowledge, that was the last time the U.S. Attorney’s Office reached out to my criminal attorney. We were consistently told the U.S. Attorney’s Office continued to attempt to bring civil charges against us over the next few months.
Then, in July, we were informed the civil case had been stopped, and was no longer an issue.
You’ve been clear since the USDA press conference that your family is not out of the woods. You still have a land dispute to negotiate. Where is that at?
While the criminal and civil cases are behind us, our situation is not over. We could not seek a resolution with the Forest Service until our criminal case was concluded.
In May, we started working toward that resolution. It took until July to convince attorneys and others involved that we remained unable to do anything on the land in question, which also meant we had not planted our adjoining private acres.
Many believed the Washington D.C. press conference completely fixed our lives.
Unfortunately, that is not the case.
Is it true that Secretary Rollins had to intervene again when it became clear her orders were not being followed by the Forest Service?
That happened at least twice.
When Secretary Rollins was informed of our current situation, she took action immediately and asked the Forest Service to provide us with a temporary use agreement to allow existing practices to continue until we and the USDA could reach a permanent resolution to the boundary issue.
What the USFS presented us was far different than what Secretary Rollins requested. We were offered a permanent change to our grazing permit allowing for “range seeding” on the acres in question.
That is a very different series of practices than growing crops. Had we signed that and continued to operate the acres in the same manner they have been operated for 115 years, we would have been in violation of our grazing permit.
When word of what happened in that process reached Secretary Rollins, I understand she furloughed multiple Forest Service employees that were involved in changing her original request. I have not heard that from her directly, but through multiple people we are working with.
The second time, the Forest Service presented us with a permanent change to our grazing permit to allow for existing practices to continue, and we signed that. During the same timeframe, Secretary Rollins said we would work directly with the Chief of the Forest Service and our Regional Forester to prevent further miscommunications.
I had a good visit with Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz in late July, and we determined utilizing the Small Tracts Act to allow us to purchase the acres in question would be the best course of resolution. He estimated an offer should be presented to us within 90 to 100 days.
On September 2, Charles planted both the acres in question and our adjoining private acres to winter wheat.
On October 10, Chief Schultz sent us the appraisal of the land where the boundary dispute occurred. We are currently reading and reviewing that appraisal.
The component that has not yet been addressed is what we will do in response to being charged with separate criminal felonies for theft of government property. We have been researching and discussing that since the charges were dropped in May.
Have you considered suing the USDA or Forest Service for what your family went through?
Dozens of attorneys have reached out to us, asking if they can represent us in multiple lawsuits against the Department of Agriculture, the Forest Service, and the individuals who brought criminal felony charges against us. Attorneys we are currently working with agree we are in a position to respond to the criminal charges. However, multiple lawsuits are not our first choice.
Our primary goal is to have assurances our family will never face such an unnecessary attack again, with all due consideration to the fact that, God willing, we intend to be farming and ranching in this location for another 115 years.
We are currently researching and discussing options to reach that goal.
What have your interactions with Brooke Rollins been like? What’s your impression of her as Ag Secretary?
Our only direct interaction with Secretary Rollins occurred via a Zoom call before we flew to D.C., and for a few minutes prior to our press conference in D.C. on April 30.
That said, she left a very good impression on all of us. She’s a genuine person—my favorite part was she made sure to point out to my daughter, who dislikes dresses, that she made sure to wear pants the day of our press conference. She’s intelligent, and I believe she is committed to working for the agriculture producers of our nation.
While our direct interaction has been limited, our indirect work with her has been more extensive, and that is where she has really impressed me. At every turn, she has followed through on what she said she would do.
My heart certainly sank when the first proposal from the USFS came to us looking like the same old thing—saying they would do one thing, then actually doing something completely different. Her reaction upon finding that out was confidence-boosting and trust-building for us.
I have come to the conclusion that we have great leadership in Washington D.C. with this administration, Secretary Rollins, and USFS Chief Schultz included, but there is also a great deal of bureaucracy the leadership must work through. As someone they are trying to help, it is both very concerning to get a glimpse of the underlying issues, and very encouraging to see leadership addressing those issues and continuing on the path of helping in the manner they committed to. We hope to see that continue as we work through the remainder of our issue.
And what about Chief Shultz? What is your impression of him? These are important leaders for folks in the Western world, their decisions and priorities have a big impact.
My impression of Chief Shultz is very positive.
We have had a good conversation on the phone, and have emailed several times. I met him briefly in North Dakota earlier this year. He has followed through with everything he said he would do, in the timeframe he gave me.
It shouldn’t be a shocking sensation for the head of a government agency to be so effective, honest, and proactive in his work for the citizens his agency serves, but unfortunately that is not our common reality. All of my experiences with Chief Schultz have shown him to be those things, and that is such a relief. Not just for myself, but for all landowners who use Forest Service lands to help feed our nation and the world.
The number one question I get asked about your case is, what happened to the Forest Service employees and officials who went after you? We know Jack Isaacs, the regional Forest Service supervisor, retired the day after your charges were dropped. What about Travis Lunders, the USFS Special Agent who served you, and Julie Wheeler, the district ranger?
That is a good question, and one I do not have the answer to.
The closest thing to an update we have been given was via a USDA Internal Review team, who spent three weeks reviewing the actions of Travis Lunders and Julie Wheeler in our situation. We met with them for over three hours, answering questions and showing them the land in question. They were congenial, professional, and courteous of us and our situation.
During our interview, they told us the law enforcement branch of the Forest Service loved and remained very happy with Travis Lunders.
We felt that was a very narrow perception, and also raised concerns as to whether USDA employees can conduct an unbiased, third-party review of other USDA employees.
We suggested the review team reach out to our neighbors, friends, and people who contacted us following their experiences with Julie and/or Travis for a more comprehensive review.
At first, they did not ask for any names. But, after we showed them a tree Travis stood behind and pulled bark off of for an hour while we observed him conducting “survey work in the general area of our USFS allotment” this April, they asked for names and numbers.
I have since heard back from many of those people. One was told Travis had been moved to another district. One was told he and Julie would be fired. Two said their conversations with the review team did not go well, with one saying the man who called him said ranchers were the real problem in this situation, and had tried to ruin two good USFS employees’ careers, but those two employees will not be fired.
That is about as unclear, and inconsistent, as something can get.
I have not had direct communication with Secretary Rollins or her chief of staff, so have not had the opportunity to ask them. I have asked my attorney about the internal review, and the reported responses, two times, and have not heard back from him.
It is difficult to be left in the dark, particularly regarding the people who were willing to remove me from my children for the remainder of their childhoods. Historically, they have taken extreme and unheard-of actions against both Charles and me without cause. The lack of information on this front concerns me.
As a Western state rancher, what have you learned about D.C. politics in general and the USDA in particular from this experience?
The lack of knowledge regarding the West and our issues is alarming to me. It isn’t because we have simple people in the USDA and/or D.C.—far from it.
Imagine if I, with my lifetime of experience in agriculture in Wyoming, South Dakota, and the surrounding region, were somehow placed in charge of America’s citrus industry. While I have a vast amount of experience in cattle, sheep, crops, public lands, grazing livestock, and more, I’ve never grown an orange in my life. That’s how it feels when trying to explain our issues to most people in the USDA and D.C. They’re intelligent and experienced, but not in any of the specifics of my situation, or regarding agriculture where I live. There is a huge void between what we do and how agriculture works in the West, and what people know about it and consequently how they respond and handle issues, in D.C.
For example, numerous people thought Secretary Rollins’ press conference fixed our issue in its entirety. I have repeatedly explained that dropping charges does not “fix” a boundary issue between the Forest Service and an allotment owner.
I had a difficult time explaining why we would not sign the first proposal the Forest Service sent to us for “range seeding.” People argued with me, stating the term “range seeding” was no big deal, and didn’t mean anything that would cause issues for us going forward.
Meanwhile, my consultant from Idaho, and every other person from a Western state, immediately understood both the wording, and the implications if we signed it.
During the internal review, I had to explain to USDA employees the multiple processes the USFS has in place to notify an allotment owner there is an issue, and the fact that they never did any of those things to notify us prior to criminally indicting us was a problem. Furthermore, it demonstrated a lack of due process in general, and according to the agency’s own guidelines.
When I pointed out the FSA [Farm Service Agency] listed us as the owners of the acres in question, the head of the review team stopped me and said that wasn’t relevant.
It is relevant, as both the USFS and FSA are under the USDA umbrella, and are in some ways a “checks and balances” for one another. The FSA said we owned the acres, and the USFS said we owned the acres. Consequently, we had no reason to believe we didn’t own the acres.
The Forest Service told us they conducted an official boundary survey in 2025. However, Forest Service employees placed USDA pins to mark corners. Nobody we are working with understands that the Bureau of Land Management, under the Department of the Interior, is responsible for boundaries on public lands. Furthermore, no one has been able to tell us if the USDA pins placed by USFS employees can be considered an official boundary marker, or not.
These are just a handful of simply explained examples we’ve faced in attempting to explain aspects of our situation to people with positions and power capable of impacting the outcome.
What do you think would have happened if Kamala Harris won in 2024? Do think you still would have received help from the feds or that these charges would have been dismissed?
There has been no argument among anyone we have asked—they all say we would be in jail. Between 95 and 99% of all criminal cases end with a conviction, and of those convicted, 75% spend time in jail.
We are currently living a miracle, and that is not lost on us. While this administration is not perfect, their efforts to work for the people is a truly positive thing for the nation as a whole, and for us as individuals.
Your family has been through some serious trauma. This have impacted your kids, your parents, your in-laws, as well as you and Charles. How are you doing after all of this? Have you had time to process this together in the midst of running ranch operations and still pursuing resolution on the case?
I won’t talk specifics for anyone but myself, but I know our parents, siblings, extended family, neighbors, and friends have all been impacted.
For me, it doesn’t feel like it’s over and I can take a breath, yet. I need to see it all wrapped up before I let my guard down. I still have all my notes on my office wall, handwritten so they aren’t tracked in any way. I still sit down, and find myself still there, just staring into space, several minutes later. I’ve gained a lot of weight and a lot of grey hairs as a result of the stress—you can still look at all of us and see we’ve been through the wringer.
As a mother, I struggle with the anger of what this has done to my children. They are tough little kids who went through a great deal, and they have some struggles we are working through.
My business has struggled, and my customers are very kind and patient when I forget to return calls. Charles and I are both aggressive people, and we had a lot of irons in the fire before this began. At this point, we are surviving, but we aren’t over the hump of what has occurred, and it continues to bog us down as we try to resolve the issue and run a multifaceted business. I expect what we have been through to cost us several million dollars and set us back at least five years by the time it ends.
It has also been traumatic to see the people who brought criminal charges against us take a strong victim mentality when the sum of their actions didn’t result in their desired outcome. We consistently hear how awful it was that the press wasn’t nice to them—it wasn’t always nice or accurate about us, either—or that their jobs became more difficult because of what happened.
None of them, nor the multiple people who have relayed their sentiments to us, will acknowledge that what they faced was a direct result of their own actions. As the people they attempted to victimize, it is difficult to hear that spin, and wonder what else they say, and who believes them. That is part of why it feels so ongoing, and as though I cannot put my guard down.
But, I have also grown exponentially in my faith during this experience. God laid it upon my heart early on that I was made in large part to walk this road, and He has been with us the entire time. I have a new understanding of learning your Bible so you have those truths to lean into when you need them. I have explained to my children that we should pray for all of the people behind what happened to us. Not for vengeance, as that belongs to the Lord, but for justice and, if any of them aren’t saved, for their salvation, as God also made them in His image and loves them. That’s a lot easier said than it is to sit down, with the children they tried to remove me from, and practice. But, we do it, and that helps all of us.
After everything your family has been through, what’s your assessment of the future for Western family ranchers?
I have always said agriculture will be fine. I have known since I was about 12 years old that I wanted to raise cattle. There are few things I love more than the art of breeding and raising cattle, and I have always wanted to believe that passion was safe within the boundaries of ranching.
This experience has shaken that mostly positive outlook. Ranching is a good and Godly pursuit of our time on earth. There is no better way to raise children. It is high quality, hard work that matters. It brings me closer to God and reminds me of my minuteness.
But like all good and Godly things, it is going to continue to face challenges and attacks in this world. It’s not all going to be rosy, and I think the time is gone when the majority of ranchers can just focus on punching cows.
Unfortunately, we must also involve ourselves in the protection and preservation of our passion in some way that extends beyond our own ranch. Fortunately, we are a group of people with incredible and diverse talents, and I am willing to bet on us.
What’s next for you and your family?
Next is our response to the criminal charges. I hope we can roll right into that after completing the resolution process, and wrap this up for both us and the people working on it within the USDA.
My dream is to go to county fair next year, and not have to check my phone to see if a high government official or attorney needs something from me right away. I can’t wait to get back to bugging Charles about which bulls we are going to artificially inseminate to which cows for months each winter.
We are going to get our crop rotation back on track and get Charles back to what he is really good at: raising feed in western South Dakota. I’m going to breed for a whopping set of show pigs to sell to little kids who love animals as much as I do, and I’m going to relish in the opportunity to be involved in their lives. My son needs to learn how to give oral reasons because he is gifted in judging livestock. My daughter needs to learn how to channel her intensity—we might see if there is a mother-daughter class on that somewhere, after we get coffee and do a round of shopping at the thrift store.
Beyond that, I see a need for Western producers to be involved in helping government officials understand what we do, why we do it, how we do it, and so on. I have spent my lifetime living and reporting on the people and issues unique to this region and this industry. I feel as if God has been preparing me to share all that information, and I am looking forward to seeing how that plays out.
Follow Heather on Instagram and Facebook for updates from the ranch and be sure to visit www.maudehogandcattle.com to shop ranch-raised pork and beef and to sign up for the monthly email list.
Excellent overview, recap and status update. Secretary Rollins is indeed genuine and a patriot. Also no doubt what the outcome would have been with a Haris admin.
What is scary about the government backing down is that one hand does not know what the other is doing except when it comes to attacking ranchers and farmers. As in private life vindictiveness is present in government, maybe even more so because those that work for government think they are more important than the citizenry. Unless this family can get a definitive clear resolution on all matters, those vindictive bureaucrats will be at their throats again once a dem administration is back in force.