Fire-adapted dry forests and nearby communities both need to be sustained as climate changes. Wildfires have increased in the ~25.5 million ha of dry forests in the western US, but are wildfires already more severe than historical (preindustrial) wildfires, warranting suppression, or is more fire needed? Recent research suggests that a higher percentage are more severe, but is this from more high-severity fire (≥70% mortality) or simply less lower-severity fire? To resolve this question, I compared government fire-severity data from 2000–2020 with corresponding government Landfire historical data, representing the last few centuries. The fire rotation (expected time to burn across an area of interest) for high-severity fire was 477 years recently versus 255 years historically, a deficit, not a surplus. High-severity fire would need to increase 1.9 times to equal historical rates. Thus, reducing high-severity fire through fuel reductions is fire suppression, which has significant well-known adverse ecological impacts. These include reductions in (1) natural burn patches, snags, and non-forest openings, that favor diverse fire-adapted species, and (2) landscape heterogeneity that can limit future disturbances and enhance landscape ecological processes. Even larger deficits were in moderate (4.4 times) and low (5.8 times) fire severities. However, if only these lower severities were restored, the high-severity percentage would correspondingly be reduced to low levels. All fire severities are needed to provide a variety of post-fire settings that favor a broad suite of selection pressures and adaptations to emerging climate. This paper shows that to sustain and adapt dry forests and nearby communities to fire and climate change, the billions spent on fuel reductions to reduce high-severity fire can be redirected to protecting the built environment, fostering both safe and sustainable dry forests and human communities.