The primary beneficiaries of tree removal are the architects and contractors. "Selective tree removal" can be used as a Trojan horse that allows an architect to gain entree to a club's payroll, as inevitably there will innumerable other suggestions for "improvement" and redesign to come once the architect has the ears of the greens committee and board. ("Well, if we're removing these trees, why don't we move these bunkers while we're at it, and then wouldn't it be great if we just extended this green to create a few more pin placements?") It is often difficult for greens committees and boards to resist the opportunity to leave their own marks on their courses. Before you know it, the architects' original designs are virtually unrecognizable.
Unfortunately, I suspect tree removal will prove to be a fad, not easily undone. Close examination of many original drawings of great golf courses from the '10s, '20s and '30s include plans for the planting of trees, particularly for parkland courses.
At the end of the day, there is common conflation of "restoration" with "redesign" - projects are sold under the "restoration" tag but often in reality become redesigns.
Strong greens committees and boards are required to resist this trend.