Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Project 2025: The White House Downgrades the Department of Energy

Opinion

Oil pump at sunset, agricultural field

Oil pump at sunset, agricultural field.

Last spring and summer, The Fulcrum published a 30-part series on Project 2025. Now that Donald Trump’s second term has started, Part 2 of the series has commenced.

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has played a crucial role in the nation’s energy security and infrastructure modernization under eight previous presidents. But under President Donald Trump, the DOE is slotted for a downgrade in its mission, funding, and operational capacity.


The DOE, which was created in 1975 in response to the 1970s oil crisis, oversees national policy regarding energy production, development of the nation’s renewable energy resources, energy conservation, oversight of nuclear power, and the military's nuclear weapons program. Its mission includes making sure America’s energy-related research remains on the cutting edge of innovation. It is a Cabinet-level agency with an enormous portfolio and a $51 billion annual budget as of 2024, directly answerable to the president. Its 17,000 federal employees, plus another 90,000 contract employees, have their hands full trying to move the U.S. deeper into the 21st century and making sure that the nation remains energy competitive with China, the European Union, Russia, and other major powers.

Given the significance of the DOE’s historical mission, many leaders from the business, scientific, military, and energy specialties are growing concerned over the plans of the Trump administration to cut the budget, staff, and capacity of the DOE. Trump’s philosophy seems to be guided by the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 blueprint, which downplays the seriousness of climate change and America’s responsibility to enact effective policies that will greatly reduce the U.S. carbon footprint—which happens to be the largest per capita in the world among high-population countries, twice as large as China’s.

Instead, under the Project 2025 influence, the White House issued an executive order on April 8 that declared a “national energy emergency” that is seeking to stop what Project 2025 calls an “unprovoked war on fossil fuels.” Their preferred energy policy can be boiled down to a bumper sticker slogan: “ Drill, baby, drill.”

The executive order calls for significantly more investment and production of oil, natural gas, coal, and nuclear energy. Trump’s appointed secretary of energy, Chris Wright—who formerly served as the chief executive officer of Liberty Energy, a fracking company based in Denver—has frequently expressed doubts about climate change and opposed policies aimed at curbing it. Wright has acknowledged the link between burning fossil fuels and climate change but he doubts whether climate change is having the impacts that scientists say, such as dangerous planetary heating and worsening extreme weather. “The world runs on oil and gas, and we need that,” he said in an interview with CNBC.

Indeed the Trump administration, under the influence of Project 2025, is so hostile to any type of alternative energy that it seems to relish its opposition to things like “eyesore windmills built at taxpayers’ expense” and any incentives-based policy that is construed as trying to “force people into electric vehicles.” The White House has withdrawn appliance efficiency standards and postponed other conservation rules, including standards on electric motors, ceiling fans, dehumidifiers, and external power supplies. It appears that Donald Trump, under the influence of Project 2025, is trying to turn back the clock on energy awareness and development by 50 years, burying the climate change threat in the sand.

But that’s not all. The Trump executive order regarding the DOE also calls for the U.S. to be “energy dominant” in the world. Taking into account recent belligerent rhetoric by the Trump administration—whether it’s threatening to invade Greenland, to annex Canada to gain easier access to their energy resources, or to strike a deal with Putin’s oil-rich Russia over its military invasion of the sovereignty of Ukraine—this energy dominance may apparently be achievable via coercive and even militaristic means, according to the White House.

The contradictions in the Trump plan

While the Trump administration seems eager to reorient the mission of DOE in support of its aggressive goals, at the same time, it seems intent on downgrading the department’s capacity through a reduction in both personnel and funding.

In early April, Energy Secretary Wright sent an email to DOE employees, informing them that the department will be undergoing a “ wide-ranging reduction in force,” i.e. in staffing, to “align with broader strategic priorities outlined by President Trump.” That was an official nudge, encouraging DOE staffers to accept the Trump administration's resignation incentives. So far, nearly 4,000 staffers—about 25% of the DOE workforce—have accepted. Particularly hard-hit have been offices overseeing power grid stability, energy supply chains, clean energy deployment, and renewable, nuclear, and high-tech energy projects.

The Department of Energy has been the nation’s leading funder as well as a leading practitioner of cutting-edge research on the latest in energy innovation. But the Trump administration is cutting that as well. This is particularly concerning with regard to renewable energy and climate change research, with Trump’s Department of Commerce recently claiming—without evidence—that research on the topic was contributing to what it called “climate anxiety.” The DOE has signaled its intention to pull funding from hundreds of DOE projects, many of which were launched following President Joe Biden’s bipartisan infrastructure law and are funding numerous climate-friendly initiatives for solar power, heat pumps, battery storage, and renewable fuels.

The White House is not always cutting the funding directly, since that funding was mandated by Congress and questions have been raised if Trump can legally cut this funding. Instead, it is cleverly invoking “rule changes” that will result in, for example, research departments at universities seeing significant cuts in funding. This threatens to upend critical areas of scientific research.

This shift in DOE funding procedures mirrors announcements at the National Institutes of Health and other agencies, whose funding also is being cut. The cuts in multiple departments and agencies amplify a growing anxiety in the scientific research community as the Trump administration and its Elon Musk-led DOGE upend the country’s vast, world-class research system, firing scientists, researchers, and staff members responsible for crucial work. A university chemist, funded by the Department of Energy, says this means that “time-sensitive research will not be performed, or will need to be significantly scaled back…We are curbing our future economic growth and ceding technological ground to other countries.”

The brewing battle between Trump and the states

The White House executive order also escalated a growing battle between the Trump administration and Democratic-led states that are implementing climate-friendly policies. The President’s order stated that “American energy dominance is threatened when state and local governments seek to regulate energy.” Trump’s executive order zealously singled out California’s “cap and trade” regulations that create financial incentives for businesses to “trade” carbon credits and cap their carbon usage, even though that law was strongly championed by then-Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2009. Also in the crosshairs is Pennsylvania, where Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro is contesting a court challenge to a regulation that would make it the first major fossil fuel-producing state to force power plant owners to pay for greenhouse gas emissions.

In the Trump/Project 2025 world, no policy genuflection toward reining in carbon pollution is acceptable. Trump has instructed the U.S. Attorney General and the Department of Justice to target state laws focused on climate change, a broad order that unmistakably puts Democratic states in the crosshairs. Roughly 80% of the 262 projects on a DOE “kill list” are based in states that did not vote for Trump in 2024. Tellingly, the American Petroleum Institute, which represents the oil and natural gas industries, applauded Trump’s executive order.

No other federal department is more important to the nation’s future economic and infrastructure development, and for charting a course on how the U.S. will respond to the increasing threat of climate change, than the Department of Energy. Is President Donald Trump, who is not known as a man of science, prepared to manage America’s energy needs well into the future?

We are about to find out.


Steven Hill was policy director for the Center for Humane Technology, co-founder of FairVote, and political reform director at New America. You can reach him on X @StevenHill1776.

Read More

Yes, They Are Trying To Kill Us
Provided

Yes, They Are Trying To Kill Us

In the rush to “dismantle the administrative state,” some insist that freeing people from “burdensome bureaucracy” will unleash thriving. Will it? Let’s look together.

A century ago, bureaucracy was minimal. The 1920s followed a worldwide pandemic that killed an estimated 17.4–50 million people. While the virus spread, the Great War raged; we can still picture the dehumanizing use of mustard gas and trench warfare. When the war ended, the Roaring Twenties erupted as an antidote to grief. Despite Prohibition, life was a party—until the crash of 1929. The 1930s opened with a global depression, record joblessness, homelessness, and hunger. Despair spread faster than the pandemic had.

Keep ReadingShow less
Millions Could Lose Housing Aid Under Trump Plan

Photo illustration by Alex Bandoni/ProPublica. Source images: Chicago History Museum and eobrazy

Getty Images

Millions Could Lose Housing Aid Under Trump Plan

Some 4 million people could lose federal housing assistance under new plans from the Trump administration, according to experts who reviewed drafts of two unpublished rules obtained by ProPublica. The rules would pave the way for a host of restrictions long sought by conservatives, including time limits on living in public housing, work requirements for many people receiving federal housing assistance and the stripping of aid from entire families if one member of the household is in the country illegally.

The first Trump administration tried and failed to implement similar policies, and renewed efforts have been in the works since early in the president’s second term. Now, the documents obtained by ProPublica lay out how the administration intends to overhaul major housing programs that serve some of the nation’s poorest residents, with sweeping reforms that experts and advocates warn will weaken the social safety net amid historically high rents, home prices and homelessness.

Keep ReadingShow less
Trump’s Ultimatums and the Erosion of Presidential Credibility

Donald Trump

YouTube

Trump’s Ultimatums and the Erosion of Presidential Credibility

On Friday, October 3rd, President Donald Trump issued a dramatic ultimatum on Truth Social, stating this is the “LAST CHANCE” for Hamas to accept a 20-point peace proposal backed by Israel and several Arab nations. The deadline, set for Sunday at 6:00 p.m. EDT, was framed as a final opportunity to avoid catastrophic consequences. Trump warned that if Hamas rejected the deal, “all HELL, like no one has ever seen before, will break out against Hamas,” and that its fighters would be “hunted down and killed.”

Ordinarily, when a president sets a deadline, the world takes him seriously. In history, Presidential deadlines signal resolve, seriousness, and the weight of executive authority. But with Trump, the pattern is different. His history of issuing ultimatums and then quietly backing off has dulled the edge of his threats and raised questions about their strategic value.

Keep ReadingShow less
From Fragility to Resilience: Fixing America’s Economic and Political Fault Lines

fractured foundation and US flag

AI generated

From Fragility to Resilience: Fixing America’s Economic and Political Fault Lines

This series began with a simple but urgent question: What’s gone wrong with America’s economic policies, and how can we begin to fix them? The story so far has revealed not only financial instability but also deeper structural weaknesses that leave families, small businesses, and entire communities far more vulnerable than they should be.

In the first two articles, “Running on Empty” and “Crash Course,” we examined how middle-class families, small businesses, and retirees are increasingly caught in a web of debt and financial uncertainty. We also examined how Wall Street’s speculative excesses, deregulation, and shadow banking have pushed the financial system to the brink. Finally, we warned that Donald Trump’s economic agenda doesn’t address these problems—it magnifies them. Together, these earlier articles painted a picture of a system skating on thin ice, where even small shocks could trigger widespread crisis.

Keep ReadingShow less