Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Project 2025: Department of the Interior

Person walking in front of the Department of Interior
Jahi Chikwendiu/The Washington Post via Getty Images

Becvar is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and executive director of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund, the parent organization of The Fulcrum.

As the political landscape heats up, a critical document known as Project 2025 has surfaced, outlining sweeping proposals for the Department of the Interior, among many other government departments and agencies. Spearheaded by former Trump administration officials and conservative leaders, this comprehensive plan calls for a radical restructuring of the department’s mission and operations.

The document's vision constitutes a significant departure from current policies, emphasizing energy dominance and deregulation, raising questions about the future of public lands and environmental protections.


Former President Donald Trump’s remarks about being a “ dictator on the first day only ” of a potential second term have sparked considerable debate. Despite his claims of unfamiliarity with Project 2025 and the Heritage Foundation’s announcement that it was ending that work, the goals articulated in the document align closely with his stated priorities. Trump’s promise to “close the border and drill, drill, drill” mirrors Project 2025’s objectives, suggesting a coordinated effort to reshape the DOI from day one of a new conservative administration.

The chapter on the Department of the Interior, authored primarily by William Perry Pendley, former acting director of the Bureau of Land Management, sets a combative tone. Pendley’s tenure at BLM was marked by aggressive moves to reduce protections for public lands and wildlife, leading to a demoralized agency described by insiders as a “ghost ship.” His role in Project 2025 signals a continuation of these policies, aiming to dismantle what he and his colleagues view as an overreaching administrative state.

Departmental overhaul

The Department of the Interior encompasses nine bureaus, each with distinct missions ranging from managing national parks to overseeing energy resources. Project 2025 proposes several administrative and structural changes. One of the first major proposals is to relocate BLM headquarters back to the American West from Washington, D.C. This move, combined with the implementation of Trump's Schedule F proposal aimed at increasing accountability in hiring and firing federal employees, suggests a significant shift in the DOI's operational dynamics.

Furthermore, placing all BLM law enforcement officers in an exclusively law enforcement chain of command signals a more rigid approach to land management enforcement.

Energy production and resource extraction

The energy section of the chapter was written by Kathleen Sgamma of the Western Energy Alliance, an oil and gas industry group; Dan Kish of the Institute for Energy Research, a think tank long skeptical of human-caused climate change; and Katie Tubb of the Heritage Foundation. The authors set the tone of the section, titled “Restoring American Energy Dominance,” with this passage:

“Given the dire adverse national impact of Biden’s war on fossil fuels, no other initiative is as important for the DOI under a conservative President than the restoration of the department’s historic role managing the nation’s vast storehouse of hydrocarbons, much of which is yet to be discovered.”

The energy section calls for rolling back Biden-era executive orders and reinstating Trump-era policies that favor oil and gas development. Specific proposals include expanding onshore and offshore oil and gas lease sales, restarting the federal coal leasing program, and reversing protections for areas like the White River National Forest in Colorado.

This aggressive push toward fossil fuel development raises environmental and economic concerns. Critics argue that such policies could undermine efforts to combat climate change and protect public lands from overexploitation.

Regulatory and policy reforms

Project 2025 also targets regulatory frameworks like the National Environmental Policy Act, seeking to streamline environmental reviews and permitting processes while eliminating climate reviews for federally funded projects. The document proposes reinstating Trump-era limitations on the Endangered Species Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, which could lead to reduced protections for vulnerable species.

Further, the project aims to revoke President Joe Biden’s 30-by-30 plan, which aims to conserve 30 percent of U.S. lands and waters by 2030, and seeks the repeal of the Antiquities Act of 1906, potentially opening up national monuments to commercial activities.

Implications for Indigenous lands

The document outlines plans to facilitate fossil fuel and mineral development on Indian lands and overhaul the Bureau of Indian Education. These proposals, combined with securing the nation's borders to protect tribal lands, suggest a significant shift in how the federal government interacts with Native American tribes.

A critical examination

Project 2025 presents a vision for the Department of the Interior that aligns closely with the priorities of the Trump administration. While Project 2025 presents a bold vision for the department, its potential impacts on public lands, environmental protections and Indigenous rights demand critical scrutiny. Proponents argue that these changes are necessary for economic growth and national security, but the emphasis on deregulation and resource extraction raises concerns about long-term sustainability and the balance between economic development and conservation. As voters and policymakers consider these proposals, it is essential to weigh the long-term consequences for America's natural heritage and the principles of conservation that have guided the DOI for over a century.

The sweeping changes proposed in Project 2025 underscore a broader ideological battle over the role of government in managing natural resources and protecting the environment. As these plans come under public and political scrutiny, the stakes for America's public lands and natural heritage could not be higher. The next administration's approach to these issues will shape the nation's environmental and energy policies for years to come.

More articles about Project 2025



    Read More

    Tourists gather at Mather Point on the South Rim of the Grand Canyon, enjoying panoramic views of the iconic natural wonder

    National Park Service budget cuts are reshaping America’s public lands through underfunding and neglect. Explore how declining park staffing, deferred maintenance, and political inaction threaten national parks, local economies, and public trust in government.

    Getty Images, miroslav_1

    They Won’t Close the Parks. They’ll Just Let Them Fail.

    This summer, before dawn, the Liu family from Buffalo will load up their SUV, coffee in hand, bound for a long-planned trip out west. The Grand Canyon has been on their list for years, something to do before the kids get too old and schedules get too tight. They expect crowds. They expect long lines at the entrance. That is part of the deal. In recent years, national parks have drawn more than 325 million visits annually, near record highs.

    What they do not expect are shuttered visitor centers and closed trails, not because of weather but because there are not enough staff to maintain them. What they do not see is the budget decision in Washington that made those trade-offs, quietly, indirectly, and without much debate.

    Keep ReadingShow less
    The Puncher’s Illusion: Winning the First Round and Losing the War
    Toy soldiers in a battle formation
    Photo by Saifee Art on Unsplash

    The Puncher’s Illusion: Winning the First Round and Losing the War

    In the Rumble in the Jungle, George Foreman came in expecting to end the fight early.

    At first, it looked that way. He was stronger, faster, and landing clean punches. I watched the 1974 championship on simulcast fifty-two years ago and remember how dominant he was in the opening rounds.

    Keep ReadingShow less
    Calling Wealthy Benefactors!
    A rusty house figure stands over a city.
    Photo by Katja Ano on Unsplash

    Calling Wealthy Benefactors!

    My housing has been conditional on circumstances beyond my control, and the time is up; the owner is selling.

    Securing affordable housing is a stressor for much of the working class. According to recent data, nearly 50% of renters are cost-burdened, meaning they spend over 30% of their take-home income on housing costs. Rental prices in California are especially high, 35% higher than the national average. Renting is routinely insecure. The lords of land need to renovate, their kids need to move in. They need to sell.

    Keep ReadingShow less
    An ICE agent monitors hundreds of asylum seekers being processed upon entering the Jacob K. Javits Federal Building on June 6, 2023 in New York City. New York City has provided sanctuary to over 46,000 asylum seekers since 2013, when the city passed a law prohibiting city agencies from cooperating with federal immigration enforcement agencies unless there is a warrant for the person's arrest.(Photo by David Dee Delgado/Getty Images)
    An ICE agent monitors hundreds of asylum seekers being processed.
    (Photo by David Dee Delgado/Getty Images)

    The Power of the Purse and Executive Discretion: ICE Expansion Under the Trump Administration

    This nonpartisan policy brief, written by an ACE fellow, is republished by The Fulcrum as part of our partnership with the Alliance for Civic Engagement and our NextGen initiative — elevating student voices, strengthening civic education, and helping readers better understand democracy and public policy.

    Key Takeaways

    • Core Constitutional Debate: Expanded ICE enforcement under the Trump Administration raises a core constitutional question: Does Article II executive power override Article I’s congressional power of the purse?
    • Executive Justification: The primary constitutional justification for expanded ICE enforcement is The Unitary Executive Theory.
    • Separation of Powers: Critics argue that the Unitary Executive Theory undermines Congress’s power of the purse.
    • Moral Conflict: Expanded ICE enforcement has sparked a moral debate, as concerns over due process and civil liberties clash with claims of increased public safety and national security.

    Where is ICE Funding Coming From?

    Since the beginning of the current Trump Administration, immigration enforcement has undergone transformative change and become one of the most contested issues in the federal government. On his first day in office, President Trump issued Executive Order 14159, which directs executive agencies to implement stricter immigration enforcement practices. In order to implement these practices, Congress passed and President Trump signed into law the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), a budget reconciliation package that paired state and local tax cuts with immigration funding. This allocated $170.7 billion in immigration-related funding for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to spend by 2029.

    Keep ReadingShow less