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

    An illustration of the U.S. flag on the shape of the U.S. with blue and red figures of people across it.

    Every state has its own constitution.

    How State Constitutions Became the Battleground for American Rights and Liberties – on Both the Left and Right

    Beyond picking governors, state legislators, local officials and representatives to serve in Congress, voters in almost every state this year will have the opportunity to amend the language of their state constitution. In one state, they could potentially rewrite the constitution altogether.

    Though the U.S. Constitution is rarely amended, voters frequently amend their state constitutions. In every election cycle, voters are asked to ratify constitutional amendments.

    Keep ReadingShow less
    The Unscrupulousness of AIPAC

    Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addresses the American Israel Public Affairs Committee's annual policy conference at the Washington Convention Center March 6, 2018 in Washington, DC.

    (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

    The Unscrupulousness of AIPAC

    After AIPAC failed to defeat El-Sayed in the Michigan Democratic Senate primary—after spending $32 million—it said that it remains committed to defeating El-Sayed and his "radical, anti-Israel" agenda in the general election. Which means it is poised to sink tens of millions of dollars in supporting Republican Mike Rogers. It also said that Haley Stevens, his opponent, had presented "an authentic Democratic agenda." Meaning that El-Sayed did not? And they think that Mike Rogers, a MAGA Trump supporter, does compared with El-Sayed?

    How can AIPAC say that El-Sayed does not present an authentic Democratic agenda when his socialist stance is much more in line with the principles stated in the Declaration of Independence than most centrist Democrats'? And making it sound like AIPAC cares about an authentic Democratic agenda is deceitful, when in the same breath they make clear that they will support Mike Rogers, a Trump lackey, in the general election.

    Keep ReadingShow less
    Scientists Warn of Deepening Federal Attacks on Research
    silhouette of person using microscope

    Scientists Warn of Deepening Federal Attacks on Research

    Scientists and the federal government have been close partners since World War II. A landmark report by President Truman’s chief science advisor laid out a vision for government research that shaped eight decades of federally funded science. That vision is now at risk. In principle, the Trump administration has supported scientific research with its own vision for a new “golden age of science.” But in practice, the administration has upended the relationship between the government, researchers, and their institutions. The changes have alarmed working scientists and their allies, who have protested in record numbers.

    In July, I moderated a webinar on “Rewriting the Rules: What’s happening to public science?” (read the transcript here). The webinar was co-sponsored by NAPA, CODE, and the Bridge Alliance, with Dr. Aaron Carroll of AcademyHealth, Dr. Chris Marcum of the Federation of American Scientists, Dr. Gretchen Goldman of the Union of Concerned Scientists, and Dr. Maryam Zaringhalam of the Center for Open Science. I also interviewed Cole Donovan of the Stand Up for Science Foundation by email.

    Keep ReadingShow less
    Democratic Party Suicide
    a piece of paper cut out of the shape of a donkey
    Photo by Kelly Sikkema on Unsplash

    Democratic Party Suicide

    A recent New York Times article, "Moderate Democrats Prepare for 'War' Against an Ascendant Left," describes a disturbing perspective among mainstream, moderate, centrist Democrats. It is disturbing for many reasons.

    First, there is the practical impact. If indeed mainstream Democrats attack socialist Democrats in a sustained, organized manner, there is only one possible result: the defeat of the Party in 2026 and the renewed vigor of Trump and his MAGA allies. Especially when combined with the all-out effort that AIPAC will mostly take to support Republican candidates running against Democratic candidates who are socialists. (See my article, "The Unscrupulousness of AIPAC.")

    Keep ReadingShow less