Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

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

    Veterans’ Care at Risk Under Trump As Hundreds of Doctors and Nurses Reject Working at VA Hospitals
    Photo illustration by Lisa Larson-Walker/ProPublica

    Veterans’ Care at Risk Under Trump As Hundreds of Doctors and Nurses Reject Working at VA Hospitals

    Veterans hospitals are struggling to replace hundreds of doctors and nurses who have left the health care system this year as the Trump administration pursues its pledge to simultaneously slash Department of Veterans Affairs staff and improve care.

    Many job applicants are turning down offers, worried that the positions are not stable and uneasy with the overall direction of the agency, according to internal documents examined by ProPublica. The records show nearly 4 in 10 of the roughly 2,000 doctors offered jobs from January through March of this year turned them down. That is quadruple the rate of doctors rejecting offers during the same time period last year.

    Keep ReadingShow less
    Protecting the U.S. Press: The PRESS Act and What It Could Mean for Journalists

    The Protect Reporters from Excessive State Suppression (PRESS) Act aims to fill the national shield law gap by providing two protections for journalists.

    Getty Images, Manu Vega

    Protecting the U.S. Press: The PRESS Act and What It Could Mean for Journalists

    The First Amendment protects journalists during the news-gathering and publication processes. For example, under the First Amendment, reporters cannot be forced to report on an issue. However, the press is not entitled to different legal protections compared to a general member of the public under the First Amendment.

    In the United States, there are protections for journalists beyond the First Amendment, including shield laws that protect journalists from pressure to reveal sources or information during news-gathering. 48 states and the District of Columbia have shield laws, but protections vary widely. There is currently no federal shield law. As of 2019, at least 22 journalists have been jailed in the U.S. for refusing to comply with requests to reveal sources of information. Seven other journalists have been jailed and fined for the same reason.

    Keep ReadingShow less
    Democrats Score Strategic Wins Amid Redistricting Battles

    Democrat Donkey is winning arm wrestling match against Republican elephant

    AI generated image

    Democrats Score Strategic Wins Amid Redistricting Battles

    Democrats are quietly building momentum in the 2025 election cycle, notching two key legislative flips in special elections and gaining ground in early polling ahead of the 2026 midterms. While the victories are modest in number, they signal a potential shift in voter sentiment — and a brewing backlash against Republican-led redistricting efforts.

    Out of 40 special elections held across the United States so far in 2025, only two seats have changed party control — both flipping from Republican to Democrat.

    Keep ReadingShow less
    Policing or Occupation? Trump’s Militarizing America’s Cities Sets a Dangerous Precedent

    A DC Metropolitan Police Department car is parked near a rally against the Trump Administration's federal takeover of the District of Columbia, outside of the AFL-CIO on August 11, 2025 in Washington, DC.

    (Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)

    Policing or Occupation? Trump’s Militarizing America’s Cities Sets a Dangerous Precedent

    President Trump announced the activation of hundreds of National Guard troops in Washington, D.C., along with the deployment of federal agents—including more than 100 from the FBI. This comes despite Justice Department data showing that violent crime in D.C. fell 35% from 2023 to 2024, reaching its lowest point in over three decades. These aren’t abstract numbers—they paint a picture of a city safer than it has been in a generation, with fewer homicides, assaults, and robberies than at any point since the early 1990s.

    The contradiction could not be more glaring: the same president who, on January 6, 2021, stalled for hours as a violent uprising engulfed the Capitol is now rushing to “liberate” a city that—based on federal data—hasn’t been this safe in more than thirty years. Then, when democracy itself was under siege, urgency gave way to dithering; today, with no comparable emergency—only vague claims of lawlessness—he mobilizes troops for a mission that looks less like public safety and more like political theater. The disparity between those two moments is more than irony; it is a blueprint for how power can be selectively applied, depending on whose power is threatened.

    Keep ReadingShow less