Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Project 2025: Dramatic Environmental Changes Enacted

A small earth by a book, scale of justice, and gavel.​

A small earth by a book, scale of justice, and gavel.

Getty Images, Tanankorn Pilong

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.

In August 2024, The Fulcrum published an in-depth column on the Department of the Interior, examining how the implementation of Chapter 16 of Project 2025 could dramatically alter environmental protections in the United States.


In that writing, author Kristina Becvar stated the following:

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.

Becvar elaborated on the broader ideological debate over the government's role in managing natural resources and protecting the environment, emphasizing the high stakes for America's public lands and natural heritage—issues that could shape the nation's environmental and energy policies for years to come.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Just over 100 days into Trump's second term, several of his executive orders have targeted policies related to the Department of the Interior—many aligning with Project 2025 recommendations and highlighting the risks Becvar warned about last August.

One striking example is the executive order to increase oil leases on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). This order expedited permitting for energy and mineral projects on federal lands and aligns with Project 2025’s emphasis on boosting domestic energy production and reducing regulatory barriers.

The OCS refers to the submerged land beyond state jurisdiction but is within U.S. federal control. It extends from the coastline to about 200 nautical miles offshore, covering regions in the Gulf of Mexico, Atlantic, Pacific, and Alaska. The potential environmental risks of increasing oil leases in this protected area are significant.

Expanding oil leases on the Outer Continental Shelf poses several environmental risks, including:

  • Oil Spills & Pollution: Increased drilling raises the likelihood of oil spills, which can devastate marine ecosystems and coastal communities.
  • Habitat Destruction: Offshore drilling disrupts seabed habitats, affecting marine life such as corals, fish, and other organisms.
  • Air & Water Pollution: Drilling operations release pollutants into the air and water, contributing to climate change and harming marine biodiversity.
  • Seismic Activity & Noise Pollution: Exploration methods like seismic blasting can disturb marine mammals, including whales and dolphins.
  • Carbon Emissions: Expanding fossil fuel extraction contradicts climate goals, increasing greenhouse gas emissions.

While the risks could be mitigated with careful oversight and responsible lease management, the administration’s 'drill baby drill' approach casts doubt on its commitment to environmental protection—especially in light of the tone and substance of Chapter 16 of Project 2025.

Additionally, President Trump's executive order has implemented emergency permitting procedures to fast-track the development of domestic energy resources and critical minerals, reducing approval timelines from several years to just 28 days. These actions once again align with Project 2025’s broader goals of deregulation, energy independence, and streamlining federal processes.

While the goal of energy independence is commendable, it must be pursued with careful consideration of environmental risks. Many worry that a permitting timeline once measured in years and is now just 28 days will make adequate risk assessment impossible. Striking the right balance is crucial—one that allows for thorough evaluations to prevent unforeseen environmental consequences. While years-long reviews may be excessive, a three to six-month period would provide sufficient time to analyze pollution levels, habitat disruption, water contamination, and other potential harms.

Environmental groups in affected communities are already investigating the efficacy of filing lawsuits against projects that bypass standard regulatory scrutiny, leading to delays and uncertainty.

Several lawsuits have already been filed in response to Trump’s executive order revoking protections for millions of acres of ocean territory, opening them up for oil and gas drilling. Earthjustice has challenged the offshore drilling plan, arguing that the order violates federal environmental laws and threatens coastal communities.

Additional legal actions have been brought by organizations such as Oceana, Greenpeace, and the Sierra Club, contesting the administration’s efforts to reverse offshore drilling bans. These groups argue that the rollback contradicts previous legal rulings and poses serious risks to marine ecosystems.

Another lawsuit seeks to reinstate protections for the Arctic Ocean and portions of the Atlantic that were previously safeguarded under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. The plaintiffs claim that Trump’s order exceeds presidential authority and violates established environmental policies.

Undoubtedly, this marks the beginning of a contentious legal battle over the implementation of Project 2025’s recommendations, which seek to radically reshape U.S. environmental policies.

Concerns raised in August have now taken on greater urgency following Trump’s executive actions. The administration’s approach to these issues will have lasting effects, shaping the nation’s environmental and energy policies for years to come.


David Nevins is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.

Read More

Impact of Trump’s Executive Actions: Attacks on Lawyers and the Legal Profession

Someone tipping the scales of justice.

Getty Images, sommart

Impact of Trump’s Executive Actions: Attacks on Lawyers and the Legal Profession

Project Overview

This essay is part of a series by Lawyers Defending American Democracy explaining in practical terms what the administration’s executive orders and other executive actions mean for all of us. Each of these actions springs from the pages of Project 2025, the administration's 900-page playbook that serves as the foundation for these measures. The Project 2025 agenda should concern all of us, as it tracks strategies adopted by countries such as Hungary, that have eroded democratic norms and have adopted authoritarian approaches to governing.

Project 2025’s stated intent to move quickly to “dismantle” the federal government will strip the public of important protections against excessive presidential power and provide big corporations with enormous opportunities to profit by preying on America's households.

Keep ReadingShow less
Child Victims of Crime Are Not Heard

Shadow of a boy

Getty Images/mrs

Child Victims of Crime Are Not Heard

Justice is not swift for anyone, and even less so for children. In Mexico, as in many other countries, children who are victims of crime must endure not only the pain of what they have lived through, but also the institutional delays that, instead of protecting them, expose them to new forms of harm. If we truly acted with the urgency that child protection demands, why doesn’t the justice system respond with the same urgency?

Since January, a seven-year-old girl in Mexico, a survivor of sexual violence at her school, has been waiting for a federal judge to resolve an amparo, a constitutional appeal she filed requesting the right to participate in the criminal case against her aggressor in a protected and adapted manner. According to the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (Mexico’s highest court), amparos must be used as urgent remedies when fundamental rights are at imminent risk. And yet, four months have passed with no resolution.

Keep ReadingShow less
Understanding The Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA)

Judge gavel and book on the laptop

Getty Images/Stock

Understanding The Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA)

Background

In November 2024, Elon Musk posted on social media, “There should be no need for [Freedom of Information Act] requests. All government data should be default public for maximum transparency.” His statement reignited discussions on the Freedom of Information Act, or FOIA, a federal law enacted in 1966 that requires federal executive branch agencies to disclose information in specific ways. Since its original passage in 1966, FOIA has been updated three times to tighten agency compliance, account for digital records, and allow citizens to request records online. Under FOIA, government agencies must disclose information by:

FOIA includes nine exemptions to protect against harms that might result from divulging certain records; these exemptions include cases like invasion of personal privacy, information related to national security, and information that would interfere with law enforcement proceedings.

Keep ReadingShow less
Supreme Court Weighs Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Order Amid Constitutional Debate

Members of CASA advocacy group gather outside of the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C. toask justices to protect birthright citizenship on May 15, 2025.

Angeles Ponpa/Medill NewsService

Supreme Court Weighs Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Order Amid Constitutional Debate

WASHINGTON- The Supreme Court on Thursday heard oral arguments over a Trump administration order that would deny automatic U.S. citizenship to children born on American soil to undocumented immigrant parents and others in the country temporarily. The order challenged more than a Century of legal precedent.

The case centers on Executive Order 14160, signed in January by President Donald Trump, which asserts that the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause does not apply to children born to noncitizens without permanent legal status. Lower courts swiftly blocked the policy, prompting a high-stakes showdown over both the scope of the amendment and the president's power to unilaterally reinterpret it.

Keep ReadingShow less