President Donald Trump and Project 2025 are in total agreement on the perceived need to increase natural gas, oil and coal production \u2013 while simultaneously dismantling government efforts to develop green energy and address climate change.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Although the U.S. has been the world\u2019s leading producer of crude oil<\/a> and natural gas<\/a> for several years running, Trump campaigned on a promise<\/a> to \u201cdrill, baby, drill.\u201d\u00a0For years<\/a>, Trump has labeled<\/a> climate change a \u201choax\u201d and has attacked plans to address climate change as wasteful.<\/p>\n Likewise, Project 2025<\/a> repeatedly called for an end to former President Joe Biden\u2019s \u201cwar on fossil fuels.\u201d The document accused Biden of denying Americans \u201ccheaper and more abundant energy,\u201d while wasting \u201chundreds of billions of dollars in subsidies\u201d on \u201cunreliable renewables.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n There is scant mention in Project 2025 of the threats posed by climate change.<\/p>\n \u201cYou don\u2019t see a concern for sea levels rising. You don\u2019t see a concern for more frequent extreme weather. You don\u2019t see any discussion of the catastrophic flooding that we\u2019re seeing around the world. You don\u2019t see any discussion of rising global temperatures,\u201d David Graham, author of \u201cThe Project: How Project 2025 Is Reshaping America<\/a>,\u201d told<\/a> NPR. \u201cInstead, what you see is an argument that the U.S. is not doing enough to drill oil and gas.\u201d<\/p>\n As he did in his first term, Trump has taken steps to withdraw from international climate agreements and rollback regulations, while moving to increase fossil fuel production on federal lands and waters.\u00a0<\/p>\n But in his return to the White House, Trump has gone way beyond what he did in his first term. He has declared a national energy emergency, rescinded funding for green energy projects, and quickly moved to eliminate climate research and climate-focused offices and programs.<\/p>\n Perhaps symbolic of his second term, Trump is seeking to rescind the Environmental Protection Agency\u2019s 2009 finding that greenhouse gases endanger public health and safety. <\/p>\n As we\u2019ve written<\/a>, the Obama-era endangerment finding is the legal foundation that allows the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases \u2014 including carbon dioxide emissions from motor vehicles \u2014 that cause climate change. At the same time, the Trump administration is seeking to rollback new fuel economy standards that were adopted last year. <\/p>\n Project 2025 called on the EPA \u201cto update the 2009 endangerment finding\u201d and for the emissions standards to be repealed. \u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cIt is not an overstatement to say that the Trump administration has launched the worst White House assault in history on the environment and public health,\u201d Manish Bapna, the president and CEO of the environmental nonprofit Natural Resources Defense Council, told<\/a> Inside Climate News. \u201cIf this assault succeeds, it could take a generation or more to repair the damage.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n The Republican-controlled Congress has gone along with much of the administration\u2019s actions, but it has pushed back on some of Trump\u2019s efforts to defund scientific research. <\/p>\n As part of our series on Project 2025, we look at some instances where Trump and Project 2025 agree on climate change and fossil fuels \u2014 beginning with the rollback of climate change policies.<\/p>\n The conservative document not only proposed \u201cabolishing the existing Office of Domestic Climate Policy,\u201d but replacing it with a new White House office that focused on energy. <\/p>\n On his first day in office, Trump issued an executive order<\/a> \u2013 \u201cUnleashing American Energy\u201d \u2013 that rescinded several of Biden\u2019s orders, including \u201cTackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad.\u201d A few weeks after eliminating the climate office, Trump signed<\/a> an order establishing a White House National Energy Dominance Council.\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n Project 2025 called on the president to \u201creshape\u201d the program, saying the program limits executive authority.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cThe USGCRP produces strategic plans and research (for example, the National Climate Assessment) that reduce the scope of legally proper options in presidential decision-making and in agency rulemakings and adjudications,\u201d the document said.<\/p>\n Trump did more than that. He has cut funding and staffing<\/a> at the Global Change Research Program, shuttered<\/a> its website,<\/a> and dismissed the scientists<\/a> working on the National Climate Assessment \u2013 a report that is required by Congress every four years under the Global Change Research Act. The sixth climate assessment is due in 2027.<\/p>\n The American Geophysical Union and the American Meteorological Society have agreed<\/a> to publish manuscripts originally intended for the next installment of the national assessment in a \u201cnew, first-of-its-kind, special collection focused on climate change in the United States.\u201d The effort won\u2019t replace the National Climate Assessment, but it provides a vehicle to allow \u201cthis important work to continue,\u201d AGU said in a press release<\/a>.\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n In her remarks<\/a> on the endangerment finding, Jackson said the EPA \u201cis now authorized and obligated to take reasonable efforts to reduce greenhouse pollutants under the Clean Air Act.\u201d<\/p>\n Project 2025 recommended establishing \u201ca system, with an appropriate deadline, to update the 2009 endangerment finding.\u201d On Day 1, Trump did just that.\u00a0<\/p>\n In his executive order \u201cUnleashing American Energy<\/a>,\u201d Trump directed his EPA administrator to collaborate with others in the administration to make a joint recommendation to the White House Office of Management and Budget on the Obama-era endangerment finding.\u00a0<\/p>\n On July 29, the EPA proposed<\/a> a rule to rescind the endangerment finding. \u201cAbsent this finding, EPA lacks statutory authority under Section 202 of the Clean Air Act to prescribe standards for GHG emissions,\u201d the agency said. \u201cTherefore, EPA also proposed to remove GHG regulations for light-, medium-, and heavy-duty on-highway vehicles.\u201d<\/p>\n In August, the Environmental Defense Fund and the Union of Concerned Scientists sued<\/a> the Trump administration, claiming an advisory group involved in the development of the proposed rule violated federal law. <\/p>\n A small group of \u201chand-picked climate skeptics\u201d secretly convened in March by Department of Energy Secretary Christopher Wright produced a report that the EPA used \u201cto pursue the destruction of climate pollution limits for the largest U.S. emitters,\u201d the environmental groups said in a press release<\/a> to announce the lawsuit. The working group violated the Federal Advisory Committee Act<\/a>, which requires \u201cthat the group\u2019s formation be promptly disclosed and that its meetings, emails, and other records be open to the public,\u201d according to the lawsuit.<\/p>\n \u201cThe [2009] Endangerment Finding reflects the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community\u2014conclusions that major American and international scientific bodies and the federal government have reaffirmed time and again since the Endangerment Finding was first issued, including during the first Trump administration,\u201d the suit said. \u201cBut now, in the span of a few months, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and EPA have sought to manufacture a basis to reject this overwhelming scientific consensus.\u201d <\/p>\n Since the release of the report, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine has released its own report<\/a>, which concluded that the 2009 endangerment finding \u201cwas accurate, has stood the test of time, and is now reinforced by even stronger evidence.\u201d<\/p>\n The lawsuit asked the court to block the EPA from using the report in its attempt to rescind the endangerment finding.<\/p>\n On Sept. 17, District Judge William Young ruled<\/a> that the \u201cClimate Working Group\u201d is subject to the public disclosure requirements under the Federal Advisory Committee Act. <\/p>\n \u201cBy advocating for an approach that \u2018acknowledges both the potential risks and benefits of CO2\u2019 and \u2018weighing\u2019 risks and benefits against costs and collateral impacts, the authors of this report have provided \u2018advice or recommendations,’\u201d the judge wrote, quoting from the report and citing language in the act<\/a> that defines an advisory committee as one \u201cthat is established or utilized to obtain advice or recommendations\u201d for a federal agency. <\/p>\n Young did not address<\/a> whether the EPA can rely on the report in its rulemaking process. For now, the lawsuit continues<\/a> \u2014 but so does the rulemaking process that could result in a repeal of the Obama-era endangerment finding.\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n Project 2025 claimed that international climate agreements \u201cweaken the U.S. economy with no off\u00adsetting societal benefits\u201d \u2013 which climatologists reject.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cTo that end, the next conservative Administration should withdraw the U.S. from the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Paris Agreement,\u201d the document said.<\/p>\n As he did in his first term, Trump immediately set in motion plans to withdraw from the Paris Agreement<\/a> \u2013 an international pact adopted by 195 countries in 2015 to limit global warming.\u00a0<\/p>\n Upon taking the oath of office a second time, Trump signed an executive order<\/a> directing the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations to \u201cimmediately submit written formal notification\u201d for the \u201cwithdrawal from any agreement, pact, accord, or similar commitment made under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change,\u201d which would include the Paris Agreement.<\/p>\n The U.N. confirmed<\/a> that the U.S. submitted a written formal notification on Jan. 27. However, it will take one year for the withdrawal to take effect, the Congressional Research Service said in a report <\/a>on Trump\u2019s order and its potential impacts.\u00a0\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n The U.S. Geological Survey<\/a> is the scientific agency of the Department of Interior. It has several \u201cmission areas<\/a>\u201d \u2013 such as the Ecosystems Mission Area, which includes the Climate Adaptation Science Centers.\u00a0<\/p>\n Ecosystems Mission Area helps protect \u201cpublic safety, property, and ecosystems\u201d from \u201cbiological threats and invasive species,\u201d and its scientists partner with \u201cnatural resource managers and communities to help fish, wildlife, water, land, and people adapt to a changing climate,\u201d among other things, the USGS said<\/a> on its website.<\/p>\n Project 2025 called for the elimination of Ecosystems Mission Area, which the document refers to by its old name \u2013 the Biological Resources Division<\/a>.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cAbolish the Biological Resources Division of the U.S. Geological Survey and obtain necessary scientific research about species of concern from universities via competitive requests for proposals,\u201d Project 2025 said.\u00a0<\/p>\n In his proposed fiscal year 2026 budget<\/a> for the USGS, Trump called for eliminating the Ecosystems Mission Area and its nearly $293 million budget, \u201cso that the bureau can focus on higher priority energy and minerals activities.\u201d<\/p>\n But congressional appropriators aren\u2019t inclined to jettison the Ecosystems Mission Area, which scientific organizations called<\/a> \u201ccritical to the nation\u201d in a letter to the congressional<\/a> committees<\/a> that write the spending bills for the Interior Department.<\/p>\n In July, the House<\/a> and Senate<\/a> committees passed<\/a> appropriations bills for the department that would provide $289.8 billion and $307.9 billion, respectively, for the Ecosystems Mission Area.\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n The office of <\/strong>Oceanic and Atmospheric Research<\/a> is the research arm of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Known informally as NOAA Research or by its acronym OAR, Oceanic and Atmospheric Research \u201cprovides the research foundation for understanding the complex systems that support our planet\u201d and \u201cenables better forecasts, earlier warnings for natural disasters, and a greater understanding of the Earth,\u201d NOAA says<\/a> on its \u201cabout us\u201d page.<\/p>\n On page 676, Project 2025 described OAR as \u201cthe source of much of NOAA\u2019s climate alarmism,\u201d saying \u201cits climate-change research should be disbanded.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n Trump proposed just that, although he has received bipartisan pushback from Congress.<\/p>\n In its proposed FY2026 budget<\/a>, NOAA said it would eliminate OAR and terminate all of its climate research. The budget document said that the climate research cuts alone totalled roughly $220 million.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cNOAA is proposing to eliminate Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR) as a NOAA Line Office and transfer several activities to the National Ocean Service (NOS) and the National Weather Service (NWS),\u201d the budget document said, referring to other NOAA offices.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n After the deadly Texas flooding<\/a> in July, House Republican appropriators in Congress on July 14 presented a more modest 6% cut to NOAA\u2019s overall budget in the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act<\/a>, according to E&E News<\/a>.\u00a0<\/p>\n In releasing the budget, a GOP-controlled appropriations subcommittee said<\/a> its proposed spending bill would reduce \u201cspending on reckless climate change efforts.\u201d But the full committee report<\/a> released Sept. 12 said that OAR would receive nearly $667 million \u2014 down about 10% from what the office received in fiscal year 2024<\/a>. OAR\u2019s climate research would be cut to $209 million, according to the House committee report, down about 5%<\/a>. <\/p>\n The Senate appropriations bill cut NOAA\u2019s overall budget by even less. It would appropriate about $6.14 billion for NOAA, down a bit from the current $6.18 billion level, according to<\/a> the Senate committee report, but far above the $4.5 billion proposed<\/a> in Trump\u2019s budget. It would provide $657 million for OAR, including $224 million for climate research, the committee report said.<\/p>\n The Senate and House versions of the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act won committee approvals in both chambers, but they have yet to be taken up by the full Senate and House. (The status of all appropriations bills can be found here<\/a>.)\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n \u201cThe next conservative Administration should rescind all climate policies from its foreign aid programs (specifically USAID\u2019s Climate Strategy 2022\u20132030); shut down the agency\u2019s offices, programs, and directives designed to advance the Paris Climate Agreement; and narrowly limit funding to traditional climate mitigation efforts,\u201d the document said on page 257.\u00a0<\/p>\n On the day he took office, Trump issued an executive order<\/a> that called for a pause on all foreign assistance, which would include aid to help countries address climate change, to make sure that all funding is aligned with the president\u2019s foreign policy. A few days later, Secretary of State Marco Rubio \u201cpaused all U.S. foreign assistance funded by or through the State Department and U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) for review,\u201d a department spokesperson said in a press release<\/a>, although Rubio later granted<\/a> \u201cemergency<\/a> humanitarian<\/a>\u201d waivers for some programs.<\/p>\n In March, E&E News said it obtained<\/a> \u201ca full list of the terminated contracts,\u201d which included \u201c[a]t least 130 climate- and clean-energy related contracts.\u201d<\/p>\n Trump\u2019s executive order has been the subject of multiple lawsuits<\/a>. But the president moved ahead with a more sweeping plan to abolish USAID and have the State Department absorb some of the agency\u2019s functions.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cAs of July 1st, USAID will officially cease to implement foreign assistance,\u201d Rubio said in a July 1 statement<\/a>.<\/p>\n On July 18, the House gave final approval<\/a> to a bill requested by Trump that rescinded $9 billion of funding it had already appropriated, including about $8 billion in foreign aid and unobligated funds<\/a> for USAID\u2019s operating budget. Trump signed<\/a> the bill on July 24.\u00a0\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n Project 2025 recommended repealing \u201cmassive spending bills like the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) and Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), which \u2026 are providing hundreds of billions of dollars in subsidies to renewable energy developers\u201d and \u201ctheir investors.\u201d It also called for the next conservative president to \u201coppose eyesore windmills built at taxpayer expense.\u201d \u00a0<\/p>\n In an executive order<\/a>, Trump directed federal agencies on Day 1 to \u201cimmediately pause\u201d disbursing funds appropriated by the IRA and IIJA for green energy projects, such as solar and wind energy.\u00a0<\/p>\n The Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, which tracks IRA spending on climate change projects, said the IRA alone \u201ccontains at least 119 distinct climate change-related provisions<\/a> to be implemented by sixteen federal agencies.\u201d<\/p>\n While that spending \u201cpause\u201d has been challenged in court<\/a>, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act <\/a>Trump signed in July repealed or accelerated the phase out of IRA clean energy tax credits for homeowners, businesses and investors.\u00a0<\/p>\n For example, the tax credits for new and used electric vehicles<\/a> were set to expire by the end of 2032, but they will now end on Sept. 30. Likewise, a tax credit for installing a residential EV charger will now expire June 30, 2026<\/a>, rather than Dec. 31, 2033<\/a>.\u00a0<\/p>\n The purchase and installation of solar panels will also soon cost homeowners more money. That tax credit will expire at the end of the year<\/a>, rather than 2032<\/a>.\u00a0<\/p>\n As for businesses, tax credits for new wind and solar projects that were supposed to phase out starting in 2034 will now end in December 2027, with some exceptions, according to<\/a> Sidley, a multinational law firm.\u00a0<\/p>\n See a more complete list<\/a> of expiring clean energy tax credits and other changes in the new law on CNN\u2019s website.\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n Project 2025 accused the DOI of operating \u201clawlessly\u201d under Biden to \u201cadvance a radical climate agenda.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cDOI is abusing National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) processes, the Antiquities Act, and bureaucratic procedures to advance a radical climate agenda, ostensibly to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, for which DOI has no statutory responsibility or authority,\u201d the document said.<\/p>\n On his first day in office, Trump issued a memorandum<\/a> that directed DOI and other federal agencies to halt approvals and renewals of wind energy projects on federal land and waters, citing \u201cvarious alleged legal deficiencies underlying the Federal Government\u2019s leasing and permitting of onshore and offshore wind projects.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cThe intent of the order is to halt new leasing activities for offshore wind energy development on the OCS,\u201d Morgan Lewis, a law firm that provides regulatory services to energy companies, explained<\/a> on its website. \u201cThe withdrawal goes into effect on January 20, 2025 and remains in effect until the memorandum is revoked.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n Trump doesn\u2019t seem inclined to revoke his memorandum. \u201cWe don\u2019t allow windmills,\u201d Trump said at a Cabinet meeting<\/a> on Aug. 26. \u201cWe\u2019re not allowing any windmills to go up. Unless there\u2019s a legal situation where somebody committed to it a long time ago, we don\u2019t allow windmills.\u201d<\/p>\n (For more about Trump\u2019s order, see our article \u201cWhat to Know About Trump\u2019s Executive Order on Wind Energy<\/a>.\u201d)\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n The Inflation Reduction Act<\/a>, one of Biden\u2019s signature accomplishments as president, promised hundreds of billions of dollars<\/a> to address climate change. The 2022 law included $27 billion for the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund \u2013 the law\u2019s \u201csingle-largest grant initiative,\u201d as E&E News described it<\/a>.\u00a0<\/p>\n The fund consists of three programs<\/a>: National Clean Investment Fund ($14 billion), Solar for All ($7 billion) and Clean Communities Investment Accelerator ($6 billion). In August 2024, Biden\u2019s EPA announced<\/a> that it had obligated all $27 billion in grants from the fund.\u00a0<\/p>\n Project 2025 described EPA grantmaking as increasingly expensive and \u201cdriven by ideology instead of need.\u201d The document called for \u201ca pause and review for all grants over a certain threshold.\u201d <\/p>\n In March, the EPA announced<\/a> that it had canceled grant agreements for the National Clean Investment Fund and Clean Communities Investment Accelerator, totalling $20 billion, promising to \u201cre-obligate lawfully appropriated funds in the GGRF with enhanced controls to ensure adequate governance, transparency, and accountability, consistent with statutory requirements.\u201d (At the time, EPA did not cancel the Solar for All program, but it did so in August<\/a>.)<\/p>\n A group of grant recipients sued<\/a> and won<\/a> a brief reprieve. But an appeals court in early September sided with the administration and vacated<\/a> a lower court order that had temporarily blocked the administration from canceling the funding. The grantees have appealed that decision, filing<\/a> a request for a rehearing en banc<\/a><\/em> \u2014 which, if granted, would be a hearing before all 15 members<\/a> of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.<\/p>\n During the court battle, Trump\u2019s One Big Beautiful Bill Act repealed<\/a> the unobligated funding awarded under the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund and the statutory language creating the fund. In its decision, the appeals court noted (as have others<\/a>) that the new law bars the EPA from recommitting the funding, despite the agency\u2019s earlier promise to do so with \u201cenhanced controls.\u201d In her dissent, Judge Cornelia Pillard<\/a> disagreed with the majority, writing that the new law \u201crescinds only \u2018unobligated\u2019 funds: Obligated funds, like those at issue here, are unaffected.\u201d<\/p>\n In August, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin said<\/a> the new law, which Trump signed<\/a> in July, also meant that the EPA no longer had \u201cthe statutory authority to administer\u201d the Solar for All program, announcing that he was canceling that program, too.\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n At the time, the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers criticized<\/a> the new fuel standards. \u201cThe only way to meet the standards\u201450.4 MPG by 2031\u2014is with a fleet dominated by EVs,\u201d it said, referring to electric vehicles.<\/p>\n As we\u2019ve written<\/a>, Trump campaigned on a promise to reverse the new standards \u2013 known as the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards, or CAFE standards. Project 2025 took a similar position.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cThe next Administration must return the federal fuel economy program to the limits established by Congress,\u201d specifically to the \u201clevels aimed at achieving a fleet-wide average of 35 miles per gallon,\u201d the document said.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy took the first step toward that end in late January when he ordered<\/a> the head of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration \u201cto propose the rescission or replacement of any fuel economy standards\u201d as necessary to comply with existing law and the Trump administration\u2019s policy goals.\u00a0<\/p>\n In June, the NHTSA published an \u201cinterpretive rule<\/a>\u201d that claimed the Biden administration\u2019s changes to the CAFE standards were illegal and that it would enforce CAFE standards in accordance with its legal interpretation \u2013 meaning it would not fine carmakers<\/a> for violating the Biden-era CAFE standards until new standards could be adopted. In a press release<\/a>, Duffy described his agency\u2019s action as \u201c[r]esetting CAFE standards as Congress intended.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n The GOP-controlled Congress went even further when it enacted the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. The new law repealed the penalties for violating existing CAFE standards \u2013 meaning the U.S. effectively has no fuel efficiency standards, as Kelley Blue Book explained in a July 17 blog post<\/a>.\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n As it says on its website<\/a>, the EPA\u2019s Office of Research and Development conducts research that informs \u201ccredible decision-making to safeguard human health and ecosystems from environmental pollutants.\u201d It has six research programs: Air, Climate, and Energy; Chemical Safety for Sustainability; Health and Environmental Risk Assessment; Homeland Security; Safe and Sustainable Water Resources; and Sustainable and Healthy Communities.<\/p>\n Project 2025 called for \u201creforms\u201d to the EPA\u2019s science research, which it described as \u201cbloated.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cEPA\u2019s scientific enterprise, including ORD, has rightly been criticized for decades as precautionary, bloated, unaccountable, closed, outcome-driven, hostile to public and legislative input, and inclined to pursue political rather than purely scientific goals,\u201d the document said.\u00a0<\/p>\n On July 18, the EPA announced<\/a> that it would close the office, reduce its staff of chemists, scientists and other workers, and rename the office as Office of Applied Science and Environmental Solutions. After the cuts and other staff reductions, the total EPA workforce will be 23% less than it was in January, the agency statement said.\u00a0<\/p>\n In an interview with Science<\/a>, a journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Willie May, former director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, said the abrupt closing of ORD and the creation of a new office is concerning. Science said more than 300 ORD staffers took a government buyout.<\/p>\n \u201cChanges of this significance should require a lot of thought and dialogue,\u201d May said.\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n Project 2025 criticized Biden\u2019s executive order<\/a> \u201cProtecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis,\u201d claiming the Department of Interior used it to overhaul \u201cresource management plans, lease sales, fees, rents, royalty rates, bonding requirements, and permitting processes to prevent new production of coal, oil, and natural gas on federal lands and waters\u201d and to \u201cdramatically increase production of solar and wind energy.\u201d\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n Project 2025 called for increasing production of fossil fuels \u2013 including allowing more drilling on public lands managed by the Interior Department.<\/p>\n \u201cThe U.S. depends on reliable and cheap energy resources to ensure the economic well-being of its citizens, the vitality of its economy, and its geopolitical standing in an uncertain and dangerous world,\u201d the report says in justifying the need for fossil fuel production.<\/p>\n Trump\u2019s \u201cUnleashing American Energy<\/a>\u201d order rescinded Biden\u2019s executive order<\/a> \u201cProtecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis,\u201d and called for a policy of \u201cenergy exploration and production on Federal lands and waters.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n The president also declared<\/a> a national emergency to address \u201cour Nation\u2019s inadequate energy supply and infrastructure.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n Echoing the Project 2025 report, Trump\u2019s emergency declaration said: \u201cWe need a reliable, diversified, and affordable supply of energy to drive our Nation\u2019s manufacturing, transportation, agriculture, and defense industries, and to sustain the basics of modern life and military preparedness.\u201d<\/p>\n In response to Trump\u2019s emergency order, the Interior Department announced<\/a> a faster permitting process \u201cto accelerate the development of domestic energy resources\u201d that \u201cwill take a multi-year process down to just 28 days at most.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n The White House said in a fact sheet<\/a> the change was needed to prevent a \u201cbroken permitting system\u201d from slowing the U.S. economy or preventing \u201cenergy infrastructure construction,\u201d although the order\u2019s speedier permitting process does not apply to solar and wind projects, according to the DOI press release<\/a>. The American Petroleum Institute praised<\/a> the move, describing the permitting process as \u201cbroken,\u201d adding that \u201creform is essential to ensuring access to affordable, reliable energy.\u201d<\/p>\n Athan Manuel, director of Sierra Club\u2019s Lands Protection Program, said<\/a> the new permitting process puts the public at risk. \u201cA shoddy review means the true hazards of a project may only be known when the air or water thousands of people rely on is dangerously polluted,\u201d Manuel said.\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n Project 2025 called for increasing oil production in Alaska \u2014\u00a0 specifically in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska<\/a>, a 23-million-acre area on Alaska\u2019s North Slope, and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge<\/a>.<\/p>\n \u201cAlaska has untapped potential for increased oil production, which is important not just to the revitalization of the nation\u2019s energy sector but is vital to the Alaskan economy,\u201d Project 2025 said. \u201cOne-quarter of Alaska\u2019s jobs are in the oil industry, and half of its overall economy depends on that industry. Without oil production, the Alaskan economy would be half its size.\u201d<\/p>\n On the same day that he signed \u201cUnleashing American Energy,\u201d Trump signed an executive order<\/a> to specifically open Alaska to more gas and oil drilling \u2013 including in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge<\/a> and the National Petroleum Reserve<\/a> on Alaska\u2019s North Slope.\u00a0<\/p>\n In response, the Interior Department in March announced that it was \u201creinstating a program that makes the entire 1.56-million-acre Coastal Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge available for oil and gas leasing.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n Three months later, the department rescinded<\/a> a Biden-era rule<\/a> that effectively banned oil and gas drilling in about half of the 23-million-acre National Petroleum Reserve<\/a> in Alaska. In a June 2 press release<\/a>, the Interior Department said that under Biden\u2019s rule \u201capproximately 13 million acres designated as \u2018Special Areas\u2019 unless operators could prove minimal or no adverse effects on surface resources.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cWe\u2019re restoring the balance and putting our energy future back on track,\u201d Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said.<\/p>\n Also, in Trump\u2019s One Big Beautiful Bill Act, Congress required at least five oil and gas lease sales in Alaska\u2019s National Petroleum Reserve and at least four lease sales in the Coastal Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge over the next 10 years, Sen. Dan Sullivan of Alaska wrote<\/a> in a July 28 letter to constituents. <\/p>\n It remains to be seen whether the actions will result in more drilling. Trump unsuccessfully<\/a> sought<\/a> to increase drilling in both parts of Alaska during this first term.\u00a0\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n Project 2025 called for the reinstatement of various orders issued by Trump in his first term, including \u201cImplementing an America-First Offshore Energy Strategy<\/a>.\u201d Issued in April 2017, the executive order established a Trump administration policy \u201cto encourage energy exploration and production, including on the Outer Continental Shelf<\/a>,\u201d which includes coastal waters along U.S. land. <\/p>\n Despite the reach of the OCS, nearly all offshore oil and gas drilling is in the central and western Gulf of America, ![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.jubi24.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/P2025-Green-Border-Hyperlink.png\")
<\/a><\/figure>\n<\/div>\nWhite House climate policy office<\/h5>\n<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
Global Change Research Program\/National Climate Assessment<\/h5>\n<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
International climate agreements<\/h5>\n<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
Ecosystems Mission Area of the U.S. Geological Survey<\/h5>\n<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
Oceanic and Atmospheric Research<\/h5>\n<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
Renewable energy tax credits<\/h5>\n<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund<\/h5>\n<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
EPA\u2019s Office of Research and Development<\/h5>\n<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
Oil, gas production on federal lands, waters<\/h5>\n<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
Oil, gas drilling in Alaska<\/h5>\n<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
Oil, gas drilling on Outer Continental Shelf<\/h5>\n<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n