Summary of Impacts
Project 2025 suggests reducing fossil fuel production regulations, which will accelerate climate change. Reduced regulations will reduce air quality and increase negative public health outcomes. Over-reliance on fossil fuels will jeopardize future energy security and stability, and increase American dependence on foreign oil sources.
Key Quotes
“Eliminate the Clean Energy Corps by revoking funding and eliminating all positions and personnel hired under the program.”
(McNamee 418)
“Eliminate energy efficiency standards for appliances.”
(McNamee 411)
“Make the design, development, and deployment of new nuclear warheads a top priority.”
(McNamee 430)
Impacts on the Department of Agriculture
Changes to the Department of the Interior (DOI) represent a direct assault on the health and well-being of our environment, marginalized communities, and future generations. By gutting regulatory frameworks and weakening environmental protections under NEPA, the plan paves the way for unchecked industrial activities such as mining, oil, and gas drilling. This will undoubtedly lead to catastrophic environmental degradation, rampant pollution, and the destruction of our precious natural resources.
The proposed changes will open vast swathes of public lands to exploitation, prioritizing short-term economic gains for wealthy corporations over the long-term health of our planet and its inhabitants. Protected areas and endangered species, once safeguarded by thoughtful conservation policies, will now be at grave risk, sacrificed on the altar of profit and industrial expansion.
This plan also harbors severe implications for Indigenous communities. Under the guise of “increased collaboration,” it seeks to impose industrial projects on tribal lands, jeopardizing Indigenous sovereignty, cultural heritage, and environmental stewardship. Native American tribes will be forced to fight tooth and nail to protect their ancestral lands from the ceaseless encroachment of exploitative industries.
The rhetoric of “economic growth” and “job creation” masks the grim reality: Project 2025 threatens to exacerbate social inequities, devastate ecosystems, and undermine any hope for a sustainable future. The rollback of essential environmental protections will rob future generations of clean air, safe drinking water, and a stable climate.
Critical Analysis
The document is saturated with manipulative language aimed at discrediting Democratic administrations, portraying them as enemies of economic progress and energy independence. It lavishly praises the Trump administration’s reckless policies, presenting them as the only path to achieving American energy dominance. This dangerous rhetoric casts essential environmental regulations as “radical” and detrimental, while glorifying destructive activities like oil and gas drilling as the backbone of national prosperity.
Detrimental Impacts
The proposed policy for the Department of the Interior stands to affect the following:
AFFECTED GROUPS
Reinstating policies that prioritize oil, gas, and coal extraction will likely lead to increased environmental degradation, including air and water pollution, habitat destruction, and contribution to climate change. This will disproportionately affect marginalized communities who often live near these extraction sites.
Opening up oil and gas rights for large companies will increase their profits, but local communities will likely not see any benefits. This will make it harder for small businesses to survive and for people to find stable, good-paying employment.
General Public
Reinstating policies that prioritize oil, gas, and coal extraction will likely lead to increased environmental degradation, including air and water pollution, habitat destruction, and contribution to climate change. This will disproportionately affect marginalized communities who often live near these extraction sites.
More coal mining can lead to more air pollution, which can cause breathing problems for people living nearby. This is especially dangerous for children and older adults.
Future Consequences
The focus on maximizing resource extraction benefits large corporations and wealthy stakeholders, potentially at the expense of local communities and small businesses. This could exacerbate economic inequality and reduce public access to natural resources.
Rolling back protections for endangered species and critical habitats will likely lead to further declines in biodiversity and the health of ecosystems. This can have long-term negative effects on environmental stability and resilience.
Conclusion
In summary, the policies outlined in this section of Project 2025 place a heavy emphasis on economic activities such as oil and gas extraction at the expense of environmental protection and the well-being of marginalized communities. This approach will result in significant environmental degradation, worsen economic inequality, and create serious health hazards, especially for Indigenous communities and those residing near extraction sites.
Quotes from the Mandate
Page numbers refer to the Mandate for Leadership PDF
This policy would allow for mining on forest lands, reducing national parks, limiting watersheds, allowing America to become dependent on foreign oil resources, expedite new permits on land leases, and change how infrastructure projects are approved.
More background: the Oregon & California Grant Lands Act of 1937 set aside over 2 million acres of land for various uses, including permanent timber supply (required to be harvested sustainably). As the impacts of timber harvest on the environment became more clear, various designations (Spotted Owl, Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument) began to chip away at areas previously open for timber harvest. The government recognized this decline in economic output and replaced the lack of harvest with direct monetary payments to the region (Secure Rural Schools Act).
Project 2025 advocates for ignoring environmental concerns and moving forward with all timber harvesting originally mandated in the 1937 Act. They repeatedly reference American Forest Resource Council v. Hammond as evidence for their claims, but they fail to mention that the federal government won that case (meaning the court upheld the government’s ability to keep that land off-limits for timber harvest).
Repealing this Act will lead to a number of negative consequences. Historic sites will be vulnerable to development, looting, or destruction. Conservation efforts will be hampered. Tourism and educational opportunities will decline. Many existing monuments could face legal challenges. And undoubtedly, countless precious environmental and cultural gems will be lost (disproportionately impacting Native American cultural heritage).
