Project 2025: How Trump and MAGA may reshape American climate policy

By Maciej Lesiak

November 7, 2024 - 12 minutes read - 2364 words

What's in this article

Practice vs declarations: what will Trump implement from Project 2025?

Today, we will delve into an issue highlighted by Gabriel Gatehouse, the author of a podcast on American political conspiracy theories. He pointed out that existing narratives undermining authorities and federal offices aim to question the legitimacy of their existence, which could indirectly contribute to the overhaul of the current order. Federal institutions, procedures, and the law are being targeted. Instead of discussing climate change, fiscal issues, or health policies, the very purpose of regulatory or research institutions is questioned. As accelerationists say: burn the house down to rebuild it anew. The idea here is simply to destroy the existing legal and institutional order in the USA to reorganize it according to one’s vision.

Yesterday, Donald Trump won the race for the White House and became the 47th president of the most powerful country in the world. But that’s not all, as the Republicans have taken control of the Senate and have the opportunity to gain a majority in the House of Representatives. It is worth taking a closer look at the assumptions and details of the conservative think tank The Heritage Foundation’s initiative called Project 2025.

I want to emphasize that Heritage Foundation, as well as USA Today during its fact-checking of the claim Project 2025 is Trump’s project, states that this is not directly Trump’s project. It was created by conservative circles preparing a set of recommendations and suggestions for the president and administration. This initiative aims to prepare a comprehensive political plan for a future conservative administration in the USA. The main document of this initiative is Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise, published in April 2023.

On 900 pages, one can find detailed political proposals for various federal agencies. The document was developed by over 400 experts and scholars from conservative backgrounds. Although there is no direct declaration that this document and the foundation’s recommendations will be implemented 100%, Trump’s circle and Trump himself have repeatedly indicated that this will be the case, treating it as a canonical text.

Who is announcing and planning the overhaul?

It should be emphasized that many of Trump’s collaborators (his inner circle) participated in the creation of the document, and some of the guidelines align with the president’s actions and declarations. The plan includes reorganizing the Department of Justice and the FBI, which aligns with Trump’s promises regarding these institutions. The well-known announcement of retribution against the FBI and the Department of Justice for investigations is reflected in the plan. It proposes placing loyal people in these institutions and stripping them of autonomy. Reuters: Donald Trump wants to control the Justice Department and FBI. His allies have a plan

Although fact-checkers from USA TODAY formally claim that Project 2025 is not directly connected to Trump, in my opinion, such an assessment may be oversimplified and naive. This document was created by circles closely associated with his political base. Trump, who is not known as an intellectual, likely would not have created such a comprehensive roadmap himself. It is reasonable to assume that his administration may treat Project 2025 as a guide to implement its agenda.

General assumptions of Project 2025

Project 2025 is a historic movement, brought together by over 100 respected organizations from across the conservative movement, to abolish the Deep State and return government to the people. Project 2025 is not partisan, nor is it secret. Project 2025 does not speak for any candidate or campaign, in any capacity. It was stood up in 2022, before any major candidate announced a campaign, to assist the next conservative president. The Truth About Project 2025 | Project 2025

In general, the document presents a vision of a comprehensive reform of the federal administration through policy and management changes in various agencies and departments. It covers areas such as education, healthcare, social assistance, agriculture, national defense, intelligence, trade, finance, energy, FCC, SEC, CFPB, FTC, and NOAA. Without going into detail, the main assumptions include not only implementing conservative values but also shifting vectors, financing, and evaluation of effectiveness, aiming to limit the role of the government.

In other words, conservatives seek to reduce government intervention in citizens’ lives and the economy to increase personal and economic freedom. Does this sound familiar from the COVID-19 pandemic? It is worth mentioning that a person dealing with health issues may, although it is not certain, be someone spreading conspiracy theories and misinformation about the coronavirus. Autonomy can thus be understood as Elon Musk perceives it—using disinformation instrumentally for political purposes. Whether this is an overinterpretation, I leave to the personal judgment of the reader.

It is also worth noting that according to conspiracy theories spread by the alt-right about the excessive power of federal offices, alleged waste of resources, and dealing with pseudo-problems by various scientific institutions (see, for example, the BBC podcast I often refer to), efforts are made to reduce budgets, which could significantly degrade the role of NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). As we know, NOAA is crucial for climate change research. Now that Trump has gained full power with the Republicans, he can do as he pleases. If MAGA politicians deem something a pseudo-problem and a waste of resources, it is easy to cut and limit any scientific initiative by reducing funding. No discussion or persuasion is needed. Elon Musk is cited as a leading figure in this optimization aimed at reducing bureaucracy and saving money.

Potential risks of nudget cuts and undermining institutions studying climate change in the “2025 Mandate”

Currently, the climate crisis is intensifying, so I would like to look specifically at the arguments and projects that pertain directly to this issue. What is planned?

1. Project 2025: Elimination of research and development programs in energy

Argument: The Mandate 2025 document proposes the elimination of all DOE (Department of Energy) demonstration programs in the energy sector, including those conducted by the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (OCED). The justification is the belief that taxpayer money should not be used to subsidize selected enterprises and energy sources, which distorts the market and undermines energy security.

The potential consequences are easy to predict. If we reduce funding for research and development in renewable energy, it will directly slow progress and, in my opinion, completely prevent the achievement of goals related to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The MAGA environment describes this as leftist ideology.

2. Project 2025: Change in research funding priorities

Argument: The authors of Project 2025 suggest that if it is not possible to eliminate all R&D programs in energy, funded projects should align with the program goals of the new administration.

I doubt that fighting climate change and researching climate shifts will be part of the new administration’s objectives, given that nearly the entire MAGA base denies climate change. Therefore, a focus on the development of traditional energy sources (oil, nuclear) could lead to neglecting research into environmentally friendly technologies. The scientific consensus on the climate crisis is ignored, cherry-picking theses that are convenient for the economy and businesses. In the long term, this will not positively impact CO2 reduction or slow down the temperature increase. The USA is one of the largest CO2 emitters in the world and still has much work to do in terms of reducing emissions.

3. Project 2025: Reorganization and personnel changes in federal agencies, e.g., the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Argument: The authors propose, among other things, appointing politically nominated officials to key offices within the EPA, responsible for regulating pollution emissions. These include even smaller offices, such as those monitoring air quality. This means loosening emission standards.

Changes in personnel and the structure of the EPA could lead to the appointment of individuals who will not strictly enforce environmental protection regulations. The primary target here could be greenhouse gas emissions. However, there are many cases of local water and environmental contamination historically caused by big business. Donald Trump is allegedly an advocate for the poor, but big business and industry stand behind him. There will be no subsidies for zero-emission and electric vehicles.

4. Project 2025: undermining the importance of climate change research

Argument: The authors of Project 2025 do not directly deny the existence of climate change but criticize so-called climate extremism, suggesting at the same time that environmental protection measures harm the economy. This can be easily correlated with Trump’s statements that the USA will not bear the costs of CO2 reduction and climate change efforts alone.

There is little more to comment on here; as shown in previous points, the proposed approach leads directly to such a relaxed attitude toward environmental issues that fighting climate change becomes an abstraction. This will undoubtedly impact policies aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Project 2025: Redefining concepts as a method of changing values

5. Project 2025: Limiting USAID’s Role in Climate Change Efforts

Argument: The document’s authors seem to criticize the promotion of climate extremism and propose focusing on other goals. They speak of promoting the free market and conservative values.

It is worth noting the positive role USAID plays in addressing the effects of the climate crisis by providing aid, which enhances the USA’s global reputation. Withdrawing USAID assistance could slow the adaptation of less developed countries to climate change.

I would like to draw attention to an interesting issue here. From my analysis of USAID, its role also involves fulfilling geopolitical tasks using soft, aid-based measures to strengthen the positive perception of the USA worldwide. Russia has launched its own program, Rossotrudnichestvo (Federal Agency for the Commonwealth of Independent States Affairs, Compatriots Living Abroad, and International Humanitarian Cooperation), which has proven effective, particularly in the Middle East, significantly expanding its influence through aid and broad cultural and economic exchange.

In this context, it is worth examining how the Project 2025 documentation proposes changes in definitions and evaluation parameters across various areas of federal agencies’ operations and publicly funded institutions, which could have far-reaching implications for their functioning and impact on international policy.

6. Redefining concepts and definitions - A review of selected issues

Let’s briefly look at this issue. In the security sector, specifically intelligence, there are plans to redefine what information requires protection and change the way information is classified as secret. Readers, like myself, probably envision boxes of classified documents stored in a broom closet at Trump’s residence.

In the context of point 5, which I discussed above, definitions and evaluation methods will change, supposedly to better measure the effectiveness of USAID projects. According to Project 2025 critics, there is wasteful spending there. This is great news for Russia, as limiting USAID projects.

This will not only reduce aid for countries affected by climate change, contributing to increased chaos and radicalization (lack of assistance during crises), but it will also reduce the geopolitical influence achieved through various projects worldwide. This does not stop Russia from implementing its aid programs and expanding its sphere of influence. While it may sound absurd to us, there is evidence of positive effects of such programs in some parts of the world (Arab countries). If the USA withdraws from these areas, China and Russia are waiting in line to offer their brotherly assistance and spread their values.

The authors of Project 2025 also want to modify eligibility criteria for social assistance programs, managed, for example, by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Here, one can see a resentment towards reducing spending on immigrants and the fear of migration that was stoked before the elections. Many Americans claim that their standard of living has worsened because money is wasted on pseudo-aid actions.

As an interesting side note, there are plans to change some pollution emission standards, and Project 2025 criticizes the use of the linear no-threshold model (LNT) for assessing radiological risk. Generally, there is a push to relax regulations regarding radiation emissions. The implications of this for AI development and the current implementation of mini nuclear reactors for data centers supporting AI are left to the reader’s imagination.

Conclusion – Is there reason for concern?

In today’s analysis of Project 2025, I deliberately omitted fiscal issues, although it is worth mentioning that news of Trump’s victory caused a 10% surge in Bitcoin’s value. The crypto cowboys community, which strives for market deregulation and greater freedom of capital flow, already envisions less control and more freedom. I will leave that without further comment…

Is there reason for concern? When it comes to climate, I believe there is. The document published on the Project 2025 website was created by circles closely linked to Donald Trump’s inner circle. I am convinced that at least some of these ideas will be implemented, and with full control of power in the USA, this will be done without obstacles. The authors of Project 2025 have frequently expressed criticism of federal institutions regarding fiscal, health, social, military, and especially climate policies, which impact costs for businesses. This argumentation is familiar from the press. My aim was to present examples of proposed changes along with their reasoning, which, in my opinion, will significantly affect energy transformation and the fight against climate change. The issue of scientific research is also crucial, as there is widespread skepticism about overall spending on climate research and questioning the importance of climate change as an issue.

The USA, instead of being a leader in climate protection and energy transformation, could become a country that fails to meet global standards and expectations in this regard.