Project 2025 Could Be Disastrous for the Climate. Legal Scholars Are Preparing To Fight Back.

UC Berkeley's Ken Alex says regardless of who the next president is, proponents will continue to push for this "straightforward statement of climate denial."

With plans to expand the production of fossil fuels, curtail environmental regulations, dismantle key climate monitoring agencies and even undermine the Endangered Species Act, there is no question that Project 2025 would be disastrous for the climate.

Project 2025 is a conservative policy playbook for a future Republican president. Authored by the Heritage Foundation, a right-wing think tank, the document has garnered headlines for its reactionary proposals, including dramatically increasing government surveillance and presidential power while placing severe restrictions on abortion, gender-affirming care and immigration. While not the official platform of either U.S. presidential candidate, its priorities are closely aligned with those of former President Donald Trump. It also represents the goals of numerous conservative politicians, many of whom will continue to push for these proposals regardless of who is in the White House.

At UC Berkeley’s Center for Law, Energy and the Environment (CLEE), scholars are studying how Project 2025 plans to erode U.S. climate and environmental protections. UC Berkeley News spoke with Ken Alex, Director of CLEE’s Project Climate and former senior policy advisor to California Governor Jerry Brown, about the threats posed by Project 2025 and the legal grounds for challenging what Alex calls “a straightforward statement of climate denial.”

UC Berkeley News: Why are you studying the climate and environmental proposals in Project 2025?

Ken Alex: Project 2025 has gotten a lot of attention. It was written by 100-plus conservative groups and many of the authors have direct ties to either the former Trump administration or to the current Trump campaign. Former President Trump has disassociated himself from it to a certain extent, but some of the proposals are ones that were set forth in the first Trump administration and many are also consistent with his campaign rhetoric. And even if Harris becomes president, there are a lot of issues and proposals that will be pursued through litigation and other means. 

We’re trying to shine a light on Project 2025, and we hope that it will get people thinking about the legal arguments and approaches that might help counter some of its proposals.

What concerns you most about Project 2025 in terms of its potential impacts on climate change and the environment?

In my view, there are two overarching themes. One is a major overhaul of the government: Dismantling government, particularly environmental entities and organizations, is a very high priority, both for Trump and clearly for Project 2025.

Second, I think it’s fair to say that Project 2025 is a pretty straightforward statement of climate denial. It is a full-throated endorsement of fossil fuels and wants to undermine anything that has to do with climate science and the environment.

Could you expand on how dismantling the government could threaten climate and the environment?

First of all, the writers of Project 2025 want to downsize government dramatically, and environmental regulation in particular. The plan contains an extensive description of how they would constrain the reach and breadth of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) by limiting enforcement and shifting its focus to what we sometimes call compliance assistance. In this role, the EPA would work directly with companies to try to help them reduce their environmental impact, but would move away from enforcement. This model has been tried federally under some Republican administrations and the absence of enforcement has repeatedly resulted in significant environmental degradation. 

The effort to break up [NOAA] is part of a strategy of hear no evil, see no evil: If you don’t report on climate change, then perhaps it doesn’t exist. 

Ken Alex

There’s been a fair amount of press about the Project 2025 proposal to dismantle the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which runs things like marine fisheries, the National Weather Service and the National Hurricane Center. A lot of its work in recent years has focused on the impacts of climate change. The effort to break it up is part of a strategy of hear no evil, see no evil: If you don’t report on climate change, then perhaps it doesn’t exist. 

And there are other agencies that could be targeted. There’s an entity called the National Renewable Energy Lab in Colorado, which is one of the most important entities in the world for climate science. They run climate modeling and they do a huge amount of research into renewables, emission reductions and climate change solutions. And then, of course, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) actually focuses quite a lot of its work and effort on looking at the earth from space, and it’s incredibly important to climate science to have that data and information. 

Project 2025 also reflects a complete distrust of career civil service employees and wants to dramatically expand the number of presidential appointees. I think people have been surprised at the extent of the attack on the civil service system.

Are there any other policy proposals that stood out or surprised you?

One proposal that I just don’t understand is one that would end requirements around appliance efficiency. The EPA, for example, has a program identifying ENERGY STAR products, and there are requirements that appliances like refrigerators and air conditioners meet certain levels of energy efficiency. Those rules have saved American consumers billions of dollars and have reduced energy usage significantly. So why is that the subject of attack? 

Project 2025 is hard to understand, but at its heart it seems to harken back to former President Trump’s attack on light bulbs. Here we are some years later and I think we’ve moved into the world of LEDs and nobody is bemoaning the loss of incandescent bulbs.

You mentioned that, even if Trump loses, conservatives may continue to pursue the goals of Project 2025 through litigation and other means. How might these proposals be implemented in the event of a Harris win?

The Project 2025 proposal is 922 pages, so it’s fairly detailed, and it includes many suggestions for how you might attack existing laws and regulations. It’s a bit of a roadmap or a blueprint for achieving these policy goals. 

For example, recent rulings by the Supreme Court have created a new doctrine called the Major Questions Doctrine, which says that federal agencies cannot take action on certain major issues unless Congress explicitly grants them the authority. One Project 2025 proposal suggests that the Clean Air Act itself does not give the EPA authority to regulate greenhouse gases, and therefore — under the major questions doctrine — the federal government is acting outside of their authority in regulating these emissions. Right now, there’s the Supreme Court case called Massachusetts v. EPA that explicitly says that the EPA does have the authority to regulate greenhouse gases, but we have seen that the current Supreme Court is willing to overrule pretty recent precedent.

There are other areas in which Project 2025 suggests that regulations are outside of the scope of the statute, which is another typical legal attack. So I expect that a lot of these strategies will move forward in the litigation realm.

California has long been a leader in climate change and environmental action, particularly in setting air quality standards. Could Project 2025 potentially threaten California’s ability to set these more advanced climate policies?

Yes, California’s first air quality legislation actually preceded the federal Clean Air Act, and as a result, the federal Clean Air Act includes a provision that gives California particular authority to create its own aThe effort to break up [NOAA] is part of a strategy of hear no evil, see no evil: If you don’t report on climate change, then perhaps it doesn’t exist. 

Ken Alexir quality standards. Other states can then adopt either the federal rule or the California rule. However, California has to get a waiver from the federal government when it creates its own standards, and Project 2025 suggests that the federal government preclude California from receiving that waiver.

Is there any way to fight back against these policies, besides voting against politicians who support them? Are there any legal or constitutional grounds for challenging them?

Absolutely. There are always legal arguments to be made, and it will certainly be hard fought on both sides. That’s the beauty of the law. 

Many of the Project 2025 proposals involve attacking regulations that are perceived to be outside of statutory authority. All of these are going to have counter arguments. And, in many instances, the counter arguments will be far stronger.

Ken Alex

For example, there are strong arguments that the California waiver to the Clean Air Act cannot be undone by the federal government except under very specific circumstances. There are also strong arguments that Massachusetts v. EPA remains good law and that the Clean Air Act applies to greenhouse gases as pollutants.

Many of the Project 2025 proposals involve attacking regulations that are perceived to be outside of statutory authority. All of these are going to have counter arguments. And, in many instances, the counter arguments will be far stronger.

Are there any other ways that Berkeley scholars in particular are equipped to resist the climate proposals in Project 2025?

First and foremost, of course, Berkeley scholars, scientists and researchers will continue to move forward on climate change science and solutions. Denial in the face of science and reality only gets you so far. In addition, social scientists are continuing efforts to understand how best to communicate the science and promote action.