By Benjamin Alva Polley EBS COLUMNIST
I know many friends and family who voted for Donald Trump based on single issues, such as abortion, the economy, cost of living, immigration, inflation or the free market.
However, many disregarded Project 2025 because Trump continually said he wasn’t affiliated with it after facing criticisms from his political party, the news media, NGOs and others. This is despite the fact that seven individuals chosen for his cabinet have direct connections to the project.
Project 2025 would be harmful to the environment and public lands by contaminating lakes, rivers and streams, polluting the air, adding to the carbon in the atmosphere and removing protections for endangered and threatened species.
So, what is Project 2025, why is it alarming and who is behind it?
Project 2025 is a comprehensive 920-page plan published by the Heritage Foundation. One section highlights the organization’s focus on managing 500 million acres of America’s federal lands, dismantling federal agencies that manage public lands, laying off tens of thousands of government employees, and transferring control of these lands to states or private interests. The plan primarily aims to boost oil and gas production on federal land and allow specific individuals and corporations to run amok with public lands.
The manifesto also calls for limiting the president’s ability to protect landscapes in the future, disregarding Biden’s executive order to conserve 30% of federal lands and waters by 2030. This conservation effort is intended to combat climate variation, protect endangered species, and improve air and water quality, all of which help life on Earth.
Additional proposals in Project 2025 include repealing drilling and mining moratoriums in Colorado, Minnesota and New Mexico; revoking the Antiquities Act, the landmark 1906 law that has allowed 18 presidents to designate 161 national monuments; stripping the Inflation Reduction Act, which aims to lower carbon emissions, support clean energy programs; and altering amendments to the Endangered Species Act, which has safeguarded over 1,600 species from extinction. Loosening the laws on these policies will make it easier for large corporations to profit and exit before being held accountable for cleanup costs, leaving the burden on local communities.
William Perry Pendley served illegally as Trump’s acting director of the Bureau of Land Management for over a year and authored the Interior Department chapter of Project 2025. He has long sought to transfer federal land managed by the Department of the Interior to extractive industries—the same interests he has represented in court for five decades as an attorney fighting on behalf of oil and gas companies.
So, who is Pendley? Pendley refers to himself as a “sagebrush rebel,” a term associated with a movement to remove lands from federal control in the 1970s and 80s. Pendley is an anti-public land advocate and poses a significant threat to our national heritage, which includes hunting, fishing, hiking and other recreational activities on public land.
Instead of directly stating that America’s public lands should be transferred to the fossil fuel sector, Pendley delegated the task to the leader of a powerful industry group to draft the policy for him. An author’s note at the end of his policy directive discloses that Kathleen Sgamma, president of the Western Energy Alliance authored the entire energy section, with contributions from Dan Kish, the senior vice president of policy at the American Energy Alliance, and Katie Tubb, a former senior policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation, which is behind Project 2025.
Sgamma’s trade and lobbying organization, WEA, represents 200 oil and gas companies. Both the American Energy Alliance and the Heritage Foundation have strong ties to the fossil fuel industry.
How does that affect the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem and Montana?
The BLM oversees significant land in the region. In Montana, the BLM manages 8.1 million acres of subsurface land and 700 million acres of federal mineral estate. Idaho has 12 million acres of subsurface land and 36.5 million acres of federal mineral estate. Meanwhile, Wyoming is responsible for 18.4 million acres of subsurface land and 42.9 million acres of federal mineral estate. These figures represent the totals of the land managed in the three states encompassing the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem.
National and Montana polls indicate that public support for protecting America’s public lands remains strong, with 81% of people in favor. Most Americans prefer expanding public lands rather than selling them off. The growing support spans across political parties. However, the 2016 Republican platform, when Trump first ran, advocated for transferring federal lands to the states. As of late, Republicans have primarily abandoned this notion of flatly saying they want to sell these lands. Instead, they aim to reduce environmental protections and give states more control over managing these lands, which they can sell to the highest bidder, often large corporations. Many Montanans and residents of the West chose to live here because the government manages federal lands for the public good rather than to be owned and degraded by billionaires.
How do our choices today affect the world of tomorrow?
As 2024 has been declared the hottest year on record, should we support policies that ignore the Department of Energy’s emphasis on climate variation and green subsidies in favor of practices that increase carbon emissions? Such practices contribute to a hotter world that could eventually become inhospitable to humans. We know that Big Tobacco deceived the American public about causing cancer. When will we recognize that Big Oil is doing the same? The evidence is clear.
While we all need jobs and would love lower energy costs, we must ask ourselves what cost to our environment we’re willing to pay. I’m not opposed to oil and gas; we rely on these resources daily. It’s essential to recognize that green energy also needs its fair share, whether for lubricating windmill turbines or shipping parts and equipment via truck and trailer across the country.
When will big oil corporations start giving back to the communities they impact, instead of just taking resources and abandoning them when needed, like during clean-up? When I enjoy our public lands, I don’t want to see oil rigs or jacks everywhere I look. Similarly, I wouldn’t want pristine habitats on public lands to be overtaken by solar panels. We must find a balance that serves everyone’s interests rather than just a handful of top corporate executives. Short-term profits now rarely lead to long-term public health.
It is important to note that very few people, apart from special interest groups, voted for Trump solely because he supported Project 2025. Most voters focused on single issues rather than considering the entire platform, often viewing the rest as mere campaign theatrics to win votes. This highlights the necessity of looking beyond single issues, such as the rising prices of eggs and milk, when making decisions about the future.
If you care about the environment, wildlife, hunting and fishing, and public lands, staying vigilant over the next four years is crucial. We must protect these national treasures from those who seek to exploit them for profit without sharing the benefits.
Benjamin Alva Polley is a place-based storyteller. His stories have been published in Audubon, Esquire, Field & Stream, The Guardian, Outside, Popular Science, Sierra, and other publications on his website. He holds a master’s in Environmental Science and Natural Resource Journalism from the University of Montana.
