Topic: Climate Change
“At its very heart, environmental extremism is decidedly anti-human.”
He elaborates on this statement by saying that mitigating climate change “abandons confidence in human resilience and creativity in responding to the challenges of the future.” Which seems to be saying that we shouldn’t do anything about climate change, because doing so would deprive us of the opportunity to learn how to adapt and adjust once it’s an inescapable problem. This is an absolutely ludicrous position.
Full contextual analysis of the Foreword here.
“The NSC should rigorously review all general and flag officer promotions to prioritize the core roles and responsibilities of the military over social engineering and non-defense matters, including climate change, critical race theory, manufactured extremism, and other polarizing policies that weaken our armed forces and discourage our nation’s finest men and women from enlisting to serve in defense of our liberty.”
The term “social engineering” here refers to policies or initiatives aimed at changing societal behaviors or values within the military, such as those related to diversity, inclusion, or addressing systemic racism. “Non-defense matters” likely refers to issues like climate change, which Vought sees as unrelated to the military’s core mission. Vought is arguing that policies related to climate change, CRT, and similar issues are deterring potential recruits from joining the military.
In fact, studies show that MOST Americans would discourage a young person from enlisting in the military17 (unless as an officer), and the Military itself issued a statement counter to Vought’s assertion that politicization of the military is hindering recruitment efforts: “Military recruiting officials on Wednesday dismissed concerns that perceptions of an increasingly politicized military are undermining their pitches to young Americans, saying instead that unfamiliarity with military life poses a bigger barrier to efforts in boosting enlistments.” [Source]
In 2020, Vought ordered the Air Force to stop using training materials that mention race. [Source]19 Vought called diversity and unconscious bias training intended to create inclusive environments “un-American propaganda training sessions.” He is deeply, deeply racist.
Full contextual analysis of Section 1.2: Executive Office of the President of the United States here.
Share this quote from Project 2025:
“…if required, refuse to accept any USGCRP assessment prepared under the Biden Administration.”
This is Vought explicitly arguing that the next President should kill climate change research programs by executive order. (The USGCRP is the U.S. Global Change Research Program.)
Full contextual analysis of Section 1.2: Executive Office of the President of the United States here.
Share this quote from Project 2025:
“Finally, the next Administration will face a significant challenge in unwinding policies and procedures that are used to advance radical gender, racial, and equity initiatives under the banner of science. Similarly, the Biden Administration’s climate fanaticism will need a whole-of-government unwinding. As with other federal departments and agencies, the Biden Administration’s leveraging of the federal government’s resources to further the woke agenda should be reversed and scrubbed from all policy manuals, guidance documents, and agendas, and scientific excellence and innovation should be restored as the OSTP’s top priority.”
Again, Vought’s racism, bigotry, and science denial is on full display here. It’s utterly laughable that he cites “scientific excellence” as something he’s interested in advancing, but the scientific community OVERWHELMINGLY agrees that climate change is an issue – 97% of actively publishing climate scientists agree that humans are causing climate change and global warming.
Full contextual analysis of Section 1.2: Executive Office of the President of the United States here.
Share this quote from Project 2025:
“The President should instruct the CEQ to rewrite its regulations implementing NEPA along the lines of the historic 2020 effort and restoring its key provisions such as banning the use of cumulative impact analysis.”
NEPA is the National Environmental Policy Act. Isn’t it interesting that Vought denies climate change exists, but in the same breath, wants to prevent any research into cumulative impact? It’s almost like he knows he’s completely full of shit.
Full contextual analysis of Section 1.2: Executive Office of the President of the United States here.
Share this quote from Project 2025:
“The Biden Administration has deformed the agency by treating it as a global platform to pursue overseas a divisive political and cultural agenda that promotes abortion, climate extremism, gender radicalism, and interventions against perceived systemic racism.”
This is a grotesquely exaggerated and partisan interpretation of reality. Yes, the Biden administration rescinded the disastrous Mexico City Policy. (And it should be noted here that USAID still follows U.S. federal law, which prohibits using federal funds directly for abortions in most cases and has since 1973 – see the Helms Amendment.)
Full contextual analysis of Section 2.6: Agency for International Development here.
“The Biden Administration’s extreme climate policies have worsened global food insecurity and hunger. Its anti–fossil fuel agenda has led to a sharp spike in global energy prices. Inflation has hit the poor the hardest as they expend a higher proportion of income on food purchases. Farmers in poor countries can no longer afford to buy expensive natural gas–based fertilizers that are key to achieving high yields of food production. Under advice from climate radicals, the government of Sri Lanka even banned chemical fertilizers entirely without having any replacements in place. The result has been hunger and violent political instability.”
Primorac exaggerates so aggressively that if I were going to debunk every instance, this essay would be prohibitively long. Suffice it to say, almost none of this is true. There’s little direct evidence that the Biden Administration’s climate policies are responsible for worsening global food insecurity. Global food insecurity is driven by a complex set of factors, including climate change, conflict, supply chain disruptions (such as those caused by the COVID-19 pandemic), and, most recently, the Russia-Ukraine war (which severely disrupted grain and fertilizer supplies).
Full contextual analysis of Section 2.6: Agency for International Development here.
“As a general matter, the next Administration should ensure that these [conservation] programs address genuine and specific environmental concerns with a focus on currently existing environmental problems, not those that are speculative in nature.”
Bakst is couching any conservation efforts relating to climate change as “speculative” here. Climate change is not speculative.
More potential outcomes of this in the full contextual analysis of Section 3.1: Department of Agriculture here.
“[The next Administration should] Champion the elimination of the Conservation Reserve Program.
Bakst couches the program as “paying farmers NOT to farm their land.” The reality is obviously more complex. The primary purpose of the Conservation Reserve Program is to improve environmental health and sustainability by incentivizing farmers and landowners to remove environmentally sensitive land from agricultural production and implement conservation practices. This provides benefits such as preventing soil erosion, improving water quality, enhancing wildlife habitats, promoting carbon sequestration, and improving air quality. The program was introduced in 1985 under Reagan following concerns over unacceptably high levels of soil erosion. It authorized the USDA to enroll up to 45 million acres in the program. So yes, it “pays farmers not to farm their land”, but for environmental reasons. [Source]
More potential outcomes of this in the full contextual analysis of Section 3.1: Department of Agriculture here.
“The next Administration should embrace innovation and technology, not hinder its use – especially because of scare tactics that ignore sound science.”
This appears under the heading “Remove Obstacles for Agricultural Biotechnology”. It is absolutely, laughably RICH that a climate change denier would even be able to utter the phrase “scare tactics that ignore sound science” with a straight face. This is unworthy of dignifying with further response.
More potential outcomes of this in the full contextual analysis of Section 3.1: Department of Agriculture here.