“The U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) oversees, manages, and protects the nation’s natural resources and cultural heritage; provides scientific and other information about these resources; and honors the nation’s trust responsibilities or special commitments to American Indians, Alaska Natives, and affiliated island communities.”

So begins this section, and it’s a good reference point.

Pendley begins by giving some slanted historical context, claiming that the DOI’s pro-environmental policies under Carter, killed by Reagan, then continued under Bush and Clinton, amounted to a “War on the West.”

“President Bill Clinton resumed Carter’s “War on the West,” epitomized by his DOI’s deploying of wolves into the states bordering Yellowstone National Park; the decreed death of a world-class mine in Montana; and the designation of a vast national monument in Utah over the objections of Utah leaders—but with the support of the Hollywood elite.” (Project 2025, Section 3.7: Department of the Interior, William Perry Pendley, page 550, paragraph 3.)

For context, the monument he’s referring to is the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument¹ in southern Utah, designated in 1996. This was a controversial move at the time, because Clinton did it under the Antiquities Act, which allows presidents to unilaterally protect significant public lands by declaring them National Monuments.

Many local Utah leaders and residents opposed the designation because they felt it restricted economic activities like mining and ranching. The area was rich in coal reserves, and local politicians saw the monument designation as a federal overreach. On the other hand, environmental groups and many in the national spotlight, including celebrities and political elites, supported the move, praising it as a necessary step to preserve the natural beauty and ecological significance of the area.

The monument was later reduced in size by 900,000 acres² (about half) by President Donald Trump in 2017 along with the Bears’ Ears monument, citing similar concerns about local economic impacts and federal overreach. However, in 2021, President Joe Biden restored the monument to its original size, once again sparking debate about the balance between conservation and local economic interests.

“During his speech Monday, Trump said the national monument designations also “prevent Native Americans from having their rightful voice over the sacred land where they practice their most important ancestral and religious traditions.”

Many tribal leaders and activists are likely to deeply object to this assessment. For months, they have passionately campaigned to preserve the national monument designations — and now, upon hearing Trump’s proclamations, they are promising to sue.

It’s no surprise that Trump lied about how the people felt about this decision.

What’s so special about the land?

The monument is part of the “Grand Staircase,” a series of massive cliffs that rise in giant steps from the Grand Canyon to Bryce Canyon. The region offers a visible timeline of Earth’s history, with rock layers that date back hundreds of millions of years. It’s a geologist’s paradise, providing an unparalleled record of the planet’s development.

The area is a rich source of fossils, some of which belong to previously unknown species of dinosaurs. These fossils, embedded in layers of sediment, provide key insights into life on Earth during the late Cretaceous period, around 75 to 80 million years ago. Scientists have unearthed numerous dinosaur species, making it a critical site for paleontology.

The monument includes diverse ecosystems, from desert lowlands to forested plateaus, which support a variety of plant and animal species. Many of these species are endemic to the area, meaning they are found nowhere else on Earth. Protecting this land helps preserve the biodiversity of the region, including several rare or threatened species.

The decision to designate the land as a monument was largely about preventing exploitation of resources that could damage these irreplaceable natural and cultural treasures, while ensuring they remained accessible for future generations to study and enjoy.

Whether protecting these lands was government overreach or not (and I would entertain arguments that it was), right away, we have Pendley arguing for harming the environment, hindering scientific research, and desecrating nature preserves in exchange for capitalist ends.

Pendley goes on to gripe that Obama wouldn’t allow fracking on federally protected land, and brag that Trump reversed that.

Fracking, short for hydraulic fracturing, is a means of extracting natural gas and oil from deep rock formations known as shale. Drills force water, sand, and a mix of chemicals into horizontally drilled wells, causing the shale to crack and release natural gas or oil.

Fracking at the very least threatens local drinking water sources by contamination, and emits air pollutants. Long-term adverse health effects are still being studied. There are links between fracking and childhood leukemia³, as well as the premature deaths of elderly people due to respiratory issues and endocrine disruption.

“Since 2014, the compendium has tallied 2,239 peer-reviewed papers that found evidence of harm, with nearly 1,000 of those papers published since 2018.”

“According to the 577-page document, 79 percent of U.S. natural gas and 65 percent of crude oil is now produced by fracking, with more than 17.6 million people living within a mile of a fracked oil or gas well. The result, says the report, is a public health crisis.”

With that in mind, it’s not difficult to see why the Native Americans sued the Trump Administration to keep their lands intact. Native Americans sued the Trump Administration many times for similar policies. This quote refers to Trump’s EPA rolling back the Clean Water Act and forcing states and Tribes to accept damaging and unwanted pipelines and other fossil fuel projects on their lands.

“We filed this suit to stop the Trump administration from giving control of our water to the polluting corporations who put their profits over our health. Since Trump’s EPA is taking away states’ and Tribes’ ability to protect their clean water, we’re going to court to take it back.” [Source]⁴

“Joe Biden’s DOI, as is well documented, abandoned all pretense of complying with federal law regarding federally owned oil and gas resources. Not since the Administration of President Harry S. Truman – prior to creation of the OCS oil and gas program—have fewer federal leases been issued.” (Project 2025, Section 3.7: Department of the Interior, William Perry Pendley, page 551, paragraph 1.)

Is it true that Biden has allowed the fewest new federal drilling leases since Truman? Sort of. It’s misleading for Pendley to say that. Sales, yes. Permits, no. Federal data show the Biden administration approved 6,430 permits for oil and gas drilling on public lands in its first two years, outpacing the Trump administration’s 6,172 drilling-permit approvals in its first two years. [Source]⁵

Evidence shows that Biden has simply been honoring commitments Trump made prior to Biden’s taking office:

“Recent claims suggesting that the Biden administration has granted 50 percent more oil and gas drilling permits on federal land compared to the Trump administration have been circulating in the media – and while that data is accurate, it’s a lot more complex. A closer look at the 2023 data reveals that many of the permits approved by the Biden administration were granted on land that was leased during the Trump administration. The Biden administration, on the other hand, has held the absolute minimum lease sales possible.” [Source]⁶

That, and Congress tied his hands:

“Administration officials said they couldn’t go further because of provisions Congress approved last year that require offshore oil leasing in order for Interior to do offshore wind leasing. A maximum of three sales — one each planned for 2025, 2027 and 2029 — are the fewest the Interior Department said it could do under the law and keep expanding its offshore wind program as it intended through 2030.” [Source]⁷

Worth noting also is that U.S. Energy Independence set a new record under Biden.⁸

Pendley goes on to argue that Biden’s protections of federally managed lands were “illegal”, which is not true.

“Biden is “aligning the management of…public lands and waters…to support robust climate action,” as envisioned in Executive Orders 14008 and 13990. One of his first actions was to ban federal coal, oil, and natural gas leasing on federal lands and waters to fulfill his campaign promise of “no federal oil,” followed by actions from Interior Secretary Deb Haaland to rescind the Trump Administration’s Energy Dominance Agenda.” (Project 2025, Section 3.7: Department of the Interior, William Perry Pendley, page 553, paragraph 3.)

(Ellipses are his, not mine.) Again, energy independence is at record levels under Biden.

“DOI is abusing National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) processes, the Antiquities Act, and bureaucratic procedures to advance a radical climate agenda, ostensibly to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, for which DOI has no statutory responsibility or authority.” (Project 2025, Section 3.7: Department of the Interior, William Perry Pendley, page 553, paragraph 4.)

Aaaand, there it is. Pendley and The Heritage Foundation believe that the government has “no responsibility” to the environment or to help ensure the future of the planet. If not, who does? They LITERALLY MAKE THE LAWS. (And again, climate change is not speculative⁹.)

“Biden’s DOI is hoarding supplies of energy and keeping them from Americans whose lives could be improved with cheaper and more abundant energy while making the economy stronger and providing job opportunities for Americans.” (Project 2025, Section 3.7: Department of the Interior, William Perry Pendley, page 553, paragraph 5.)

Yes, Joe Biden is “hoarding” energy. Cackling as he sits atop a giant pile of coal. This statement is ridiculous. While Biden’s actions have protected federal lands and restricted new federal oil and gas leases, this does not equate to “hoarding” existing energy supplies. Energy companies still have access to previously issued leases, and U.S. oil and gas production remains at record highs, partially due to existing leases and non-federal sources.

The claim that lives would be improved with “cheaper and more abundant energy” oversimplifies the complex causes of high energy prices. While increased domestic production could modestly affect prices, U.S. energy prices are still heavily influenced by global oil markets.

I touch on all of this more in Section 3.3¹⁰, including the fact that clean energy is creating a ton of jobs.

Now, on to Pendley’s specific recommendations:

“Conduct offshore oil and natural gas lease sales to the maximum extent permitted under the 2023–2028 lease program, with the possibility to move forward under a previously studied but unselected plan alternative.” (Project 2025, Section 3.7: Department of the Interior, William Perry Pendley, page 555, paragraph 2.)

Offshore drilling has devastating impacts on oceans and coastal communities. It’s also expensive. It carries the risk of oil spills, which destroy marine ecosystems. It pollutes the air and water and exacerbates climate change. The seismic blasting¹¹ harms dolphins, whales, and other marine mammals. It’s horrible for the environment.

Plus, chronic irresponsibility is a HUGE problem:

“Once an operator shuts down a well—usually because it is no longer profitable—the company is required to remove its equipment and help restore the area that was damaged by its operations. But in reality, this doesn’t always happen¹². Many abandoned wells (idle wells with a known owner) and orphaned wells (wells with no responsible owner to be found) remain uncapped and leak oil, methane, and other pollutants into our oceans and atmosphere every day. Researchers estimate that properly plugging the 28,232 permanently abandoned wells¹³ in our federal waters, along with the ones currently in use, would cost around $47 billion¹⁴. That doesn’t even take into account orphaned and abandoned wells in state waters.”

“Review all resource management plans finalized in the previous four years and, when necessary, select studied alternatives to restore the multi-use concept enshrined in FLPMA and to eliminate management decisions that advance the 30 by 30 agenda.” (Project 2025, Section 3.7: Department of the Interior, William Perry Pendley, page 555, paragraph 4.)

This is a mandate to destroy every positive step the Biden Administration has taken to protect the environment and encourage clean energy production. The 30×30 initiative¹⁵ is a Biden Administration goal to protect 30% of the planet’s oceans, lands, and fresh waters by the year 2030. To date, more than 190 countries have committed to achieving the global goal.

“The world’s wild places are being lost, and along with them we are losing the natural systems that protect us from the consequences of climate change. Scientists agree that we must protect at least 30% of lands, fresh waters and oceans by 2030 to have any chance of stemming the dual crises of biodiversity loss and climate change facing our planet.

Currently, only about 17% of land and 8% of marine areas are currently under some form of protection. Even then, in many cases, the effectiveness of that protection is in doubt.”

“Abandon withdrawals of lands from leasing in the Thompson Divide of the White River National Forest, Colorado; the 10-mile buffer around Chaco Cultural Historic National Park in New Mexico (restoring the compromise forged in the Arizona Wilderness Act); and the Boundary Waters area in northern Minnesota if those withdrawals have not been completed.” (Project 2025, Section 3.7: Department of the Interior, William Perry Pendley, page 555, paragraph 8.) 

This is a mandate for reversing the withdrawal of certain public lands from being available for oil, gas, and mineral leasing. The lands he mentions were withdrawn to protect them from environmental degradation and for cultural preservation.

The Thompson Divide is a highly contested area in the White River National Forest that has been sought after for oil and gas leasing but is also treasured for its natural beauty, recreation opportunities, and as a habitat for wildlife. The area is used for recreation, ranching, and hunting, and has been defended by local communities and environmental groups as too valuable to industrialize.

Chaco Canyon is a UNESCO World Heritage site with significant archaeological and cultural importance, especially to the Pueblo people and other Native American tribes. It’s known for its ancient ruins, dating back over 1,000 years. The 10-mile buffer around the park was introduced to protect the surrounding area from oil and gas development that could damage the sacred land, disrupt archaeological sites, or harm the environment.

The Boundary Waters is a vast, ecologically rich area in northern Minnesota known for its lakes, rivers, and pristine wilderness. It is a major destination for canoeing, fishing, and outdoor recreation. Recent moves have aimed to prevent mining near the area to protect its waters from pollution, particularly from proposed sulfide-ore copper mining operations, which could release toxic chemicals into the watershed.

“Rescind the Biden rules and reinstate the Trump rules regarding: 1. BLM waste prevention; 2. The Endangered Species Act rules defining Critical Habitat and Critical Habitat Exclusions; 3. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act; and 4. CEQ reforms to NEPA. Reinstate President Trump’s plan for opening most of the National Petroleum Reserve of Alaska to leasing and development.” (Project 2025, Section 3.7: Department of the Interior, William Perry Pendley, page 556, first two bulleted points.)

In short, the hell with the environment, endangered species, birds, and wildlife. Here’s a breakdown of what this means:

By “BLM waste prevention”, he’s not talking about money. Under Biden, rules were reintroduced to limit methane emissions and flaring (burning off excess gas) from oil and gas operations on public lands, aiming to reduce waste and pollution. Trump’s rules were more relaxed, allowing more emissions and reducing regulatory burdens on companies. Reinstating these would likely increase methane emissions but lower costs for energy companies.

Biden’s rules strengthened protections by broadening what can be considered Critical Habitat for endangered species. Trump’s rules restricted these definitions, making it easier for development projects to proceed. Reinstating Trump’s approach would reduce habitat protections, potentially putting more species at risk.

Biden restored penalties for unintentional killing of migratory birds (like from industrial activity). Trump’s rules removed penalties for incidental harm, allowing businesses to avoid liability for bird deaths. Reinstating Trump’s rules would weaken protections for migratory birds. (It’s ironic that he’s so obsessed with the idea that windmills kill birds¹⁹, when he literally made rules that make it fine to kill birds.)

Biden reversed Trump’s changes to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which is designed to assess environmental impacts of federal projects. Trump’s reforms streamlined the review process, limiting the scope of environmental reviews and speeding up approvals for infrastructure projects. Reinstating Trump’s changes would reduce environmental scrutiny of federal projects.

As for the Natural Petroleum Reserve, Trump’s plan opened most of this vast Alaskan reserve to oil and gas leasing and development, aiming to increase domestic energy production. Biden limited leasing to protect sensitive ecosystems and wildlife. Reinstating Trump’s plan would expand energy exploration in Alaska, risking environmental damage but boosting energy production.

The next pages detail plans for wild horse and burro abatement, returning certain Native lands to Alaskan control, and other items.

“Approve the 2020 Willow EIS, the largest pending oil and gas projection in the United States in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska, and expand approval from three to five drilling pads.” (Project 2025, Section 3.7: Department of the Interior, William Perry Pendley, page 562, paragraph 6.)

More drilling in Alaska. More mining, as well.

Pendley goes on to rail more against the 30×30 plan.

“Finally, the new Administration must seek repeal of the Antiquities Act of 1906, which permitted emergency action by a President long before the statutory authority existed for the protection of special federal lands, such as those with wild and scenic rivers, endangered specials, or other unique places.” (Project 2025, Section 3.7: Department of the Interior, William Perry Pendley, page 564, paragraph 5.)

I’m assuming “endangered specials” is a typo and should be “endangered species.” This is more legislation that will crush the environment and our natural resources and habitats. Pendley basically wants to open and expose ALL available land in the United States to fossil fuel extraction, regardless of its impact on the land and its inhabitants.

In addition to the environmental impact, the Antiquities Act has been instrumental in protecting archaeological sites and historical landmarks, such as Native American ruins and petroglyphs. Repeal would leave these sites vulnerable to looting, vandalism, and destruction by development or natural decay. Not to mention the inevitable job losses when resources are depleted.

“Meaningful reform of the Endangered Species Act requires that Congress take action to restore its original purpose and end its use to seize private property, prevent economic development, and interfere with the rights of states over their wildlife populations.” (Project 2025, Section 3.7: Department of the Interior, William Perry Pendley, page 565, paragraph 6.)

More recommendations that we harm endangered species and wildlife in the name of capitalism. To this end, Pendley recommends de-listing the grizzly bear and the gray wolf as endangered species, so we’d no longer need to worry about protecting those – they wouldn’t qualify for protection anyway. Right now, it’s illegal to harm, harass, or kill grizzly bears, unless it’s in self-defense. This will open them up to be hunted. And yes, they’re still endangered.¹⁶

“Direct the Fish and Wildlife Service to: (1) design and implement an Endangered Species Act program that ensures independent decision-making by ending reliance on so-called species specialists who have obvious self-interest, ideological bias, and land-use agendas; and (2) ensure conformity with the Information Quality Act.” (Project 2025, Section 3.7: Department of the Interior, William Perry Pendley, page 566, paragraph 8.)

No, why on earth would you rely on expertise when you have drilling to do! Pendley describing leaving the land as-is as an “agenda” is the height of hypocrisy, considering his own (definite, harmful) agenda.

“The Biden Administration has breached its federal trust responsibilities to American Indians. This is unconscionable.” (Project 2025, Section 3.7: Department of the Interior, William Perry Pendley, page 568, paragraph 6.)

That is HYSTERICAL considering all of Pendley’s proposed disrespect of tribal lands with oil drilling, and other policies for which the Trump administration was sued by Native American tribal councils many times.

In context, he’s arguing that their “right” to develop their “abundant oil and gas resources” has been hampered. While there are exceptions¹⁷, most Native Americans don’t want to use their land¹⁸ in this way.

Why not leave it up to Native Americans in each region, rather than making a law that the federal government can use protected lands in any way they wish? Because they know they’ll get told no, and that’s not acceptable to them. So he’s talking out of both sides of his mouth when he says he wants to “return Indian land management to the Indians” – as evidenced by his recommendation for getting rid of the Antiquities Act and mandating practices that the Trump Administration was previously sued for. If the area Native Americans had agreed to the use of their land for these ends, they wouldn’t have needed to sue.

“A significant percentage of critical minerals needed by the United States is on Indian lands, but the Biden Administration has actively discouraged development of critical mineral mining projects on Indian lands rather than assisting in their advancement.” (Project 2025, Section 3.7: Department of the Interior, William Perry Pendley, page 569, paragraph 1.)

By “assisted in their advancement”, I’m assuming he means more strong-arming Native Americans into giving up their lands by declaring them not culturally significant, as detailed above.