On July 22, 2024, the world experienced its hottest day in recorded history. In the United States, deaths from heat exposure are rising annually as extreme climate events become more frequent. Scientific consensus indicates that this decade is crucial for mitigating the worst impacts of climate change, achievable only through a global transition away from fossil fuels. To address this, countries are setting new emissions reduction targets and implementation plans by early next year to limit warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius.
However, influential far-right policy groups like the Heritage Foundation propose policies that could undermine America's leadership in combating climate change. Project 2025, their extensive policy manifesto for a future right-wing administration, aims to dismantle U.S. climate policies and increase global temperatures.
Project 2025 advocates for a “whole-of-government unwinding” of U.S. climate policy and suggests replacing government civil service employees with political loyalists. This would replace institutional knowledge and momentum on climate solutions with what critics describe as "climate denialism and obstructionism." The proposed policies threaten America’s role in the global clean energy transition supported by investments from the Inflation Reduction Act.
If implemented, Project 2025’s policies could harm U.S. international engagement on various fronts, including climate cooperation, financing for vulnerable communities, national security measures, and trade policies centered on job creation. These proposals collectively represent an abdication of global climate leadership in favor of big oil and gas companies.
Project 2025 also threatens collective global action on climate change by advocating for U.S. withdrawal from international forums such as the Paris Agreement and the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The UNFCCC has facilitated nations' coordination on emissions reduction goals since its establishment in 1992 under President George H.W. Bush.
The absence of the United States from these forums would hinder global efforts to curb emissions given its status as the world’s second-largest greenhouse gas emitter and largest historical oil and gas producer. Other major emitters might follow suit if the U.S. steps back from its commitments.
Moreover, Project 2025 proposes replacing career civil servants with politically aligned appointees, eliminating positions like the special presidential envoy for climate—currently held by Secretary John Kerry—who has been instrumental in securing global commitments to reduce fossil fuel reliance.
The radical blueprint also suggests withdrawing from institutions like the World Bank—the largest provider of climate finance to developing countries—and ending financial contributions to it. This move would severely impair efforts to mobilize financial assistance essential for climate-vulnerable nations.
Project 2025 further advocates rescinding all climate policies from foreign aid programs while imposing conservative religious values as prerequisites for receiving aid. Programs like PREPARE (President’s Emergency Plan for Adaptation and Resilience) would be eliminated under these proposals, risking disruptions to productivity and food security in vulnerable communities worldwide.
The anti-climate rhetoric within Project 2025 extends to national security concerns by dismissing established connections between climate change and security threats recognized by defense experts. Ignoring these links could exacerbate geopolitical tensions and strain U.S. resources.
Diplomatically, Project 2025's adversarial stance toward China threatens progress made through cooperative initiatives like the "Sunnylands Statement on Enhancing Cooperation to Address the Climate Crisis," which facilitated positive outcomes at recent global climate negotiations.
In terms of trade policy, Project 2025 presents conflicting visions: one focusing solely on punitive measures against China without complementary investments; another advocating laissez-faire trade without regard for labor or environmental impacts—both lacking an effective industrial policy approach seen under the Biden-Harris administration.
In conclusion, if enacted, Project 2025's policies could significantly jeopardize efforts to avoid severe impacts associated with breaching the Paris Agreement's temperature rise limit of 1.5 degrees Celsius. Instead of adopting an isolated vision, future administrations should build on recent achievements in international climate diplomacy and domestic industry support tied to labor rights and human rights standards.
The United States must embrace its role in global climate leadership rather than retreating from it—to protect American interests, preserve planetary health, and secure a sustainable future.
