Project 2025 Author: "We Won't Let Anyone Stop US from Using Our Oil and Gas"
SOURCE:Spiegel International
She's not a big fan of electric cars and solar energy, but she does like coal: Diana Furchtgott-Roth is one of the leading authors of "Project 2025." DER SPIEGEL wanted to know more about how the Heritage Foundation strategist thinks.
Dieser Artikel gehört zum Angebot von SPIEGEL+. Sie können ihn auch ohne Abonnement lesen, weil er Ihnen geschenkt wurde.
Here, then, are the masterminds behind the Trump administration. "THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION" reads the beige-gray facade of the eight-story building in Washington, D.C., just a few blocks from Capitol and the Supreme Court. This is where they developed and wrote Project 2025 – that program for the radical transformation and dismantling of the U.S. government that the president and his Republican party are now implementing.
A life-size stone bald eagle spreads its wings in front of the entrance. Inside the building, almost everything is named after donors to the most influential think tank in the country: the David and Patricia Caldwell Executive Meeting Room, the Lehrman Auditorium, the Allison Center for National Security – and at the very top, the Phelon Roof Terrace with a view of the Capitol dome. The namesakes are investment bankers, bowling equipment dealers, market research and electronics entrepreneurs.
The Heritage Foundation collected $102 million in donations in 2024.
Project 2025 envisions state institutions like the FBI being controlled along party lines – and power being concentrated in the president’s hands. Heritage head Kevin Roberts has spoken of a "second American Revolution" that "will remain bloodless if the left allows it to be.”
Heritage opponents see Project 2025 as an authoritarian plan to implement a radical right-wing agenda. According to the "Project 2025 Tracker" initiative, the Trump administration has converted almost half of the 918-page manifesto into decrees and laws within 10 months.
This applies particularly to climate and energy policy. There, Project 2025 is the blueprint for a radical shift. Oil, coal and gas are to be promoted, funding for renewable energy stopped. Almost all regulations for climate protection are threatened with elimination or have already been eliminated.
Diana Furchtgott-Roth, 67, is a lead author of Project 2025. She is the director of the Center for Energy, Climate and Environment at the Heritage Foundation. Furchtgott-Roth's and Trump's positions are nearly identical: withdraw from the Paris Agreement, move away from wind and solar power, extract and export even more fossil fuels to establish a so-called global "energy dominance" of the U.S. Trump has made this Heritage catchphrase a major objective of his administration.
DER SPIEGEL sought a conversation with America's most influential energy strategist to understand how the administration and its masterminds think and how they deal with counterarguments. In the interview, Furchtgott-Roth explains the U.S. reversal on climate protection, renewable energies and fossil fuels in a quiet, yet decisive tone.
DER SPIEGEL: Ms. Furchtgott-Roth, the U.S. is turning its back on the Paris Agreement on the climate for the second time under Donald Trump. What is the purpose of this withdrawal?
Diana Furchtgott-Roth: The goal of Paris is to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions. President Trump is convinced that this goal is counterproductive to economic development – that countries grow faster by consuming more fossil fuels. So why should we participate in this agreement?
DER SPIEGEL: All participating countries can voluntarily decide how much oil and gas they consume. The agreement doesn't force them to do anything.
Furchtgott-Roth: Paris suited the policies of former President Joe Biden. He wanted to expand the areas prohibited from oil and gas extraction, put more electric vehicles on the roads, and shut down power plants that didn't drastically reduce their emissions. President Trump ran on a platform of reversing Biden's plans. The American people elected him.
DER SPIEGEL: Aren't you worried about the ever-increasing temperature and weather disasters?
Furchtgott-Roth: I don't doubt that climate change exists. But its extent has often been mis-predicted. Climate change isn't our most pressing problem. Have you been to Paris recently?
DER SPIEGEL: No.
Furchtgott-Roth: There's an exhibition there called "From Paris to Belém"...
DER SPIEGEL: ... the city in Brazil where the global climate summit recently took place … ...
Furchtgott-Roth: ... with beautiful pictures showing how much nations supposedly benefit from reduced greenhouse gas emissions. What they don't show is: When European countries reduce their industrial production and thus their emissions, manufacturing is simply shifted elsewhere. China is building countless coal-fired power plants to produce all those wind turbines and solar panels. The emissions then rise into the atmosphere of China instead of Europe. But Europe is losing jobs and becoming deindustrialized. Germany, for example, is focusing on renewable energies, and electricity is becoming increasingly expensive. Its industrial production has stagnated for four years. Volkswagen is closing a plant, and automotive suppliers are cutting jobs.
DER SPIEGEL: That VW plant was closed in China. In Germany, renewable energies have been expanding for a quarter of a century – and in the years leading up to the coronavirus pandemic, when almost half of the electricity was already green, our economy was running quite smoothly. Today, our automotive industry has a problem because manufacturers focused too heavily on combustion engines for too long, and their sales are now collapsing internationally. And because they were late in accelerating the production of electric cars, which are now booming in many countries.
Furchtgott-Roth: Yes, but what about your electricity prices?
DER SPIEGEL: Electricity is significantly more expensive for private consumers than it was four years ago. For industry, the price is currently about the same as it was before the pandemic. What about your electricity prices? President Trump's major campaign promise was to halve energy prices within one, or at most one and a half years. But prices in the most important electricity grid in the eastern US have jumped since he took office.
Furchtgott-Roth thinks for a moment. Dedications from Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush hang on the walls of her office, two of the four Republican presidents she has worked for, including as chief of staff for the Council of Economic Advisers under Bush. She was in the White House during the terror attacks on September 11, 2001.
Furchtgott-Roth: The highest electricity prices in the U.S. are found in states like California, with its high share of renewable energy. You need two systems: firstly, wind and solar farms that only generate power when the wind is blowing and the sun is shining. Secondly, a backup: primarily natural gas power plants that have to step in when there isn't enough solar power to meet current demand.
DER SPIEGEL: States like Iowa or Kansas have relatively low electricity prices, even though they generate a lot of electricity from renewable energy sources. And natural gas power plants can be switched on and off quickly. As long as they're not running, they don't emit any carbon dioxide.
Furchtgott-Roth: Who would invest in a power plant that only runs for a few hours a day without subsidies? Besides, the production costs for this electricity are much higher than for a gas-fired power plant that runs around the clock. We see worldwide that electricity from renewable energy sources is more expensive than from fossil fuels.
DER SPIEGEL: According to a study by the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), 91 percent of the renewable energy power plants commissioned in 2024 are more economical than any new fossil fuel alternative.
Furchtgott-Roth: It depends on the local situation. The Scandinavians, for example, claim they have so much wind that they can compensate for the lack of electricity during periods of calm with power from other regions, because the wind supposedly always blows somewhere over Scandinavia or the North Sea. But here in the United States, we have large quantities of oil, natural gas and coal right beneath our feet. They are inexpensive and ensure us an affordable and needs-based supply. Whenever we need energy, we can generate it.
DER SPIEGEL: Is generating electricity from coal or natural gas in the U.S. really cheaper than, say, from solar energy?
Furchtgott-Roth: Overall, yes.
DER SPIEGEL: Even in sun-drenched states such as Texas, California or New Mexico?
Furchtgott-Roth: California has plenty of sun and the highest electricity prices. It's also about reliability: The international regulatory authority, the North American Electricity Reliability Corporation, warned of power outages across large parts of the U.S. last winter – partly because so many fossil fuel power plants were shut down and so many wind and solar farms were scheduled to go online.
DER SPIEGEL: Fifty-seven percent of Germany's electricity now comes from renewable energy sources. The last major blackout was 20 years ago.
Furchtgott-Roth: Isn't that because you can import electricity from France in case of shortages – 70 percent of which comes from nuclear power?
DER SPIEGEL: Sometimes we import electricity, sometimes we export it to France. When numerous nuclear power plants in France were shut down in 2022 due to technical problems and maintenance, the French imported massive amounts of electricity from Germany. In 2024, Denmark supplied Germany with the most electricity, thanks to its enormous offshore wind farms. Back to the U.S.: Will Trump keep his promise to halve energy prices by next year?
![U.S. President Donald Trump: "President Trump is powerful, but he cannot control the global markets."](https://cdn.prod.www.spiegel.de/images/42a4f672-f998-4d05-845c-d8beecc32586_w488_r1.5001966181675186_fpx40.63_fpy54.98.jpg "U.S. President Donald Trump: "President Trump is powerful, but he cannot control the global markets."")
U.S. President Donald Trump: "President Trump is powerful, but he cannot control the global markets."
Foto: Nathan Howard / REUTERS
Furchtgott-Roth: We'll see. The new administration is making it easier for U.S. companies to extract natural gas and oil, for example, by opening up more areas for extraction. But many energy prices are determined globally. We saw after Russia's attack on Ukraine that world market prices for oil and gas skyrocketed. If there were a downturn in China, these prices would fall. President Trump is powerful, but he cannot control the global markets.
DER SPIEGEL: But how can Trump make such a campaign promise if he doesn't actually have control over prices?
Furchtgott-Roth: The president sets targets; sometimes they are met, and sometimes they aren't. In any case, he is pushing ahead with efforts to lower electricity prices – for example by repealing a law that would have required the closure of power plants that did not reduce their emissions by at least 90 percent by 2040. And he stopped the requirement for Americans to buy a certain percentage of electric cars by 2032. Their additional electricity demand would have driven up electricity prices as well.
Furchtgott-Roth also argued against electric cars in Project 2025. "Increasing the production of electric vehicles will make the U.S. more dependent on China and other foreign countries that control the […] rare earth minerals that are needed for EV batteries.” (Rare earths are more important for electric motors than for batteries.) And she advocated softening the fuel consumption standards tightened by the Biden administration. This summer, corresponding steps were initiated by the U.S. Department of Transportation – the very department where Furchtgott-Roth worked during Trump's first term as deputy assistant secretary for research and technology.
DER SPIEGEL: The U.S. and China are currently engaged in a race for dominance in artificial intelligence. Tech companies like OpenAI, Microsoft and Google are clamoring for massive amounts of electricity for all their new data centers. Why is the Trump administration trying so hard to stop an almost completed offshore wind farm off the East Coast – or to prevent the largest planned solar project in the U.S. in Nevada? Your country needs every megawatt-hour it can get.
Furchtgott-Roth: A large proportion of the wind turbines and solar panels sold worldwide are produced in China. We don't want to become dependent on Chinese technology. We don't want to end up like you in Europe three years ago, when Russia suddenly cut gas supplies during the war in Ukraine. China, too, could halt its deliveries in a conflict.
DER SPIEGEL: Would that be so bad? The solar panels and wind turbines that have already been delivered would already be in operation and therefore wouldn't be idle.
Furchtgott-Roth: There are always surprises in world politics. Our energy supply shouldn't be vulnerable to surprises. That's why the Scandinavians are relying on their wind power, that’s why the Chinese are producing massive amounts of electricity from their own coal. And that's why President Trump is focusing on our domestic energy sources: natural gas and oil.
DER SPIEGEL: The U.S. only has 8 percent of the world's natural gas reserves and 4 percent of its oil reserves. The U.S. share of current global production is more than three times higher. The country is rapidly burning through its own valuable natural resources or even selling them, in some cases, below value to other countries. And now Trump wants the industry to extract even more oil and gas so that the U.S. can achieve energy dominance – which your Heritage Foundation called for as part of Project 2025. Is that a smart strategy?
Furchtgott-Roth: The United States has already achieved energy dominance. In recent years, we have become the world's largest producer of oil and natural gas. Technological advances such as horizontal drilling and fracking …
DER SPIEGEL: ... meaning the breaking up of shale rock underground using a mixture of water, sand and chemicals, some of which are highly toxic …
Furchtgott-Roth: … have ensured that we can extract far more oil and natural gas from the ground than before. Who would have thought that 25 years ago? It's not about which country has the most oil and gas underground. It's about: Who is able to extract these raw materials? We in the U.S. have the technological capabilities. That's the core of President Trump's energy dominance. He doesn't just want natural gas produced here for ourselves. He also wants us to supply it to our allies – at the right price, of course.
DER SPIEGEL: In Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation writes that the Democratic administration under Joe Biden plunged the United States into a new energy crisis with "ideologically driven government policies,” thus "thrusting the United States into a new energy crisis.” Yet the country has become the world's largest oil and gas producer in recent years. Was Biden perhaps not as hostile to energy as you portrayed him?
Furchtgott-Roth: Under President Biden, the U.S. produced about 13 million barrels of oil per day. The question is: How much more could we have produced? What could we have produced if Biden hadn't taken measures against drilling in Alaska, banned offshore drilling and expanded protected areas?
Wind turbines in Texas.
Foto: Julio Cortez / AP
DER SPIEGEL: Under Trump, oil and gas companies are hardly making any moves to launch new major projects because it's currently not economically viable. The multinational ConocoPhillips is even cutting jobs en masse. This is because global market prices are rather low, and exploiting the shale deposits typical of the U.S. is comparatively expensive and financially risky. Is the idea of "energy dominance" failing in the face of reality?
Furchtgott-Roth: Our national oil and gas production continues to rise. The crucial question is: Are companies allowed to extract these resources if they want to? President Trump is enabling them to do so.
DER SPIEGEL: While the U.S. is becoming an oil-rich nation, China is now dominating a whole range of future technologies: multi-billion-dollar global markets for solar panels, high-performance batteries and electric cars.
Furchtgott-Roth: Indeed, a big business.
DER SPIEGEL: It gives the Chinese considerable influence around the globe. China is now a more important trading partner than the United States for almost all Asian, Eastern European, African and even most Latin American countries. Why is the U.S. leaving this lucrative playing field to its rival?
Furchtgott-Roth: One reason for the high sales figures of Chinese electric vehicles is that these products are heavily subsidized. In Great Britain, the BYD Dolphin Surf, an electric vehicle, is offered for 18,600 pounds …
DER SPIEGEL: … about 21,000 euros.
Furchtgott-Roth: That's far below the cost of production. You know, the Chinese Communist Party has a stake in every major Chinese company; it directs and financially supports these businesses. With its subsidies, it can first bankrupt European car manufacturers and then drive up the prices of Chinese electric vehicles. It is extremely dangerous for the United States and Europe to become dependent on the Chinese Communist Party.
DER SPIEGEL: So does that mean Western countries should stay away from all these climate-friendly technologies, whether electric cars, solar panels or wind turbines?
Solar workers on a rooftop in Ohio.
Foto: Sue Ogrocki / AP
Furchtgott-Roth: I would say: If European companies or consumers want electric vehicles, they should be careful not to buy them from China. We are currently witnessing how China is blocking deliveries of rare earth elements and critical minerals to the U.S. and Europe. Such dependence can put national economies in a very precarious situation.
DER SPIEGEL: Currently, around a million people in the U.S. work in the renewable energy and low-emission-vehicle sectors. What will happen to these jobs?
Furchtgott-Roth: These people will find other jobs. The whole world envies us Americans for our dynamic economy. There are constant technological innovations. In the field of artificial intelligence, for example, some employees are being displaced, but other jobs are being created.
Furchtgott-Roth's phone rings. Her next appointment – a radio interview. She apologizes, says it won't take long and takes the call.
Heritage strategists are in high demand as interview partners. Especially since it has become clear how many ideas from Project 2025 are now being implemented. From the abolition of Biden's Inflation Reduction Act, which promoted the development of climate-friendly technologies particularly in Republican-dominated states, to the elimination of tax breaks for renewable energy production.
Furchtgott-Roth brings the phone call to an end and hangs up.
DER SPIEGEL: You criticize what you describe as the high costs of the energy transition and climate protection. Scientific studies repeatedly show that inaction will cost us far more. According to a study in the journal Nature, every ton of carbon dioxide avoided today will save around $185 in future damage. The costs would be immense to protect coastal cities like Miami or New Orleans, for instance, if sea levels rise by 2.20 meters by the end of the century, as the U.S. weather service NOAA considers possible with continued high emissions.
Furchtgott-Roth: The rise in sea levels has often been overestimated. And if the U.S. were to forgo the use of fossil fuels, it would only make a difference of two-tenths of a degree Celsius average temperature in global warming by the year 2100. What we do changes nothing, because China, India, African and Latin American countries are increasing their emissions anyway. But it makes Americans poorer if we raise electricity prices and mandate electric vehicles.
DER SPIEGEL: So what strategy do you propose to reduce global emissions?
Furchtgott-Roth: Climate change is a risk for the future. Poverty is a current problem. We have a duty to alleviate poverty in the world now, and that can't be done with renewable energies alone. Three billion people in the world live without running water and electricity. We have to help them. We need fossil fuels to create prosperity, to enable people to live at Western standards.
According to the International Energy Agency, about 730 million people worldwide have no access to electricity. Apart from this, the World Bank has found that around 2 billion people have no access to safe drinking water. The water supply does not depend on the use of fossil fuels.
DER SPIEGEL: Yet millions of families in countries like Pakistan or Kenya are currently installing cheap Chinese-made, emission-free solar panels on their roofs. And in Nepal and Vietnam, inexpensive Chinese-made, emission-free electric cars are booming.
Furchtgott-Roth: Don't forget that China manufactures these solar panels and electric cars using electricity from coal-fired power plants.
DER SPIEGEL: China's regime is expanding its renewable energy generation even more aggressively, primarily solar. President Xi Jinping recently indicated that the historical peak in Chinese emissions could be reached soon, and that CO2 emissions will fall significantly by 2035.
Furchtgott-Roth: They've been saying that for a while now. When they signed the Paris Agreement in 2015, the Chinese announced that they would reach their peak in 2027. Then, in 2023, Xi told John Kerry, who was U.S. climate envoy at the time, that he would only reduce emissions according to his own timetable.
Heritage Foundation strategist Furchtgott-Roth together with DER SPIEGEL correspondent Claus Hecking.
Foto: Dermot Tatlow / DER SPIEGEL
DER SPIEGEL: In the Paris Agreement, China pledged to reach its maximum emissions before 2030. Xi reaffirmed this promise during Kerry's visit.
Furchtgott-Roth: And Xi announced plans to expedite the approval process for the construction of new coal-fired power plants. China has massive coal reserves and will use them. The U.S. has oil and natural gas. We won't let anyone stop us from using our oil and gas.
DER SPIEGEL: Ms. Furchtgott-Roth, thank you very much for this interview.
