Podcast appearances and mentions of diana furchtgott roth

As I delve into the intricacies of Project 2025, a comprehensive and contentious initiative spearheaded by the Heritage Foundation, it becomes clear that this is more than just a policy blueprint – it's a vision for a fundamentally transformed American governance.Project 2025 is the culmination of efforts by over 400 scholars and conservative groups, led by former Trump administration officials such as Paul Dans and Spencer Chretien. This 900-page manifesto outlines a sweeping overhaul of federal policies, aiming to reshape the government in line with conservative principles. The project is structured around four key pillars: a detailed policy guide, a database of potential personnel, a training program for these candidates, and a playbook for actions to be taken within the first 180 days of a new administration[2][4].One of the most striking aspects of Project 2025 is its approach to education. The initiative criticizes what it terms "woke propaganda" in public schools, advocating for a significant reduction in the federal government's role in education. This includes closing the Department of Education and transferring control over education funding and policy to the states. The proposal also suggests that programs under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) be administered by the Department of Health and Human Services, and that the National Center for Education Statistics become part of the Census Bureau. The federal government, according to Project 2025, should be limited to a statistics-keeping role in education, with federal enforcement of civil rights in schools curtailed and transferred to the Department of Justice[1].The implications of these changes are profound. For instance, Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, which provides $18 billion in federal funds for schools in low-income areas, would be allowed to expire. Instead, public funds would be available as school vouchers, even for parents sending their children to private or religious schools. This shift could drastically alter the educational landscape, potentially exacerbating existing inequalities. As Roger Severino, a proponent of the project, has argued, the Head Start program, which serves over a million children from low-income families, does not provide value, although he has not provided evidence to support this claim[1].Project 2025's vision extends far beyond education. In the realm of environmental policy, the initiative is starkly at odds with current climate change mitigation efforts. It advocates for downsizing the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), closing the EPA's Office of Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights, and reversing the 2009 EPA finding that carbon dioxide emissions are harmful to human health. This would prevent the federal government from regulating greenhouse gas emissions. The project also supports the expansion of fossil fuel use, including Arctic drilling, and encourages allied nations to rely on fossil fuels. Diana Furchtgott-Roth, Heritage Foundation's energy and climate director, has suggested that the EPA should support increased consumption of natural gas, despite concerns about methane leaks[1].These environmental proposals have been met with significant criticism. Republican climate advocates, such as Sarah E. Hunt and Benji Backer, have disagreed with Project 2025's climate policies, emphasizing the importance of supporting good energy and climate policy. Backer noted a growing consensus among younger Republicans that human activity causes climate change, calling Project 2025's stance "wrongheaded"[1].The project's impact on federal agencies is another critical area of focus. Project 2025 recommends reforming the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) by shifting the majority of preparedness and response costs to states and localities. This aligns with Trump's past suggestions to leave disaster response management to the states, arguing that "that's what states are for, to take care of problems"[3].In addition, the initiative calls for the dismantling of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs across federal agencies. Trump has echoed this sentiment, signing an executive order to end all DEI programs within the federal government, claiming they can violate federal civil rights laws. Project 2025 goes further, advocating for the deletion of terms like DEI, abortion, and gender equality from all federal rules and regulations[3].The project also targets the civil service and the bureaucracy of the "Administrative State." It proposes a hiring freeze for federal civilian employees and suggests preventing "burrowing-in" by outgoing political appointees. This is part of a broader strategy to reduce the size of the federal workforce and bring independent agencies under White House control[4].Critics of Project 2025 argue that its recommendations are not only radical but also risky, potentially endangering democratic institutions and civil liberties. The initiative's approach to data collection, for example, involves consolidating the Bureau of Economic Analysis, Census Bureau, and Bureau of Labor Statistics, which could significantly impact the independence and reliability of economic data[5].The economic implications are equally concerning. Project 2025 proposes eliminating funding for key public transportation projects, such as the Capital Investment Grants (CIG) program, which has been crucial for awarding federal grants to local communities for infrastructure projects. This could make it harder for Americans without cars to commute and travel, affecting their ability to work and maintain social connections[5].Moreover, the project aims to restrict safety nets for farmers, limiting assistance to 'unusual situations' despite the common challenges farmers face due to unpredictable weather and market conditions. This could disproportionately impact low-income farmers who rely on these safety nets to survive economic downturns[5].As we look ahead, it is clear that Project 2025 represents a significant turning point in American governance. The initiative's comprehensive and far-reaching proposals have the potential to reshape numerous aspects of federal policy, from education and environmental regulation to civil service and economic development.Despite Trump's attempts to distance himself from the project, the connections between his policies and those of Project 2025 are undeniable. As Democrats continue to criticize the initiative, calling it a "plan to return America to a dark past," the debate surrounding Project 2025 is likely to intensify in the coming months[2].As the 2025 presidential transition approaches, the implementation of Project 2025's policies will depend on the outcome of the election and the willingness of the next administration to adopt these radical changes. Whether these proposals will become the blueprint for a new era in American governance remains to be seen, but one thing is certain: the stakes are high, and the future of American policy hangs in the balance.

Diana Furchtgott-Roth, Director, Center for Energy, Climate, and Environment and The Herbert and Joyce Morgan Fellow in Energy and Environmental Policy. Protect American Workers: How Trump's Team Can Fulfill His Promise

03-06-2025 Diana Furchtgott-Roth Learn more about the interview and get additional links here: https://usdailyreview.com/former-senior-white-house-economist-asks-tough-questions-about-tariffs/ Subscribe to the best of our content here: https://priceofbusiness.substack.com/ Subscribe to our YouTube channel here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCywgbHv7dpiBG2Qswr_ceEQ

As I delved into the intricacies of Project 2025, a blueprint crafted by the Heritage Foundation for a potential second Donald Trump presidency, I was struck by the sheer scope and ambition of its proposals. This 900-page document is more than just a policy guide; it is a comprehensive plan to reshape the federal government, consolidate executive power, and implement a far-right agenda that touches nearly every aspect of American life.At its core, Project 2025 is about centralizing power in the White House. The plan advocates for the elimination of the independence of key federal agencies, including the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). This aligns with the unitary executive theory, which posits that the president should have complete control over the executive branch. As Kevin Roberts, a key figure in the project, put it, "all federal employees should answer to the president"[1].One of the most striking aspects of Project 2025 is its approach to federal staffing. The plan proposes reclassifying tens of thousands of federal civil service workers as political appointees, allowing for their replacement with individuals loyal to the president. This is not a new idea; during Trump's first term, he established the Schedule F job classification by executive order, which was later rescinded by President Biden. However, with Trump's return to office, this classification has been revived, paving the way for a significant purge of federal employees deemed disloyal[1].The project's impact on education is equally profound. It envisions a drastic reduction in the federal government's role in public education, advocating for the closure of the Department of Education and transferring its responsibilities to the states. This would mean the end of federal funding for programs like Title I, which provides $18 billion annually to schools in low-income areas, and the Head Start program, which supports children from low-income families. Instead, public funds would be channeled into school vouchers that could be used for private or religious schools, a move that critics argue would exacerbate educational inequality[1][3].In the realm of healthcare, Project 2025 proposes significant cuts to social safety nets. It recommends reducing funding for Medicare and Medicaid, and ending programs aimed at forgiving student loans. The plan also targets the National Institutes of Health (NIH), suggesting a reduction in its independence and the defunding of stem cell research. These changes are part of a broader agenda to align scientific research with conservative principles, with a particular emphasis on reducing funding for climatology research and reversing the EPA's finding that carbon dioxide emissions are harmful to human health[1].Environmental policies are another critical area where Project 2025 seeks to make its mark. The plan advocates for the relaxation of regulations on the fossil fuel industry, the expansion of oil and gas drilling, and the blocking of the transition to renewable energy. Diana Furchtgott-Roth, the Heritage Foundation's energy and climate director, has suggested that the EPA should support the consumption of more natural gas, despite concerns from climatologists about the increased methane emissions. The project also proposes incentives for the public to challenge climatology research, further undermining efforts to address climate change[1].The project's stance on law enforcement and justice is equally contentious. It calls for the reform of the DOJ to combat what it terms "affirmative discrimination" or "anti-white racism," and proposes that the DOJ's Civil Rights Division should prosecute state and local governments, institutions of higher education, and private employers with diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs. The plan also suggests curtailing legal settlements between the DOJ and local police departments and authorizing the Uniformed Division of the Secret Service to enforce the law in the District of Columbia, a move that critics argue would further militarize law enforcement[1].Project 2025's economic policies are designed to favor corporations and reduce regulatory oversight. It recommends the abolition of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the shrinkage of the National Labor Relations Board, and the merger of several statistical agencies into a single organization aligned with conservative principles. The plan also advocates for a flat income tax, reduced taxes on corporations and capital gains, and the relaxation of regulations on small businesses, particularly in rural areas[1].Despite Trump's public disavowal of Project 2025, the alignment between its proposals and his policies is striking. As CBS News noted, at least 270 proposals in the project's blueprint match Trump's past policies and current campaign promises. Trump's recent actions, such as establishing a review council to advise on changes to FEMA, align with Project 2025's call to shift disaster response costs to states and local governments[4][5].The reaction to Project 2025 has been overwhelmingly negative from many quarters. Critics argue that it would gut the system of checks and balances, create an imperial presidency, and devastate public education and social safety nets. The National Education Association (NEA) has warned that the project's education reforms would deny vulnerable students the resources they need to succeed. Environmental groups have condemned the project's climate policies as disastrous and misguided[2][3].As I reflect on the scope and ambition of Project 2025, it is clear that this initiative represents a fundamental shift in how the federal government operates and the values it upholds. The project's architects see it as a last opportunity to save what they perceive as a beleaguered republic, but critics see it as a dangerous blueprint for extremism and authoritarianism.Looking ahead, the implementation of Project 2025's proposals will depend on various factors, including legislative support and public opposition. As the American public becomes more aware of the project's details, their opposition is likely to grow. The coming months will be crucial in determining whether this vision for a radically reshaped federal government becomes a reality or remains a contentious blueprint on the fringes of American politics. One thing is certain: the stakes are high, and the future of American governance hangs in the balance.

As I delved into the intricacies of Project 2025, I couldn't help but feel a sense of both fascination and alarm. This sprawling initiative, spearheaded by the Heritage Foundation and crafted by a cadre of former Trump administration officials, lays out a vision for a radically reshaped federal government that is as ambitious as it is contentious.At its core, Project 2025 is a 900-page blueprint designed to guide the next conservative presidential administration, with a particular focus on the second term of Donald Trump. The project is built around four key pillars: a comprehensive policy guide, a database of potential personnel, a training program for these candidates, and a detailed playbook for the first 180 days in office[4].One of the most striking aspects of Project 2025 is its proposal to consolidate executive power and reshape the federal bureaucracy in the image of conservative ideology. The plan calls for the replacement of merit-based federal civil service workers with individuals loyal to Trump, effectively politicizing key government agencies such as the Department of Justice, the Department of Commerce, and the Federal Trade Commission. This move is part of a broader strategy to centralize control over the government, aligning with the unitary executive theory that advocates for greater presidential control over the executive branch[1].The implications of such a shift are profound. For instance, the Department of Justice, under Project 2025, would be thoroughly reformed to combat what the project terms "affirmative discrimination" or "anti-white racism," and would be tasked with prosecuting state and local governments, institutions of higher education, and private employers with diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs. Gene Hamilton, a former Trump DOJ official, argues that these programs "come at the expense of other Americans—and in nearly all cases violate longstanding federal law"[1].Education is another area where Project 2025 proposes sweeping changes. The plan envisions a significant reduction in the federal government's role in public education, advocating for the closure of the Department of Education and the transfer of education funding and policy to the states. This would include ending federal enforcement of civil rights in schools and allowing public funds to be used as school vouchers for private or religious schools. The National Center for Education Statistics would be merged with the Census Bureau, and programs like Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, which provides $18 billion in federal funds for schools in low-income areas, would be allowed to expire[1][3].The project's stance on education is encapsulated in its criticism of what it calls "woke propaganda" in public schools. It argues that federal overreach has led schools to prioritize "racial parity in school discipline indicators" over student safety. This perspective is reflected in the project's recommendation to end the Head Start program and cut funding for free school meals, with proponents like Roger Severino claiming that such programs do not provide value, though he has not provided evidence to support these claims[1].Environmental policy is another critical area where Project 2025's vision diverges sharply from current trends. The project advocates for the reversal of several key environmental regulations, including the 2009 EPA finding that carbon dioxide emissions are harmful to human health. It proposes preventing the EPA from regulating greenhouse gas emissions and blocking the expansion of the national electrical grid, thereby stymying the transition to renewable energy. Diana Furchtgott-Roth, the Heritage Foundation's energy and climate director, suggests that the EPA should support the consumption of more natural gas, despite concerns from climatologists about the increased leakage of methane, a potent greenhouse gas[1].These environmental proposals have been met with strong criticism from Republican climate advocates. Sarah E. Hunt, president of the Joseph Rainey Center for Public Policy, and U.S. Senator John Curtis have emphasized the importance of supporting good energy and climate policy, contrasting sharply with Project 2025's stance. Benji Backer, founder of the American Conservation Coalition, has noted a growing consensus among younger Republicans that human activity causes climate change, calling Project 2025's climate policy "wrongheaded"[1].The project's approach to law enforcement is equally contentious. It suggests that the Department of Justice has become a "bloated bureaucracy" infatuated with a "radical liberal agenda" and recommends that the DOJ be thoroughly reformed and closely overseen by the White House. The plan also proposes that the director of the FBI be personally accountable to the president, and that legal settlements between the DOJ and local police departments, known as consent decrees, be curtailed[1].In addition to these reforms, Project 2025 advocates for a more aggressive stance on immigration, recommending the arrest, detention, and mass deportation of illegal immigrants, as well as the deployment of the military for domestic law enforcement. It also proposes enacting laws supported by the Christian right, such as criminalizing the sending and receiving of abortion and birth control medications, and eliminating coverage of emergency contraception[1].Despite Trump's public disavowal of Project 2025, the initiative's proposals align closely with his past policies and current campaign promises. In a social media post, Trump claimed, "I know nothing about Project 2025. I have no idea who is behind it. I disagree with some of the things they're saying and some of the things they're saying are absolutely ridiculous and abysmal." However, a line-by-line review by CBS News identified at least 270 proposals in Project 2025 that match Trump's policies[4].The project's impact on American governance could be profound. By centralizing executive power, dismantling federal agencies, and implementing a wide range of conservative policies, Project 2025 aims to reshape the very fabric of the federal government. As Kevin Roberts of the Heritage Foundation put it, "The nation is in the process of the second American Revolution, which will remain bloodless if the left allows it to be." This rhetoric underscores the project's ambition and the potential for significant political and social upheaval[4].As we move forward, it is clear that Project 2025 will remain a contentious and influential force in American politics. With Trump's second term underway, many of the project's architects and supporters have been nominated to key positions in his administration. The coming months will be crucial in determining how many of these proposals are implemented and what their long-term effects will be on the country.In the words of the National Education Association, "The American public is united: The 900+ page blueprint for another Trump presidency... would be disastrous for the nation." Whether this prediction holds true remains to be seen, but one thing is certain – Project 2025 represents a seismic shift in the political landscape, one that will have far-reaching consequences for the future of American governance[3].

As I delve into the intricacies of Project 2025, a sprawling initiative crafted by former Trump administration officials and the conservative think tank, The Heritage Foundation, it becomes clear that this is more than just a policy blueprint – it's a vision for a radical restructuring of the U.S. federal government.Project 2025 is encapsulated in a 900-page manual titled "Mandate For Leadership," which outlines a comprehensive plan to reorganize every federal agency to align with conservative principles. This project is not just about policy tweaks; it's about transforming the very fabric of American governance. The Heritage Foundation's President, Kevin Roberts, has described their role as "institutionalizing Trumpism," a notion that underscores the deep connections between this project and the former Trump administration[1][4][5].One of the most striking aspects of Project 2025 is its ambition to consolidate executive power. The initiative advocates for placing the entire executive branch under direct presidential control, eliminating the independence of agencies like the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). This centralization is rooted in a controversial interpretation of the unitary executive theory, which aims to give the president unprecedented control over the government. As Kevin Roberts put it, "all federal employees should answer to the president"[2][3].The project's impact on federal agencies is far-reaching. For instance, it proposes merging the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the Census Bureau, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics into a single entity, with a mission aligned with conservative principles. It also recommends abolishing the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which is responsible for enforcing antitrust laws. The National Labor Relations Board, crucial for protecting employees' rights to organize, would see its role significantly diminished[2].In the realm of education, Project 2025 envisions a drastic reduction in the federal government's role. It suggests closing the Department of Education and transferring control over education funding and policy to the states. Federal enforcement of civil rights in schools would be curtailed, and programs like the Individuals with Disabilities' Education Act (IDEA) would be administered by the Department of Health and Human Services. The project also advocates for the expiration of Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, which provides $18 billion in federal funds for schools in low-income areas. Instead, public funds would be available as school vouchers, even for private or religious schools[2].The environment is another area where Project 2025's proposals are particularly contentious. The initiative seeks to downsize the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), close its Office of Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights, and reverse a 2009 EPA finding that carbon dioxide emissions are harmful to human health. This would prevent the federal government from regulating greenhouse gas emissions. The project also supports the expansion of fossil fuel use, including Arctic drilling, and advocates for preventing states from adopting stricter regulations on vehicular emissions. Diana Furchtgott-Roth, Heritage Foundation's energy and climate director, has suggested that the EPA should support the consumption of more natural gas, despite concerns about methane leaks[2].Project 2025's stance on climate change is starkly at odds with the views of many Republicans, including younger conservatives who acknowledge human activity's role in climate change. Benji Backer, founder of the American Conservation Coalition, has called the project's climate policies "wrongheaded," highlighting a growing consensus among younger Republicans that climate action is essential[2].The project's approach to law enforcement is equally transformative. It views the DOJ as a "bloated bureaucracy" that has "forfeited the trust" of the American people, particularly due to its role in investigating alleged Trump-Russia collusion. The DOJ's Civil Rights Division would be reformed to combat what the project terms "affirmative discrimination" or "anti-white racism," and would prosecute state and local governments, institutions of higher education, and private employers with diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs. This shift aligns with the views of former Trump DOJ official Gene Hamilton, who argues that advancing certain segments of society comes at the expense of others and violates federal law[2].In the media and communications sector, Project 2025 proposes significant changes. It suggests defunding the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which funds PBS and NPR, and revoking NPR stations' noncommercial status. This could force NPR to relocate from its current FM dial range, making way for religious programming. The project also advocates for more media consolidation and proposes legislation to prevent social media companies from removing "core political viewpoints" from their platforms[2].The implications of these proposals are profound. If implemented, they would fundamentally alter the balance of power within the federal government, potentially undermining the system of checks and balances that is a cornerstone of American democracy. As the American Progress article notes, Project 2025 "would destroy the U.S. system of checks and balances and create an imperial presidency"[3].Despite Trump's public disavowal of Project 2025, the alignment between his policies and the project's proposals is striking. CBS News analysis has identified over 270 proposals in the project's blueprint that match Trump's past policies and current campaign promises. Paul Dans, the former director of Project 2025, has praised Trump's actions as "home runs" that reflect the initiative's efforts and the readiness of the conservative movement[4][5].As we look ahead, the fate of Project 2025 will likely be decided in the coming months and years. With its comprehensive and far-reaching proposals, this initiative represents a critical juncture in American governance. Whether it succeeds in reshaping the federal government or is met with significant resistance will depend on the political landscape and the will of the American people.In the words of Kevin Roberts, "the nation is in the process of the second American Revolution, which will remain bloodless if the left allows it to be." This statement encapsulates the project's ambition and the stakes involved. As we navigate this complex and contentious terrain, it is clear that Project 2025 is not just a policy initiative – it is a battle for the future of American democracy.

02-06-2025 Diana Furchtgott-Roth Learn more about the interview and get additional links here: (USE THE LINK TO THE ARTICLE) Subscribe to the best of our content here: https://priceofbusiness.substack.com/ Subscribe to our YouTube channel here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCywgbHv7dpiBG2Qswr_ceEQ

As I delved into the intricacies of Project 2025, a sweeping political initiative crafted by the American conservative think tank The Heritage Foundation, I couldn't help but feel a sense of both fascination and trepidation. This project, unveiled in April 2023, is more than just a set of policy recommendations; it is a comprehensive blueprint for a radical overhaul of the federal government and its agencies, should a conservative president take office.At its core, Project 2025 envisions a fundamental transformation of American governance, aligning it closely with conservative principles. One of the most striking aspects is its proposal to dismantle or significantly alter several key federal agencies. For instance, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) would be dismantled, and the Department of Education (ED) would be abolished, with its programs either transferred or terminated. The Department of Justice (DOJ), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Department of Commerce (DOC), Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) would all come under direct partisan control, a move that Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts defends as necessary to align these agencies with the president's vision, arguing that "the notion of independent federal agencies or federal employees who don't answer to the president violates the very foundation of our democratic republic"[1].The project's economic reforms are equally ambitious. It advocates for abolishing the Federal Reserve and replacing it with a commodity-backed currency, such as gold, and shifting from an income tax to a consumption tax. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 would be extended, and individual income taxes would be simplified to two flat tax rates: 15% for incomes up to the Social Security Wage Base and 30% above that. However, this simplification would come at a cost, as most deductions, credits, and exclusions would be eliminated, likely increasing taxes for millions of low- and middle-income households[1].In the realm of education, Project 2025 seeks to dramatically reduce the federal government's role, promoting school choice and parental rights over federal standards. The Department of Education would be eliminated, and programs under the Individuals with Disabilities' Education Act (IDEA) would be administered by the Department of Health and Human Services. Federal funding for low-income students would expire, and public funds would be redirected as school vouchers, even for private or religious schools. This shift is part of a broader philosophy that views education as a private rather than a public good[1].The project's stance on climate change and environmental regulations is stark. It proposes eradicating climate change references from all government policies, repealing regulations that curb emissions, and downsizing the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) would be abolished, and states would be prevented from adopting stricter regulations on vehicular emissions. Diana Furchtgott-Roth, the Heritage Foundation's energy and climate director, suggests that the EPA should support the consumption of more natural gas, despite concerns about methane leaks, a potent greenhouse gas[1].Healthcare is another area where Project 2025 seeks significant changes. It aims to reform the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) to promote traditional nuclear family structures. Medicare would be prohibited from negotiating drug prices, and the Medicare Advantage program would be promoted. Federal healthcare providers would be barred from offering gender-affirming care to transgender individuals, and insurance coverage for emergency contraception would be eliminated. Medicaid funding would be cut through various measures, including caps on federal funding and stricter work requirements for beneficiaries[1].The project's vision for law enforcement is equally transformative. The DOJ would be reformed to combat what it terms "affirmative discrimination" or "anti-white racism," and would prosecute state and local governments, institutions of higher education, and private employers with diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs. The FBI would be made personally accountable to the president, and consent decrees between the DOJ and local police departments would be curtailed[1].One of the most contentious aspects of Project 2025 is its relationship with the Trump campaign. Despite initial acknowledgments that the project aligns with Trump's Agenda 47 proposals, the campaign has since sought to distance itself. Trump has denied any direct involvement, stating, "[I] have no idea who is in charge of it," but Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts has contradicted this, saying he personally discussed the project with Trump[1].The latest developments have only added to the controversy. In July 2024, Kevin Roberts sparked outrage by suggesting that the project is part of a "second American Revolution" that would remain bloodless if the left allowed it to be. This statement, coupled with Trump's subsequent attempts to distance himself from the project, has led many political commentators to question the sincerity of these denials. Philip Bump of *The Washington Post* argues that it is impossible to separate Trump's campaign from Project 2025, given the extensive involvement of Trump advisors and the frequent mention of Trump's name in the document[1].As I reflect on the scope and ambition of Project 2025, it becomes clear that this initiative represents a seismic shift in how the federal government could operate. The project's proponents see it as a necessary correction to what they perceive as a liberal bias in government agencies and policies. However, critics argue that these changes would undermine critical protections and services, particularly for vulnerable populations.Looking ahead, the implementation of Project 2025's proposals would depend on the outcome of future elections and the political will of a potential conservative administration. As the project's director, Paul Dans, steps down and Kevin Roberts assumes leadership, the initiative remains a focal point of political debate. Whether Project 2025 becomes a blueprint for governance or a footnote in the history of conservative policy initiatives remains to be seen, but one thing is certain: its impact on American politics will be profound.As we approach the next milestones in this saga, it is crucial to continue monitoring the developments and implications of Project 2025. Will it reshape the federal government in its image, or will it face significant resistance? The answer will depend on the complex interplay of political forces and the will of the American people. For now, Project 2025 stands as a stark reminder of the deep divisions and competing visions that shape the American political landscape.

As I delve into the intricacies of Project 2025, a sweeping initiative crafted by the Heritage Foundation, I am struck by the sheer breadth and ambition of its proposals. This 900-page blueprint, released in April 2022, is more than just a policy document; it is a vision for a radically restructured federal government, aligned closely with conservative ideals and tied intimately to the orbit of former President Donald Trump.At its core, Project 2025 aims to transform the executive branch, bringing it under tighter control of the president and reshaping various federal agencies to conform to conservative principles. The project's authors, many of whom are veterans of Trump's first administration or closely associated with his inner circle, have outlined a comprehensive agenda that touches nearly every aspect of American life.One of the most striking aspects of Project 2025 is its proposal to dismantle or significantly alter several key federal agencies. For instance, the Department of Education would be abolished, with its programs either transferred or terminated, in a bid to promote school choice and increase parental control over education[1][3][5]. The Department of Homeland Security would also be dismantled, reflecting a broader skepticism towards the administrative state and a desire to streamline government operations[1][3].The project also targets the Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and other independent agencies, seeking to bring them under more direct presidential control. This aligns with the "unitary executive theory," which advocates for placing the entire federal bureaucracy under the president's direct authority, eliminating civil service protections for thousands of government employees and replacing them with political appointees[3][4].In the realm of economic policy, Project 2025 proposes significant changes, including tax cuts and the abolition of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. It also recommends shrinking the role of the National Labor Relations Board, which protects employees' rights to organize and fight unfair labor practices, and eliminating the Federal Trade Commission, a key enforcer of antitrust laws[1][4].The project's stance on environmental and climate policies is particularly contentious. It advocates for reducing environmental regulations to favor fossil fuels, repealing the Inflation Reduction Act, and closing offices focused on energy technology development and climate change within the Department of Energy. Diana Furchtgott-Roth, the Heritage Foundation's energy and climate director, suggests that the EPA should support the consumption of more natural gas, despite concerns from climatologists about the potential increase in methane leaks[1][2].Project 2025 also delves into the realm of science policy, prioritizing fundamental research over deployment and restricting academic and technology exchanges with countries labeled as adversaries, particularly China. The report proposes capping indirect research costs for universities and directing more R&D funding towards small businesses through programs like the Small Business Innovation Research and Small Business Technology Transfer initiatives[2].The implications of these proposals are far-reaching. For example, the plan to subject EPA research activities to closer oversight by political appointees, rather than scientists, raises concerns about the politicization of science. Mandy Gunasekara, who authored the EPA chapter and was the agency's chief of staff during the previous Trump administration, argues that EPA should not conduct science activities without clear congressional authorization, reflecting a distrust of independent scientific inquiry[2].In the area of social policy, Project 2025 is equally bold. It recommends eliminating the Head Start program, which serves over 833,000 children living in poverty, and phasing out programs like the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program and income-driven repayment initiatives for student loans. The project also seeks to cut Medicare and Medicaid, and urges the government to explicitly reject abortion as healthcare, going so far as to propose using the Comstock Act to prosecute those who send and receive contraceptives and abortion pills[1][3][5].The connection between Project 2025 and the Trump campaign is a topic of significant debate. Despite Trump's public disavowal of the project, many of its authors and advisors have close ties to his administration. Kevin Roberts, the president of the Heritage Foundation, has described his organization's role as "institutionalizing Trumpism," and CNN has reported that at least 140 people who worked on Project 2025 previously worked in Trump's administration[1][5].Experts and critics alike have raised alarms about the potential impacts of these proposals. Darrell West of the Brookings Institution notes that the inconsistencies in the plan may be designed to attract funding from certain industries or donors who would benefit from the changes. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has labeled Project 2025 a "blueprint for autocratic takeover," highlighting its potential to erode democratic norms and undermine civil liberties[1][4][5].As we approach the potential implementation of these policies in January 2025, the stakes are high. The project's vision for a more centralized, conservative government raises fundamental questions about the future of American governance. Will the next administration adopt these sweeping reforms, or will they face significant resistance from Congress, the courts, and the public?In the words of Russell Vought, who is closely associated with Project 2025 and now serves as the policy director of the Republican National Committee platform committee, "he's very supportive of what we do," referring to Trump's backing of the project's efforts. This support, combined with the project's detailed blueprint and the network of aligned personnel ready to implement it, suggests that Project 2025 is more than just a theoretical exercise—it is a roadmap for a profound transformation of the U.S. government[1].As the nation prepares for this potential shift, one thing is clear: the next few months will be pivotal in determining whether Project 2025's vision becomes a reality, and what that reality might mean for the future of American democracy.

As I delved into the intricacies of Project 2025, a comprehensive policy blueprint crafted by the Heritage Foundation, I was struck by the sheer scope and ambition of its proposals. This 900-page document, released in April 2022, outlines a radical vision for American governance, should a conservative administration take office in January 2025.At its core, Project 2025 is a call to action, designed to reshape the federal government and its agencies in line with conservative principles. The project envisions a future where the Department of Education is abolished, with its responsibilities devolved to the states. This move is part of a broader strategy to enhance school choice and parental control over education, reflecting the project's belief that education is a private rather than a public good. For instance, federal funds for low-income students, such as those under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, would be allowed to expire, and public funds would be redirected as school vouchers for private or religious schools[1][2][3].The project's education reforms are just the tip of the iceberg. It proposes dismantling the Department of Homeland Security and significantly altering the roles of other key agencies. The Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Department of Commerce, Federal Communications Commission, and Federal Trade Commission would all come under tighter partisan control. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau would be abolished, and the National Labor Relations Board's role in protecting employees' rights to organize would be significantly curtailed[1][2][3].One of the most contentious aspects of Project 2025 is its stance on environmental and climate change policies. The blueprint advocates for reducing environmental regulations to favor fossil fuels, stopping the National Institutes of Health from funding research with embryonic stem cells, and rolling back climate science initiatives. Diana Furchtgott-Roth, the Heritage Foundation's energy and climate director, suggests that the EPA should support the consumption of more natural gas, despite concerns from climatologists about the potential increase in methane leaks[1][4].The project also outlines sweeping changes to healthcare and social welfare programs. Medicare and Medicaid would face significant cuts, and the government would be urged to reject abortion as a form of healthcare. Emergency contraception coverage would be eliminated, and the Comstock Act would be used to prosecute those who send and receive contraceptives and abortion pills. Additionally, work requirements would be instituted for those reliant on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, and overtime protections for workers could be weakened[1][2].In the realm of technology and media, Project 2025 proposes several drastic measures. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) would be brought under presidential authority, and regulations on media ownership would be relaxed. The project also calls for investigations into Big Tech companies and the FBI for alleged censorship, and it suggests revising Section 230 to limit social media's ability to moderate content and ban individuals from their platforms[3].The project's authors argue that these changes are necessary to streamline decision-making and ensure a more efficient government. They advocate for the "unitary executive theory," which would place the entire federal bureaucracy under the direct control of the president, eliminating civil service protections for thousands of government employees. This move would allow for the replacement of these employees with political appointees beholden to the executive[2][3].Critics, however, see Project 2025 as a blueprint for an autocratic takeover, aiming to destroy the system of checks and balances that underpins American democracy. "Project 2025 would give presidents almost unlimited power to implement policies that will shatter democracy's guardrails," warns a critique from the American Progress organization[5].As I navigated through the detailed policy proposals, it became clear that Project 2025 is not just a set of recommendations but a vision for a fundamentally different America. The project's emphasis on conservative principles and its rejection of what it terms "woke propaganda" in public schools and "totalitarian cult" of the "Great Awokening" reflect a deep-seated ideological shift[1][3].The implications of these proposals are far-reaching. For instance, the elimination of the Head Start program, which serves over 833,000 children living in poverty, would likely drive up childcare costs and exacerbate existing social inequalities. Similarly, the reduction in funding for free school meals and the elimination of programs under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act would have profound effects on vulnerable populations[1][2].As the 2024 presidential election approaches, Project 2025 stands as a significant milestone in the conservative movement's quest for power. While Donald Trump has publicly distanced himself from the project, many of its authors are closely connected to his administration, and the policy proposals echo those outlined in his own campaign agenda[3].Looking ahead, the implementation of Project 2025's policies would depend on the outcome of the election and the willingness of a future administration to adopt these radical changes. As the nation prepares for this potential shift, it is crucial to understand the depth and breadth of these proposals and their potential impact on American governance.In the words of Darrell West, who has analyzed the inconsistencies in the plan, "the inconsistencies are designed for fund-raising from certain industries or donors that would benefit." This insight highlights the complex interplay between policy, politics, and funding that underpins Project 2025[1].As we move closer to 2025, the fate of Project 2025 remains uncertain, but its influence on the political discourse is already palpable. Whether these proposals become the blueprint for a new era in American governance or serve as a rallying cry for opposition, one thing is clear: Project 2025 represents a pivotal moment in the ongoing debate about the future of American democracy.

As I delve into the intricacies of Project 2025, a initiative spearheaded by the Heritage Foundation, I am struck by the sheer scope and ambition of its proposals. This is not just a policy guide; it is a comprehensive blueprint for a radical overhaul of American governance, tailored for the next Republican president, with many eyes on Donald Trump should he win the presidential election.At its core, Project 2025 is built around four pillars: a detailed policy guide, a database of potential personnel for the next administration, a training program dubbed the "Presidential Administration Academy," and a playbook for actions to be taken within the first 180 days in office. Led by former Trump administration officials Paul Dans and Spencer Chretien, this project has drawn significant attention and criticism for its ties to Trump's past policies and current campaign promises[3].One of the most striking aspects of Project 2025 is its vision for the federal government's structure and function. The project proposes dismantling several key departments, including the Department of Education, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The Department of Education, for instance, would be abolished to facilitate school choice and increase parental control over schools, with federal programs and standards devolving to the states. This move would also see the elimination of programs like Head Start, which serves over 833,000 children living in poverty, and the federal fund for low-income students under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965[1][2].The project's approach to education is emblematic of its broader philosophy: education is viewed as a private rather than a public good. This is reflected in proposals to make public funds available as school vouchers, even for parents sending their children to private or religious schools, and cuts to funding for free school meals. The critique of "woke propaganda" in public schools further underscores the project's commitment to conservative principles in education[1].In the realm of healthcare, Project 2025 suggests significant changes, including cuts to Medicare and Medicaid, and the explicit rejection of abortion as healthcare. The plan also urges the government to eliminate coverage of emergency contraception and to use the Comstock Act to prosecute those who send and receive contraceptives and abortion pills. These proposals align with the project's stance on social issues, such as declaring that "men and women are biological realities and married men and women are the ideal, natural family"[1][2].The project's energy and climate policies are equally contentious. It advocates for reducing environmental and climate change regulations to favor fossil fuels, repealing the Inflation Reduction Act, and closing offices focused on clean energy and climate change mitigation. Diana Furchtgott-Roth, the Heritage Foundation's energy and climate director, suggests that the EPA should support the consumption of more natural gas, despite concerns about methane leaks. The project also proposes relaxing restrictions on oil drilling and preventing states from adopting stricter regulations on vehicular emissions[1][4].The impact on science agencies is profound. Project 2025 recommends prioritizing fundamental research over deployment, arguing that many current programs act as subsidies to the private sector. It proposes eliminating offices focused on energy technology development and climate change, and reshaping the U.S. Global Change and Research Program to align with conservative principles. The National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) would be broken up, with its climate change research activities heavily curtailed. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would be subject to closer oversight by political appointees, with a focus on managerial skills over scientific qualifications[4].The project's approach to labor and employment is also noteworthy. It suggests eliminating civil service protections for thousands of government employees, allowing them to be replaced by political appointees. This "unitary executive" theory aims to streamline decision-making but raises concerns about the politicization of the federal bureaucracy. Additionally, the project proposes changes to overtime rules that could weaken protections and decrease overtime pay for some workers, and introduces work requirements for people reliant on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)[1][2].Expert analyses highlight the inconsistencies and potential implications of these proposals. Darrell West argues that the inconsistencies are designed for fundraising from certain industries or donors that would benefit. The project's emphasis on political appointees over merit-based staffing and its push for deregulation in key sectors have raised alarms about the potential for increased corruption and decreased public oversight[1].As I reflect on the breadth of Project 2025's proposals, it becomes clear that this initiative represents a fundamental shift in how the federal government operates and the values it upholds. The project's backers see it as a necessary correction to what they perceive as a bloated, inefficient, and overly liberal bureaucracy. Critics, however, view it as a dangerous erosion of public services, environmental protections, and social safety nets.Looking forward, the implementation of Project 2025's policies hinges on the outcome of the next presidential election. If a Republican president aligned with these proposals takes office, the first 180 days will be crucial in setting the tone for the administration. The project's playbook outlines a series of swift actions designed to reshape the government according to its vision. Whether this vision aligns with the broader interests of the American public remains to be seen, but one thing is certain: Project 2025 is a blueprint for a significantly different America.

01-02-2025 Diana Furchtgott-Roth Learn more about the interview and get additional links here: https://thedailyblaze.com/does-the-us-have-an-energy-crisis-or-energy-policy-crisis/ Subscribe to the best of our content here: https://priceofbusiness.substack.com/ Subscribe to our YouTube channel here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCywgbHv7dpiBG2Qswr_ceEQ

As I delve into the intricacies of Project 2025, a political initiative published by the Heritage Foundation in April 2022, it becomes clear that this is more than just a policy blueprint – it is a comprehensive vision for a radical restructuring of the U.S. federal government, aligned closely with conservative principles and the ideology of former President Donald Trump.At its core, Project 2025 is a 900-page manual titled "Mandate For Leadership," crafted by former Trump administration officials and conservative thinkers. Despite Trump's attempts to distance himself from the project, the connections run deep. Kevin Roberts, the president of the Heritage Foundation, who previously worked on Trump's transition team in 2016, has described his organization's role as “institutionalizing Trumpism”[5].One of the most striking aspects of Project 2025 is its sweeping proposal to overhaul various federal agencies. The plan calls for dismantling the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and abolishing the Department of Education (ED), with its programs either transferred or terminated. The Department of Justice (DOJ), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Department of Commerce (DOC), Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) are all slated for partisan control, a move that raises significant concerns about the politicization of these critical institutions[1].The project also targets the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), proposing to prevent the agency from using what it deems "unrealistic" projections of climate change impacts. For instance, it criticizes the RCP 8.5 emissions scenario, suggesting it has been misused for political purposes. The EPA's research activities would be subjected to closer oversight by political appointees, rather than scientists, and the agency would be barred from conducting any science activity without clear congressional authorization[2].In the realm of healthcare, Project 2025 seeks to cut Medicare and Medicaid, and urges the government to explicitly reject abortion as healthcare. It aims to eliminate coverage of emergency contraception and proposes using the Comstock Act to prosecute those who send and receive contraceptives and abortion pills. This stance is part of a broader agenda that opposes abortion and reproductive rights, reflecting the conservative values of the Heritage Foundation[1].The project's energy and climate policies are equally contentious. It advocates for reducing environmental and climate change regulations to favor fossil fuels, despite climatologists' warnings about the dangers of such policies. For example, Diana Furchtgott-Roth, the Heritage Foundation's energy and climate director, suggests that the EPA should support the consumption of more natural gas, even though this could increase leaks of methane, a potent greenhouse gas[1].Project 2025 also outlines significant changes to science policy. It proposes focusing the Department of Energy on fundamental research that the private sector would not otherwise conduct, while eliminating many of the agency's offices focused on energy technology development and climate change programs. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) would be restructured, combining it with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and the National Technical Information Service, with non-mission-critical research functions either eliminated or moved to other federal agencies[2].The implications of these proposals are far-reaching. By prioritizing fundamental research over practical applications and rolling back climate science initiatives, the project could significantly hinder the U.S.'s ability to address pressing environmental issues. Darrell West of the Brookings Institution argues that the inconsistencies in the plan are designed to attract funding from certain industries or donors that would benefit from these changes[1].In addition to these policy changes, Project 2025 includes plans for administrative reforms. It suggests merging the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the Census Bureau, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics into a single organization, aligning its mission with conservative principles. The project also recommends maximizing the hiring of political appointees in statistical analysis positions, a move that could compromise the impartiality of these agencies[1].The project's vision extends to labor policies as well. It proposes work requirements for people reliant on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and changes to overtime rules that could weaken protections and decrease overtime pay for some workers. It also seeks to abolish the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and shrink the role of the National Labor Relations Board, which protects employees' ability to organize and fight unfair labor practices[1].Despite the ambitious scope of Project 2025, it is not without its critics. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has labeled the initiative as a threat to democracy, arguing that many of its recommendations are outright unconstitutional and erode fundamental rights such as reproductive rights, LGBTQ rights, and racial equity[5].As we look ahead, the implementation of Project 2025's proposals hinges on several key milestones. With Trump's return to office, the project's authors are poised to integrate their work into the new administration's policies. Russell Vought, the founder of the Center for Renewing America, which is on Project 2025's advisory board, has been named policy director of the Republican National Committee platform committee. Vought has confirmed that they are "secretly drafting hundreds of executive orders, regulations, and memos" to lay the groundwork for rapid action on Trump's plans if he wins[1].In conclusion, Project 2025 represents a seismic shift in the way the U.S. federal government could operate, with far-reaching implications for various aspects of American life. As the country navigates these proposed changes, it is crucial to consider both the stated goals and the potential impacts of such a radical overhaul. Whether these policies will come to fruition remains to be seen, but one thing is certain – the next few years will be pivotal in determining the future of American governance.

As I delve into the intricacies of Project 2025, a sweeping political initiative crafted by the Heritage Foundation, I am struck by the sheer breadth and ambition of its proposals. Released in April 2022, this blueprint is designed to reshape the fabric of American governance, aligning federal policies and agencies with conservative principles.At its core, Project 2025 envisions a radical overhaul of the federal government. It suggests dismantling or significantly altering several key agencies. For instance, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) would be dismantled, and the Department of Education (ED) would be abolished, with its programs either transferred or terminated[1].The project's authors also propose a significant restructuring of the Department of Justice (DOJ), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Department of Commerce (DOC), Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The FTC, responsible for enforcing antitrust laws, would be abolished, and the role of the National Labor Relations Board, which protects employees' rights to organize, would be significantly reduced[1].One of the most contentious aspects of Project 2025 is its stance on environmental and climate change regulations. The plan advocates for relaxing regulations on the fossil fuel industry, repealing the Inflation Reduction Act, and closing various offices at the Department of Energy focused on clean technology and climate change mitigation. Diana Furchtgott-Roth, the Heritage Foundation's energy and climate director, has suggested that the EPA should support the consumption of more natural gas, despite concerns from climatologists about the potential increase in methane leaks[1].The project also outlines a vision for science policy that prioritizes fundamental research over practical applications. It proposes focusing the Department of Energy on research that the private sector would not otherwise conduct, arguing that many current DOE programs act as subsidies for government-favored resources. The EPA would be restricted from using "unrealistic" climate change impact projections and would require clear congressional authorization for any science activities[2].In the realm of healthcare, Project 2025 seeks to cut Medicare and Medicaid, and it urges the government to explicitly reject abortion as healthcare. It also aims to eliminate coverage of emergency contraception and proposes using the Comstock Act to prosecute those who send and receive contraceptives and abortion pills. This stance is part of a broader effort to align federal policies with conservative social values, including legislation requiring higher pay for working on Sundays and instituting work requirements for those reliant on food stamps[1].The project's approach to governance is deeply intertwined with its vision for a more politicized federal workforce. It calls for the replacement of career officials with politically appointed individuals, selected based on loyalty and policy alignment rather than expertise. This move is criticized for potentially weakening nonpartisan expertise and hampering essential government functions, as seen in past examples like the FEMA response to Hurricane Katrina[4].Project 2025's connections to the Trump campaign are a subject of considerable debate. Despite Trump's attempts to distance himself from the project, many of its authors have ties to his administration. John McEntee, a senior advisor to Project 2025, has stated that they plan to "integrate a lot of our work" with the Trump campaign. Russell Vought, founder of the Center for Renewing America, which is on Project 2025's advisory board, has been named policy director of the Republican National Committee platform committee. Vought has acknowledged that Trump is "very supportive" of their efforts, describing his public distancing as "graduate-level politics"[1].The implications of Project 2025 are far-reaching and multifaceted. If implemented, it could lead to a significant shift in the balance of power within the federal government, with independent agencies brought under tighter White House control. The project's emphasis on political appointees over career officials raises concerns about the politicization of critical government functions, from air traffic control to public health responses[4].As I reflect on the scope and ambition of Project 2025, it becomes clear that this initiative represents a fundamental challenge to the existing structure of American governance. With its sweeping proposals and deep connections to the Trump campaign, it is a blueprint that could reshape the country's policies on everything from energy and healthcare to labor rights and scientific research.Looking ahead, the implementation of Project 2025 will depend on a series of upcoming milestones and decision points. As the project's authors continue to refine their proposals and build support, the broader public and policy experts will be closely watching. The legal and regulatory battles that are likely to ensue will be pivotal in determining the extent to which these changes can be enacted.In the end, Project 2025 stands as a testament to the enduring power of ideological vision in shaping public policy. Whether its proposals are seen as a necessary correction or a dangerous overreach, one thing is certain: the future of American governance hangs in the balance.

As I delve into the intricacies of Project 2025, a comprehensive policy initiative crafted by the Heritage Foundation, I am struck by the sheer scope and ambition of its proposals. This 900-page blueprint, released in April 2022, outlines a radical vision for the future of American governance, one that is deeply intertwined with the conservative ideology and, notably, the campaign of former President Donald Trump.At its core, Project 2025 is a manifesto for sweeping changes to economic, social, and governmental policies. It envisions a federal government transformed by partisan control, where agencies like the Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Department of Commerce, Federal Communications Commission, and Federal Trade Commission would be reshaped to align with conservative values. The project proposes dismantling the Department of Homeland Security and abolishing the Department of Education, transferring or terminating its programs in the process[1].One of the most striking aspects of Project 2025 is its approach to healthcare and social welfare. The plan calls for cutting Medicare and Medicaid, and it urges the government to explicitly reject abortion as healthcare. It also seeks to eliminate coverage of emergency contraception and to use the Comstock Act to prosecute those who send and receive contraceptives and abortion pills. This stance is part of a broader agenda that aims to redefine the role of government in personal and family matters, reflecting a conservative ethos that prioritizes traditional values over individual freedoms[1].The project's energy and climate policies are equally contentious. It advocates for reducing environmental and climate change regulations to favor fossil fuels, a move that would reverse many of the gains made in recent years towards cleaner energy. For instance, the plan suggests repealing the Inflation Reduction Act, which allocates $370 billion for clean technology, and closing key offices at the Department of Energy focused on climate change mitigation. Diana Furchtgott-Roth, the Heritage Foundation's energy and climate director, has even suggested that the EPA should support increased consumption of natural gas, despite concerns from climatologists about the potential for increased methane leaks[1][2].Project 2025 also outlines significant changes to science policy, prioritizing fundamental research over applied technology development. The Department of Energy, for example, would focus on research that the private sector would not otherwise conduct, arguing that current programs often act as subsidies for government-favored resources. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would be subject to stricter oversight by political appointees, with a focus on managerial skills over scientific qualifications. This shift could politicize the EPA's research activities, making them more susceptible to partisan influence[2].The project's approach to civil service and government bureaucracy is another critical area of concern. It proposes a "Schedule F" executive order, allowing the president to replace career officials with politically appointed individuals based on loyalty tests rather than qualifications. This move could undermine the nonpartisan expertise that is crucial for effective government functioning, as seen in past examples like the FEMA response to Hurricane Katrina, where unqualified political appointees were cited as a reason for the government's failures[4].In the realm of technology and media, Project 2025 suggests sweeping reforms aimed at dismantling what it terms the "Administrative State." This includes bringing independent agencies under White House control and addressing what the project describes as the "economic, military, cultural, and foreign policy turmoil" of the Biden administration. The plan also involves tightening research security by restricting academic and technology exchanges with countries labeled as adversaries, primarily China[5].Despite Trump's public disavowal of Project 2025, the connections between the project and his campaign are undeniable. John McEntee, a senior advisor to Project 2025, has stated that they and the Trump campaign planned to "integrate a lot of our work." Russell Vought, the founder of the Center for Renewing America, which is on Project 2025's advisory board, has been named policy director of the Republican National Committee platform committee. Vought has acknowledged that Trump is "very supportive" of their efforts, describing his attempts to distance himself as "graduate-level politics"[1].The implications of Project 2025 are far-reaching and have sparked significant concern among experts and critics. It is seen by many as a blueprint for an autocratic takeover, one that would consolidate unchecked presidential power by purging the civil service, firing independent agency leaders, and conditioning federal funding on political fealty. The project's proposals have been criticized for their potential to politicize law enforcement, undermine essential government functions, and erode the system of checks and balances that underpins American democracy[3][4].As we approach the potential implementation of these policies in 2025, the stakes are high. The project's success would depend on a complex interplay of political maneuvering, public support, and legal challenges. Organizations focused on government accountability and transparency have been at the forefront of raising awareness about Project 2025's policies and their impact, highlighting the need for continued vigilance and preparedness in the face of such radical changes.In the coming months, as the nation inches closer to the next presidential term, the debate around Project 2025 will only intensify. Whether its proposals will become the blueprint for a new era of American governance remains to be seen, but one thing is clear: the future of American democracy hangs in the balance, and the choices made now will have lasting consequences for generations to come.

As I delve into the intricacies of Project 2025, a sweeping initiative crafted by the Heritage Foundation, I am struck by the sheer breadth and ambition of its proposals. This 900-page blueprint, released in April 2022, outlines a radical restructuring of the federal government, aligning it with a staunchly conservative agenda. Despite President Donald Trump's attempts to distance himself from the project, the connections between Project 2025 and his campaign are undeniable.At its core, Project 2025 is a comprehensive plan to reshape American governance, touching on nearly every aspect of federal policy. One of the most striking aspects is its vision for the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). The project proposes politicizing these agencies, empowering the president to use them to target political opponents and enforce a radical agenda. As the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) notes, this could lead to a significant erosion of civil liberties and the rule of law[5].The project's authors also envision drastic changes to various federal agencies. For instance, they recommend dismantling the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and abolishing the Department of Education (ED), transferring or terminating its programs. The Department of Commerce would see significant alterations as well, with the Economic Development Administration (EDA) either abolished or repurposed to assist "rural communities destroyed by the Biden administration's attack on domestic energy production"[1].In the realm of science policy, Project 2025 is equally transformative. It suggests focusing the Department of Energy on fundamental research, rather than technology development and climate change programs. The report argues that many current DOE programs act as subsidies to the private sector for government-favored resources, and proposes eliminating offices focused on energy technology and climate change. This shift is part of a broader strategy to roll back climate science initiatives, including reshaping the U.S. Global Change and Research Program and preventing the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from using "unrealistic" projections of climate change impacts[2].The EPA itself would undergo significant changes, with its research activities subject to closer oversight by political appointees rather than scientists. The project proposes that EPA grants be managed by political appointees and that the public be incentivized to scrutinize the agency's scientific conduct. Diana Furchtgott-Roth, the Heritage Foundation's energy and climate director, has suggested that the EPA support increased consumption of natural gas, despite concerns from climatologists about the potential for increased methane leaks[1].Project 2025 also targets the National Institutes of Health (NIH), aiming to make it less independent and stopping its funding for research involving embryonic stem cells. The National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) would be broken up, with its climate change research activities severely curtailed. Thomas Gilman, who served under Trump as the chief financial officer of the Commerce Department, describes NOAA as "one of the main drivers of the climate change alarm industry"[2].The project's economic policies are just as far-reaching. It proposes instituting tax cuts, though there is disagreement among its writers on the issue of protectionism. Medicare and Medicaid would face significant cuts, and the government would be urged to explicitly reject abortion as healthcare. The project also seeks to eliminate coverage of emergency contraception and use the Comstock Act to prosecute those who send and receive contraceptives and abortion pills[1].In the area of labor and employment, Project 2025 recommends instituting work requirements for those reliant on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and weakening overtime protections. It also suggests legislation requiring Americans to be paid more for working on Sundays, based on the premise that "God ordained the Sabbath as a day of rest"[1].The implications of these proposals are profound. Critics argue that Project 2025 represents a blueprint for an autocratic takeover, compromising the checks and balances of the U.S. system of government. The plan involves purging the civil service, firing independent agency leaders, and conditioning federal funding on political fealty. This could lead to a situation where thousands of political operatives, hand-picked for their loyalty to the president, control key government positions regardless of their qualifications or commitment to constitutional duty[3].The project's approach to technology and media policies is equally concerning. It proposes increasing agency accountability at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) while decreasing wasteful spending and promoting national security and economic prosperity. However, it also suggests that Big Tech companies should fund the Universal Service Fund, currently supported through telephone bills, and that media ownership regulations are outdated and stifle competition[4].As I reflect on the scope of Project 2025, it becomes clear that this initiative is not just a policy blueprint but a vision for a fundamentally different America. The project's authors and supporters see it as a way to "institutionalize Trumpism," as Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts has described it. However, critics like the ACLU warn that it threatens to erode democracy, perpetuate bigotry, and undermine justice and equality[5].Looking ahead, the implementation of Project 2025's proposals hinges on several key milestones. The upcoming presidential term will be crucial, as the project's success depends on a conservative administration willing to enact its recommendations. With Russell Vought, the founder of the Center for Renewing America, now serving as the policy director of the Republican National Committee platform committee, and given the ongoing connections between Project 2025 and the Trump campaign, the stage is set for a potentially transformative period in American governance[1].As the nation approaches these critical decision points, it is imperative to engage in a thorough and informed discussion about the implications of Project 2025. Whether one views this initiative as a necessary correction to current policies or a dangerous erosion of democratic principles, its impact on American life will be profound. As we navigate this complex landscape, it is crucial to remain vigilant and ensure that any changes to our governance system are made with the utmost care and a deep respect for the principles of democracy.

As I delved into the intricacies of Project 2025, a sweeping initiative crafted by the Heritage Foundation, I couldn't help but feel a sense of both fascination and trepidation. This 900-page blueprint, released in April 2022, outlines a radical restructuring of the federal government, envisioning a future that is as ambitious as it is contentious.At its core, Project 2025 is a comprehensive policy agenda designed to guide a potential conservative administration, with ties that run deep into the circles of former President Donald Trump. Despite Trump's public disavowal of the project, the connections are undeniable; many of its authors and contributors are veterans of Trump's first administration or closely aligned with his inner circle[3][4].One of the most striking aspects of Project 2025 is its proposal to overhaul various federal agencies. The Department of Education, for instance, would be abolished, with its programs either transferred or terminated. The Department of Homeland Security would be dismantled, and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) would be made less independent, with a specific ban on funding research involving embryonic stem cells[1].The project also targets environmental and climate change regulations, advocating for a significant rollback to favor fossil fuels. Diana Furchtgott-Roth, the Heritage Foundation's energy and climate director, suggests that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) should support increased consumption of natural gas, despite concerns from climatologists about the potential for increased methane leaks[1].In the realm of science policy, Project 2025 prioritizes fundamental research over deployment, arguing that many current Department of Energy (DOE) programs act as subsidies to the private sector. It proposes eliminating offices focused on energy technology development and climate change programs, and reshaping the U.S. Global Change and Research Program to critically analyze and potentially refuse any assessments prepared under the Biden administration[2].The National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is another agency in the crosshairs, with Project 2025 describing it as a "main driver of the climate change alarm industry" and proposing its breakup. The EPA would be restricted from using "unrealistic" projections of climate change impacts and would require clear congressional authorization for any science activity[2].The project's vision extends to the economy and labor policies as well. It recommends instituting work requirements for those reliant on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and proposes changes to overtime rules that could weaken protections and decrease overtime pay for some workers. Additionally, it suggests legislation requiring higher pay for working on Sundays, based on the principle that "God ordained the Sabbath as a day of rest"[1].In the technology and media sector, Project 2025 is keen on addressing what it perceives as the threats posed by Big Tech. The authors argue that business concentration should no longer be considered solely in economic terms but also in socio-political terms, suggesting that antitrust laws should be applied more rigorously to prevent what they see as a "leftist" agenda. The project also emphasizes the need to subvert China's goal of becoming the global leader in artificial intelligence (AI) by investing in and protecting American innovation[3].The implications of these proposals are far-reaching and have sparked significant debate. Critics, such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), view Project 2025 as a blueprint for an "autocratic takeover," threatening to erode democracy and undermine various rights, including abortion and reproductive rights, LGBTQ rights, immigrants' rights, and racial equity[4].Darrell West, an expert in the field, points out the inconsistencies in the plan, suggesting they are designed to attract funding from certain industries or donors that would benefit from the proposed changes. This raises questions about the true motivations behind the project and whether it serves a broader conservative agenda or specific corporate interests[1].As the 2024 elections have concluded, the connections between Project 2025 and the Trump campaign have become more apparent. Despite Trump's attempts to distance himself, the involvement of key figures like John McEntee and Russell Vought, who have transitioned between roles in the Trump administration and Project 2025, underscores the deep ties between the two[1][4].Looking ahead, the implementation of Project 2025's recommendations would depend on the next conservative president's willingness to adopt these sweeping changes. With Kevin Roberts, who previously worked on Trump's transition team, now leading the project, the stage is set for a potentially transformative period in American governance.As we approach 2025, the fate of Project 2025 hangs in the balance. Will its ambitious and sometimes controversial proposals reshape the federal government, or will they face significant resistance from Congress, civil society, and the courts? One thing is certain: the next few years will be pivotal in determining the future of American governance and the extent to which Project 2025's vision becomes a reality.

As I delved into the intricacies of Project 2025, a blueprint crafted by the conservative Heritage Foundation, I found myself navigating a complex web of policy proposals that promise to reshape the very fabric of American governance. This initiative, unveiled in April 2022, is not just a set of recommendations; it is a comprehensive plan for a radical overhaul of the federal government, tailored for the next Republican president.At its core, Project 2025 is a multi-pronged initiative that includes a detailed policy guide, a database of potential personnel for the next administration, training programs for these candidates, and a playbook outlining actions to be taken within the first 180 days in office. Led by former Trump administration officials Paul Dans and Spencer Chretien, this project has drawn significant attention for its sweeping and often contentious proposals.One of the most striking aspects of Project 2025 is its vision for the restructuring of federal agencies. The plan calls for the dismantling of the Department of Homeland Security, with its components either combined with other agencies or moved under different departments. For instance, immigration-related entities would be consolidated into a standalone, Cabinet-level border and immigration agency, staffed by over 100,000 employees[1][2].The Department of Education is another target, with Project 2025 advocating for its abolition and the transfer of its programs to other departments or states. This move is part of a broader push to reduce the federal government's role in education, elevating school choice and parental rights instead. Public funds would be redirected as school vouchers, even for private or religious schools, and programs like the Head Start initiative for low-income families would be eliminated[2].In the realm of healthcare, Project 2025 proposes significant changes, particularly concerning abortion and reproductive rights. The agenda recommends that the Food and Drug Administration reverse its approval of the abortion pill mifepristone and reinstate more stringent rules for its use. It also suggests eliminating coverage of emergency contraception and using the Comstock Act to prosecute those who send and receive contraceptives and abortion pills[1][2].The project's stance on environmental and climate change policies is equally profound. It seeks to reduce environmental regulations, favoring fossil fuels over clean energy. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would undergo significant changes, with its Office of Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights closed, and its staff selected based on managerial rather than scientific skills. The plan also includes repealing the Inflation Reduction Act, which allocates $370 billion for clean technology, and encouraging allied nations to use fossil fuels[2].Economic policies are another key area of focus. Project 2025 proposes tax cuts, though its authors are divided on the issue of protectionism. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau would be abolished, and the Federal Trade Commission, responsible for enforcing antitrust laws, would be significantly downsized. The National Labor Relations Board, which protects employees' right to organize, would also see its role diminished[2].The implications of these proposals are far-reaching and have sparked intense debate. Critics argue that these changes would erode democratic institutions and undermine social and environmental protections. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has warned that many of the recommendations are outright unconstitutional and threaten to erode democracy, targeting abortion and reproductive rights, LGBTQ rights, immigrants' rights, and racial equity[5].Despite former President Donald Trump's attempts to distance himself from the initiative, the connections between Project 2025 and his administration are clear. Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts, who worked on Trump's transition team in 2016, has described the project as "institutionalizing Trumpism." A recent report found that at least 140 people who worked on Project 2025 had previously worked in Trump's administration[5].As I reflect on the scope and ambition of Project 2025, it becomes evident that this is not just a policy blueprint but a vision for a fundamentally different America. The project's authors see it as part of a "second American Revolution," as Roberts put it, one that aims to reshape the country according to conservative principles.The coming months will be crucial as the nation watches whether these proposals become reality. With Trump projected to win the presidency, the stage is set for a potential implementation of these sweeping changes. As the country approaches this crossroads, it is imperative to understand the depth and breadth of Project 2025's ambitions and the potential consequences for American governance.In the words of Heritage Foundation's energy and climate director, Diana Furchtgott-Roth, the project seeks to align federal policies with conservative values, even if it means challenging established norms and regulations. As the nation prepares for what could be a transformative period, one thing is certain: Project 2025 represents a clear and unambiguous vision for the future, one that will undoubtedly shape the course of American politics in the years to come.

As I delve into the intricacies of Project 2025, a comprehensive policy initiative crafted by the Heritage Foundation, it becomes clear that this is more than just a blueprint for the next Republican president; it is a vision for a radical overhaul of American governance.Project 2025, unveiled in April 2022, is the culmination of efforts by over 400 scholars and experts, many of whom have ties to the Trump administration. The project is led by figures like Paul Dans, former chief of staff at the Office of Personnel Management, and Spencer Chretien, a former special assistant to President Trump. Despite Trump's attempts to distance himself from the project, its authors and contributors are undeniably aligned with his policy agenda[1][4][5].At its core, Project 2025 is structured around four key pillars: a detailed policy guide, a database of potential personnel for the next administration, a training program dubbed the "Presidential Administration Academy," and a playbook outlining actions to be taken within the first 180 days in office. This multi-pronged approach is designed to ensure a seamless transition and rapid implementation of conservative policies[1][4].One of the most striking aspects of Project 2025 is its sweeping proposals for federal agencies. The Department of Homeland Security, for instance, is slated for dismantling, with its components either merged with other agencies or reorganized into a standalone, Cabinet-level border and immigration agency. This new entity would be staffed by over 100,000 employees, reflecting a significant shift in immigration enforcement and border control[1][2].The Department of Education is another target, with Project 2025 advocating for its abolition and the transfer or termination of its programs. This move aligns with long-standing Republican calls for reduced federal intervention in education and increased support for school choice. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) would also see significant changes, including a reduction in its independence and a halt to funding research involving embryonic stem cells[2].Environmental and climate change policies are also in the crosshairs. The project recommends relaxing regulations on the fossil fuel industry, repealing the Inflation Reduction Act, and closing various clean energy initiatives within the Department of Energy. Diana Furchtgott-Roth, the Heritage Foundation's energy and climate director, has suggested that the EPA should support increased consumption of natural gas, despite concerns from climatologists about the potential increase in methane leaks[2].The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) are also on the chopping block. Project 2025 proposes abolishing the CFPB and significantly reducing the role of the FTC, which is responsible for enforcing antitrust laws. This would mark a substantial retreat from consumer and market protections, reflecting a broader theme of reducing regulatory oversight in favor of industry interests[1][2].In the realm of social issues, Project 2025 takes a hardline stance. The agenda calls for the FDA to reverse its approval of the abortion pill mifepristone and to reinstate more stringent rules for its use. It also seeks to eliminate coverage of emergency contraception and to use the Comstock Act to prosecute those who send and receive contraceptives and abortion pills. These proposals are part of a broader effort to explicitly reject abortion as healthcare[1][2].The project's vision extends to the economy as well, with recommendations for tax cuts and work requirements for able-bodied, childless adults on food stamps. It also proposes changes to overtime rules that could weaken protections and decrease overtime pay for some workers. The Bureau of Economic Analysis, the Census Bureau, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics would be merged into a single organization, aligning their mission with conservative principles[1][2].Critics have labeled Project 2025 as a blueprint for an "autocratic takeover," highlighting its potential to undermine democratic institutions and the rule of law. Darrell West, an expert in governance, notes that the inconsistencies in the plan may be designed to attract funding from specific industries or donors who would benefit from these policies[4].As I reflect on the scope and ambition of Project 2025, it is clear that its implementation would mark a seismic shift in American governance. The project's authors envision a government that is more aligned with conservative values, less regulated, and more partisan in its control. Whether this vision aligns with the broader public interest remains a subject of intense debate.Looking forward, the next few months will be crucial as the incoming administration begins to implement these policies. The legal battles, congressional fights, and public backlash that are likely to ensue will test the resilience and coherence of Project 2025. As the nation prepares for these changes, one thing is certain: the future of American governance hangs in the balance, and the decisions made now will have far-reaching consequences for years to come.

12-05-2024 Diana Furchtgott-Roth Learn more about the interview and get additional links here: https://thedailyblaze.com/former-white-house-economist-us-must-get-economic-independence-from-china/ Subscribe to the best of our content here: https://priceofbusiness.substack.com/ Subscribe to our YouTube channel here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCywgbHv7dpiBG2Qswr_ceEQ

11-07-2024 Diana Furchtgott-Roth Learn more about the interview and get additional links here: https://usabusinessradio.com/former-senior-official-in-trumps-first-administration-on-policies-to-expect/ Subscribe to the best of our content here: https://priceofbusiness.substack.com/ Subscribe to our YouTube channel here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCywgbHv7dpiBG2Qswr_ceEQ

China's production of batteries for electric vehicles is “definitely not clean,” says energy expert Diana Furchtgott-Roth. Without its own vast natural energy resources, China is the world's largest energy importer, but has seized on the economic opportunities of the “green energy” movement. Yet the production of products such as EVs is causing harm to the environment, says Furchtgott-Roth, director of The Heritage Foundation's Center for Energy, Climate, and Environment. China produces about 80% of the world's EV batteries and “mining for the critical minerals in the batteries … causes vast amounts of environmental damage,” she explains. Production of one EV battery involves moving “hundreds of thousands of pounds of earth to get the critical minerals for one battery,” Furchtgott-Roth notes, adding that “China is buying mines in Africa so that it can get the critical minerals, [as well as] mines in Latin America.” Furchtgott-Roth is the co-author of “How the Forced Energy Transition and Reliance on China Will Harm America,” a new Heritage Foundation report exposing the ways in which the “green energy” movement is harming America while benefiting China. She joins "The Daily Signal Podcast" to explain it all.

China’s production of batteries for electric vehicles is “definitely not clean,” says energy expert Diana Furchtgott-Roth. Without its own vast natural energy resources, China is the world's largest energy importer, but has seized on the economic opportunities of the “green energy” movement. Yet the production of products such as EVs is causing harm to the […]

In this hour, guest host Brad Young discusses the stark contrasts between a potential Republican and Biden administration on energy policies, featuring insights from Diana Furchgott-Roth of the Heritage Foundation. They analyze the implications of the Inflation Reduction Act and the impact of electric vehicle mandates, including how these policies influence U.S. dependence on China. Additionally, Brad and Diana explore how Biden's approach to oil leases and subsidies affects both the U.S. economy and geopolitical balance.  

GUEST OVERVIEW: Director, Center for Energy, Climate, and Environment and The Herbert and Joyce Morgan Fellow in Energy and Environmental Policy Diana Furchtgott-Roth (born 1958) is an American economist who is adjunct professorof economics at George Washington University and a columnist. She served as Deputy Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology at the United States Department of Transportation during the Trump administration. She previously served as Acting Assistant Secretary for Economic Policy at the U.S. Department of the Treasury. Prior to joining the Trump Administration, Furchtgott-Roth served as a senior fellow and director of Economics21 at the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research. She was nominated by President Donald Trump to become Assistant Secretary of Transportation for Research and Technology. On January 3, 2021, her nomination was returned to the President under Rule XXXI, Paragraph 6 of the United States Senate. Furchtgott-Roth was previously the chief economist of the United States Department of Labor, chief of staff of the President's Council of Economic Advisers, deputy executive director of the United States Domestic Policy Council, and junior staff economist at the Council of Economic Advisers.

Welcome back to Breaking Battlegrounds! This week, Chuck Warren is first joined by John Ziegler, host of the Death of Journalism podcast and a renowned political commentator, who fearlessly navigates the murky waters of media integrity. From dissecting headlines to challenging popular narratives, John delves into topics ranging from the pitfalls of crappy journalism to the implications of California's minimum wage hike and Governor Newsom's policies furthering the state's downfall. Next, we're honored to welcome Diana Furchtgott-Roth, Director of the Center for Energy, Climate, and Environment at The Heritage Foundation, who offers invaluable insights into the intersection of policy and economics. Diana discusses a wide range of topics including luxury belief systems, New York's controversial $15 congestion charge, and Biden's focus on electrification to cut emissions, despite its limited impact on reducing fossil fuel use due to our reliance on fossil fuels for electricity. And stay tuned for Kiley's Corner as she discusses the largest cash money heist in LA history on Easter Sunday. Connect with us:www.breakingbattlegrounds.voteTwitter: www.twitter.com/Breaking_BattleFacebook: www.facebook.com/breakingbattlegroundsInstagram: www.instagram.com/breakingbattlegroundsLinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/company/breakingbattlegrounds-About out guestsJohn Ziegler is an award winning journalist and truth crusader. He is host of "The Death Of Journalism" where he examines the loss of integrity in the news media and rips apart the popularized narratives of the biggest headline making stories. You can follow him on X @Zigmanfreud. -Diana Furchtgott-Roth is Director of the Center for Energy, Climate, and Environment and the Herbert and Joyce Morgan Fellow in Energy and Environmental Policy at The Heritage Foundation. She is an Oxford-educated economist, a frequent guest on TV and radio shows, and a columnist for Forbes.Diana worked in senior roles in the White House under Presidents Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush. She has served as Deputy Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology at the U.S. Department of Transportation; Acting Assistant Secretary for Economic Policy at the U.S. Department of Treasury; Chief Economist at the U.S. Department of Labor; Chief of Staff of the President's Council of Economic Advisers; and Deputy Executive Secretary of the White House Domestic Policy Council.Diana is the author or coauthor of six books and hundreds of articles on economic policy, including Regulating to Disaster: How Green Jobs Policies are Destroying America's Economy (Encounter Books, 2012). Her most recent book is United States Income, Wealth, Consumption, and Inequality (Oxford University Press, 2021). She received degrees in Economics from Swarthmore College and Oxford University. Get full access to Breaking Battlegrounds at breakingbattlegrounds.substack.com/subscribe

Diana Furchtgott-Roth, Director, Center for Energy, Climate, and Environment The Heritage Foundation. Biden Administration Will Declare War on U.S. Drivers with New EPA Emissions Standards

Hour 2: Sue has today's Sue's News on National Ravioli Day, email clutter, and the Random Fact of the Day on the tradition of bridesmaids. Then, Missouri Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft joins Joe Beamer, in for Mark Reardon, to discuss his plan to eliminate the income tax in Missouri. Later, Diana Furchtgott-Roth, Heritage Foundation scholar, joins Joe Beamer to discuss the Biden Administration declaring war on U.S. drivers with new EPA Emissions Standards.

Coming up at 4 pm today on the Rod Arquette Show on Talk Radio 105.9 KNRS,Greg Hughes is in for Rod this week.Rob Axson, Chair of the Utah Republican Party joins Greg to discuss last night's Utah Republican caucus, the outcome, voting system issues, and any silver linings from the evening. Plus, Representative Tim Jimenez joins the show to discuss his bill that provides training and legal protection to teachers that want to conceal carry firearms on campus. See below for a full rundown of today's program .Rod Arquette Show with Greg Hughes Daily Rundown – Wednesday, March 6, 20244:20 pm: Rob Axson, Chair of the Utah Republican Party joins Greg to discuss last night's Utah Republican caucus, the outcome, voting system issues, and any silver linings from the evening.6:05 pm: Representative Tim Jimenez, sponsor of HB119, a bill recently passed by Utah lawmakers that provides training and legal protection to teachers and school staff carrying concealed firearms on school grounds, joins Greg to discuss the reason for the bill and recent calls for Governor Spencer Cox to veto the measure.6:38 pm: Diana Furchtgott-Roth, Director of the Center for Energy, Climate and Environment at the Heritage Foundation joins Greg for a conversation about how manufacturer enthusiasm to build electric vehicles is fading despite the Biden administration's plans to administer new requirements that 60% of new cars sold to be battery powered by 2030.

The Power Hour is a weekly podcast that discusses the most interesting energy and environmental policy issues of the day with top national experts. Were you wondering how China could use its expertise in electric vehicles to challenge the United States? Well Jack welcomes Center for Energy, Climate and Environment Director (and his boss) Diana Furchtgott-Roth to […]

The Power Hour is a weekly podcast that discusses the most interesting energy and environmental policy issues of the day with top national experts. Were you wondering how China could use its expertise in electric vehicles to challenge the United States? Well Jack welcomes Center for Energy, Climate and Environment Director (and his boss) Diana Furchtgott-Roth to the Powerhour to discuss this critical issue. Diana brings a career of experience to the discussion having worked in senior roles in the White House under Presidents Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush. Perhaps most important to this debate, Diana served as Deputy Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology at the U.S. Department of Transportation. It must also be noted that Diana has held numerous other leadership positions in multiple federal agencies as well. If you want to learn why Chinese electric vehicles should be banned from the U.S. market, you don't want to miss this one! And don't forget to join the conversation with an email to thepowerhour@heritage.org! Tell us what you thought of the podcast and what you want to here in the future. Thank you for listening and being part of the Power Hour! Check out Diana's recent piece on the issue at Foxnews.com here! Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Is Net Zero destroying our energy capacity? Are we in an energy cold war?To discuss, The Telegraph's Steven Edginton is joined by the economist Diana Furchtgott-Roth of the Heritage Foundation who has served in every Republican administration since Ronald Reagan. Dr Kevin Roberts is the president of The Heritage Foundation, one of America's most influential conservative think tanks.The Telegraph's Steven Edginton sits down with him to discuss the state of American conservatism, President Biden and the Blob for the latest Off Script podcast.Watch this episode: https://youtu.be/tB6HxgxVsaE |Read more from The Telegraph's award-winning comment team: www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion |For 30 days' free access to The Telegraph: www.telegraph.co.uk/audio | Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Is Net Zero destroying our energy capacity? Are we in an energy cold war?To discuss, The Telegraph's Steven Edginton is joined by the economist Diana Furchtgott-Roth of the Heritage Foundation who has served in every Republican administration since Ronald Reagan. Watch this episode: https://youtu.be/tB6HxgxVsaE |Read more from The Telegraph's award-winning comment team: www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion |For 30 days' free access to The Telegraph: www.telegraph.co.uk/audio | Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Thousands of American car dealers are petitioning the Biden Administration to ease its overbearing regulations on the sale of electric vehicles (EVs). Heritage Director for the Center of Energy, Climate, and the Environment Diana Furchtgott-Roth explains what the administration is doing and how we should respond.  — Have thoughts? Let us know at heritageexplains@heritage.org — […]

Thousands of American car dealers are petitioning the Biden Administration to ease its overbearing regulations on the sale of electric vehicles (EVs). Heritage Director for the Center of Energy, Climate, and the Environment Diana Furchtgott-Roth explains what the administration is doing and how we should respond. —Have thoughts? Let us know at heritageexplains@heritage.org—Follow Diana Furchtgott-Roth on X: https://twitter.com/dfr_economicsJane McGraw's Petition to President Thomas Jefferson: https://jeffersonpapers.princeton.edu/petition-of-jane-mcgraw/ Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The United Auto Workers went on strike against the 'big three' car makers - Ford, GM and Stellantis - earlier this month. That is the first time they've all been targeted at the same time, The automakers have offered the UAW pay raises, but say the cost of transitioning to electric cars prevents them from meeting all the union's demands. We recently spoke with FOX Business correspondent Jeff flock and former Labor Department economist Diana Furchtgott-Roth about the issues at the center of this strike, and how workers pay, climate change policy and politics have all factored in. The segment also touched on whether rapidly advancing technology has created anxiety among workers in a variety of industries, and if we more labor disputes and work stoppages should be expected. We made edits for time and thought you might like to hear our entire conversation with both FBN's Jeff Flock and economist Diana Furchtgott-Roth. On today's FOX News Rundown Extra, you'll hear even more of their analysis of the UAW strike, and why there appears to be so many labor disputes in the country Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The United Auto Workers have been on strike for five days, with the union issuing demands for higher pay from the big car companies, who they argue are overpaying their executives while underpaying their laborers. UAW President Shawn Fain organized an aggressive, unprecedented strike on assembly plants at Ford, General Motor and Stellantis. As the labor negotiations continue, President Biden has voiced support for the strike while former President Trump has shared criticism of UAW union leadership. Fox Business' Jeff Flock joins the Rundown to explain Fain's plans with this strike and the public support for the union. Later, former Labor Department economist Diana Furchtgott-Roth breaks down the politics and policies that drove workers towards this strike. In Fairfax County, Virginia, parents have recently voiced concern about the race and gender education curriculum in their schools. Even on a national scale, the teaching of these topics in classrooms has become a major conversation on the 2024 campaign trail. From Governor Ron DeSantis introducing Florida's Parental Rights in Education Act to Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin banning schools from teaching "divisive concepts like critical race theory," parents and politicians alike are paying more attention to the curriculum. On the Rundown, FOX Business' Edward Lawrence, who is focusing on the curriculum controversy as part of FBN's weeklong series on "Education in America," shares why some parents are criticizing the public education system and details how different states are challenging these issues. Plus, commentary from host of OutKick's Tomi Lahren is Fearless, Tomi Lahren. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

 Diana Furchtgott-Roth is Director of the Center for Energy, Climate, and Environment and the Herbert , joins the show to discuss the latest on The UAW strike. 

Whenever there is a major weather event, such as the wildfires in Hawaii in August, leftists are quick to blame climate change and push “green” policy. But this approach is fraught with problems. Heritage's Director of the Center for Energy, Climate, and the Environment, Diana Furchtgott-Roth, explains.  — Have thoughts? Let us know at heritageexplains@heritage.org […]

Whenever there is a major weather event, such as the wildfires in Hawaii in August, leftists are quick to blame climate change and push “green” policy. But this approach is fraught with problems. Heritage's Director of the Center for Energy, Climate, and the Environment, Diana Furchtgott-Roth, explains. —Have thoughts? Let us know at heritageexplains@heritage.org—Diana Furchtgott-Roth on X (formerly Twitter): https://twitter.com/DFR_EconomicsDiana Furchtgott-Roth on Heritage.org: https://www.heritage.org/staff/diana-furchtgott-rothDaily Signal Reporting on the Maui Wildfires: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0yJOtwxrBY Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The news of Texas covered today includes:Our Lone Star story of the day: Not only do Democrats want to force you into an electric vehicle, they also want the right, without notice, to drain its battery overnight to shore-up the electric grid they have imperiled by making it hard to build reliable power plants.Diana Furchtgott-Roth of The Heritage Foundation address this latest, very real, policy fiasco of Democrats. Read more here: California Transportation Policy Is Not for the Free.Our Lone Star story of the day is sponsored by Allied Compliance Services providing the best service in DOT, business and personal drug and alcohol testing since 1995.Update on several lawsuits against Texas: Nut-case federal judge says Texas can have Voter I.D. for in-person voting but not for the far less secure and easy to cheat mail-in-ballot voting! Judge in border buoy case to rule strictly on the merits of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. Harris County must, for now, follow the new law that requires it to end its Office of Elections and turn duties over the elected county clerk and voter registrar. Texas booksellers ask judge to put book rating law on hold because they apparently do not know, or want to know, what it is they sell to Texas school libraries. Listen on the radio, or station stream, at 5pm Central. Click for our radio and streaming affiliates.www.PrattonTexas.com

A proposed Environmental Protection Agency rule that “would limit tailpipe emissions so that in order to comply, auto companies would have to sell 60% of new vehicles as electric by 2030” would adversely affect the safety of cars.So says Diana Furchtgott-Roth, director of The Heritage Foundation's Center for Energy, Climate, and Environment. (The Daily Signal is The Heritage Foundation's news outlet.)“Well, since [electric] vehicles are more expensive, people would postpone buying them. So, they would stay with their older cars, and newer cars have more safety features. If they get in an accident, they're less likely to hurt the passenger,” Furchtgott-Roth says.“So, because of that, you have increases in injuries and fatalities, if you make new cars more expensive. And that's if you increase [Corporate Average Fuel Economy] standards for normal gasoline-powered vehicles, or you mandate electric vehicles,” she adds. According to the Department of Transportation, CAFE standards are fleetwide averages that must be achieved by each automaker for its car and truck fleet.Furchtgott-Roth joins today's episode of “The Daily Signal Podcast” to further discuss the Environmental Protection Agency's proposed rule and what environmental benefits the EPA is hoping to accomplish in potentially implementing that rule, as well as the role that China plays in producing electric vehicles. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

A proposed Environmental Protection Agency rule that “would limit tailpipe emissions so that in order to comply, auto companies would have to sell 60% of new vehicles as electric by 2030” would adversely affect the safety of cars. So says Diana Furchtgott-Roth, director of The Heritage Foundation's Center for Energy, Climate, and Environment. (The Daily Signal is […]

With the Biden Administration forcing through new regulations for America's production of electric vehicles, many are concerned about the economic and environmental problems surrounding EVs. Many of these problems also have to do with China. In this week's episode, Heritage's Diana Furchtgott-Roth and Jeff Smith give the rundown on the economic issues surrounding the Chinese Communist Party, and what we can do about them.----More China Research from the Heritage Foundation: www.heritage.org/chinaWritings by Diana Furchtgott-Roth: https://www.heritage.org/staff/diana-furchtgott-rothWinning the New Cold War: A Plan for Countering China: https://www.heritage.org/asia/report/winning-the-new-cold-war-plan-countering-chinaThe Kevin Roberts Show: https://www.heritage.org/the-kevin-roberts-show Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

An energy expert says the Feb. 3 train derailment in East Palestine, Ohio, underscores the need for more pipelines to transport potentially hazardous substances. "This recent rail accident in East Palestine in Ohio has shown us that we need more pipelines to carry these potential dangerous chemicals, rather than using road and rail," says Diana Furchtgott-Roth, director of the Center for Energy, Climate, and Environment at The Heritage Foundation. (The Daily Signal is the news outlet of The Heritage Foundation.)"Because with pipelines, the container stays still and the product moves within it. And the pipelines are often buried in the ground," Furchtgott-Roth says. "So, they're out of the way of other traffic, pedestrians, anyone like that, and the potential damage is very, very low."Furchtgott-Roth added: With rail and truck, these substances are going through people's communities, and they are generally very safe, but occasionally accidents do happen.But pipelines are the safest way of transporting oil and natural gas.Furchtgott-Roth joins today's episode of "The Daily Signal Podcast" to discuss Thursday's passage of HR 1, the Lower Energy Costs Act, in the House of Representatives and her thoughts on President Joe Biden's anticipated veto of the bill. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

An energy expert is sounding the alarm over the Chinese Communist Party's dominance of African minerals. "It's such an important topic because President [Joe] Biden and the governor of California, Gov. [Gavin] Newsom have the goal of having all new-vehicle sales in the United States battery-powered electric by 2035, so if we're going to have all electric vehicles with batteries, we need the minerals for those batteries, and the United States used to produce those minerals," says Diana Furchtgott-Roth, director of the Center for Energy, Climate and Environment at The Heritage Foundation. (The Daily Signal is the news outlet of The Heritage Foundation.) Lithium brine and cobalt and nickel ores are among the minerals needed for electric vehicles with batteries, Furchtgott-Roth says. "As recently as 1990, the U.S. was the world's No.1 producer of those minerals. Today, we are in seventh place. Even though we have vast mineral reserves worth trillions of dollars, we are now 100% dependent on imports for some 17 key minerals, and China is a significant source for many of those minerals," she says. Furchtgott-Roth explains how China "can go to Africa and purchase vast tracts of land in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, for example, where it can get out the cobalt," and that Beijing "doesn't have problems with using children to mine for these minerals or using slave labor in Xinjiang to mine for these minerals.""So, China has all kinds of business advantages that we in the United States do not have," she says.Furchtgott-Roth joins today's episode of "The Daily Signal Podcast" to discuss what the U.S. can do to have more influence in Africa, why the U.S. should be more active in reducing China's role in regard to African minerals, and the connection between "environmental, social, and governance" policies and China. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Diana Furchtgott-Roth, Heritage Director of Center for Energy, Climate, and Environment and former Deputy Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology at Department of Transportation, is currently writing a story on how pipelines are safer than rail transport for liquids and this derailment is just another example of why.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

CEO of CompassCare Pregnancy Services Jim Harden joins Glenn to discuss the firebombing of his clinic and how the Democrats don't seem to care. Former chief economist Diana Furchtgott-Roth shares why inflation is out of control and what needs to be done to stop it. Glenn connects actor Matthew McConaughey's latest appearance at the White House to Hunter Biden.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

As more protests happen at Justice Brett Kavanaugh's house after the attempted murder plot, Glenn and Stu discuss rhetoric's role in politics. CEO of CompassCare Pregnancy Services Jim Harden joins Glenn to discuss the firebombing of his clinic and how the Democrats don't seem to care. Professor emeritus for Harvard Law School Alan Dershowitz joins to discuss Jan. 6 and the imprisonment of its participants. Former chief economist Diana Furchtgott-Roth shares why inflation is out of control and what needs to be done to stop it. Glenn connects actor Matthew McConaughey's latest appearance at the White House to Hunter Biden. Glenn and Stu go over the Republicans who voted with the Democrats to pass a radical gun control bill.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices