David Bianculli

Exactly. Well, they see it as not – it hasn't been used sufficiently as a tool of foreign policy and they would like to see it used that way. So they think it can counter China's Belt and Road Initiative. Rather than simply doing humanitarian projects, they want it to be – they want it to be a weapon in the US arsenal.

And instead, Trump has mostly demolished it, sought to close it and it appears to be on the way out.

And instead, Trump has mostly demolished it, sought to close it and it appears to be on the way out.

And instead, Trump has mostly demolished it, sought to close it and it appears to be on the way out.

Matthew Feeney, Ph.D. : Instead, what you see is an argument that the U.S. is not doing enough to drill oil and gas. It needs to free up regulation to do those things, and it needs to stop tracking climate regulations. It needs to stop doing research on climate and let private industry take over all of those things.

Matthew Feeney, Ph.D. : Instead, what you see is an argument that the U.S. is not doing enough to drill oil and gas. It needs to free up regulation to do those things, and it needs to stop tracking climate regulations. It needs to stop doing research on climate and let private industry take over all of those things.

Matthew Feeney, Ph.D. : Instead, what you see is an argument that the U.S. is not doing enough to drill oil and gas. It needs to free up regulation to do those things, and it needs to stop tracking climate regulations. It needs to stop doing research on climate and let private industry take over all of those things.

Unlike Trump, it basically ignores it. Trump has said it's a hoax. They don't do that. They just argue in a kind of vague fashion that – You know, innovation will solve the problems of climate change insofar as they exist. And they try to paint this positive vision where, you know, in the 1970s, the air was dirty and the rivers were burning. But we've made a lot of progress since then.

Unlike Trump, it basically ignores it. Trump has said it's a hoax. They don't do that. They just argue in a kind of vague fashion that – You know, innovation will solve the problems of climate change insofar as they exist. And they try to paint this positive vision where, you know, in the 1970s, the air was dirty and the rivers were burning. But we've made a lot of progress since then.

Unlike Trump, it basically ignores it. Trump has said it's a hoax. They don't do that. They just argue in a kind of vague fashion that – You know, innovation will solve the problems of climate change insofar as they exist. And they try to paint this positive vision where, you know, in the 1970s, the air was dirty and the rivers were burning. But we've made a lot of progress since then.

And now we need to let business go. And environmentalists just refuse to acknowledge that we have made this progress. And so they kind of try to ignore it. But they also want to get rid of a lot of the federal agencies that track data on climate and do the research that shows the dangers of climate change and shows where it's having effects already.

And now we need to let business go. And environmentalists just refuse to acknowledge that we have made this progress. And so they kind of try to ignore it. But they also want to get rid of a lot of the federal agencies that track data on climate and do the research that shows the dangers of climate change and shows where it's having effects already.

And now we need to let business go. And environmentalists just refuse to acknowledge that we have made this progress. And so they kind of try to ignore it. But they also want to get rid of a lot of the federal agencies that track data on climate and do the research that shows the dangers of climate change and shows where it's having effects already.

It's skeptical of wind power. They try to blame, for example, the Texas blackouts a few years ago on wind power. So they're not as – Well, address that.

It's skeptical of wind power. They try to blame, for example, the Texas blackouts a few years ago on wind power. So they're not as – Well, address that.

It's skeptical of wind power. They try to blame, for example, the Texas blackouts a few years ago on wind power. So they're not as – Well, address that.

The research on the Texas blackout shows that there were a bunch of causes, but one of the biggest ones was a failure of natural gas plants. It was not a problem of renewable energy like wind. And yet what we see in Project 2025 is an argument that we need to double or triple down on natural gas in order to make the U.S. energy system more resilient in their view.

The research on the Texas blackout shows that there were a bunch of causes, but one of the biggest ones was a failure of natural gas plants. It was not a problem of renewable energy like wind. And yet what we see in Project 2025 is an argument that we need to double or triple down on natural gas in order to make the U.S. energy system more resilient in their view.

The research on the Texas blackout shows that there were a bunch of causes, but one of the biggest ones was a failure of natural gas plants. It was not a problem of renewable energy like wind. And yet what we see in Project 2025 is an argument that we need to double or triple down on natural gas in order to make the U.S. energy system more resilient in their view.

I think that's right. I think it's very much a work in progress. Paul Danz, who led the effort, gave an interview to Politico recently, and he said that so far the implementation had been beyond his wildest dreams. But there is so much still to do. I think they are thinking on a much longer timescale than simply 100 days or four years.