Project 2025

In recent years, discussions surrounding the role of federal agencies in environmental regulation have intensified, and an initiative that has drawn attention is Project 2025. Project 2025 is a proposed blueprint for reshaping the federal government’s approach to governance, including environmental policy. Though details of the project are still unfolding, its potential impacts warrant taking a peek under the hood.

Project 2025: What, When, Why

Project 2025 is an initiative led by conservative policy organizations who profess that the idea behind those policies is to reimagine the federal government through streamlining. Streamlining in this context means eliminating numerous regulations (maybe even entire agencies?) that have been put in place both in reaction to events and in anticipation of future problems. Central to the project is a vision of the new administration focusing on reducing federal oversight across the board, and curtailing the reach of agencies like the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”). Proponents argue that this approach will vastly reduce or eliminate regulatory overreach, reduce bureaucratic inefficiencies, and promote economic growth by easing burdens on industries. Critics, however, contend that this vision risks undermining the foundational safeguards that protect public health and the environment. Project 2025’s implications for environmental regulation—especially in a state as environmentally proactive as California—would likely be significant. But now, we have far more questions than answers.

Project 2025 and EPA

One outcome is that there will be a significant restructuring of the EPA. Some of what would follow is easy to guess:

1. Budget Reductions: Scaling back the EPA’s funding would lessen its ability to enforce existing regulations, conduct scientific research, and respond to environmental emergencies. Reduced federal support typically places greater pressure on states to fill the gap.
2. Regulatory Rollbacks: The initiative may target landmark environmental laws, such as the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act, which have historically served as the backbone of U.S. environmental policy. The Clean Water Act, for example, is what establishes the basic framework for protecting water quality. Taking the claws out of these laws will have an impact on efforts to address air and water pollution.
3. Shift Toward State Responsibility: By advocating for reduced federal oversight, Project 2025 pushes responsibility for environmental protections down to the state level. While some states may embrace this autonomy, many lack the resources or political will to enforce robust environmental protections. The Flint water crisis in Michigan underscores the critical role of federal oversight in protecting public health. When state agencies failed to address lead contamination in the city’s water supply, the EPA’s delayed response drew criticism. A weakened EPA under Project 2025 will likely leave communities more vulnerable to all types of emergencies by reducing federal capacity to intervene in state-level failures and make it more difficult to put together a comprehensive and successful response.

Project 2025 and California

Speaking of shifting responsibility to the states, California has long been a leader in environmental policy, pioneering measures to enforce water quality standards, combat climate change, reduce emissions, and protect natural resources. The state’s unique waiver under the Clean Air Act allows it to set stricter air quality standards than those mandated at the federal level—a precedent that other states have chosen to follow. A weakened EPA jeopardizes that waiver, undermining its capacity to set stricter vehicle emissions standards. Such a move would affect not just California but the more than a dozen states that follow its standards. States with weaker regulations should expect to see increased pollution and related public health issues, while progressive states like California struggle to maintain their standards without federal support. Under Project 2025, California will face challenges.

Project 2025 on the Courthouse Steps 

Beyond regulatory agencies, Project 2025 will influence how environmental cases are adjudicated at the state, federal, and Supreme Court levels:

1. State Courts: With the potential for more environmental oversight to shift to the states, state courts could see a surge in litigation over environmental policies. Disparities in how state courts interpret environmental laws could lead to a fragmented legal landscape. For example, in 2019, the Trump administration sought to revoke California’s waiver under the Clean Air Act, which allows the state to set stricter vehicle emissions standards. The attempt led to a protracted legal battle and highlighted the tension between federal and state authority in environmental regulation. Under Project 2025, similar rollbacks could intensify.
2. Federal Courts: A scaled-back EPA and weaker federal environmental laws could reduce the number of federal cases addressing environmental protections. Industries and advocacy groups would need to increasingly turn to federal courts to challenge state-level regulations, creating a battleground for disputes over federalism and states’ rights.
3. U.S. Supreme Court: The Supreme Court, with its conservative majority, could play a pivotal role in shaping the future of environmental law. Cases that challenge the scope of federal regulatory power or states’ ability to enact stricter standards may come before the Court. Decisions in these cases could set lasting precedents, potentially limiting the federal government’s role in environmental protection and granting states more autonomy—or, conversely, restricting state authority to exceed federal standards. Project 2025 could build on this momentum, further restricting the EPA’s ability to address climate change and pollution at a national level.

From the Courthouse Steps to the Boardroom

It’s most likely that businesses small and large will experience both opportunities and challenges under Project 2025. On one hand, reduced federal environmental regulations might lower compliance costs for small businesses, making it easier for them to operate with less compliance over their reporting and monitoring rules. However, the absence of clear and consistent federal guidelines might also create uncertainty, as businesses would have to navigate a patchwork of state-level regulations. Furthermore, as the past has shown us, weakened environmental protections lead to increased pollution and resource scarcity, which in turn harms industries that depend on clean air, water, and sustainable resources. 

Conclusion

Project 2025 represents a significant shift in how environmental regulation might be approached in the United States. For the EPA, this initiative could mean reduced influence, fewer resources, and diminished enforcement power. For California, a state that has long been at the forefront of environmental protection, the implications could include heightened legal battles, economic challenges, and obstacles to achieving ambitious climate goals. The initiative’s influence on the judicial system could further complicate the landscape, potentially leading to inconsistent rulings and precedents that shape the future of environmental governance. Small businesses, while benefiting from reduced regulatory burdens, might also face uncertainties in adapting to a fragmented regulatory framework. Policymakers, industry leaders, and citizens alike must consider the long-term effects of reshaping federal environmental regulations, and understand what real-world consequences look like.