SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
desmog
Analysis Finds Majority of Trump Cabinet Tied to Project 2025 Groups
"Project 2025 isn't just influential in Washington. Its friends and creators are literally running the show."
Jun 03, 2025
Despite repeatedly attempting to distance himself from Project 2025 during his reelection campaign, U.S. President Donald Trump's administration employs dozens of senior officials with links to the Heritage Foundation-led plan to expand executive power and shrink the federal government—including a majority of his Cabinet.
That's according to an interactive analysis published Monday by the international climate-focused news outlet DeSmog, which found that more than 50 high-level Trump administration officials have ties to groups behind Project 2025.
That figure includes many of Trump's closest advisers, including Stephen Miller and Elon Musk, who recently stepped down as the de facto head of the so-called Department of Government Efficiency. It also includes 14 out of 24 Cabinet-level officials, or 70% of the Cabinet.
"That's a hugely significant finding," Duke University history and public policy professor Nancy MacLean told DeSmog. "In Heritage's own longtime language, 'personnel is policy.' It shows the incredible bad faith of Trump's denials, because this is who he stocked his administration with."
🚨 NEW INVESTIGATION: We mapped the Trump administration's ties to Project 2025 and found something stunning—70% of his Cabinet is connected to the groups behind the Heritage Foundation plan. This despite Trump's repeated denials during the campaign. 🧵
— DeSmog (@desmog.com) June 3, 2025 at 6:19 AM
The analysis notes:
Some of the officials directly authored parts of "The Mandate for Leadership," the now-notorious, 900-page proposal to "dismantle the administrative state"—the meat of Project 2025. Others recently worked for, donated to, or otherwise collaborated with one or more of the dozens of conservative groups that created the distinctly Christian nationalist-flavored document. Some of these high-ranking officials have connections to five or more different Project 2025 groups.
"In other words, Project 2025 isn't just influential in Washington. Its friends and creators are literally running the show," DeSmog said. "Which helps to explain why the Trump administration has worked swiftly to implement the vision described in the 'Mandate.'"
DeSmog countered Trump's claims to "know nothing about Project 2025" or "who is behind it" by highlighting a host of his administration's policies and practices that track the the initiative. At least 140 people who worked in Trump's first administration—including six former Cabinet secretaries—have also been involved with Project 2025.
Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought co-authored the policy portion of Project 2025, which includes dramatic cuts to critical public programs, abolishing or gutting essential government agencies, a national abortion ban, and a litany of additional far-right wish list items.
Vought is lying. 60-70% of Project 2025's executive action proposals have been initiated or implemented — like gutting education and environmental laws. 30-40% is currently proposed as legislation — gutting healthcare, banking deregulations, voter suppression, and more.
[image or embed]
— Melanie D’Arrigo (@darrigomelanie.bsky.social) June 1, 2025 at 7:03 AM
"From across-the-board tariffs to the mass firing of tens of thousands of federal workers to attacking inclusive language and initiatives, from gutting whole agencies and departments to dramatically stepping up the rate of deportations to the broad-scale rollback of environmental regulations and initiatives, a clear pattern has emerged: if the Trump administration's doing it, Project 2025 probably spelled it out first," the outlet said.
"This matters because Americans overwhelmingly rejected Project 2025," DeSmog contented in a post on the social media site Bluesky. "A pre-election survey showed 4% approval. Trump wouldn't touch it. Yet the plan's architects and allies now run the executive branch."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Incredibly Disturbing' Docs Reveal Oil Giant Shell Knew About Climate Impacts Even Earlier
"Despite internal awareness, the company systematically downplayed the problem to the public, instead promoting more and more fossil fuel use despite the dangers," said one expert. "Now, five decades later, Shell continues to dawdle and delay."
Apr 03, 2023
Reporting on a cache of documents published over the weekend shows Shell knew about the impact of fossil fuels even earlier than previously revealed, potentially bolstering legal efforts to hold Big Oil accountable for the global climate emergency.
The reporting from DeSmog and Follow the Money is based on Dirty Pearls: Exposing Shell's hidden legacy of climate change accountability, 1970-1990, a project for which researcher Vatan Hüzeir compiled 201 books, correspondence, documents, scholarship, and other materials.
Hüzeir—a climate activist, Erasmus University Rotterdam Ph.D. candidate, and founder and director of the Dutch think tank Changerism—collected the documents from former Shell staff, people close to the company, and private and public archives from January 2017 and October 2022.
Following explosive revelations about what ExxonMobil knew about fossil fuels driving global heating, investigations in 2017 and 2018 uncovered that Shell's scientists privately warned about the impact of its products in the 1980s.
"These findings add fuel to the flames of efforts to hold oil and gas companies accountable for their decades of climate damages and denial."
However, as Follow the Money detailed, the newly unveiled records show that "Shell already began collecting knowledge about climate change in the 1960s. The company not only kept well abreast of climate science, but also funded research. As a result, Shell already knew in the 1970s that burning fossil fuels could lead to alarming climate change."
Faced with a global oil crisis, rather than using its climate information to publicly sound the alarm and shift to cleaner practices, the company "focused instead on a nonsustainable profit model," launching Shell Coal International in 1974.
The following year, a study Shell was involved with warned that "increases in the CO2 content of the atmosphere could lead to the so-called greenhouse effect... which would be enough to induce major climatic changes." Three years later, another report warned that "the continued burning of fossil fuels will lead to a manifold increase in the atmospheric CO2 concentration."
A confidential study from 1989 states that if the global temperature rises more than 1.5°C—the target of the Paris climate agreement that came decades later—then "the potential refugee problem... could be unprecedented. Africans would push into Europe, Chinese into the Soviet Union, Latins into the United States, Indonesians into Australia. Boundaries would count for little—overwhelmed by the numbers. Conflicts would abound. Civilization could prove a fragile thing."
Duncan Meisel, executive director of the campaign Clean Creatives, which targets advertising and public relations firms that work for fossil fuel companies, declared Monday that "what these new documents show is incredibly disturbing."
"In the 1980s, Shell scientists laid out two pathways for the planet: one where energy companies undertook a smooth transition to clean energy and one where fossil fuel demand continued to rise, creating 'more storms, more droughts, more deluges,'" he summarized. "Since the publication of that forecast, Shell has pushed at every turn to create more fossil fuel demand, creating exactly the devastating outcomes they predicted."
The Center for Climate Integrity said the records provide the world "more damning evidence" that the company knew its business model was having disastrous impacts on the world and its people. As the group put it: "They knew. They lied. They need to pay."
Along with the two initial media reports, some of the Shell materials have been published by the Climate Files database.
"Although these first articles refer to only 38 of the many more documents amassed for Dirty Pearls, they tell the story of Shell having engaged in what I call 'climate change uncertaintism' and 'climate change negligence,'" Hüzeir said in a statement. "The former points to Shell's keen willingness to emphasize scientific uncertainty about the potential of global warming in its public reporting, even though scholarly consensus on the future reality of a warmer world was already forming at the time."
"The latter points to Shell's negligence of its own in-house knowledge of potential global warming in public reporting, although express consideration of that knowledge was to be reasonably expected," he added. "Both treatments were political in the sense that they served to push for fossil fuels and especially coal, over renewables, as the culturally preferred sources of energy for the foreseeable future. This is despite Shell's awareness of possibly dangerous climate change associated with unabated fossil fuel combustion. Both treatments were strategic because, by extension, they protected Shell's hydrocarbon-based business model."
\u201c@shellslies @ScientistsX @ScientistRebel1 @SR_Netherlands @xrBmthXchPoole @ScotlandXr @XR_Belgium @XR_NYC @XRebellionUK @ExtinctionR @XRLeipzig Brilliant research by @VatanHuzeir @Changerism, who compiled 201 company documents, official correspondence, reports, academic studies & other material showing #ShellKnew about #ClimateChange, systematically downplayed problems & pushed use of #FossilFuels\nhttps://t.co/xrtaFLOmC5\u201d— @ShellsLies (@@ShellsLies) 1680426494
Hüzeir stressed that "the exposure of these two early distinct corporate political treatments of climate change repositions Shell's later markedly aggressive response to global warming in the 1990s and 2000s as a second phase in Shell's developing relationship with global warming. First came climate change negligence and uncertaintism, and then, as global warming was entering public consciousness and significant uncertainties about its reality became insignificant in the 1970s and 1980s, then came climate change denialism and doubtism."
A spokesperson for Shell said:
The Shell Group did not have unique knowledge about climate change. The issue of climate change and how to tackle it has long been part of public discussion and scientific research that has evolved over many decades. It has been widely discussed and debated, in public view, among scientists, media, governments, business, and society as a whole. Our position on the issue has been publicly documented for more than 30 years, including in publications such as our Annual Report and Sustainability Report.
Meanwhile, researchers suggested to DeSmog that the documents could help with climate-related litigation against Shell.
"This impressive history shows for just how long climate issues were known by Shell personnel," said Ben Franta, senior research fellow in climate litigation at the University of Oxford. "Despite internal awareness, the company systematically downplayed the problem to the public, instead promoting more and more fossil fuel use despite the dangers. Now, five decades later, Shell continues to dawdle and delay."
\u201cread this whole thread. it shows why it's accurate to call fossil energy executives sociopaths.\u201d— Dr. Genevieve Guenther (@Dr. Genevieve Guenther) 1680537552
University of Miami professor Geoffrey Supran, known for his research into ExxonMobil, similarly said that "this report winds back the clock even further on Shell's long history of climate knowledge and deception."
"It reveals that Shell was ahead of the curve both in terms of its growing understanding, in private and academic circles, of the threat of climate change and unburnable fossil fuels, yet also in terms of its public dismissal of those realities," he added. "These findings add fuel to the flames of efforts to hold oil and gas companies accountable for their decades of climate damages and denial."
During Russia's war in Ukraine, Shell has joined Big Oil peers including Chevron and ExxonMobil in making massive profits. After recording a record $40 billion profit in 2022, Shell announced that its former CEO, Ben van Beurden, took home $11.7 million last year, up from $7.9 million the previous year.
As Bloomberg highlighted in February, "The company's record profits won't significantly accelerate its low-carbon ambitions." After putting about $3.5 billion into renewables along with projects that many climate groups call "false solutions," accounting for about 14% of total capital expenditures in 2022, Shell decided to keep its spending in such areas the same for this year—which, as Voxpointed out, is "less than half of what the company invests in oil and gas exploration and extraction."
The company has chosen not to ramp up clean energy investments despite increasingly urgent warnings from climate scientists and energy experts that humanity must keep fossil fuels in the ground and shift to renewables to avoid the most catastrophic impacts of global heating. As Meisel said Monday, "Shell is still pursuing the exact scenario that they knew would cause global disaster."
Shell is also compelled to act by a May 2021 Dutch court
order to cut carbon emissions 45% by 2030, compared with 2019 levels. Later that year, the company announced plans to move its tax residence from the Netherlands to the United Kingdom, and last year, it appealed the historic decision. Follow the Money noted that "in the meantime, Shell must carry out the court's ruling."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Industry Knew—and Hid—Dangers of Gas Stoves Over 50 Years Ago
"What? They knew? Next you're going to tell me that ExxonMobil knew about climate change and that the tobacco companies knew cigarettes caused cancer," one Democratic senator sarcastically said.
Mar 07, 2023
Newly uncovered documents published last week by DeSmog reveal that the leading gas industry trade group knew over 50 years ago that cooking with gas stoves could harm human health and tried to cover up the evidence.
The DeSmogrevelations regarding the American Gas Associationn (AGA) came as the gas industry is pushing back against climate and public health advocates' efforts to ban new gas stoves amid mounting scientific evidence that the appliances threaten the warming planet and people's health.
Rrcent studies—which, among other things, showed that nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, and ultrafine particles produced by gas stoves cause a range of health problems, including 1 in 8 U.S. cases of childhood asthma—sparked fast and furious backlash from the gas industry and its congressional boosters.
"It's less widely known that the gas industry has long sponsored its own research into the problem of indoor air pollution from gas stoves," wrote DeSmog's Rebecca John. "Now, newly discovered documents reveal that the American Gas Association was studying the health and indoor pollution risks from gas stoves as far back as the early 1970s—that they knew much more, at a far earlier date, than has been previously documented."
\u201cThe peer-reviewed research by the environmental think tank @RockyMtnInst, @Sydney_Uni , and @EinsteinMed estimated that \u201cnearly 13 percent of childhood asthma cases in the United States can be linked to having a gas stove in the home.\u201d https://t.co/jASvlSKYC5\u201d— DeSmog (@DeSmog) 1678105860
According to John:
More than 50 years ago, in 1972, AGA authored a draft report highlighting indoor air pollution concerns similar to those being raised by health experts and regulators today. In particular, this draft report examined what to do about problems related to the emission of carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides (collectively referred to as NOx) from domestic gas appliances. This draft, recently discovered in the U.S. National Archives, would eventually become an official report published by the National Industrial Pollution Control Council (NIPCC), a long-forgotten government advisory council composed of the nation's most powerful industrialists.
However, an entire section detailing those concerns, entitled "Indoor Air Quality Control," vanished from the final report. With it went all the important evidence that the gas industry was not only conducting research into what the NIPCC called the "NOx problem" but also that it was actively testing technological solutions "for the purposes of limiting the levels of carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides in household air."
"Instead," John wrote, "the final report argued gas' sole drawback was its limited availability, 'not its environmental impact.' It also lobbied for a massive expansion of U.S. domestic gas reserves and the rapid rollout of gas-based infrastructure, under the banner of replacing coal with gas to stem air pollution."
Reacting to the DeSmog report, U.S. Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.) sardonically tweeted: "What? They knew? Next you're going to tell me that ExxonMobil knew about climate change and that the tobacco companies knew cigarettes caused cancer."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular