This chapter is about energy. It says the department should be renamed and do less. It wants many energy programs closed. It says the government should not pick which energy sources win. It wants climate taken out of energy decisions. It also wants more nuclear work for the Navy.
The document says “should”Who acts: Congress, PresidentHow: legislationp. 366 in the PDF
What the document says
“The Department of Energy should be renamed and refocused as the Department of Energy Security and Advanced Science (DESAS).”
The chapter proposes refocusing the department on five existing core missions, and separately that government should not pick winners and losers among energy resources or commercial technologies, which it says can crowd out innovation, devolve into cronyism and raise prices.
What the document actually says
“The Department of Energy should be renamed and refocused as the Department of Energy Security and Advanced Science (DESAS).”
That sentence, in plain words
The Energy Department should get a new name. It should also get a narrower job.
What this is about
This department handles energy and science. The book says it does too much else. It wants a new name and a smaller job.
Read against the documents indexed here on August 26, 2026, and nothing was found that answers this. The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management's rule of June 6, 2025 renames the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America throughout its regulations, under Executive Order 14172. It is a renaming, which is why it surfaced, but of a body of water. Nothing indexed renames the Department of Energy or refocuses it on the five missions the chapter lists, and renaming a department would take an act of Congress. That is a record of a search, not a finding that nothing has happened: an act this site does not hold, or one that answers the proposal in words unlike its own, would not be caught by it.
The document says “should”Who acts: DOE, CongressHow: internal managementp. 369 in the PDF
What the document says
“Eliminate political and climate-change interference in DOE approvals of liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports.”
The chapter also asks Congress to reform the Natural Gas Act so that required approvals extend beyond nations with free trade agreements to all American allies. It says in the same passage that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is an economic regulator and should not make itself a climate regulator.
What the document actually says
“Eliminate political and climate-change interference in DOE approvals of liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports.”
That sentence, in plain words
Take politics and climate out of these decisions. They are about sending gas abroad.
What this is about
Gas can be cooled into liquid and shipped. The government must approve each sale abroad. The book says climate should not be part of that call.
Executive Order 14154, signed January 20, 2025, directs the Secretary of Energy to restart reviews of liquefied natural gas export applications as expeditiously as possible and, in weighing the public interest, to consider economic and employment impacts and the effect on the security of allies and partners. A separate section disbands the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases, withdraws its estimates and guidance, and tells agencies in permitting and regulatory processes to adhere only to legislated environmental requirements. That removes a climate input from federal decisions and adds factors that favor approval. It stops short of the proposal in that the order never states that climate effects are excluded from the public interest test itself, and it does not carry out the chapter's separate request that Congress extend automatic approval beyond free trade agreement countries.
In plain English
The order restarts reviews of gas export bids. Jobs and allies are to be weighed. It also shuts a work group on the cost of greenhouse gas and pulls its guidance. That drops a climate input and adds factors that favor approval. But the order never says climate harm is ruled out of the test. And quick approval is not extended to more countries, which takes Congress.
The document says “should”Who acts: DOEHow: internal managementp. 370 in the PDF
What the document says
“The next Administration should stop using energy policy to advance politicized social agendas.”
The chapter names energy justice, Justice40 and diversity, equity and inclusion as programs it says can be transformed to promote politicized agendas. It says the department should focus on abundant, affordable, reliable and secure energy and should manage employees so that everyone is treated fairly on talent, skills and hard work.
What the document actually says
“The next Administration should stop using energy policy to advance politicized social agendas.”
That sentence, in plain words
Do not use energy rules to push causes. That should stop.
What this is about
Some energy programs aim to help certain communities. The book calls those social causes. It says energy policy should not be used that way.
Addresses the chapter's subject of removing what it calls politicized considerations from energy policy, by a different route: this order works through revocations and methodology instructions rather than through the departmental programs the chapter named.
In plain English
The book asked that politics be kept out of energy policy. The order takes up that subject. But it takes a new route. It works by pulling old orders and setting new ways to weigh costs. It does not touch the programs the book named.
The document says “should”Who acts: Congress, PresidentHow: legislationp. 374 in the PDF
What the document says
“The next Administration should work with Congress to eliminate all DOE applied energy programs including OE”
The chapter repeats this proposal office by office, asking for the elimination of the offices covering electricity, fossil energy and carbon management, nuclear energy and energy efficiency and renewable energy. It says taxpayer dollars should not subsidize preferred businesses and energy resources, which it says distorts the market and undermines reliability. It allows a possible exception for work related to basic science for new energy technology.
What the document actually says
“The next Administration should work with Congress to eliminate all DOE applied energy programs including OE”
That sentence, in plain words
Work with Congress to close these energy programs. All of them.
What this is about
The department runs programs that help bring energy technology to market. The book says private firms should do that. It wants the programs closed.
Public Law 119-74, enacted January 23, 2026, acts on the same offices the passage names and funds them. Title III appropriates $3,100,000,000 under the heading Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, $235,000,000 under Electricity, $1,785,000,000 under Nuclear Energy and $720,000,000 under Fossil Energy, each for fiscal year 2026 and each to remain available until expended. The passage asks Congress to eliminate those applied energy programs. The fit breaks down in that an appropriations act does not decide whether an office continues to exist: it neither creates nor abolishes any of these offices, it sets amounts for a single fiscal year, and it says nothing about the exception for basic science research the chapter allows.
In plain English
A law of January 23, 2026 funds the same energy offices the passage would close. It gives $3.1 billion for one, $235 million for another, and more for nuclear and coal work. But a spending law does not decide if an office lives on. It sets sums for one year and ends nothing.
The document says “should”Who acts: Congress, PresidentHow: legislationp. 385 in the PDF
What the document says
“Eliminate ARPA-E. The next Administration should work with Congress to eliminate ARPA–E.”
The chapter says the agency is unnecessary, risks taxpayer dollars and interferes with risk-benefit decisions that should be made by the private sector. ARPA-E funds early-stage energy research thought too risky for private investment.
What the document actually says
“Eliminate ARPA-E. The next Administration should work with Congress to eliminate ARPA–E.”
That sentence, in plain words
Close ARPA-E. The next team should work with Congress to end it.
What this is about
ARPA-E pays for risky energy research. The idea is that firms will not fund it. The book says that is not the government's job.
Public Law 119-74 appropriates $350,000,000 under the heading Advanced Research Projects Agency, Energy for the activities authorized by section 5012 of the America COMPETES Act, of which $40,000,000 is available until September 30, 2027 for program direction. The passage asks Congress to eliminate that agency, and the act instead names it and funds it for fiscal year 2026. The fit breaks down in that the act carries no provision addressing whether the agency should continue, repeals no part of its authorizing statute, and reaches only one fiscal year, so it records a funding decision rather than a decision on the agency's existence.
In plain English
The same 2026 spending law gives $350 million to the energy research agency the passage would close. It names the agency and funds it for one year. But the law says nothing about whether the agency should go on. It repeals no part of the law that set it up.
The document says “should”Who acts: DOEHow: internal managementp. 383 in the PDF
What the document says
“Should not back any new loans or loan guarantees.”
The chapter says taxpayers should not be backing risky business ventures or politically preferred commercial enterprises, and asks that the department also seek to sunset its loan authority through Congress and eventually eliminate the Loan Programs Office.
What the document actually says
“Should not back any new loans or loan guarantees.”
That sentence, in plain words
Do not back any new loans. Do not guarantee any either.
What this is about
The department lends money for energy projects. It also promises to cover some private loans. The book says it should stop doing both.
The passage asks that the department not back any new loans or loan guarantees. Public Law 119-74 provides $150,000,000, to remain available until expended, for the cost of loan guarantees for the construction of small modular reactors or advanced nuclear reactors under section 1703(b)(4) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, and attaches provisos restricting which projects those commitments may cover. The fit breaks down in that the act supplies subsidy cost and conditions rather than directing the department to make any particular loan, it says nothing about the department's existing loan portfolio, and the passage addresses what the department should choose to do while the act addresses what Congress has made available.
In plain English
The passage asked the energy department to back no new loans. The 2026 spending law puts up $150 million toward loan aid for new nuclear plants. It does not order any one loan to be made. The law says what money is there, not what the department must choose.
The document says “should”Who acts: Congress, DOEHow: legislationp. 383 in the PDF
What the document says
“Should seek to sunset DOE’s loan authority through Congress and eventually eliminate the Loan Program Office.”
This accompanies the proposal to make no new loans, and follows the chapter's argument that taxpayers should not have their dollars at risk without gaining the economic rewards of success.
What the document actually says
“Should seek to sunset DOE’s loan authority through Congress and eventually eliminate the Loan Program Office.”
That sentence, in plain words
Ask Congress to end this power. Then close the loan office for good.
What this is about
The department has power to lend money. The book says Congress should take it away. Then the loan office would close.
Public Law 119-74 carries a heading for the Title 17 Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program, appropriates $35,000,000 for its necessary administrative expenses available until September 30, 2027, and adds $150,000,000 for the cost of loan guarantees for the construction of small modular reactors or advanced nuclear reactors eligible under section 1703(b)(4) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The passage asks that the department's loan authority be sunset through Congress and the Loan Programs Office eventually eliminated, and the act continues and funds that program instead. The fit breaks down in that the act does not name the Loan Programs Office, sets no end date for the lending authority in either direction, and is an appropriation for one fiscal year rather than a decision on whether the authority should be sunset.
In plain English
The 2026 spending law funds the energy loan guarantee program. It gives $35 million for running costs and $150 million toward loan guarantees for small nuclear plants. The passage asked that this lending power be ended in time. Instead the law keeps it, sets no end date, and never names the loan office.
The document says “should”Who acts: CongressHow: legislationp. 381 in the PDF
What the document says
“Congress should rescind any money not already spent.”
The chapter notes that the Grid Deployment Office oversees nearly $20 billion in new appropriations from the infrastructure act, including grid modernization grants, the transmission facilitation program and the civil nuclear credit program. It asks that grants properly focused on grid reliability and security be reassigned to the reformed cyber and energy security office.
What the document actually says
“Congress should rescind any money not already spent.”
That sentence, in plain words
Congress should take back any money not yet spent.
What this is about
Congress gave this office about $20 billion. Much of it is not spent yet. The book says Congress should take it back.
Read against the documents indexed here on August 26, 2026, and nothing was found that answers this. The Rescissions Act of 2025, enacted July 24, 2025, cancels unobligated balances, which is the mechanism the chapter asks for, but the accounts it names are foreign assistance and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. It touches no Energy Department account. Nothing indexed rescinds the unspent grid modernization, transmission facilitation or civil nuclear credit money from the infrastructure act, or reassigns any of it to a cyber and energy security office. That is a record of a search, not a finding that nothing has happened: an act this site does not hold, or one that answers the proposal in words unlike its own, would not be caught by it.
The document says “should”Who acts: Congress, DOEHow: legislationp. 379 in the PDF
What the document says
“Administration should work with Congress to modify or repeal the law mandating energy efficiency standards.”
The chapter says that before or instead of repeal, the department can give full force to provisions already in the law that limit regulatory overreach and guard against excessively stringent standards. It cites the Trump Administration's approach of prioritizing the few appliance rules likely to save consumers the most energy and ensuring new standards do not compromise product quality or remove features.
What the document actually says
“Administration should work with Congress to modify or repeal the law mandating energy efficiency standards.”
That sentence, in plain words
Work with Congress on the law behind appliance rules. Change it or repeal it.
What this is about
A law makes the government set energy rules for appliances. It covers things like washing machines. The book says the law should change or end.
Public Law 119-6 disapproves, under the Congressional Review Act, the Energy Department's rule on energy conservation standards for consumer gas-fired instantaneous water heaters, and provides that the rule shall have no force or effect. Three companion laws do the same for walk-in coolers and freezers, for appliance certification and labeling, and for commercial refrigerators. This is Congress and the President acting together against particular standards, which is nearer the chapter's fallback of narrowing which appliance rules proceed than to what it asks for. It does not modify or repeal the law that mandates the standards: the statutory scheme stands, the department keeps its duty to set standards, and the resolutions state no reason.
In plain English
Congress struck down four energy rules for appliances, and the President signed. That is closer to the chapter's backup plan of trimming such rules. The law that requires the standards is not touched. The agency still has to set them.
The document says “should”Who acts: PresidentHow: executive orderp. 373 in the PDF
What the document says
“A good first step would be to reinstate an iteration of the Trump Administration’s Executive Order 13920”
Executive Order 13920 restricted the use of bulk power system equipment supplied by foreign adversaries. The chapter says the cyber and energy security office is properly focused on threats to the grid from inverter-based resources like wind and solar but needs to cover the whole energy system, including the link between natural gas and electricity generation, and cybersecurity.
What the document actually says
“A good first step would be to reinstate an iteration of the Trump Administration’s Executive Order 13920”
That sentence, in plain words
A good first step is bringing back one Trump order. Its number is 13920.
What this is about
One order limited foreign parts in the power grid. The worry was that they could be used to attack it. The book says that order should come back.
Read against the documents indexed here on August 26, 2026, and nothing was found that answers this. The notice of May 9, 2025 continues for one year the national emergency declared by Executive Order 13873 in 2019 over the information and communications technology and services supply chain. That emergency addresses equipment supplied by foreign adversaries, which is the same concern, but in communications technology rather than the grid. It is not Executive Order 13920, and nothing indexed reinstates that order or any version of it for bulk-power system equipment. That is a record of a search, not a finding that nothing has happened: an act this site does not hold, or one that answers the proposal in words unlike its own, would not be caught by it.
The document says “should”Who acts: Congress, DOEHow: legislationp. 372 in the PDF
What the document says
“Expand the U.S. Navy and develop new nuclear naval reactors”
The chapter says the nuclear arsenal needs to be updated and reinvigorated to deal with threats from China and Russia, that the National Nuclear Security Administration has primary responsibility for designing new warheads and maintaining the existing arsenal, and that it also develops nuclear propulsion reactors for the Navy.
What the document actually says
“Expand the U.S. Navy and develop new nuclear naval reactors”
That sentence, in plain words
Make the Navy bigger. Build new nuclear engines for its ships.
What this is about
Some Navy ships run on nuclear power. The book wants more ships. It also wants new engines designed for them.
Public Law 119-21, enacted July 4, 2025, appropriates thirty-six sums to the Secretary of Defense for shipbuilding for fiscal year 2025, available through September 30, 2029. Twenty-one of them buy ships and craft, including $4,600,000,000 for a second Virginia-class submarine in fiscal year 2026 and $5,400,000,000 for two more guided missile destroyers, and fifteen build up the shipbuilding industrial base and workforce. That is the fleet expansion half of the passage. The fit breaks down on the other half: the section buys ships and yard capacity and says nothing about developing new nuclear naval reactors, it names neither the National Nuclear Security Administration nor its Naval Reactors program, and the chapter's proposal sits in a chapter about the Energy Department while this section runs to the Defense Department.
In plain English
The 2025 law gives the Defense Secretary money to build ships. It pays for a second submarine, two more destroyers, and work on shipyards and their staff. That is the fleet growth half of the ask. But it says nothing about building new nuclear reactors for ships.
The document says “should”Who acts: DOEHow: internal managementp. 371 in the PDF
What the document says
“The remaining 14 science and energy labs should focus on basic research projects”
The department oversees 17 national laboratories. The chapter says the three run by the National Nuclear Security Administration should continue on national security, and that the other 14 should leave demonstration and deployment of technology to the private sector, realigning to limit duplication and mission creep.
What the document actually says
“The remaining 14 science and energy labs should focus on basic research projects”
That sentence, in plain words
The other 14 labs should stick to basic research.
What this is about
The government runs 17 research labs. Three work on weapons. The book says the rest should study basics only. Firms would handle the rest.
Read against the documents indexed here on August 26, 2026, and nothing was found that answers this. Executive Order 14363 of November 24, 2025 establishes the Genesis Mission and directs the Energy Secretary to build a platform tying together the national laboratories' supercomputers, data and research facilities and to name at least 20 national science and technology challenges for it. Executive Order 14301 of May 23, 2025 reforms how the department tests reactors and creates a pilot for reactors built outside the laboratories. Both act on what the laboratories do, but neither narrows the 14 science and energy laboratories to basic research, and neither tells them to leave demonstration and deployment to the private sector. That is a record of a search, not a finding that nothing has happened: an act this site does not hold, or one that answers the proposal in words unlike its own, would not be caught by it.
The document says “should”Who acts: DOEHow: internal managementp. 376 in the PDF
What the document says
“CCUS programs should be left to the private sector to develop.”
Carbon capture, utilization and storage removes carbon dioxide from emissions or the air for storage or use. The chapter states that despite the expansion of the 45Q tax credit to $87 per ton most such technology remains economically unviable, and that if the office continues any research it should focus more on innovative utilization.
What the document actually says
“CCUS programs should be left to the private sector to develop.”
That sentence, in plain words
Let firms build this on their own. The government should step back.
What this is about
Carbon capture traps carbon before it reaches the air. The book says it costs too much to work. It says firms should pay for it, not taxpayers.
Read against the documents indexed here on August 26, 2026, and nothing was found that answers this. Nothing indexed leaves carbon capture, utilization and storage to the private sector or ends the Energy Department's work on it. The nearest candidate, a Federal Highway Administration rule of April 18, 2025, repeals the requirement that state transportation departments and metropolitan planning organizations set declining carbon dioxide targets and report progress. It is about highway emissions reporting, not about capture technology or the office that funds it. That is a record of a search, not a finding that nothing has happened: an act this site does not hold, or one that answers the proposal in words unlike its own, would not be caught by it.
Bernard L. McNamee, “Department of Energy and Related Commissions,” in Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise, edited by Paul Dans and Steven Groves (The Heritage Foundation, 2023), pp. 363-416. https://static.heritage.org/project2025/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf
This page
“Department of Energy and Related Commissions,” Project 2025, chapter 12. Read the Mandate, https://readthemandate.org/project-2025/chapter-12/ (retrieved October 7, 2026).
Cite the document when the claim is about what the document says. Cite this page when the indexing, the wording or the record of what has happened is what is being relied on.
What This Page Covers, and What It Leaves Out
Recommendations on the department's name and mission, its applied energy offices, lending, the national laboratories, nuclear security, grid security, appliance standards and energy exports.
The chapter's office-by-office budget figures, its detailed treatment of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and many narrower program items.
This chapter proposes eliminating the same class of programs several times over, once for each office. Those are recorded as a single proposal with the offices named in the summary rather than as separate entries, which understates how many times the chapter makes the request.
