Read theMandate

Project 2025 › Chapter 16

Department of the Interior

Chapter 16 · pp. 517–544 · William Perry Pendley

What this chapter is about

This chapter is about public land. It says the land should be used more, not less. It wants more drilling and more mining. It wants old land orders in Alaska lifted. It also says Congress should let the government cut the number of wild horses on public land.

11 proposals indexed from this chapter.

The document says “must”Who acts: CongressHow: legislationp. 529 in the PDF
What the document says

“Congress must enact laws permitting the BLM to dispose humanely of these animals.”

Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise, p. 529

The chapter states there are 95,000 wild horses and burros on nearly 32 million acres, triple what it says the range can support, that the population has more than doubled in ten years and grows at 10 to 15 percent annually, and that more than 47,000 already gathered are held in off-range corrals at a cost of nearly $50 million a year. It cites a 2019 joint policy of the American Association of Equine Practitioners and the American Veterinary Medical Association calling for further reducing overpopulation, endorsed by the National Wild Horse and Burro Advisory Board, and says the ASPCA and the Humane Society recognize that unchecked herd growth threatens the animals. It lists the BLM's 2020 approach, which includes expanded adoptions and sales of gathered horses, increased gathers and holding capacity, fertility control and contraceptive research, and says all of that will not be enough.

What the document actually says

“Congress must enact laws permitting the BLM to dispose humanely of these animals.”

Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise, p. 529
That sentence, in plain words

None of that will fix it. Congress must pass a law letting the agency put these animals down humanely.

What this is about

About 95,000 wild horses and burros live on public land. The book says the land cannot feed them all. Some are caught and kept in pens. That costs about $50 million a year. The book says Congress should let the agency get rid of some of them.

What is disputed
The document does not define this “dispose humanely”

The chapter does not define what disposing humanely would mean, and names no method. The words slaughter and euthanize appear nowhere in this chapter. Slaughter appears once in the whole book, on p.305, in a reference to the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act of 1978 in a passage about state meat inspection, unconnected to horses.

What this means is contested

Widely reported as a proposal to sell wild horses for slaughter. The chapter does mention sales, but as a description of the BLM's existing 2020 approach, which it says is insufficient. Readers who take the sentence to mean killing point out that what currently stops the BLM from destroying healthy excess animals, or selling them without limitation, is a set of appropriations restrictions, so a law permitting disposal would have to displace them. Readers who reject that point out the chapter says neither, and cites veterinary and animal welfare bodies on overpopulation.

What has happened
Same subject, different route

Making consolidated appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2026, and for other purposes

2026-01-23 · 140 Stat. 5

Public Law 119-74 acts on the same animals and runs the other way. It appropriates $144,000,000 for the wild horse and burro program, authorizes multiyear contracts and cooperative agreements for the long-term care and maintenance of excess wild horses and burros on private land, provides that amounts appropriated by the act shall not be available for the destruction of any healthy, unadopted wild horse or burro under the jurisdiction of the Secretary concerned or for a sale that results in the animal being processed into a commercial product, and bars a government agency receiving a transferred animal from euthanizing it except on a licensed veterinarian's recommendation in a case of severe injury, illness or advanced age. The passage asks Congress to enact laws permitting the Bureau of Land Management to dispose humanely of these animals. The fit breaks down in that these are conditions on one act's appropriations rather than an amendment to the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act, and the act leaves the underlying statute untouched.

In plain English

The 2026 spending law runs the other way on wild horses. It gives $144 million for the program and pays for long term care on private land. Its money may not be used to kill a healthy horse or burro. The passage asked Congress for power to put these animals down, and the older statute is untouched.

The document says “must”Who acts: Congress, PresidentHow: legislationp. 532 in the PDF
What the document says

“the new Administration must seek repeal of the Antiquities Act of 1906”

Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise, p. 532

The Antiquities Act lets a President designate national monuments by proclamation. The chapter argues it permitted emergency action before statutory authority existed to protect special federal lands, and that in recent years Congress has designated as monuments the areas deserving it. It separately says the Trump review of monument designations was insufficient because only two monuments in one state were adjusted, names Maine and Oregon as places where downward adjustments should have followed, and asks that such adjustments be vigorously defended to obtain a Supreme Court ruling on a President's authority to shrink a monument.

What the document actually says

“the new Administration must seek repeal of the Antiquities Act of 1906”

Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise, p. 532
That sentence, in plain words

The next team must try to repeal this old law. It dates from 1906.

What this is about

A 1906 law lets a president protect land by proclamation. Those places are called national monuments. The book says Congress should do that job instead. It wants the law repealed.

What has happened
Same subject, different route

Modifying the Bears Ears National Monument

2026-07-13 · 91 FR 45169

Proclamation 11043 reduces the Bears Ears National Monument, and Proclamation 11044 of the same day, July 13, 2026, does the same for Grand Staircase-Escalante. Both use the Antiquities Act rather than seeking its repeal, reasoning that objects named in the prior proclamations are generic or common and that the reservations exceeded the smallest area compatible with their care. They answer the chapter's complaint that the earlier review adjusted too little, and they answer it in the same place the chapter called insufficient: two monuments in one state, Utah, with nothing done in Maine or Oregon. The act itself remains in force and no repeal has been sought.

In plain English

Two proclamations of July 13, 2026 shrink two national monuments in Utah. Both use the Antiquities Act rather than seeking its repeal. They answer the chapter's claim that an earlier review cut too little. But the act stays in force, and no repeal has been sought.

The document says “must”Who acts: President, DOIHow: internal managementp. 521 in the PDF
What the document says

“A new Administration must immediately roll back Biden’s orders, reinstate the Trump-era Energy Dominance Agenda”

Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise, p. 521

The chapter asks for the immediate reinstatement of a list of Trump-era secretarial orders and for the rescission of current ones, and separately for quarterly onshore oil and gas lease sales in all producing states, following an earlier instruction memorandum with expanded public notice and comment.

What the document actually says

“A new Administration must immediately roll back Biden’s orders, reinstate the Trump-era Energy Dominance Agenda”

Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise, p. 521
That sentence, in plain words

Undo the current orders at once. Bring back the energy plan from before.

What this is about

This department controls drilling on public land. The book says the current rules block it. It wants the older rules back.

What has happened
Closely matches

Unleashing Alaska's Extraordinary Resource Potential

2025-01-20 · 90 FR 8347

Matches the chapter's request to roll back current orders and restore an energy development agenda on Alaskan lands.

In plain English

The book asked that recent orders be rolled back and that energy work on Alaskan land resume. This order does that.

What cites those orders

1 agency rule

Each of these names the order above in its own summary, preamble or filing. That is a fact about the document, not a finding that it carries out this proposal: it is one step further away than the order is, and what it does about the proposal is a reading nobody has made here.

The document says “must”Who acts: DOI, BLMHow: internal managementp. 522 in the PDF
What the document says

“Reinstate quarterly onshore lease sales in all producing states”

Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise, p. 522

The chapter asks that these follow the model of an earlier BLM instruction memorandum with the adjustment of expanded public notice and comment, and that the Administration work with Congress on legislation including the Lease Now Act.

What the document actually says

“Reinstate quarterly onshore lease sales in all producing states”

Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise, p. 522
That sentence, in plain words

Hold land sales for drilling four times a year. Do it in every state that produces.

What this is about

Companies lease public land to drill. Those leases are sold at auctions. The book says the auctions should happen four times a year.

What has happened
Closely matches

To provide for reconciliation pursuant to title II of H. Con. Res. 14

2025-07-04 · 139 Stat. 72

Section 50101 of Public Law 119-21 requires the Secretary of the Interior to immediately resume quarterly onshore oil and gas lease sales under the Mineral Leasing Act, and to hold at least four sales a year of available land in each of nine named states, with a replacement sale in the same fiscal year if one is canceled or draws no bid. Congress rather than the BLM did it: the duty names nine states rather than all producing states, it does not restore the earlier BLM instruction memorandum, and it adds no expanded public notice and comment step, which the chapter asked for as an adjustment. None of the candidates offered for this proposal sets a lease sale schedule.

In plain English

The 2025 law tells the Interior Secretary to restart quarterly oil and gas lease sales on land. It requires at least four sales a year in each of nine named states. A canceled sale must be replaced the same year. But Congress did this, not the land agency, and the nine states are not all the states that drill.

The document says “must”Who acts: DOIHow: internal managementp. 530 in the PDF
What the document says

“the new Administration must immediately approve the Ambler Road Project”

Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise, p. 530

The chapter says approval would permit construction of a 211-mile roadway on the south side of the Brooks Range, and that it should proceed under the Secretary's authority in the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act and on the basis of the project's final environmental impact statement. It describes Alaska as having vast untapped mineral potential.

What the document actually says

“the new Administration must immediately approve the Ambler Road Project”

Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise, p. 530
That sentence, in plain words

Approve the Ambler Road plan right away.

What this is about

A mining road is planned in Alaska. It would run 211 miles. The book says it should be approved at once.

What has happened
Partly matches

Unleashing Alaska's Extraordinary Resource Potential

2025-01-20 · 90 FR 8347

The chapter asked for immediate approval of the Ambler Road project. This order pauses activity under the 2024 record of decision pending review and reinstates the 2020 record of decision, which is a step toward that outcome by a different route than immediate approval.

In plain English

The book asked that a road project in Alaska be approved at once. This order pauses work under the 2024 decision and brings back the 2020 one. That moves toward the same end by a different route, not by quick approval.

What cites those orders

1 agency rule

Each of these names the order above in its own summary, preamble or filing. That is a fact about the document, not a finding that it carries out this proposal: it is one step further away than the order is, and what it does about the proposal is a reading nobody has made here.

The document says “should”Who acts: DOI, BLMHow: internal managementp. 530 in the PDF
What the document says

“All other remaining BLM PLOs—all of which are more than 50 years old—should be revoked immediately.”

Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise, p. 530

The chapter states that Alaska and Alaska Natives each still have 5 million acres of entitlement outstanding, that public land orders issued by the BLM stand in the way, and that revoking one order in particular would deliver 1.3 million acres to the state and should be a top priority.

What the document actually says

“All other remaining BLM PLOs—all of which are more than 50 years old—should be revoked immediately.”

Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise, p. 530
That sentence, in plain words

The rest of these land orders are over 50 years old. Revoke them all at once.

What this is about

Alaska was promised land when it became a state. Some was never handed over. Old orders hold it back. The book says those orders should go.

What has happened
Partly matches

Unleashing Alaska's Extraordinary Resource Potential

2025-01-20 · 90 FR 8347

The chapter named Public Land Order 5150 specifically, saying its revocation would give Alaska 1.3 million acres and should be a top priority. This order directs that changes to it, including potential rescission, be evaluated. Directing an evaluation is not the revocation the chapter asked for.

In plain English

The book asked that old land orders in Alaska be pulled at once. It named one that would give the state 1.3 million acres. This order tells staff to study changes to it, which could include pulling it. A study is not the act the book asked for.

What cites those orders

1 agency rule

Each of these names the order above in its own summary, preamble or filing. That is a fact about the document, not a finding that it carries out this proposal: it is one step further away than the order is, and what it does about the proposal is a reading nobody has made here.

The document says “should consider”Who acts: CongressHow: legislationp. 533 in the PDF
What the document says

“Consideration should be given, for example, to eliminating judicial review of the adequacy of NEPA documents”

Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise, p. 533

The chapter raises this as something to consider rather than as a recommendation, and says it would allow Congress to engage in effective oversight of federal agencies when prudent. It separately asks that Trump-era environmental review reforms be restored, including time and page limits.

What the document actually says

“Consideration should be given, for example, to eliminating judicial review of the adequacy of NEPA documents”

Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise, p. 533
That sentence, in plain words

One idea is to stop courts checking these reports.

What this is about

Big projects need a report on harm to nature. People can sue if the report is poor. The book says courts could be shut out of that. It offers this as an idea.

What has happened
Partly matches

Unleashing American Energy

2025-01-20 · 90 FR 8353

Section 5(e) of Executive Order 14154 of January 20, 2025 directs the Director of the National Economic Council and the Director of the Office of Legislative Affairs to jointly prepare recommendations to Congress that provide greater certainty in the federal permitting process, including, but not limited to, streamlining the judicial review of the application of the National Environmental Policy Act. The passage raises eliminating judicial review as something to consider and directs it to Congress, and this is a directed step toward legislative recommendations on that question. The fit breaks down in that the order says streamlining rather than eliminating, it addresses judicial review of the application of the act rather than of the adequacy of environmental review documents, and the record indexed here does not show what the recommendations said or whether they were delivered.

In plain English

The order tells two White House aides to draft advice for Congress on faster permits. The advice is to cover court review under the main environmental law. The book raised ending court review as something to weigh. But the order says streamline, not end. It covers how the law is applied, not whether a study was good enough. The record does not show what the advice said.

The document says “must”Who acts: DOI, BLMHow: internal managementp. 533 in the PDF
What the document says

“the new Administration must immediately fulfill its responsibilities and manage the O&C lands for “permanent forest production””

Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise, p. 533

The O&C lands are Oregon forest lands governed by a 1937 statute requiring management for permanent forest production, with timber to be sold, cut and removed. The chapter says doing so would fulfill the congressional mandate, provide employment in rural Oregon and reduce the effects of wildfires.

What the document actually says

“the new Administration must immediately fulfill its responsibilities and manage the O&C lands for “permanent forest production””

Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise, p. 533
That sentence, in plain words

Manage these Oregon forests for timber. That is what the law says.

What this is about

Some Oregon forests are run under an old law. It says the timber should be cut and sold. The book says that is not happening now.

What has happened
Partly matches

Immediate Expansion of American Timber Production

2025-03-01 · 90 FR 11365

EO 14225 directs the Interior and Agriculture Secretaries to issue guidance expanding timber production, to submit a plan setting the annual volume to be offered for sale from BLM and Forest Service lands over four years, and to adopt categorical exclusions for thinning and salvage. The O&C lands are BLM land in western Oregon, so they fall inside that direction. The order never mentions the O&C lands, the 1937 statute or permanent forest production, and it sets a sale target across all federal lands rather than managing those lands under the mandate the proposal invokes.

In plain English

The order tells two departments to raise how much timber is sold. It sets a four year plan for sales on federal land. The Oregon lands the chapter names fall inside that. But the order never names them, nor the 1937 law the chapter leans on.

What cites those orders

1 agency rule

Each of these names the order above in its own summary, preamble or filing. That is a fact about the document, not a finding that it carries out this proposal: it is one step further away than the order is, and what it does about the proposal is a reading nobody has made here.

The document says “requires”Who acts: CongressHow: legislationp. 533 in the PDF
What the document says

“Meaningful reform of the Endangered Species Act requires that Congress take action to restore its original purpose”

Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise, p. 533

The chapter says the act is used to seize private property, prevent economic development and interfere with the rights of states over their wildlife populations, and asks Congress to end those uses. It says a new Administration should take immediate action in the meantime.

What the document actually says

“Meaningful reform of the Endangered Species Act requires that Congress take action to restore its original purpose”

Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise, p. 533
That sentence, in plain words

Congress must act on this law. It should go back to what it was for.

What this is about

One law protects animals at risk of dying out. The book says it is used to block building. It says Congress should change it.

Read against the documents indexed here on August 26, 2026, and nothing was found that answers this. The Endangered Species Act has not been amended. EO 14225 acts on how the act is implemented for one purpose: it directs agencies to use the emergency consultation regulations to facilitate timber production, tells the Secretary of the Interior as chairman of the Endangered Species Committee to review exemption applications promptly, and orders a report identifying obstacles to timber production that derive from the act. It leaves the statute as it stands and does not reach the private property, economic development or state wildlife authority questions the proposal raises. 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: DOIHow: internal managementp. 533 in the PDF
What the document says

“A new Administration should reinstate it.”

Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise, p. 533

The policy required the department to display and provide open access to all litigation settlements it entered and any attorneys' fees paid to end the litigation. The chapter says the current department ended the policy because the settlements it planned to enter and the fees it expected to pay would cause controversy.

What the document actually says

“A new Administration should reinstate it.”

Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise, p. 533
That sentence, in plain words

The next team should bring that rule back.

What this is about

The department settles lawsuits. It used to publish each deal. It also published the legal fees. The book says that should start again.

Read against the documents indexed here on August 26, 2026, and nothing was found that answers this. Nothing indexed restores publication of the department's litigation settlements and the attorneys' fees paid to end them. The candidate closest by title, rule-2025-15081, is an Army rule removing gender ideology language from a litigation regulation, not a settlement disclosure policy. 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 “must”Who acts: PresidentHow: executive orderp. 524 in the PDF
What the document says

“President Trump’s Schedule F proposal”

Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise, p. 524

The full passage says the Schedule F proposal on accountability in hiring must be reinstituted to bring success to these reforms. The chapter also says states are better resource managers than the federal government because they must live with the results, and asks the department to broaden state and tribal cooperative agreements. Schedule F is the subject of a separate proposal in chapter 3.

What the document actually says

“President Trump’s Schedule F proposal”

Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise, p. 524
That sentence, in plain words

There was a plan called Schedule F. President Trump put it forward.

What this is about

Schedule F would make some staff easy to fire. It covers workers whose jobs shape policy. This chapter says it is needed here too.

What has happened
Closely matches

Restoring Accountability to Policy-Influencing Positions Within the Federal Workforce

2025-01-20 · 90 FR 8625

EO 14171 reinstates EO 13957, the Schedule F order, with amendments, renames the schedule Schedule Policy/Career, and revokes the 2021 order that had undone it. That is the reinstatement the passage asks for, and it applies across the government. The order places no Interior position in the schedule by itself, which happens by agency recommendation under OPM's final rule of February 6, 2026, and positions in the schedule stay career and nonpartisan rather than becoming political. None of the candidates offered here is that order: three are cases and one is a Transportation Department procedures rule.

In plain English

The order brings back a 2020 job class and gives it a new name. It also pulls the 2021 order that had undone it. That is the step the passage asks for, and it covers the whole government. But no job at the Interior Department is placed in the class here. That happens when an agency asks, under a rule from February 2026. Such jobs stay career, not political.

What cites those orders

1 agency rule

Each of these names the order above in its own summary, preamble or filing. That is a fact about the document, not a finding that it carries out this proposal: it is one step further away than the order is, and what it does about the proposal is a reading nobody has made here.

Share this page
How to cite this
  1. The document itself

    William Perry Pendley, “Department of the Interior,” in Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise, edited by Paul Dans and Steven Groves (The Heritage Foundation, 2023), pp. 517-544.
    https://static.heritage.org/project2025/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf

  2. This page

    “Department of the Interior,” Project 2025, chapter 16. Read the Mandate, https://readthemandate.org/project-2025/chapter-16/ (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 energy leasing, national monuments, Alaska land and minerals, environmental review, forest management, endangered species, wild horses and burros, law enforcement, transparency and personnel.

The chapter's account of the department's history, its detailed treatment of the surface mining office and the Bureau of Reclamation, and its recommendations on American Indian affairs beyond the land buy-back program.

The proposal on wild horses and burros is the subject of widely circulated claims. The entry records the sentence, notes that the chapter defines no method, and records the competing readings without resolving them.