You’re out of free articles.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Sign In or Create an Account.
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Welcome to Heatmap
Thank you for registering with Heatmap. Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our lives, a force reshaping our economy, our politics, and our culture. We hope to be your trusted, friendly, and insightful guide to that transformation. Please enjoy your free articles. You can check your profile here .
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Subscribe to get unlimited Access
Hey, you are out of free articles but you are only a few clicks away from full access. Subscribe below and take advantage of our introductory offer.
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Create Your Account
Please Enter Your Password
Forgot your password?
Please enter the email address you use for your account so we can send you a link to reset your password:
A conversation with Adrienne Cobb, who is tracking objectives agency by agency.

Last August, then-presidential candidate Donald Trump addressed a persistent accusation that had begun to dog his campaign. “We have nothing to do with Project 25,” he insisted to the assembled media, referring to Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation’s 920-page blueprint for reshaping America. A month later, during a presidential debate with Kamala Harris, Trump again found himself on the defensive against the hugely unpopular plan: “I haven’t read it — I don’t want to read it purposely. I’m not going to read it,” he said.
But 25 days into the Trump administration, almost a third of Project 2025’s suggestions had already been implemented or were in progress — 32% as of Friday, to be precise. If that number seems rather specific, you can thank Adrienne Cobb, who’s more commonly known online by her username RusticGorilla, and who is assiduously tracking Project 2025’s developments agency by agency.
Looking at the tracker, the low-hanging fruit becomes obvious. Almost 92% of Project 2025’s USAID-related objectives have been accomplished, Cobb’s research shows, while objectives at the Department of Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Department of the Interior are all closer to 40% complete. Still, that can mean different things for different departments; for example, there are 19 Department of Energy objectives overall, seven of which are already finished. Many of the remaining incomplete objectives involve eliminating offices, such as the DOE Loan Program or Clean Energy Demonstrations, while others are broad and will take time, such as “expanding natural gas infrastructure.”
I spoke to Cobb on Friday about the tracker and the Trump administration's rapid flurry of actions. Our conversation has been edited and condensed for clarity.
When did you start working on the Project 2025 tracker? How’d this whole thing get started?
It started last month. I went through the whole Project 2025 document and pulled out each clearly stated objective. One challenge was that a lot of it was pretty vague, so I tried to focus only on the measurable objectives.
I previously tracked the Mueller Report. I also did 45 Chaos, which tracked the people who were fired or resigned during Trump’s first administration. Now, I also have 47 Chaos, which does the same thing for the second administration.
After going through Project 2025 so methodically, was there anything that struck you as not getting enough attention?
Many of the parts on civil rights didn’t get much attention, especially in education. The media mainly focused on the top line, like “abolish the Department of Education.” But there wasn’t a lot of coverage of Project 2025 wanting to pull back the coverage of protections for disabled students. That was a common theme throughout — rolling back protections for people in a less advantaged position.
Have you noticed any patterns in the objectives that have been fulfilled so far?
They’re going after what they see as the easiest targets first, like LGBTQ rights and DEI initiatives — which are very easy to implement through executive action and about which they don’t think people will complain or speak up.
Most of the energy objectives that have been enacted are ones that roll back key Biden-era initiatives, like Biden’s pause on LNG exports and Biden’s prioritization of climate change mitigation in policy-making. Trump also managed to enact the Project 2025 goal of limiting subsidized renewables by illegally suspending the Inflation Reduction Act and Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act funding, which went to various clean energy projects across the country.
Even though a judge has ordered IRA and IIJA funding reinstated, Pennsylvania has alleged in a lawsuit that Trump’s administration still has not released the funding. Project 2025 called on Congress to repeal the IRA and IIJA, yet Trump is going farther than even Project 2025 imagined by straight up withholding the funding in defiance of Congressional appropriations and court orders.
How has the feedback from the community been? How does this tracker compare to others that you’ve done?
It’s definitely been getting more attention. I think that’s because people are actually really scared of what the Trump administration is trying to do and are more invested in it. The Mueller Report was far away from Americans lives, but Project 2025 touches our lives in almost every aspect. People are scared and want to keep track of what’s going on.
Why do you think it’s important to track these developments in such a methodical and quantitative way? What is it about this presentation that you think is helpful?
I hope it is helpful. I’m not sure if it is, or why it is, for other people. I just know that, for me, it is what I’m good at. I’m not a public person — I’m not good at contributing in an extroverted way. I’m good at contributing in an introverted way, and this is my way of doing something that I hope helps people stay informed and make sense of the incredible deluge of news. It’s just my way of doing something.
It’s going to be a work in progress throughout the whole administration. I’m open to feedback and other people helping me and sending me messages like, “Hey, did you know this happened yesterday? Did you catch it?” or something like that, just because it is 900 pages and almost 300 objectives, and I am only one person. But everyone can help in their own way — that’s my main message.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
The spinoff of Lawrence Livermore National Lab has a new 10-point plan to get onto the grid by the 2030s.
One of fusion energy’s newest startups, Inertia Enterprises, is betting that the fastest route to commercial fusion runs through one of the field’s oldest ideas. The company, which raised a $450 million Series A earlier this year, plans to build a power plant based on the laser-driven fusion system pioneered at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory’s — the only tech yet to have produced more energy from a fusion reaction than it took to initiate it. Now, Inertia has shared its commercialization roadmap exclusively with Heatmap, detailing the 10 near-term capabilities it must demonstrate before this landmark experiment can become a grid-scale power plant by the mid-2030s.
The roadmap offers a route from the national lab’s impressive but commercially impractical fusion demonstrations to an economical power plant capable of producing electricity for the grid. At its core are a set of milestones — mostly aimed at developing cheap, mass-manufacturable components — that Inertia says it must clear before those individual systems can be integrated into a working plant. This road is not necessarily linear, however, as various teams will likely be working on many of these goals simultaneously.
At least the physics of Inertia’s approach are already proven, the startup’s CEO Jeff Lawson told me, pointing to the fusion experiments at Lawrence Livermore’s National Ignition Facility as a proof-of-concept. The lab’s demonstration of net energy gain caps more than six decades and $30 billion (in 2026 dollars) of U.S. fusion research. The remaining challenges, he argued, are all engineering-related, requiring “elbow grease, hard work, and smart people” rather than breakthroughs in fusion science.
"It seems to us like a startup or a commercial company of any variety should be focused on commercializing a proven scientific result, as opposed to actually trying to demonstrate the basic science to begin with," Lawson told me. Basic science, he argues, is better left to national labs and universities, where researchers can pursue "unbounded problems" that don’t align with the expectations and timelines of venture-backed startups.
Indeed, no fusion startup has yet achieved scientific breakeven, the milestone Lawrence Livermore first hit in 2022, and has since repeated numerous times. But leading players such as Commonwealth Fusion Systems and Helion Energy maintain that it’s only a matter of time before they validate the physics behind their own reactor designs, which they claim will be highly cost-competitive.
Lawson, on the other hand, readily acknowledged that Lawrence Livermore’s tech is uneconomical in its current form. His bet is simply that the more predictable path to a commercial reactor is to drive down the cost of the lab’s validated fusion approach, known as inertial confinement. This system relies on high-powered lasers firing at a millimeter-scale pellet of fusion fuel, compressing it to extreme temperatures and pressures until the atoms fuse. Today, the National Ignition Facility makes each individual fusion target by hand, a workable solution given that it only uses about a dozen per year.
That production model, however, isn’t remotely plausible for a grid-scale power plant. Because each fusion reaction lasts just a fraction of a billionth of a second, a commercial facility must fire its lasers at a fresh target about 10 times per second to generate continuous electricity — requiring the production of hundreds of millions of targets each year.
Scaling production to roughly a million pellets per day and making them inexpensive enough for commercial operation without compromising the strength or precision required for fusion ignition is central to Inertia’s roadmap. That includes goals five, seven, eight and nine — industrializing the manufacturing of the carbon shells that hold the fusion fuel, making the thin films that hold those carbon shells both durable and cheap, scaling up and automating fusion target assembly, and speeding up how fast targets are filled with the requisite deuterium-tritium fuel.
The other central focus of the roadmap is the laser system, which will ultimately consist of 1,000 individual units operating in concert to compress and heat the fusion fuel. Key priorities include reducing the system’s cost (goal two), dramatically increasing its firing cadence (goal three), and bolstering its durability to withstand high-intensity operations (goal four). Goal six also complements these efforts, calling for the development of a control system capable of tracking moving fusion targets to precisely align each laser shot.
Goals one and 10 bookend the journey with some broader milestones. The first focuses on increasing the fusion target’s energy gain — the ratio of fusion energy produced to laser energy delivered — to more than 25 times ignition. Today, the National Ignition Facility’s best-performing laser shot has yielded a gain of just over four times what it took to start the reaction. Goal 10 then zooms out to the ultimate objective: integrating all these technologies into a commercially viable power plant that can deliver either electricity or industrial heat to end customers.
To reach that point, Inertia has embarked on an industrial engineering hiring spree, recruiting folks with experience taking complex hardware systems from prototype to mass production, “not unlike the processes that are used in the semiconductor or consumer electronics world,” Lawson explained. The company has been making progress on its component development goals since the beginning of the year, he told me, and expects to announce the successful demonstration of a few of these milestones in the coming months. Lawson ultimately expects Inertia to complete the core components of its laser and target manufacturing systems by the middle of next year.
The team will spend the next two to three years integrating these individual pieces into two fully operational subsystems, a prototype laser system and a target manufacturing line. Around 2030, the company will begin combining those subsystems into a first-of-a-kind fusion power plant, which will also serve as the proving ground for the target chamber, tritium fuel breeding system, and power conversion system that turns fusion heat into electricity. By the middle of the next decade, Inertia aims to be generating power from this first plant, setting the stage for the company to build and connect additional grid-scale commercial power plants.
There are plenty of engineering trade-offs that the company will have to solve for. Take the decision around how to size the target chamber, for example. “If you make it bigger, your walls have an easier time and survive longer, but it’s more expensive. If you make it smaller, your walls have a tougher time because they’re closer to all the heat and energy that the fusion reaction is creating, but now your power plant costs less to build.”
But to Lawson, this represents exactly the type of problem Inertia was built to solve: complex engineering issues that come to the fore once scientists have demonstrated the fundamental physics are sound. He thinks other fusion companies may someday reach this stage, as well — though he’s unwilling to hazard a guess on exactly what approach or startup is best positioned to do so.
“There have been generations of scientists who’ve made their predictions about fusion energy and gotten it wrong,” he told me. “I’m not going to pretend to be smarter than them. All I’m here to say is, just knowing that one did work, we can commercialize it.”