Explaining Project 2025: An Unbiased Report
- Gabe James
- Jul 30, 2024
- 6 min read
With the name, “Project 2025” splattered across the media over the last several weeks, numerous questions have arisen:
What is Project 2025 and is it a good thing? Does Donald Trump endorse it? What are the consequences if instated? After reviewing the 900-or so page document, here is what Project 2025 is preparing for.
What are the Goals?
Spearheaded by the Heritage Foundation, the project is a detailed policy agenda aimed at overhauling the federal government to reflect conservative values. Encapsulated in the "Mandate for Leadership," Project 2025 is "the conservative movement’s unified effort to be ready for the next conservative Administration to govern at 12:00 noon, January 20, 2025”.
At the heart of Project 2025 is a commitment to restoring what its authors see as core American values. The project embraces a return to traditional family structures, aiming to protect children from what it views as harmful educational content.
This involves removing curricula that the project deems as inappropriate, such as “efforts to 'eliminate critical race theory and other divisive content from public schools and ensure that educational institutions reflect conservative moral standards” (Proj. 2025, pg. 62-70).
Project 2025 asks to “issue an executive order banning, and Congress should pass a law prohibiting the federal government from using taxpayer dollars to fund, all critical race theory training (CRT) (Proj. 2025, pg. 582).
The project articulates its efforts to “defund programs that promote 'woke' ideologies and redirect those funds towards curricula that emphasize traditional American values”, helping students and young people live more “moral lives”, according to the Mandate for Leadership (Proj. 2025, pg. 62-70).
In a bid to streamline government operations, Project 2025 proposes dismantling large portions of the federal bureaucracy. The plan calls for reducing the size and scope of federal agencies to make them more efficient and less costly. This approach, supporters argue, will lead to a more effective and responsive government.
National security is another primary aspect of the project, advocating for stricter immigration controls and stronger national defense policies to defend American 'freedom'. These plans will enhance border security and implement more rigorous immigration enforcement measures.
The document asks to "strengthen border security by building a wall on the southern border, increasing the number of Border Patrol agents, and deploying advanced surveillance technology”, as well as passing policy to end “sanctuary city policies”. It is also suggested that asylum laws should be reformed, increasing the requirements for asylum seeking and “expediting the removal process"(Proj. 2025, pg. 32-40).
National security efforts are significant to the Project, as alongside Southern Border policy, the project aims to promote the acceleration and “the development and production of advanced weaponry, such as the Sentinel intercontinental ballistic missile, and increasing the number of electronic warfare aircraft” (Proj. 2025, pg. 40).
There is undoubtedly strong emphasis placed on on securing individual liberties, particularly those enshrined in the Constitution. This involves safeguarding freedom of speech, religious liberty, and the right to bear arms. The Heritage Foundation emphasizes this point, stating that the initiative "puts in one place a consensus view of how major federal agencies must be governed".
Specific actions to fulfill the Project's ideology state the need to "issue a general statement of policy specifying that it will not enforce any prohibition on sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination in the Section 1557 regulation" and to "withdraw its pharmacy abortion mandate guidance".
While important to the traditional conservative community, these measures could potentially lead to decreased protections for LGBTQ+ individuals, potentially allowing for increased discrimination in healthcare settings.
Additionally, restricting access to pharmacy-provided abortion drugs could limit reproductive healthcare options for women, especially in underserved areas, increasing health risks and exacerbating inequalities in healthcare access.
The authors articulate a need to "reinstate quarterly onshore lease sales in all producing states" and to "conduct offshore oil and natural gas lease sales to the maximum extent permitted".
On one hand, these measures could boost domestic energy production, potentially leading to lower energy costs and increased job opportunities in the energy sector. On the other hand, critics argue that expanding fossil fuel extraction could exacerbate environmental degradation, contribute to climate change, and undermine efforts to transition to renewable energy sources.
The Heritage Foundation and Supporters
The Heritage Foundation calls for conservative unity as their party has witnessed isolation and refers to itself as a minority:
"For decades, as the left has continued its march through America’s institutions, conservatives have been outgunned and outmatched when it comes to the art of government”.
Critics claim that one of the most prominent supporters of Project 2025 is former President Donald Trump. His administration embraced many of the principles that Project 2025 aims to expand upon, such as deregulation, strong immigration controls, and a robust national defense.
Trump has praised the project’s comprehensive approach and its potential to deliver quick relief to Americans suffering from what he describes as "the Left’s devastating policies", according to the Heritage Foundation.
Project 2025 has been endorsed by a coalition of over 100 conservative organizations, including influential groups like the American Conservative Union and the Family Research Council. These organizations are rallying behind the project’s vision to dismantle the administrative state and return governance to the people. The initiative’s emphasis on training and vetting personnel for federal positions also appeals to those who believe that a well-prepared conservative workforce is essential for implementing this agenda effectively.
"The project will create a playbook of actions to be taken in the first 180 days of the new Administration to bring quick relief to Americans suffering from the Left’s devastating policies," states Matt Cohen in a summary of Project 2025’s objectives. This clear focus on immediate and decisive action has bolstered its support among conservatives who are eager for tangible results.
What Issues Does Project 2025 Pose?
One of the most contentious aspects of Project 2025 is its stance on reproductive rights. The project proposes withdrawing mandates related to pharmacy abortion drugs and issuing policies that would not enforce prohibitions on sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination in healthcare settings.
Critics argue that these measures could severely limit access to essential reproductive health services and increase maternal mortality rates. "Withdraw its pharmacy abortion mandate guidance...to stock and dispense first-trimester abortion drugs," states the project, highlighting its intent to restrict reproductive health options.
This goal is ironically contradictory to its efforts to restrict government outreach and control over individuals.
As mentioned earlier, the project aims to return power to the parents (in the case of education and gender-related treatment/surgery) yet restricting female agency over bodily autonomy does pose a significant hypocrisy.
The project’s approach to immigration is another area of concern. By advocating for stricter immigration controls and enhanced border security, Project 2025 could lead to increased family separations and create a hostile environment for immigrants.
There are conservative calls for the Department of the Interior to "reinstate quarterly onshore lease sales in all producing states" and to "conduct offshore oil and natural gas lease sales to the maximum extent permitted," which some critics suggest prioritizes economic activities over human rights and environmental concerns.
Racial and social equity programs are also at risk under Project 2025 as the initiative plans to eliminate diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs and demographic data collection efforts, which are claimed to be crucial for identifying and addressing systemic inequalities.
Political opposition warn that these measures could roll back decades of progress in civil rights and hinder efforts to combat racial discrimination. "A Trump administration would ban many government agencies from collecting racial or demographic data...eliminate nearly every division that fights against discrimination," notes Michael Harriot from TheGrio.
The project’s impact on LGBTQ+ rights is similarly alarming to its critics. Project 2025 includes policies aimed at banning gender-affirming care and removing protections against discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. These actions are potentially seen as regressive and harmful to LGBTQ+ individuals, increasing stigmatization and reducing access to necessary healthcare and legal protections. A primary goal is to "Issue a proposed rule to restore the Trump regulations under Section 1557, explicitly interpreting the law not to include sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination," states the project.
Furthermore, the economic proposals, such as cutting social safety net programs and restricting access to food assistance, are criticized for potentially increasing poverty and hunger, especially among vulnerable populations. "Project 2025 would push an extreme, out-of-touch agenda on all of us...reverse decades of progress for civil rights, redefine the way our society operates, and undermine our economy," warns Democracy Forward.
The document certainly has greater, more specific details to the goals of the project, but this summary provides the general direction of the project and the goals, benefits, and consequences the mandate may conceive.
One major takeaway from the Project 2025 mandate is the hypocrisy in the supposed support for “freedom”. The project frequently suggests that government outreach should be limited, and rights should be restored to people and families. This is directly contradicted by the stance presented on abortion and contraception. It proposes to withdraw mandates on pharmacy-provided abortion drugs and to avoid enforcing prohibitions on discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in healthcare settings, which represents significant government interference in deeply personal aspects of life.
Regardless of personal/party-affiliated opinion, this project does propose some reasonable and some radical policy suggestions. This, if anything, is likely to create further division among political groups and isolate certain communities while radicalizing others.
SOURCES:
Comments