Press "Enter" to skip to content

The Plan: Project 2025 and the Rise of a New, Unashamed Extremism

With the election between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump well underway, the results of this election will serve as one of the most consequential events in American history. Whomever wins the presidency will wield an immense amount of influence over national and international affairs and issues as diverse as the economy and education to national security and American jurisprudence. At a time when an authoritarian world leader is threatening the safety and security of a whole continent, climate change continues to ravage the world’s environment, and misinformation runs rampantly, this election will have massive implications for the world, let alone the United States

What is most important and interesting about this event, however, is the fact that so much of a single candidate’s political policies and standings are known to the public, yet are little commented on or acknowledged by the candidate themselves. Of course, this is in relation to Project 2025 and Donald Trump.

The Plan for a New America

Project 2025 is, surprisingly, very easy to access and come across. The entire project’s details are available online and can be accessed here.

On the Project’s website, itself heavily associated with and overseen by the far-right think tank The Heritage Foundation, it is described as a “historic movement, brought together by over 100 respected organizations from across the conservative movement, to take down the Deep State and return the government to the people” with another tab containing a 180-Day Playbook that “includes a comprehensive, concrete transition plan for each federal agency … to bring quick relief to Americans suffering from the Left’s devastating policies”. The Project also has a published book titled Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise which “will provide the next President a roadmap” for instituting the entire Project’s goals. CBS News has described the Project as being composed “of four pillars: a policy guide for the next presidential administration; a LinkedIn-style database of personnel who could serve in the next administration; training for that pool of candidates dubbed the “Presidential Administration Academy;” and a playbook of actions to be taken within the first 180 days in office”.

The main page goes on to deliver a series of bullet points outlining some of the key goals and priorities of the Project;

  • Secure the border, finish building the wall, and deport illegal aliens
  • De-weaponize the Federal Government by increasing accountability and oversight of the FBI and DOJ
  • Unleash American energy production to reduce energy prices
  • Cut the growth of government spending to reduce inflation
  • Make federal bureaucrats more accountable to the democratically elected President and Congress
  • Improve education by moving control and funding of education from DC bureaucrats directly to parents and state and local governments
  • Ban biological males from competing in women’s sports

For a plan that is seen as such a destructive force and so openly discusses many controversial items, it would be almost explainable then why some individuals would not think this plan is as dangerous as some have made it out. However, this would be a superficial interpretation and the real reason is more frightening: Republicans and Conservatives are no longer afraid of voicing and letting the American public see their policies which are some of the most extreme policy recommendations to ever be associated with a presidential candidate.

This plan, however, contains numerous recommendations that are immensely appealing to many in the modern-day Republican Party, now governed by right-wing, almost Neo-Fascist, ideology. Many of these policies dovetail with those espoused by Donald Trump and have previously been explored by the author, with extensive discussion of the policies on immigration, education, and justice.

With Project 2025, numerous government agencies, departments, and administrations would be either reduced, reorganized, or eliminated wholesale. This includes abolishing the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Office of Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights, the Department of Commerce’s (DOC) Economic Development Administration while the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and the Department of Veterans’ Affairs (VA) would be privatized. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) would “be drastically reduced and split into two entities: one gathering scientific data and one making public health recommendations and policies” as well as privatized allowing the government “to lose ownership and control of the data”. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Develop (HUD) would be made toothless, with most of the services they provide left for states to provide as well as barring “noncitizens … from living in federal assisted housing [and] embolden local planning boards fighting against affordable housing in the suburbs”.

All of these programs either assist in regulating private industry, help minorities and disadvantaged peoples, ensure corporations follow U.S. law, provide services to the populace free of charge, or protect America from public health crises. It would completely alter the playing field and make for only the wealthiest (and whitest) Americans to have a better quality of life.

Immigration is another key priority for Project 2025, even though it may not be the clearest in terms of how this may be carried out. Broadly speaking, Project 2025 advocates for an increase in “funding for a wall in the U.S.-Mexico border … proposes dismantling the Department of Homeland Security and combining it with other immigration enforcement units in other agencies … eliminating visa categories for crime and human trafficking victims, increasing fees on immigrants, eliminating certain protections for immigrants such as Temporary Protected Status … and allowing fast-tracked applications for migrants who pay a premium” along with revoking the Flores Settlement Agreement which “prevents the government from detaining children and families indefinitely” and force “non-Mexicans citizens to wait in Mexico while their asylum cases are pending”. Under Project 2025, undocumented immigrants would be the first to go, however, it is clear it would only be a matter of time before anyone who is not white, Spanish-speaking, and darker-looking would be forced out of the country they call home, regardless of citizenship or immigrant status.

In short, Project 2025 would serve some of the most extreme elements of the Republican Party and severely handicap many of the most basic government services.

The Former President’s Connection to Project 2025 

Much discussion has been made about the Project’s connections to Donald Trump. While liberals have claimed the Project is associated with the Trump campaign, they have said the opposite. In a July 5th post on TruthSocial, Trump stated “I know nothing about Project 2025. I have no idea who is behind it. I disagree with some of the things they’re saying and some of the things they’re saying are absolutely ridiculous and abysmal. Anything they do, I wish them luck, but I have nothing to do with them”. In August of 2022, at a campaign stop near the Arizona border, Trump again decried any association saying “They’ve been told officially, legally, in every way, that we have nothing to do with Project 25. They know it, but they bring it up anyway. They bring up every single thing that you can bring up. Every one of them was false”.

Clearly, taking the word of someone who has lied over 30,000 times during the course of his presidency is not exactly going to dispel much. However, Project 2025 itself, through a spokesperson, stated they do not “speak for any candidate or campaign … It is ultimately up to that president, who we believe will be President Trump, to decide which recommendations to use”. As well, numerous conservative groups and conservative ideologues distanced themselves from the Project as the media, the Democrats, and the public themselves began investigating further. Even more interestingly, we have seen mainstream fact-checkers from PolitiFact, CNN, and elsewhere engage in wordplay and gamesmanship to downplay the significance of Project 2025.

While many will take this at face value and argue that this proves the lack of a connection between Project 2025 and the Trump campaign, there is other, more substantial evidence that shows clear linkages between the campaign and Project 2025.

First, there is immense similarity between many of Project 2025’s policies and what Trump has outlined for his next presidency and what he wanted to do in his first. According to CBS News, which did a line-by-line analysis, of the 735 policy proposals in Project 2025 “at least 80 proposals … would revive executive orders and other policies of Trump’s own administration from 2017 to 2020”, 170 proposals “match ideas Trump’s campaign has published on its campaign website or that he’s said in rally speeches and interviews”, and 21 proposals “match both Trump’s past actions and his campaign promises and statements”. The fact that 271 should not be seen as simple coincidence nor as general ideological alignment, but coordination. On top of this, CBS reported;

Many more ideas in the Project 2025 document mirror Trump’s positions on issues including constructing the border wall and mass deportations of illegal immigrants; restricting student and work visas; pulling out of global climate change accords; expanding school choice; increasing and modernizing the U.S. nuclear weapons arsenal; boosting military spending; and work requirements for public assistance recipients”.

In other aspects, Project 2025 does not align with Trump’s stated policies, such as those on abortion, pornography, and social media. However, these should not be seen as evidence that Trump and Project 2025 are not mirroring one another as Trump’s comments on abortion have evolved while on the campaign trail (likely recognizing that such a position would hurt him politically), he has not commented publicly on pornography, and his views on social media banning have changed substantially as it pertains to race.

Second, many of the authors who wrote, worked on, led, or helped to devise this policy proposal are former members of Trump’s first administration. CNN performed a holistic review of available member resumes and listed directors of the Project and found “nearly 240 people with ties to both Project 2025 and to Trump, covering nearly every aspect of his time in politics and the White House – from day-to-day foot soldiers in Washington to the highest levels of his government” including Cabinet secretaries, ambassadors, chiefs of staff and deputy chiefs of staff, advisors, attorneys, and others who have either worked in the Trump White House, been close advisors, or prominent fixtures in Trump’s life since leaving office. These individuals include Ben Carson from HUD, Christopher Miller from Defense, former Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe, Customs and Border Protection Mark Morgan and Immigration and Customs Enforcement Chief Tom Homan, and Ken Cuccinelli, the unlawful director of the U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services. One individual who is heavily influential in the creation of many administrative aspects of Project 2025 is Russ Vought, the former director of the Office of Management and Budget under Trump who also is “the Republican National Committee’s platform policy director”.

Effectively, the fact there are so many individuals who had and continue to have close ties to the former president and the Republican Party should in no way be discounted as simple coincidence.

As far as the repudiation of Project 2025 by Trump, staffers on the project have interpreted it differently. Kevin Roberts, president of The Heritage Foundation, after Trump disavowed ties to Project 2025 said there were “no hard feelings from any of us at Project 2025 about the statement because we understand Trump is the standard bearer and he’s making a political tactical decision there”. This doesn’t sound as much like a denial that Project 2025 is working in coordination with Trump, but rather that they understand the reason why such a denial was made; for political survival.

Roberts’ other statements further seemed to implicate the (1) desire by Heritage for Project 2025 to become the next big thing for the Republican Party and (2) tout the connection the Project and Heritage have to the Trump campaign. In a column for Politico, Michael Schaffer reported that Roberts, in an interview, stated the Project’s mission was to institutionalize Trumpism within the corridors of power while also stating “never before has the American conservative movement been this unified around a set of possible policy prescriptions” effectively claiming his policies overall speak for the Republican Party.

According to individuals working on the project, interviewed by NBC News under condition of anonymity, the organization as a whole wasn’t “overly worried” about Trump’s distancing from the Project, further stating;

“The general sense is this is a PR gesture for him to provide himself maximum room to maneuver and avoid making any commitments at this point. He wants to avoid having to answer questions about anything he doesn’t want to answer questions about. Most people I know who are involved with it don’t seem overly worried that this actually constitutes a repudiation and is going to mean anything on Jan. 20”.

Russ Vought, a primary author of Project 2025, a former Trump appointee, and a Republican policy director, in a secret audio gained during an interview with undercover British journalists, stated regarding Trump’s public denials “I see what he’s doing is just very, very conscious distancing himself from a brand. It’s interesting, he’s in fact not even opposing himself to a particular policy”. This again mirrors what others on staff have said, but also shows that even a lead policy official and Trump loyalist believes the former president, if elected, would institute many of the recommendations developed by the organization.

Again, this is all incredibly damning as it shows the individuals working on this realize that Trump’s disavowment was done for political expediency and that, provided Trump wins the election and obtains office in January, their goals will be achieved and any repudiation is not real. The fact that people who work on the project, are involved in it daily, and are paid to do this kind of work are not at all concerned about Trump’s comments and speaking about them in this manner should be highly concerning and instantly be the key piece of evidence against anyone stating that Project 2025 is fake or not aligned to the Trump campaign’s platform.

Examining the linkage between individuals who have crafted Project 2025, their past work in the Trump administration, their current work for the Republican Party or in Trump’s legal cases, and the public and private comments they have made, it should be very clear that Trump’s alleged distancing of himself from the Project is entirely political and not representative of a real policy disagreement, that he maintains a close and continuing relationship with members working on Project 2025, that the Republican Party employs or works closely with members of Project 2025, and that the staffers as a whole are completely expecting their work to be utilized in a new Trump administration.

Conclusion

Project 2025 is a program devised by highly intelligent political operatives in service of the most extreme agenda of a party that is comprised of extremities. An America in which Project 2025 is utilized would be an America where corporations have effectively no regulation, women, minorities, and LGBTQ+ peoples have little autonomy and are forcibly made to assimilate, Evangelical Christianity would become the dominant religious force, the 1st Amendment would be muzzled, education would be made to abide by whatever those in power decide is educational or historical, and where the government has full and complete control over the rights of the people.

For the Republican Party, an entity that has long espoused the belief of small government (even when in practice they haven’t), to align themselves with this kind of ideology is completely against their own values. However, the values of the Republican Party have clearly and markedly changed; they have not been the party of small government for some time, they are now and for the foreseeable future will be the party of big business and right-wing extremism. With Donald Trump elected, Project 2025 would surely spell the end of American democracy and result in a country where the rights and liberties espoused in the U.S. Constitution and envisioned by the Founding Fathers would no longer exist. A vote for Trump is a vote for Project 2025 and a vote for fascism.

Can we distinguish the “global” from the “international”?

The second World War's devastation and consequent nuclear threat prompted Western sovereign states to move towards cooperation, leading to the rise of liberalism as a different interpretation of international relations. Institutions such as the UN, the EU, the NATO or the World Bank all shared the necessity of reforming the international towards a more global dimension. Although “international” and “global” are two distinct concepts with different contextual backgrounds, they keep influencing one another and are both present in today’s world.

The Arab Uprisings: Causes, course and consequences

2010/2011 mark the years of the so-called Arab Uprisings, which describe the series of civic, political upheavals and demonstrations that erupted in several countries of the MENA region. The protest that shook the Arab world had widespread consequences for the region - in some countries leading to civil wars that evolved into proxy wars between global powers, leaving people displaced, wounded or dead - leading to Europe's biggest "refugee crisis" in decades. The uprisings started with the hope to achieve stable democracies and shake off authoritarian, corrupt leaders - a goal which has only in Tunisia, if at all, been reached. It remains questionable how long the conflicts will continue and whether peace can be achieved and stable democracies built anytime soon.

Debunking myths: Does the contemporary focus on improving women’s position in economic production deliver ‘empowerment’?

Growing concern about the correlation between women and poverty in developing countries has expanded in the last decades within the field of international development. Studies to investigate the effectiveness of the ‘investing in girls and women’ narrative have shown that economic empowerment is not enough to confer women and girls a just and equitable position in society – quite the contrary. This analysis explores why economically investing in women and girls in developing countries is not an effective strategy to eradicate gender inequalities.

Women in Power: Peggy Carter, the World of Intelligence, and a Powerful Role Model for Women

Representation in media (comics, films, television series, and video games) has become a hot button issue over the past decade. In March of 2022, the Center for the Study of Women in Television and Film of San Diego State University found “that men outnumbered women onscreen by a factor of 2 to 1 in 2021”. The Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) is no exception and has had its share of sexist, derogatory, and stereotypical depictions of women. However, in at least one, rather niche area, the MCU does excel in their representation of women: particularly in their representation of women within Intelligence Communities (IC) around the globe via the character of Peggy Carter.

Be First to Comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *