Project 2025 Goals - And Why They're Bad

The following items are large overall policy points I have noted while reading through the Mandate for Leadership 9. There is a lot here because there is a lot in this policy book. However, if there is one thing you take away from this, it is that the Heritage Foundation's proposed policies represent a dramatic shift towards an ultra-conservative, nationalist agenda that would fundamentally reshape American society and government. The changes include drastically reducing the size and scope of the federal government, deregulating numerous industries, promoting conservative social values, implementing stricter immigration policies, prioritizing national security with a focus on countering China, cutting taxes and government spending, reshaping education to favor school choice, reforming the justice system with a "tough on crime" approach, expanding fossil fuel development while rolling back climate initiatives, increasing executive control over federal agencies, implementing stricter voting laws, and reducing U.S. involvement in international organizations.

If implemented, these policies could lead to significant reductions in social services and environmental protections, potentially exacerbating economic inequality and accelerating climate change. They could restrict rights for LGBTQ+ individuals and women's reproductive choices, make voting more difficult for some populations, and reduce protections for workers and consumers. The changes could also alter America's global standing, potentially reducing its influence in international affairs while taking a more confrontational stance towards perceived adversaries. While supporters argue these changes would promote economic growth, individual liberty, and traditional values, in reality they could lead to increased social division, environmental degradation, and a rollback of civil rights progress made in recent decades.

Significantly Reduce Federal Government

Project 2025, aims to shrink the federal government by getting rid of or combining many agencies and programs. This plan would have far-reaching negative impacts on Americans' daily lives and the services they rely on. The project wants to eliminate entire departments like the Department of Education and the Department of Energy. This would leave millions of students without federal support for their education and potentially end important research into clean energy sources. It also seeks to severely cut back agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency, which protects our air and water quality.

Many social programs that help vulnerable Americans would be at risk. The plan calls for moving food assistance programs out of the Department of Agriculture, which could make it harder for people to access vital nutrition help. It also wants to add work requirements to Medicaid, leaving many low-income people without healthcare. They argue these changes would save money and reduce government overreach. However, it would actually harm millions of Americans by taking away services they depend on and lead to job losses for many government workers. The plan also aims to weaken labor unions and worker protections. This could make it easier for companies to mistreat employees or pay unfair wages. Environmental regulations would be rolled back, potentially leading to more pollution and health risks.

Deregulation

Project 2025 also aims to drastically reduce regulations across many important areas of our economy and society. This could have serious negative consequences for workers, consumers, and the environment. In the energy sector, the project wants to roll back rules that protect our air and water from pollution. It seeks to make it easier for oil and gas companies to drill in sensitive areas, including offshore and in wildlife refuges. This could lead to more oil spills and environmental damage, while also slowing down our shift to cleaner energy sources that could help fight climate change.

For the environment, Project 2025 wants to weaken or eliminate many protections put in place over the last few decades. This includes changing how endangered species are protected and making it easier for companies to avoid environmental reviews for their projects. These changes could threaten wildlife and natural habitats that many Americans value. In finance, the plan aims to remove many of the safeguards put in place after the 2008 financial crisis. This could make our banking system less stable and increase the risk of another economic meltdown. It also wants to reduce oversight of Wall Street, which could lead to more unfair practices that hurt everyday investors and consumers. And in labor, Project 2025 seeks to weaken workers' rights and protections. It wants to make it harder for workers to form unions and bargain for better wages and conditions. The plan also aims to roll back safety regulations that protect workers from dangerous situations on the job. This could lead to more workplace injuries and give employers more power over their employees.

Promotion of Conservative Social Values

Obviously, the Heritage Foundation wants to push conservative social values into government policies in ways that could seriously restrict personal freedoms and civil rights for many Americans. This approach could turn back the clock on progress made in recent years for equality and individual choice. The plan seeks to make it much harder for women to access reproductive healthcare. It wants to ban federal funding for organizations that provide abortions, even though this money is already prohibited from being used for abortion services. The project also aims to restrict access to abortion pills and support state-level bans.

Regarding LGBTQ+ rights, Project 2025 wants to roll back many protections put in place to prevent discrimination. It seeks to redefine gender as only biological sex at birth in federal policies, which could erase recognition of transgender and non-binary individuals. The plan also aims to allow more religious-based discrimination against LGBTQ+ people in areas like employment, housing, and healthcare.

On the idea of "religious freedom", the project pushes for a very broad interpretation that goes beyond protecting religious beliefs and instead allows for discrimination. It wants to expand exemptions that would let religious organizations and individuals refuse services or deny rights to others based on their beliefs. This could affect everything from healthcare to adoption services. The plan also seeks to promote these conservative values in education, potentially limiting what can be taught in schools about topics like gender identity and sexual orientation. It wants to expand religious influence in public institutions and government programs.

Hard Line on Immigration

The Heritage Foundation proposes to drastically change America's immigration system in ways that could harm both immigrants and U.S. citizens. They propose to build more of the border wall and increase the number of border patrol agents, and they seek to make it much harder for people to claim asylum, even if they're fleeing dangerous situations in their home countries. This could leave many vulnerable people without protection and at risk of being sent back to unsafe conditions.

Project 2025 also wants to reduce legal immigration significantly. This includes cutting back on family-based immigration, which allows U.S. citizens and permanent residents to bring their close family members to the country. This will separate families and ignore the important contributions immigrants make to our society and economy. The plan also aims to eliminate the diversity visa program, which provides opportunities for people from countries with low immigration rates to the U.S.

The proposals seeks to make life much harder for undocumented immigrants already in the country. It wants to increase deportations, end programs that protect certain groups of immigrants from deportation, and make it harder for undocumented immigrants to access public services. Project 2025 also wants to implement stricter rules for companies hiring foreign workers and reduce the number of visas available for skilled workers. This will hurt U.S. businesses by denying them access to global talent and lead to job losses in industries that rely on immigrant workers.

Prioritize National Security

The Heritage Foundation advocates for a significantly more assertive and hawkish approach to national security, with a particular focus on countering China's global influence. They view international relations through a lens of competition and potential threat, rather than cooperation. In terms of military strategy, the organization supports expanding and modernizing the U.S. nuclear arsenal, increasing counterterrorist operations globally, and strengthening America's defense industrial base. They also advocate for rebuilding and expanding conventional military forces, particularly the Army and Navy. This suggests a belief in the importance of military might as a cornerstone of national security.

The policies reflect a deep concern about China's rising power and influence. The Project 2025 book proposes a range of measures to counter China, including implementing a "denial defense strategy," expanding tariffs on Chinese products, banning Chinese investment in high-technology industries, and prohibiting U.S. pension funds from investing in Chinese stocks. They also advocate for reducing U.S. dependence on Chinese supply chains in critical areas and closing Confucius Institutes in the U.S., reflecting a desire to disentangle the U.S. and Chinese economies and limit China's soft power. They also support banning Chinese-made drones in American airspace and Chinese social media apps like TikTok and WeChat, and they also propose strengthening measures against cyber threats and expanding the integration of intelligence activities.

The policies also indicate a more unilateral approach to international relations. The Heritage Foundation supports withdrawing from various international agreements and organizations, including the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Paris Agreement. They also advocate for a more aggressive approach to trade policy, supporting the implementation of the United States Reciprocal Trade Act and strategically expanding tariffs. This indicates a willingness to use economic tools as part of a broader national security strategy.

Conservative Economic Policies

A cornerstone of their economic strategy is significant tax reduction. They propose implementing a simplified two-rate individual tax system with rates of 15% and 30%, which would likely result in lower taxes for many Americans, particularly those in higher income brackets. For businesses, they advocate reducing the corporate income tax rate to 18%. They also want to cut capital gains taxes and allow for immediate expensing of capital expenditures, policies designed to encourage investment and business expansion. In conjunction with these tax cuts, they strongly emphasizes reducing government spending. They propose eliminating or consolidating numerous federal agencies and programs, which they view as inefficient or unnecessary. This includes major changes like abolishing the Department of Education and significantly downsizing other departments. The goal is to shrink the overall size of the federal government.

The Heritage Foundation is advocating for widespread deregulation across various sectors, including energy, finance, and labor. For instance, they want to roll back many environmental regulations, financial rules implemented after the 2008 crisis, and labor protections. For monetary policy, they propose significant changes to the Federal Reserve's mandate and operations. They want to focus the Fed solely on price stability, removing its responsibility for promoting maximum employment. They also suggest exploring alternatives to the current monetary system, such as a return to the gold standard or implementing strict rules for money creation. These changes reflect a desire for a more predictable and less interventionist monetary policy.

They also support privatizing various government functions and services. This includes proposals to privatize parts of the education system through school choice initiatives, and suggestions to shift some government services to the private sector or to state and local governments. Their economic vision is one of a smaller government, lower taxes, fewer regulations, and a greater reliance on market forces to drive economic growth and prosperity. This could exacerbate inequality and remove important protections for workers, consumers, and the environment.

Reduce Federal Involvement in Education

The organization's approach to education policy represents a significant departure from the current system, emphasizing a dramatic reduction in federal involvement and a strong push towards school choice and privatization. At the core of their policy is the proposal to eliminate the Department of Education entirely. This radical step would effectively end federal oversight of education, transferring most educational responsibilities to state and local governments. The organization believes this will lead to more efficient, locally-tailored education systems free from what they see as burdensome federal mandates and regulations. In place of federal programs, they advocate for converting remaining federal education funding into flexible block grants to states. This would give states significantly more control over how education money is spent, allowing for greater variation in educational approaches across the country. The organization argues this will foster innovation and better meet the diverse needs of students in different regions.

School choice is a central pillar of their education strategy. They strongly support expanding charter schools, implementing voucher programs, and creating education savings accounts. These initiatives aim to give parents more options in choosing their children's schools, including private and religious institutions. The organization believes this market-based approach will improve overall educational quality by fostering competition among schools. For areas under federal jurisdiction, such as Washington D.C. and military families, they propose implementing comprehensive school choice programs. This could serve as a model for their preferred approach to education nationwide.

The Heritage Foundation also seeks to reshape the content of education. They advocate for policies that would allow for the teaching of creationism alongside evolution, the inclusion of more conservative perspectives in curricula, and the promotion of what they term "traditional values" in schools. This reflects their broader goal of infusing education with more conservative social and cultural viewpoints. Higher education is not exempt from their reform plans. They propose significant changes to federal student loan programs, potentially including their privatization. They also want to implement stricter oversight of universities, particularly in areas like foreign gift reporting and free speech on campus.

Change Justice System

Their approach to reforming the justice system reflects a strong "law and order" ideology, emphasizing stricter enforcement, harsher punishments, and a more aggressive stance on crime and immigration. This perspective represents a significant shift from recent criminal justice reform efforts that have focused on reducing incarceration rates and addressing systemic inequalities. Central to their vision is a return to tougher sentencing policies. The organization advocates for implementing policies and legislation that encourage the prosecution of violent crimes with severe sentences. This likely means longer prison terms for a variety of offenses and potentially expanding the use of mandatory minimum sentences. They also support enforcing the death penalty where applicable, suggesting a more frequent use of capital punishment. The policies indicate a desire to revitalize the use of statutory tools for dealing with criminal organizations. This could involve expanded use of RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) statutes and other legal mechanisms to target organized crime, gang activity, and large-scale drug operations. The aim is to provide law enforcement with more powerful tools to dismantle criminal networks.

Immigration enforcement is deeply intertwined with their justice reform plans. The organization proposes a much more aggressive approach to immigration law enforcement, including increased resources for agencies like ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) and stricter penalties for immigration violations. They advocate for expanded detention facilities and reduced alternatives to detention, suggesting a preference for incarceration over other forms of monitoring or release for those accused of immigration violations. The policies also reflect a desire to reduce federal oversight of local law enforcement. This could mean scaling back consent decrees and other federal interventions aimed at addressing systemic issues in police departments.

There's also an emphasis on targeting specific types of crime that align with their ideological priorities. For instance, they propose a campaign to enforce criminal prohibitions against providers and distributors of abortion pills by mail, reflecting their conservative stance on reproductive rights.

The organization's approach to justice reform also extends to the structure and operation of the Department of Justice itself. They advocate for increasing the number of political appointees throughout the DOJ, suggesting a desire to align the department more closely with their ideological goals. This could lead to significant changes in enforcement priorities and legal interpretations across various areas of federal law.

Obviously, these policies would exacerbate mass incarceration, disproportionately affect minority communities, and roll back important reforms aimed at addressing systemic inequalities in the justice system. The Heritage Foundation's vision for justice reform represents a significant pivot towards a more punitive, enforcement-heavy approach to crime and immigration, reflecting a classic "tough on crime" stance that has been less prevalent in recent years.

Roll Back Climate Change Initiatives.

The organization's approach to energy and environmental policy represents a dramatic shift away from current efforts to address climate change, instead prioritizing fossil fuel development and deregulation. Their policies reflect a disregard towards climate science and a belief that environmental regulations hinder economic growth and energy independence.

At the core of their strategy is a strong push to expand fossil fuel production. They advocate for resuming and increasing oil and gas lease sales on federal lands and waters, including in environmentally sensitive areas like Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The Heritage Foundation also wants to restart the federal coal leasing program, signaling a renewed emphasis on coal as an energy source despite its high carbon emissions.

To facilitate this expansion of fossil fuel development, the organization proposes rolling back numerous environmental regulations. They plan to rescind rules related to waste prevention, endangered species protection, and migratory bird conservation that currently limit oil and gas operations. Additionally, they want to reinstate Trump-era reforms to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which would streamline environmental reviews for major projects, potentially accelerating fossil fuel infrastructure development.

Climate change initiatives are a primary target for elimination in their policy agenda. The organization supports withdrawing from international climate agreements like the Paris Accord and dismantling domestic climate policies. They propose abolishing offices and programs focused on climate change across various government agencies, including eliminating climate-related research and adaptation efforts. Renewable energy and energy efficiency initiatives appear to be low priorities or targets for elimination. The organization proposes scaling back or eliminating programs that promote clean energy development and energy conservation, viewing these as unnecessary government interventions in the energy market.

With energy policy, the organization advocates for a return to what they term an "Energy Dominance Agenda." This approach prioritizes maximizing domestic energy production, particularly from fossil fuels, with the stated goals of ensuring energy independence and economic growth. They also support expanding energy infrastructure, such as pipelines and export facilities for liquefied natural gas.

The policies reflect a desire to fundamentally reshape environmental agencies. For instance, they propose restructuring the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to reflect principles of "cooperative federalism," which would likely result in devolving more environmental regulation to the states and reducing federal oversight. They also want to reset the EPA's science advisory boards to include more diverse viewpoints, potentially opening the door for increased industry influence in environmental policy-making. This approach could have severe environmental consequences, accelerating climate change and degrading ecosystems. They are ignoring the scientific consensus on the urgent need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and transition to cleaner energy sources.

Increase Executive Branch Control

Throughout Project 2025 there is a desire to significantly alter the balance of power within federal agencies, tilting it heavily towards political appointees and away from career civil servants. This strategy aims to give the executive branch more direct control over the day-to-day operations and policy implementations of various government departments. A key aspect of this plan involves increasing the number of political appointees across federal agencies. These are individuals chosen by the president or other high-ranking officials, often based on their alignment with the administration's political ideology. By placing more of these appointees in key positions, the organization hopes to ensure that agency actions more closely reflect the president's agenda.

Simultaneously, they propose measures to reduce the influence and job security of career civil servants. These are the long-term government employees who typically provide continuity and expertise across different administrations. The organization supports policies that would make it easier to fire these employees, potentially through the reinstatement of Trump-era executive orders like Schedule F. This classification would remove employment protections for civil servants in policy-related positions, making them more vulnerable to dismissal based on political considerations.

The policies also suggest implementing a hiring freeze for career officials and conducting retroactive reviews of promotions and hiring decisions made during previous administrations. This indicates a desire to scrutinize and potentially reverse staffing decisions that don't align with their political goals. Furthermore, the organization advocates for restructuring various agencies to consolidate power in the hands of politically appointed leadership. This could involve changing reporting structures, eliminating certain career leadership positions, or converting traditionally career positions into political appointments.

They also propose measures to limit the autonomy of federal agencies in interpreting and implementing laws. This includes supporting the recent Supreme Court decision to eliminate "Chevron deference," which previously allowed agencies significant latitude in interpreting ambiguous statutes. By shifting this interpretive power to the courts, the organization hopes to reduce the ability of career officials to shape policy through regulatory decisions.

This represent a significant attempt to reshape the federal bureaucracy, centralizing power in the executive branch and reducing the traditional buffers between political leadership and the day-to-day operations of government agencies. This approach aligns with the organization's broader goal of implementing sweeping changes across the federal government and ensuring that conservative policies are deeply embedded in agency operations. These policies could lead to a loss of expertise and institutional knowledge within federal agencies. Career civil servants provide valuable continuity and often serve as a check against potential abuses of power. There are also concerns that increased politicization of federal agencies could result in less stable and less effective governance, with policies and priorities shifting dramatically with each new administration.

It's Bad

If the policy recommendations found within Project 2025 are enacted, they will dismantle important safeguards and services that many Americans rely on. It would shift more burdens onto individuals and states, potentially increasing inequality and reducing quality of life for many people. It will remove important protections that keep our air and water clean, our financial system stable, and our workers safe. Any benefits seen, just as it did in the 80s with the first Mandate for Leadership, would mainly go to big corporations, while the risks and costs would fall on everyday people and the environment. These policies would severely limit women's rights to make their own healthcare decisions and could lead to dangerous situations for those seeking care. And, it would overall create a less equal and less free society by allowing discrimination against vulnerable groups, restricting personal choices, and imposing a narrow set of religious views through government policy. Certain groups of people will face legalized discrimination and have their personal freedoms significantly curtailed based on others' religious beliefs.

These policies ignore the positive impacts of immigration on our economy and culture. By reducing immigration, we could see labor shortages in key industries, slow economic growth, and reduced America's global competitiveness. Socially, these policies will likely damage our already damaged reputation as a beacon of hope for people around the world. It will harm our economy, separate families, and go against core American values of diversity and opportunity. Project 2025 represents a fear-based approach to immigration that doesn't reflect the complex realities of our interconnected world or the important role immigrants have always played in building the United States.

These policies also reflect a worldview that sees international relations as primarily competitive, with a strong emphasis on military preparedness, economic protectionism, and technological superiority as key elements of national security. This advocates for a more confrontational stance towards perceived adversaries, particularly China, even if this might lead to increased global tensions.

Project 2025 could lead to increased educational inequality, as more advantaged families might be better positioned to take advantage of school choice programs. There are also concerns about the potential for religious indoctrination in schools and the loss of important federal protections for vulnerable student populations. The education policy found within this policy book represents a fundamental reimagining of the American education system, shifting away from a federally-guided model towards a more decentralized, market-driven approach.

Their energy and environmental policies represent a wholesale rejection of the global push to address climate change, instead doubling down on fossil fuel development and deregulation. This approach aligns with their broader conservative ideology that favors limited government intervention and prioritizes immediate economic concerns over long-term environmental considerations.

Be Engaged!

The policy agenda outlined by the Heritage Foundation represents a sweeping and radical transformation of American governance, society, and values. If implemented, these changes would fundamentally alter the role of the federal government, reshape the social fabric of the nation, and redefine America's place in the world. The proposed policies touch every aspect of life in the United States, from healthcare and education to environmental protection and civil rights. They have the potential to roll back decades of progress in areas such as environmental conservation, social equality, and worker protections, while dramatically shifting power dynamics both within the government and in society at large.

Given the far-reaching implications of these proposals, it is crucial for every citizen to be well-informed about these potential changes and their consequences. Understanding these policies is the first step in engaging in meaningful civic discourse and taking action, whether through voting, activism, or community organizing. The future direction of the country hangs in the balance, and the outcome will affect not just current generations but those to come. It's important to recognize that while some may support aspects of this agenda, many of these policies could have severe negative impacts on vulnerable populations and long-term national interests. Combating these extreme measures requires active participation in the democratic process, critical thinking about the long-term consequences of such policies, and a commitment to preserving the principles of equality, justice, and environmental stewardship that have been hard-won over many years. The stakes are high, and the need for an informed and engaged citizenry has never been more critical.