Project 2025 is a proposed presidential transition project that is 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.
It is led by two former Trump administration officials: Paul Dans, who was chief of staff at the Office of Personnel Management and serves as director of the project, and Spencer Chretien, former special assistant to Trump and now the project’s associate director.
Project 2025 is spearheaded by the Heritage Foundation, but includes an advisory board consisting of more than 100 conservative groups.
The authors of many chapters are familiar names from the Trump administration, such as Russ Vought, who led the Office of Management and Budget; former acting Defense Secretary Chris Miller; and Roger Severino, who was director of the Office of Civil Rights at the Department of Health and Human Services.
Vought is the policy director for the 2024 Republican National Committee’s platform committee, which adopted the platform at July’s convention.
John McEntee, former director of the White House Presidential Personnel Office under Trump, is a senior advisor to the Heritage Foundation, and said that the group will “integrate a lot of our work” with the Trump campaign when the official transition efforts are announced in the next few months.
Text above excerpted from CBS News, “What is Project 2025? What to know about the conservative blueprint for a second Trump administration”
I believe that a new Trump presidency, empowered by the Supreme Court’s immunity decision and steered by the 900-page ‘Project 2025’ manifesto, will pose a dire threat to this 236-year-old constitutional democracy. Much is said about Project 2025 including some inaccurate memes posted by well-intentioned Trump opponents. I have embarked on a project to read the document and post excerpts quoted directly from it. I started on July 8th on Facebook and am reprinting them here. At times I add comments or additional information that are clearly distinguished from the direct quotes.
The complete Project 2025 document including all chapters and footnotes are available online at the Heritage Foundation (click here). I encourage everyone to go and read the full original for yourself, and draw your own conclusions.
◼︎ Monday, July 8
FOREWORD:
A PROMISE TO AMERICA
“The next conservative President must make the institutions of American civil society hard targets for woke culture warriors. This starts with deleting the terms sexual orientation and gender identity (“SOGI”), diversity, equity, and inclusion (“DEI”), gender, gender equality, gender equity, gender awareness, gender-sensitive, abortion, reproductive health, reproductive rights, and any other term used to deprive Americans of their First Amendment rights out of every federal rule, agency regulation, contract, grant, regulation, and piece of legislation that exists.”
Pages 4-5
◼︎ Tuesday, July 9
FOREWORD:
A PROMISE TO AMERICA
“…conservatives should gratefully celebrate the greatest pro-family win in a generation: overturning Roe v. Wade, a decision that for five decades made a mockery of our Constitution and facilitated the deaths of tens of millions of unborn children. But the Dobbs decision is just the beginning. Conservatives in the states and in Washington, including in the next conservative Administration, should push as hard as possible to protect the unborn in every jurisdiction in America. In particular, the next conservative President should work with Congress to enact the most robust protections for the unborn that Congress will support while deploying existing federal powers to protect innocent life and vigorously complying with statutory bans on the federal funding of abortion.”
Page 6
◼︎ Wednesday, July 10
SECTION 1, CHAPTER 2:
OFFICE OF PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
“…the next Administration will face a significant challenge in unwinding policies and procedures that are used to advance radical gender, racial, and equity initiatives under the banner of science. Similarly, the Biden Administration’s climate fanaticism will need a whole-of-government unwinding. As with other federal departments and agencies, the Biden Administration’s leveraging of the federal government’s resources to further the woke agenda should be reversed and scrubbed from all policy manuals, guidance documents, and agendas…”
Page 60
◼︎ Thursday, July 11
SECTION 1, CHAPTER 2:
OFFICE OF PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
“The President should issue an executive order establishing a Senior Advisor to coordinate the policy development and implementation of relevant energy and environment policy … and abolishing the existing Office of Domestic Climate Policy… the President should work with Congress to establish a sweeping modernization of the entire permitting system across all departments and agencies that is aimed at reducing litigation risk and giving agencies the authority to establish programmatic, general, and provisional permits.”
Page 61
◼︎ Friday, July 12
SECTION 1, CHAPTER 2:
OFFICE OF PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
“The President should immediately revoke Executive Order 1402041 and every policy, including subregulatory guidance documents, produced on behalf of or related to the establishment or promotion of the Gender Policy Council and its subsidiary issues. Abolishing the Gender Policy Council would eliminate central promotion of abortion (“health services”); comprehensive sexuality education (“education”); and the new woke gender ideology, which has as a principal tenet “gender affirming care” and “sex-change” surgeries on minors. In addition to eliminating the council, developing new structures and positions will have the dual effect of demonstrating that promoting life and strengthening the family is a priority while also facilitating more seamless coordination and consistency across the U.S. government.”
Page 62
◼︎ Saturday, July 13
SECTION 2, CHAPTER 4:
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
“Restore standards of lethality and excellence [in the military]. Entrance criteria for military service and specific occupational career fields should be based on the needs of those positions. Exceptions for individuals who are already predisposed to require medical treatment (for example, HIV positive or suffering from gender dysphoria) should be removed, and those with gender dysphoria should be expelled from military service. Physical fitness requirements should be based on the occupational field without consideration of gender, race, ethnicity, or orientation…
“Eliminate Marxist indoctrination and divisive critical race theory programs and abolish newly established diversity, equity, and inclusion offices and staff…
“Reverse policies that allow transgender individuals to serve in the military. Gender dysphoria is incompatible with the demands of military service, and the use of public monies for transgender surgeries or to facilitate abortion for servicemembers should be ended…
“Audit all curricula and health policies in DOD schools for military families, remove all inappropriate materials, and reverse inappropriate policies.”
Pages 103-104
◼︎ Sunday, July 14
SECTION 2, CHAPTER 5:
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
“An Aggressive Approach to Senate-Confirmed Leadership Positions. While Senate confirmation is a constitutionally necessary requirement for appointing agency leadership, the next Administration may need to take a novel approach to the confirmations process to ensure an adequate and rapid transition. For example, the next Administration arguably should place its nominees for key positions into similar positions as “actings” (for example, putting in a person to serve as the Senior O”cial Performing the Duties of the Commissioner of CBP while that person is going through the confirmation process to direct ICE or become the Secretary). This approach would both guarantee implementation of the Day One agenda and equip the department for potential emergency situations while still honoring the confirmation requirement. The department should also look to remove lower-level but nevertheless important positions that currently require Senate confirmation from the confirmation requirement, although this effort would require legislation (and might also be mooted in the event of legislation that closes portions of the department that currently have Senate-confirmed leadership).”
Page 136
◼︎ Monday, July 15
SECTION 2, CHAPTER 5:
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
“The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) is a DHS component that the Left has weaponized to censor speech and affect elections at the expense of securing the cyber domain and critical infrastructure, which are threatened daily. A conservative Administration should return CISA to its statutory and important but narrow mission…”
“Eliminate T and U visas. Victimization should not be a basis for an immigration benefit. If an alien who was a trafficking or crime victim is actively and significantly cooperating with law enforcement as a witness, the S visa is already available and should be used. Pending elimination of the T and U visas, the Secretary should significantly restrict eligibility for each visa to prevent fraud…
“Prioritize national security in the Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP). ICE should end its current cozy deference to educational institutions and remove security risks from the program. This requires working with the Department of State to eliminate or significantly reduce the number of visas issued to foreign students from enemy nations.”
Pages 135 & 141
NOTE: T and U visas referred to above were both created in order to help victims of particular crimes, such as human trafficking, to gain a visa status. Both require cooperation with law enforcement.
◼︎ Tuesday, July 16-Sunday, July 21
No posts
◼︎ Monday, July 22
SECTION 2, CHAPTER 5:
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
“Congress should eliminate the particular social group protected ground as vague and overbroad or, in the alternative, provide a clear definition with parameters that at a minimum codify the holding in [a 2018 decision by Attorney General Jeff Sessions] that gang violence and domestic violence are not grounds for asylum.”
Page 148
NOTE: A short paragraph packed with implications!
The legal principle under U.S. Asylum Law, “particular social group protected ground” has been used to protect immigrants on the basis of past persecution or fear of future persecution. This has included persecution based on practice of religion, suppression of religion, or disparate treatment because of religion.
Project 2025 calls in the paragraph above for elimination of this whole category of protection. Failing that sweeping change, it calls explicitly for disallowing asylum protection based on gang violence and domestic violence.
Since the early 1990s, the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) and Immigration Courts have recognized that United States’ asylum law includes protections based on sexual orientation. A decade later, the Ninth Circuit paved the way for transgender asylum claims as well. As of today, the legal authority for protecting LGBTQ+ asylum seekers remains in place for the countless numbers of LGBTQ+ people fleeing persecution around the world. Homosexuality is punishable by death in countries such as Saudi Arabia, Iran, Yemen, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and the Chechnya region of Russia.
Project 2025 isn’t explicitly singling out LGBTQ+ people in this chapter for exclusion from asylum protection, but when taken in the full context of the 900-page document there’s little doubt. Project 2025 sees LGBTQ+ people as one of the central problems plaguing American society — starting front & center in the second paragraph of the Foreword and on throughout.
◼︎ Tuesday, July 23
SECTION 2, CHAPTER 5:
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
“Congress should repeal Section 235 of the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 (TVPRA),9 which provides numerous immigration benefits to unaccompanied alien children and only encourages more parents to send their children across the border illegally and unaccompanied. These children too often become trafficking victims, which means that the TVPRA has failed…
“If an alternative to repealing Section 235 of the TVPRA is necessary, the section should be amended so that all unaccompanied children, regardless of nationality, may be returned to their home countries in a safe and efficient manner…”
Page 148
◼︎ Wednesday, July 24
SECTION 2, CHAPTER 5:
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
“Provide that whenever the Secretary of Homeland Security determines that an actual or anticipated mass migration of aliens en route to or arriving o! the coast of the U.S. presents urgent circumstances requiring an immediate federal response, the Secretary may make, subject to the approval of the President, rules and regulations prohibiting in whole or in part the introduction of persons from such countries or places as he or she shall designate in order to avert or curtail such mass migration and for such period of time as is deemed necessary, including through the expulsion of such aliens. Such rule and regulation making shall not be subject to the requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act.
“Provide that notwithstanding any other provision of law, when the Secretary makes such a determination and then promulgates, subject to the approval of the President, such rules and regulations, the Secretary shall have the authority to waive all legal requirements of Title 8 that the Secretary, in his or her sole discretion, determines are necessary to avert or curtail the mass migration.”
Page 152
NOTE: Title 8, which includes decades-old immigration legislation, outlines processes for handling migrants at the border. Although this section of the U.S. Code dictates expedited deportation protocols, it typically allows time for migrants to lodge asylum claims.
◼︎ Thursday, July 25
SECTION 2, CHAPTER 5:
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
“Allow [Department of Homeland Security] to lead international engagement in the Western Hemisphere on issues of security and migration. Additionally, quickly and aggressively address recalcitrant countries’ failure to accept deportees by imposing strict sanctions until deportees are in fact accepted for return (not just promised to be taken)…
“Ensure that only U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents utilize or occupy federally subsidized housing…
“Deny loan access to those who are not U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents, and deny loan access to students at schools that provide in-state tuition to illegal aliens…”
Page 167
NOTE: Take notice of that last sentence!
Project 2025 calls for U.S. citizen students to be denied loans if the school they attend provides in-state tuition to illegal immigrants. This means native born or naturalized students are penalized simply for attending a school that has a loan policy they have no say or control over.
ALSO NOTE: The term “illegal alien” is offensive. I prefer “undocumented worker.”
◼︎ Friday, July 26
SECTION 2, CHAPTER 6:
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
“One issue today that starkly divides conservatives is the Russia–Ukraine conflict. The common ground seems to be recognition that presidential leadership in 2025 must chart the course.
“One school of conservative thought holds that as Moscow’s illegal war of aggression against Ukraine drags on, Russia presents major challenges to U.S. interests, as well as to peace, stability, and the post-Cold War security order in Europe. This viewpoint argues for continued U.S. involvement including military aid, economic aid, and the presence of NATO and U.S. troops if necessary. The end goal of the conflict must be the defeat of Russian President Vladimir Putin and a return to pre-invasion border lines.
“Another school of conservative thought denies that U.S. Ukrainian support is in the national security interest of America at all. Ukraine is not a member of the NATO alliance and is one of the most corrupt nations in the region. European nations directly affected by the conflict should aid in the defense of Ukraine, but the U.S. should not continue its involvement. This viewpoint desires a swift end to the conflict through a negotiated settlement between Ukraine and Russia.
“The tension between these competing positions has given rise to a third approach. This conservative viewpoint eschews both isolationism and interventionism. Rather, each foreign policy decision must first ask the question: What is in the interest of the American people? U.S. military engagement must clearly fall within U.S. interests; be fiscally responsible; and protect American freedom, liberty, and sovereignty, all while recognizing Communist China as the greatest threat to U.S. interests. Thus, with respect to Ukraine, continued U.S. involvement must be fully paid for; limited to military aid (while European allies address Ukraine’s economic needs); and have a clearly defined national security strategy that does not risk American lives.
“Regardless of viewpoints, all sides agree that Putin’s invasion of Ukraine is unjust and that the Ukrainian people have a right to defend their homeland. Furthermore, the conflict has severely weakened Putin’s military strength and provided a boost to NATO unity and its importance to European nations.
“The next conservative President has a generational opportunity to bring resolution to the foreign policy tensions within the movement and chart a new path forward that recognizes Communist China as the defining threat to U.S. interests in the 21st century.”
Pages 181-182
◼︎ Saturday, July 27
SECTION 2, CHAPTER 6:
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
“Focus on core diplomatic activities, and stop promoting policies birthed in the American culture wars. African nations are particularly (and reasonably) non-receptive to the U.S. social policies such as abortion and pro-LGBT initiatives being imposed on them. The United States should focus on core security, economic, and human rights engagement with African partners and reject the promotion of divisive policies that hurt the deepening of shared goals between the U.S. and its African partners.”
Page 187
NOTE: Homosexuality is illegal in 64 countries, of which 30 are located in Africa where Project 2025 deems this oppression as “reasonable.” In Uganda, for instance, the 2023 Anti-Homosexuality Bill reaffirmed the existing penalty of life imprisonment for same-sex conduct, and imposed 10-year prison sentences for simply attempting to have same-sex contact. In cases of “aggravated homosexuality” — for instance, same-sex contact with anyone having a disability — is punishable by death. How could this not be reasonable?
A core tenet of Project 2025 is the assertion that LGBTQ+ people are one of the central problems plaguing American society — and the world too, I think it’s fair to assume they’d say. So while Project 2025 asserts that the “U.S. cannot neglect a concern for human rights and minority rights…” where “Special attention must be paid to challenges of religious freedom,” [p. 185] the rights and safety of LGBTQ+ people should not be of interest or concern.
◼︎ Sunday, July 28
No post
◼︎ Monday, July 29
SECTION 2, CHAPTER 6:
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
“The next Administration must end blind support for international organizations. If an international organization is effective and advances American interests, the United States should support it. If an international organization is ineffective or does not support American interests, the United States should not support it. Those that are effective will still require constant pressure from U.S. officials to ensure that they remain effective. Serious consideration should also be given to withdrawal from organizations that no longer have value, quietly undermine U.S. interests or goals, or disproportionately rely on U.S. financial contributions to survive.
“The Trump Administration’s “tough love” approach to international organizations served American interests. For example, the Trump Administration withdrew from, or terminated funding for, the United Nations Human Rights Council, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, and the WHO. The results were redeployment of taxpayer dollars to better uses—and other organizations “getting the message” that the United States will not allow itself and its money to be used to undermine its own interests…
“International organizations should not be used to promote radical social policies as if they were human rights priorities. Doing so undermines actual human rights and weakens U.S. credibility abroad…”
Page 191
NOTE: In keeping with other references throughout Project 2025, the last paragraph quoted here most certainly refers to LGBTQ+ issues, as these are “…radical social policies [that should not be treated as] human rights priorities.”
◼︎ Tuesday, July 30
SECTION 2, CHAPTER 6:
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
“The U.S. Commission on Unalienable Human Rights focused on the primacy of civil and political rights in its inaugural report, which remains an important guidepost for bilateral and multilateral engagements on human rights. The commission’s report is a roadmap for revamping and reenergizing U.S. human rights policy and should be the basis for both structural and policy changes throughout the State Department. All U.S. multilateral engagements must be reevaluated in light of the work of the commission, and initiatives that promote controversial policies must be halted and rolled back.
“It is paramount to create a healthy culture of respect for life, the family, sovereignty, and authentic human rights in international organizations and agencies. To support this goal, the U.S. led an effort during the Trump Administration to forge a consensus among like-minded countries in support of human life, women’s health, support of the family as the basic unit of human society, and defense of national sovereignty. The result was the Geneva Consensus Declaration on Women’s Health and Protection of the Family. All U.S. foreign policy engagements that were produced and expanded under the Obama and Biden Administrations must be aligned with the Geneva Consensus Declaration and the work of the U.S. Commission on Unalienable Human Rights.
“The U.S. government should not and cannot promote or fund abortion in international programs or multilateral organizations. Technically, the United States can prevent its international funding from going toward abortions, but the U.S. will have a greater impact by including like-minded nations and building on the coalition launched through the Geneva Consensus Declaration, with a view to shaping the work of international agencies by functioning as a united front. The COVID-19 pandemic made it painfully clear that both international organizations—and some countries—are only too willing to trample human rights in the name of public health. For example, the WHO was, and remains, willing to support the suppression of basic human rights, partially because of its close relationship with human rights abusers like the PRC.
“The next Administration should unequivocally embrace the premise that humanity and the international community can simultaneously tackle pandemics and other emergent health threats without impeding the rights of people. It must also become a vocal surrogate for people in countries where rights are being suppressed in the name of health. This will likely require greater restrictions on the supply of federal dollars to the WHO and other health-focused international organizations pending adjustment of their policies.
“The United States must return to treating international organizations as vehicles for promoting American interests—or take steps to extract itself from those organizations.”
Pages 192-193
NOTE: Embedded in the excerpt above are code words that might be easily overlooked but reveal the underlying intent of Project 2025. Phrases like “authentic human rights” mean that LGBTQ+ rights are not considered “authentic” and should not be supported or advanced in any way when the U.S. deals with international organizations and agencies. These “are initiatives that promote controversial policies [which] must be halted and rolled back.”
Recall that in the Foreword to Project 2025 that I quoted here July 8th, Project 2025 is calling for all references to “sexual orientation” be expunged from “every federal rule, agency regulation, contract, grant, regulation, and piece of legislation that exists.”
When Project 2025 writes above that it “is paramount to create a healthy culture of respect for life, the family, sovereignty, and authentic human rights,” it means exclusively heterosexual families — and just after it makes explicit that “respect for life” means the “U.S. government should not and cannot promote or fund abortion.” Specifically this means internationally, but by extension surely they mean no support or funding for abortion here in the U.S.
◼︎ Wednesday, July 31
SECTION 2, CHAPTER 7:
INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY
“The IC [Intelligence Community] must be perceived as a depoliticized protector of America’s civil rights and security. The American people are understandably frustrated by the fact that those who abuse power are rarely held to account for their actions. This must change, beginning with leadership that is both committed to ensuring that these agencies faithfully execute the laws of the land under the Constitution and resolved to punish and remove any officials who have abused the public trust.”
Page 202
NOTE: Say what?! Where is the real Project 2025 and what have they done with it?
◼︎ Thursday, August 1-Sunday, August 4
No posts
◼︎ Monday, August 5
SECTION 2, CHAPTER 7:
INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY
“[F]uture [Intelligence Community] leadership must address the widely promoted “woke” culture that has spread throughout the federal government with identity politics and “social justice” advocacy replacing such traditional American values as patriotism, colorblindness, and even workplace competence…
“Corporate America, technology companies, research institutions, and academia must be willing, educated partners in this generational fight to protect our national security interests, economic interests, national sovereignty, and intellectual property as well as the broader rules-based order—all while avoiding the tendency to cave to the left-wing activists and investors who ignore the China threat and increasingly dominate the corporate world. Reinstitution of the National Security Higher Education Advisory Board and the National Security Business Alliance Council should be prioritized with leadership from the NCSC, the FBI, or a combination of both entities.”
Pages 204 & 218
NOTE: The National Security Higher Education Advisory Board (NSHEAB) was created by Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Director Robert S. Mueller III on December 15, 2005. Operated by the FBI and paneled by approximately 20 American university presidents and chancellors, the expressed purpose of the board is “to foster outreach and to promote understanding between higher education and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.” The board also facilitates communication between universities and federal authorities on “national priorities pertaining to terrorism, counterintelligence, and homeland security.”
Some academics have expressed concern over the collaboration between FBI and university officials due to the agency’s past investigations of individuals in the academic community in the 1960s. [Wikipedia]
◼︎ Tuesday, August 6-Monday, August 12
No posts
◼︎ Tuesday, August 13
SECTION 2, CHAPTER 8:
MEDIA AGENCIES- CORPORATION FOR PUBLIC BROADCASTING
“Every Republican President since Richard Nixon has tried to strip the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) of taxpayer funding. That is significant not just because it means that for half a century, Republican Presidents have failed to accomplish what they set out to do, but also because Nixon was the first President in office when National Public Radio (NPR) and the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS), which the CPB funds, went on air.
“In other words, all Republican Presidents have recognized that public funding of domestic broadcasts is a mistake. As a 35-year-old lawyer in the Nixon White House, one Antonin Scalia warned that conservatives were being ‘confronted with a long-range problem of significant social consequences—that is, the development of a government-funded broadcast system similar to the BBC.’
“All of which means that the next conservative President must finally get this done and do it despite opposition from congressional members of his own party if necessary. To stop public funding is good policy and good politics. The reason is simple: President Lyndon Johnson may have pledged in 1967 that public broadcasting would become ‘a vital public resource to enrich our homes, educate our families and to provide assistance to our classrooms,’ but public broadcasting immediately became a liberal forum for public affairs and journalism…”
Page 246
NOTE: It’s possible the reason Republicans have failed to defund PBS is the overwhelming support PBS has with the public, many of whom demonstrate their support tangibly with monthly pledges.
◼︎ Wednesday, August 14
SECTION 2, CHAPTER 8:
MEDIA AGENCIES- CORPORATION FOR PUBLIC BROADCASTING
“Cutting off the CPB [Corporation for Public Broadcasting] is logistically easy. The solution lies in the budgetary process. In 2022, the CPB submitted to the Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies Subcommittees of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees its budget justification for fiscal year (FY) 2023. In it, the CPB requested that Congress give it a $565 million advance appropriation—a $40 million increase compared to its FY 2022 funding. Unlike most other agencies, the CPB receives advance appropriations that provide them with funding two years ahead of time, which insulates the agency from Congress’s power of the purse and oversight. This special budgetary treatment is unjustified and should be ended.
“The 47th President can just tell the Congress—through the budget he proposes and through personal contact—that he will not sign an appropriations spending bill that contains a penny for the CPB. The President may have to use the bully pulpit, as NPR and PBS have teams of lobbyists who have convinced enough Members of Congress to save their bacon every time their taxpayer subsidies have been at risk since the Nixon era.”
◼︎ Thursday, August 15
SECTION 2, CHAPTER 8:
MEDIA AGENCIES- CORPORATION FOR PUBLIC BROADCASTING
“Stripping public funding [from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting] would, of course, mean that NPR, PBS, Pacifica Radio, and the other leftist broadcasters would be shorn of the presumption that they act in the public interest and receive the privileges that often accompany so acting. They should no longer, for example, be qualified as noncommercial education stations (NCE stations), which they clearly no longer are. NPR, Pacifica, and the other radio ventures have zero claim on an educational function (the original purpose for which they were created by President Johnson), and the percentage of on-air programming that PBS devotes to educational endeavors such as ‘Sesame Street’ (programs that are themselves biased to the Left) is small.
“Being an NCE comes with benefits. The Federal Communications Commission, for example, reserves the 20 stations at the lower end of the radio frequency (between 88 and 108 MHz on the FM band) for NCEs. The FCC says that “only noncommercial educational radio stations are licensed in the 88–92 MHz ‘reserved’ band,” while both commercial and noncommercial educational stations may operate in the ‘non-reserved’ band. This confers advantages, as lower-frequency stations can be heard farther away and are easier to find as they lie on the left end of the radio dial (figuratively as well as ideologically).
“The FCC also exempts NCE stations from licensing fees. It says that ‘Noncommercial educational (NCE) FM station licensees and full service NCE television broadcast station licensees are exempt from paying regulatory fees, provided that these stations operate solely on an NCE basis.’
“NPR and PBS stations are in reality no longer noncommercial, as they run ads in everything but name for their sponsors. They are also noneducational. The next President should instruct the FCC to exclude the stations a!liated with PBS and NPR from the NCE denomination and the privileges that come with it.”
◼︎ Friday, August 16
SECTION 2, CHAPTER 9:
AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
“USAID [U.S. Agency for International Development] installed advisers on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) committees ‘in all its Bureaus, Offices, and [overseas] Missions’ and created ‘an agency-wide dashboard and DEI scorecard for all bureaus, offices, and missions’ to track staff compliance with the Administration’s DEI directives. A Chief DEI Officer oversees this DEI infrastructure and sits in the Administrator’s office. DEI directives are now part of all agency policies and are incorporated as standard clauses in all contract and grant awards. Those seeking to do business with the agency must ‘describe the approaches they will use to diversify their partner base.’ USAID often ties DEI to ‘gender and climate equity,’ corrupting every aspect of the agency’s overseas work.
“The upshot has been to racialize the agency and create a hostile work environment for anyone who disagrees with the Biden Administration’s identity politics. This pursuit of ideological purity threatens merit-based professional advancement for staff who do not overtly conform, hyperpoliticizes what should be a nonpartisan federal workplace environment, creates an institutionalized cadre of progressive political commissars, corrupts the award process, and discourages potential contractors and grantees that disagree with this radical agenda from applying for USAID funding.
“The next conservative Administration should dismantle USAID’s DEI apparatus by eliminating the Chief Diversity Officer position along with the DEI advisers and committees; cancel the DEI scorecard and dashboard; remove DEI requirements from contract and grant tenders and awards; issue a directive to cease promotion of the DEI agenda, including the bullying LGBTQ+ agenda; and provide staff a confidential medium through which to adjudicate cases of political retaliation that agency or implementing staff suffered during the Biden Administration. It should eliminate funding for partners that promote discriminatory DEI practices and consider debarment in egregious cases.
“…[S]taff…that engage in ideological agitation on behalf of the DEI agenda should be dismissed…”
Page 258
NOTE: Project 2025 talks through both sides of its mouth here. In condemning diversity, equity, and inclusion, they say “pursuit of ideological purity threatens merit-based professional advancement for staff who do not overtly conform, hyperpoliticizes what should be a nonpartisan federal workplace environment, creates an institutionalized cadre of progressive political commissars…”
This implied support for a non-partisan, merit-based professional staff is disingenuous given that a fundamental objective of Project 2025 is to replace tens of thousands of professional career civil servants with political appointees chosen specifically for their allegiance to the Trump agenda — an ideological purity of a different sort. The negatives attributed to DEI will be created in their mirror opposite under Project 2025.
Beyond that, the existing career civil service is comprised of professionals hired for their expertise, not their ideological purity. They are men and women who have served honorably for decades under both Democratic and Republican administrations. Their allegiance is to law and science — an ethic which Project 2025 explicitly seeks to end.
◼︎ Saturday, August 17 & Sunday, August 18
No posts
◼︎ Monday, August 19
SECTION 2, CHAPTER 9:
AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
“[T]he next conservative Administration should rescind President Biden’s 2022 Gender Policy and refocus it on Women, Children, and Families and revise the agency’s regulation on ‘Integrating Gender Equality and Female Empowerment in USAID’s Program Cycle.’ It should remove all references, examples, definitions, photos, and language on USAID [U.S. Agency for International Development] websites, in agency publications and policies, and in all agency contracts and grants that include the following terms: ‘gender,’ ‘gender equality,’ ‘gender equity,’ ‘gender diverse individuals,’ ‘gender aware,’ ‘gender sensitive,’ etc. It should also remove references to ‘abortion,’ ‘reproductive health,’ and ‘sexual and reproductive rights’ and controversial sexual education materials…
“To stop U.S. foreign aid from supporting the global abortion industry, the next conservative Administration should issue an executive order that, at a minimum, reinstates PLGHA [Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance] and summarily blocks funding to UNFPA [United Nations Population Fund] but also closes loopholes by applying the policy to all foreign assistance, including humanitarian aid, and improving its enforcement. The executive order to reinstate PLGHA should be drafted broadly to apply to all foreign assistance. It should simultaneously rescind President Biden’s memorandum entitled ‘Protecting Women’s Health at Home and Abroad,’ issued on January 28, 2021. The new pro-life executive order should apply to foreign NGOs [Non-Governmental Organizations] including subgrantees and subcontractors, and remove exemptions for U.S.-based NGOs, public international organizations, and bilateral government-to-government agreements. All entities funded by USAID, both directly and indirectly, should report their compliance with the PLGHA, and USAID should institute penalties, including debarment from future federal funding, for violations of it. The new executive order also should instruct the Administrator of USAID to publish reports on implementation of the PLGHA by both prime and sub-prime recipients.
“In addition, the Helms Amendment should continue to be applied, as it has been by both Republican and Democratic Administrations for more than 50 years, as a complete ban on the use of taxpayer dollars to pay for abortions abroad.”
Pages 259 & 261
◼︎ Tuesday, August 20
SECTION 3, CHAPTER 10:
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
“Ostensibly, SNAP [the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or ‘food stamps’] sends money through electronic-benefit-transfer (EBT) cards to help ‘low-income’ individuals buy food. It is the largest of the federal nutrition programs. Food stamps are designed to be supplemented by other forms of income—whether through paid employment or nonprofit support. SNAP serves 41.1 million individuals—an increase of 4.3 million people during the Biden years. In 2020, the food stamp program cost $79.1 billion. That number continued to rise—by 2022, outlays hit $119.5 billion.
“The next Administration should:
“Re-implement work requirements. The statutory language covering food stamps allows states to waive work requirements that otherwise apply to work-capable individuals—that is, adult beneficiaries between the ages 18 and 50 who are not disabled and do not have any children or other dependents in the home.
“Even in a strong economy, work expectations are fairly limited: Individuals who are work-capable and without dependents are required to work or prepare for work for 20 hours per week. The work requirements are then implemented unless the state requests a waiver from the USDA’s Food and Nutrition Services. Waivers from statutory work requirements can be approved in two instances: an unemployment rate of more than 10 percent or a lack of sufficient jobs…
“Beyond the able-bodied work requirement, FNS [Food and Nutrition Service] should implement better regulation to clarify options for states to implement the general work requirement. This requirement is an option states can apply to work-capable beneficiaries aged 16 to 59. If beneficiaries’ work hours are below 30 hours a week, states can implement the general work requirements to oblige beneficiaries to register for work or participate in SNAP Employment and Training or workfare assigned by the state SNAP agency. Increased clarity for states would include items like states being required to offer employment and training spots for those that request them—not simply budgeting for every currently enrolled able-bodied adult.”
Pages 299-300
◼︎ Wednesday, August 21 – Monday, August 26
No posts
◼︎ Tuesday, August 27
SECTION 3, CHAPTER 10:
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
“Eliminate or Reform the Dietary Guidelines. The USDA [U.S. Dept of Agriculture], in collaboration with HHS [Health & Human Services], publishes the Dietary Guidelines every five years.125 For more than 40 years, the federal government has been releasing Dietary Guidelines,126 and during this time, there has been constant controversy due to questionable recommendations and claims regarding the politicization of the process…
“The next Administration should:
“Work with lawmakers to repeal the Dietary Guidelines. The USDA should help lead an effort to repeal the Dietary Guidelines.”
Page 309
◼︎ Wednesday, August 28
SECTION 3, CHAPTER 11:
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
“Federal education policy should be limited and, ultimately, the federal Department of Education should be eliminated. When power is exercised, it should empower students and families, not government. In our pluralistic society, families and students should be free to choose from a diverse set of school options and learning environments that best fit their needs. Our postsecondary institutions should also reflect such diversity, with room for not only “traditional” liberal arts colleges and research universities but also faith-based institutions, career schools, military academies, and lifelong learning programs.
“Elementary and secondary education policy should follow the path outlined by Milton Friedman in 1955, wherein education is publicly funded but education decisions are made by families. Ultimately, every parent should have the option to direct his or her child’s share of education funding through an education savings account (ESA), funded overwhelmingly by state and local taxpayers, which would empower parents to choose a set of education options that meet their child’s unique needs.
Page 319
NOTE: Milton Friedman was a controversial advocate of privatizing education. He advanced his ideas in a paper published in 1955, ‘The Role of Government in Education’. He called for school vouchers and a reduced role of government is schools, instead advocating private-market efficiency models in education.
Milton has been criticized as aiding and abetting segregation in education. “Whatever their personal beliefs about race and racism, [Milton and his allies] helped Jim Crow survive in America by providing ostensibly race-neutral arguments for tax subsidies to the private schools sought by white supremacists. Indeed, to achieve court-proof vouchers, leading defenders of segregation learned from the libertarians that the best strategy was to abandon overtly racist rationales and embrace both an anti-government stance and a positive rubric of liberty, competition, and market choice.” [Institute for New Economic Thinking]
◼︎ Thursay, August 29
No post
◼︎ Friday, August 30
SECTION 3, CHAPTER 11:
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
“In order to fully wind down the Department of Education, Congress must pass and the President must sign into law a Department of Education Reorganization Act (or Liquidating Authority Act) to direct the executive branch on how to devolve the agency as a stand-alone Cabinet-level department…
“While the next Administration works to distribute department programs across the federal government, it will need to thoroughly review the many education-related regulations promulgated by the Biden Administration. There are five primary regulatory targets (as of December 2022) that require the next Administration’s attention: regulations on (1) Charter School Grant Program Priorities; (2) Civil Rights Data Collection; (3) Student Assistance General Provisions, Federal Perkins Loan Program, and William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program Final Regulations; (4) Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance (Title IX); and (5) Assistance to States for the Education of Children with Disabilities, Preschool Grants for Children with Disabilities (Equity in IDEA). The next Administration should also review regulatory changes to the school meals program (under the Department of Agriculture) and changes to the Income-Driven student loan program. Additional Biden Administration regulations on (1) gainful employment, administrative capability, and financial responsibility for institutions that participate in the federal student loans and grant programs; (2) Title VI, (3) accreditation of postsecondary institutions, and (4) female athletics are expected in to be released in 2023…
“The new Administration must take immediate steps to rescind the new requirements and lessen the federal restrictions on charter schools.
“On December 13, 2021, OCR published a notice concerning proposed revisions to OCR’s Mandatory Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC) in which it proposed to create and collect data on a new “nonbinary” sex category (in addition to the current “male” or “female” sex categories) and to retire data collection that indicates the number of (1) high school–level interscholastic athletics sports in which only male and female students participate, (2) high school–level athletics teams in which only male or female students participate, and (3) participants on high school–level interscholastic athletics sports teams in which only male or only female students participate. These poorly conceived changes are contrary to law, fail to take account of student privacy interests and statutory protections favoring parental rights under the Protection of Pupils Rights Amendment, and jettison longstanding data collections that assist in the enforcement of Title IX.
“The new Administration must quickly move to rescind these changes, which add a new “nonbinary” sex category to OCR’S data collection and issue a new CRDC that will collect data directly relevant to OCR’s statutory enforcement authority.”
Pages 330-332
◼︎ Saturday, August 31
No post
The complete Project 2025 document including all chapters and footnotes are available online at the Heritage Foundation (click here). I encourage everyone to go and read the full original for yourself, and draw your own conclusions.
Title image of Trump is by George Skidmore available under Creative Commons license. Inset is book cover to 2025 Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise (a.k.a. “Project 2025”) available online.
Note to Email Subscribers: Thank you for your interest and support! The email notifications you receive omit some elements and others don’t display properly. To see this post as designed and intended, please click on the post title to view it in your web browser.
A Request to my Facebook Friends: If you have a comment I encourage you to enter it below instead of on Facebook. This way everyone can participate in the conversation!
A Request to Everyone: All opinions are welcome. I only ask that we remain civil and respectful of one another.
