Excerpts from Project 2025 / Page 3

◼︎Tuesday, October 1
SECTION 3, CHAPTER 18:
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND RELATED AGENCIES

“NEEDED REFORMS

“Reverse the DEI Revolution in Labor Policy. Under the Obama and Biden Administrations, labor policy was yet another target of the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) revolution. Under this managerialist left-wing race and gender ideology, every aspect of labor policy became a vehicle with which to advance race, sex, and other classifications and discriminate against conservative and religious viewpoints on these subjects and others, including pro-life views. The next Administration should eliminate every one of these wrongful and burdensome ideological projects.

“Eliminate Racial Classifications and Critical Race Theory Trainings. The Biden Administration has pushed ‘racial equity’ in every area of our national life, including in employment, and has condoned the use of racial classifications and racial preferences under the guise of DEI and critical race theory, which categorizes individuals as oppressors and victims based on race. Nondiscrimination and equality are the law; DEI is not. Title VII flatly prohibits discrimination in employment on the basis of race, color, and national origin. The President should:

“▪︎ Issue an executive order banning, and Congress should pass a law prohibiting the federal government from using taxpayer dollars to fund, all critical race theory training (CRT).

“▪︎ Direct DOJ [Department of Justice] and EEOC [Equal Employment Opportunity Commission] to enforce Title VII. The President should direct the Department of Justice and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to enforce Title VII to prohibit racial classifications and quotas, including human-resources classifications and DEI trainings that promote critical race theory.

“▪︎ Eliminate EEO-1 data collection. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission collects EEO-1 data on employment statistics based on race/ ethnicity, which data can then be used to support a charge of discrimination under a disparate impact theory. This could lead to racial quotas to remedy alleged race discrimination. (The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) also has a right to the data EEOC collects.) Crudely categorizing employees by race or ethnicity fails to recognize the diversity of the American workforce and forces individuals into categories that do not fully reflect their racial and ethnic heritage.

“▪︎ Amend Title VII. The next Administration should work with Congress to amend Title VII to prohibit the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission from collecting EEO-1 data and any other racial classifications in employment for both private and public workplaces.

“▪︎ Eliminate disparate impact liability. With interracial marriages in America increasing, many Americans do not fit neatly into crude racial categories.1 Under disparate impact theory, moreover, discriminatory motive or intent is irrelevant; the outcome is what matters. But all workplaces have disparities.”
Pages 582-583

◼︎ Wednesday, October 2
SECTION 3, CHAPTER 18:
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND RELATED AGENCIES

“Sex Discrimination. The Biden Administration, LGBT advocates, and some federal courts have attempted to expand the scope and definition of sex discrimination, based in part on the Supreme Court’s decision in Bostock v. Clayton County. Bostock held that ‘an employer who fires someone simply for being homosexual or transgender’ violates Title VII’s prohibition against sex discrimination. The Court explicitly limited its holding to the hiring/firing context in Title VII and did not purport to address other Title VII issues, such as bathrooms, locker rooms, and dress codes, or other laws prohibiting sex discrimination. Notably, the Court focused on the status of the employees and used the term ‘transgender status’ rather than the broader and amorphous term ‘gender identity.’

“▪︎ Restrict the application of Bostock. The new Administration should restrict Bostock’s application of sex discrimination protections to sexual orientation and transgender status in the context of hiring and firing.

“▪︎ Withdraw unlawful ‘notices’ and ‘guidances.’ The President should direct agencies to withdraw unlawful ‘notices’ and ‘guidances’ purporting to apply Bostock’s reasoning broadly outside hiring and firing.

“▪︎ Rescind regulations prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, transgender status, and sex characteristics. The President should direct agencies to rescind regulations interpreting sex discrimination provisions as prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, transgender status, sex characteristics, etc.

“▪︎ Direct agencies to refocus enforcement of sex discrimination laws. The President should direct agencies to focus their enforcement of sex discrimination laws on the biological binary meaning of ‘sex.’
Pages 584-585

NOTE: Project 2025 zeros in against the LGBTQ+ community in its opening paragraphs and then hammers away repeatedly throughout its 900 pages. Here Project 2025 explicitly employs the narrowest readings of law and court rulings to restrict protection of LGBTQ+ people to the greatest extent possible. I’m sure the authors are frustrated they can’t wipe us out entirely — and given the chance, I fully expect them to try.

◼︎ Thursday, October 3
SECTION 3, CHAPTER 18:
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND RELATED AGENCIES

“Union Transparency. Private-sector unions must file detailed financial information with DOL [Department of Labor]—on matters including union spending, income, loans, assets, membership information, and employee salary—but unions composed entirely of state or local employees are exempt from this filing requirement. These disclosure requirements help workers and the public understand how union leaders are raising and spending union dues; they also can serve as a vital source of information that helps workers decide if the unions they are asked to join are good stewards of the funds they collect. DOL, under both George W. Bush and Donald Trump, tried rulemakings (known as the Intermediate Bodies Rule) that would require some government unions to file the same information that is required of private-sector unions…

“▪︎ Enact transparency rules. The substance of the Intermediate Bodies Rule should pass into law, either through rulemaking or through legislation. The T-1 Trust Annual Report annual filing requirement should be restored…

“Duty of Fair Representation. Unions have a duty of fair representation to their members, yet they too often abuse that duty to use their members’ resources on left-wing culture-war issues that are unrelated, and in fact often harmful, to union members’ own interests.

“▪︎ The NLRB [National Labor Relations Board] should take enforcement or amicus action advancing the position that political conflicts of interest by union leadership can support claims for breach of the duty of fair representation in a manner analogous to financial conflicts of interest and analogous to breaches of the fiduciary duty of loyalty in other areas of law.”
Pages 599-600

NOTE: It is not the government’s or the employer’s business or prerogative to police workers’ unions or insert themselves into a union’s affairs. If workers have an issue or dispute with their leadership, it is a effectively a private affair for a union or local to work out internally.

If Project 2025 is going to make this demand of unions for transparency, then turnabout should be fair play. The employers and big corporations should open their books to examination by their workers. Let’s find out who’s getting what compensation, what deals they’ve made, shortcuts they’ve taken on worker or consumer safety, promises from Congress and quid pro quos… Somehow I don’t think they’ll agree to that.

Background on one point above: The T-1 Trust Annual Report was a DOL rule requiring unions with over $250,000 in total annual receipts to report the finances of certain trusts in which they held an interest. These might include apprenticeship and training plans, labor-management cooperation committees, strike funds, and building corporations. DOL rescinded the rule in 2021 and Project 2025 seeks to reinstate it.

◼︎ Friday, October 4
SECTION 3, CHAPTER 19:
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

“▪︎ In pursuit of an anti–fossil fuel climate agenda never approved by Congress, the Biden Administration has raised fuel economy requirements to levels that cannot realistically be met by most categories of ICE [internal-combustion engine] vehicles. The purpose is to force the auto industry to transition away from traditional technologies to the production of electric vehicles (EVs) and compel Americans to accept costly EVs [electric vehicles] despite a clear and persistent consumer preference for ICE-powered vehicles. In further support of this agenda, federal regulators administer a scheme of generous fuel economy credits that subsidize EV producers such as Tesla at the expense of legacy automakers.

“▪︎ Moreover, and contrary to Congress’s design, the Biden EPA has been given preeminence in the regulation of fuel economy through the setting of carbon dioxide emissions limits for new motor vehicles under the Clean Air Act. Because carbon dioxide emissions levels correspond to mileage in automobiles powered by fossil fuels, these EPA rules are de facto fuel economy requirements that apply independently of NHTSA’s [National Highway Traffic Safety Administration] standards.

“▪︎ The Biden Administration has also granted California a special waiver under the Clean Air Act that permits the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to issue its own fuel economy directives, notwithstanding EPCA’s prohibition on state standards. Under this waiver, CARB has ordered automakers to phase out the sale of ICE-powered automobiles in California and transition to the production of zero-emission vehicles by 2035. The Clean Air Act allows other states to follow California’s requirements; thus, CARB is effectively determining fuel economy policies for the entire nation…

“[T]he next Administration should:

“▪︎ Reduce proposed fuel economy levels. The Administration should consider returning to the minimum average fuel economy levels specified by Congress for model year 2020 vehicles…

“▪︎ Ensure that DOT again exercises priority in the setting of fuel economy standards. Any EPA limits on carbon dioxide emissions, even if authorized under the Clean Air Act, must support and work in harmony with DOT standards and must not override them or usurp DOT’s regulatory role…

“▪︎ Revoke the special waiver granted to California by the Biden Administration.
Pages 627-629

◼︎ Saturday, October 5-Sunday, October 6
No posts.

◼︎ Monday, October 7
SECTION 5, CHAPTER 28:
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

ADVANCE NOTE: This post jumps ahead several chapters. I’ve skipped ones where the content seems somewhat esoteric and lacks bombshells, at least that I spotted by skimming through. So today I’ve jumped ahead to Chapter 28 that starts on page 861. We’re close to the end!

“U.S. Department of Justice/FEC-Related Activities. The President does have control of the Department of Justice (DOJ). Thus, he has authority as President, primarily through his choice of attorney general and other political appointees, to direct the prosecutorial functions of the DOJ regarding criminal enforcement of FECA [Federal Election Campaign Act]. Such investigations and prosecutions are carried out by the Public Integrity Section of the Criminal Division, with the assistance, coordination, and help of the Offices of U.S. Attorneys in whatever state an alleged violation occurs.

“▪︎ The President must ensure that the DOJ, just like the FEC, is directed to only prosecute clear violations of FECA. The department must not construe ambiguous provisions against the public instead of the government or apply FECA in a way that infringes on protected First Amendment activity.

“It should be but is not always obvious to overzealous government prosecutors that if a federal law is confusing, it would be unjust to prosecute individuals who are unable to determine if they are violating the law.

“▪︎ The President should direct the DOJ and the attorney general not to prosecute individuals under an interpretation of the law with which the FEC—the expert agency designated by Congress to enforce the law civilly and issue regulations establishing the standards under which the law is applied—does not agree.

“▪︎ In making prosecution decisions, DOJ should be instructed to consult and consider all official actions by the FEC that interpret the law including prior enforcement actions, regulatory pronouncements, and advisory opinions, just as private practitioners, the public, and political actors must do.

“It is fundamentally unfair for the DOJ to prosecute an individual for supposedly violating the law when the FEC has previously determined that a similarly situated individual has not violated the law. Furthermore, this rule should apply even when there is a tied or three-to-three vote by the FEC commissioners whether in an enforcement action or an advisory opinion since under the statute, the FEC cannot take any action unless there are four a!rmative votes.

“Again, it seems obvious that if the commissioners designated by Congress to interpret the law are unable to determine what the law requires, then it is unfair to prosecute a citizen for violating that law. The DOJ should not engage in criminal prosecutions that stretch legal theories and defy FEC interpretations and regulations.”
Pages 863-864

◼︎ Tuesday, October 8
SECTION 5, CHAPTER 28:
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

“Another issue directly related to what has often been a contentious relationship between the FEC and the DOJ is the conduct of litigation. The vast majority of federal agencies are defended by the DOJ, which also represents them when the agency is pursuing litigation as a plaintiff.

“The FEC, however, is one of the few federal agencies with independent litigating authority.10 The FEC’s lawyers represent the agency in federal court up through the federal courts of appeal. If a case reaches the U.S. Supreme Court, then the O!ce of the Solicitor General of the Justice Department represents the FEC.

“In recent years, the FEC has failed to defend itself against litigation filed by political allies of certain Democrat commissioners. It takes four votes to authorize the general counsel of the FEC to defend a lawsuit filed against the agency, and those commissioners have refused to provide that fourth vote, so ‘the public was treated to the scandalous spectacle of the Commission—an independent agency of the United States government—defaulting in litigation before federal courts.’

“These cases involved enforcement matters in which the commissioners disagreed on whether a violation of the law had occurred. Accordingly, the final votes of the commissioners did not approve moving forward with enforcement because there were not four a!rmative votes that a violation of the law occurred. When private plainti”s then sued the FEC for failing to take action, Democrat commissioners refused to authorize the defense of the FEC in litigation as a way of circumventing the prior final action of the FEC and the FECA four-vote requirement to authorize an enforcement action. Such defaults in litigation are unacceptable.

“• The President should direct the attorney general to defend the FEC in all litigation when there is a failure of the commissioners to authorize the general counsel of the agency to defend it. No legislation would be needed to accomplish this; the DOJ has the general authority to defend the government and its agencies in all litigation.

“• As a legislative matter and given this abuse, the President should seriously consider recommending that Congress amend FECA to remove the agency’s independent litigating authority and rely on the Department of Justice to handle all litigation involving the FEC.”
Pages 864-865

◼︎ Wednesday, October 9
SECTION 5, CHAPTER 30:
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

“[W]e are witnessing in today’s markets the use of economic power—often market and perhaps even monopoly power—to undermine democratic institutions and civil society. Practices such as Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) requirements on publicly traded corporations and their inclusion in business agreements, the so-called ‘de-banking’ of industries and individuals, and the interference of large internet firms with democratic political discourse undermine liberal democracy, a truly open society, and, indeed, rule of law. Without rule of law, markets themselves will wither.

“Critical of the ‘social responsibility’ agenda, Milton Friedman in his provocatively titled essay ‘The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Profits’ states,

“’[T]here is one and only one social responsibility of business—to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays in the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition, without deception or fraud.’

“For Friedman, market mechanisms, not political mechanisms, are the appropriate way to determine the allocation of scarce resources to alternative uses. Business managers appropriate shareholder wealth when they use corporate resources to further their personal political beliefs, even when pursuing what they consider a ‘socially responsible’ or ‘moral’ agenda. The business of American business is business, not ideology.
Page 871

◼︎ Thursday, October 10
SECTION 5, CHAPTER 30:
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

“Others think that the post–New Deal expansion of the administrative state has had baleful effects upon our society and earnestly share the hope that it can be greatly curtailed if not eliminated—or that its authority can be returned to the states and other democratically accountable political institutions. But, until there is a return to a constitutional structure that the Founding Fathers would have recognized and a massive shrinking of the administrative state, conservatives cannot unilaterally disarm and fail to use the power of government to further a conservative agenda. As experience shows, the administrative state will grow and further its own agenda, often at odds with conservative thought, even under conservative leadership. Unless conservatives take a firm hand to the bureaucracy and marshal its power to defend a freedom-promoting agenda, nothing will stop the bureaucracy’s anti–free market, leftist march.

“ESG Practices as a Cover for Anticompetitive Activity and Possible Unfair Trade Practices. It has long been suspected, and is now increasingly documented, that corporate social advocacy on issues ranging from ‘Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion’ (DEI) to the ‘environmental, social, and governance’ (ESG) movement also serves to launder corporate reputation and perhaps obtain favorable treatment from government actors. In a recent Senate Judiciary hearing, Senator Josh Hawley asked FTC Chair Lina Khan if the FTC had conditioned merger reviews on ESG or critical race theories adopted by the firms involved. Khan responded by saying that she turned down deals when firms offered social justice policies in return for approving unlawful deals. In response to a similar question from Senator Tom Cotton, Khan responded that firms try to come to the FTC to get out of antitrust liability by offering climate, diversity, or other forms of ESG-type offerings, but that there is no ESG loophole in the antitrust laws…

“▪︎ Congress should investigate ESG practices as a cover for anticompetitive activity and possible unfair trade practices.

“The business of American business is business, not ideology. The privileges extended to corporations in American society come with the expectation that they will pursue profits for shareholders, bringing about economic growth. Managers, particularly in publicly traded corporations, who use their power to advance sets of fashionable moral beliefs, such as ESG/DEI, introduce agency problems into the shareholder relationship and appropriate corporate wealth for their own benefit.

“Milton Friedman recognized this problem decades ago when answering the question whether businesses have ethical or social obligations, as was mentioned above. Contrary to his detractors, Friedman did not defend ‘greed is good.’ Rather, according to Friedman, socially responsible activities conducted by a corporation distort economic freedom because shareholders do not decide how their money will be spent—increasing the possibility for fraud or management opportunism. This is especially the case in concentrated industries with market power.

“Managers who insert their own values into underwriting agreements, contracts for professional services, or other business transactions coopt shareholder value for their own personal utility. This is an unfair trade practice, particularly when it occurs in industries that enjoy market power and special privileges or relationships with the government.”
Pages 873-874

◼︎ Friday, October 11
No post.

◼︎ Saturday, October 12
SECTION 5, CHAPTER 30:
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

“Cancel Culture, Collusion, and Commerce. As a corollary, businesses that make general o!ers of service to the public forego profits by refusing to service a lawful activity, i.e., fossil fuel extraction or gun manufacturing, raising similar concerns. When banks or internet platforms refuse customers based on their political or social views (as distinguished from religious views), they forgo profits. While such decisions are often justified on public relations, marketing, or branding grounds—and normally such decisions, reflecting business judgment, should and would receive deference, this presumption is harder to make in a highly partisan, ideologically divided America. This type of behavior can rise to the level of an unfair trade practice when the business is (1) publicly traded; (2) highly regulated; (3) enjoys legal privileges; (4) enjoys market power; and (5) appears to engage in its own political or social agenda that is unrelated to any conceivable branding concerns. The government, as guided by democratically passed laws, already regulates activities such as fossil fuel extraction and gun manufacturing. Businesses, particularly those that enjoy certain government privileges or relationships and/ or market power, should not replace democratic decision-making with their own judgment on controversial matters.

“A related concern is the degree to which concentration of industries, particularly in pharmaceuticals, health care, and the internet, encourages government collusion that undermines democratic institutions. Collusion can be explicit, in the case for example of government working with social media companies to censor politically harmful news, or more implicit—for example, regulatory requirements so burdensome that they deter market entrance by smaller entities without the resources to bear them.”
Page 874

◼︎ Sunday, October 13
AFTERWORD:
ONWARD!

“The idea of Mandate for Leadership [now ‘Project 2025’] was first conceived in the fall of 1979 at a Heritage Foundation board of trustees meeting…

“The vision for Mandate for Leadership was that it would serve as a guidebook… Thus, if conservatives finally gained control in Washington, they were prepared to answer the question, ‘What is the conservative agenda?’…

“After that first edition, a new Mandate was produced every four years. But the 2016 edition was one of particular note. It earned significant attention from the Trump Administration, as Heritage had accumulated a backlog of conservative ideas that had been blocked by President Barack Obama and his team.

“Soon after President Donald Trump was sworn in, his Administration began to implement major parts of the 2016 Mandate. After his first year in office, the Administration had implemented 64 percent of its policy recommendations…

“In 2018, in an interview on Fox News, I [author Edwin J. Feulner] mentioned that President Trump had implemented more recommendations in his first year than Ronald Reagan did in his. Of course, at the time, Reagan did not have both a Republican House and Senate as Trump did. Nonetheless, President Trump liked being compared to a former President he deeply admired, and he touted the comparison frequently…

“Something that is essential to ensuring that a new President in 2025 can successfully implement a conservative agenda is having the right personnel to run the executive branch departments and their agencies… . They need a road map […] starting on Day One.

“That road map is exactly what Mandate provides. It is not a mandate to maintain the status quo but just do it a little more efficiently. Rather, it is a mandate to significantly advance conservative principles in practice and demonstrate to the American people that where liberal policies generally fail, conservative solutions succeed in making life better for all of us…

“Heritage President Kevin Roberts, Project 2025 Director Paul Dans, the whole Heritage team, more than 50 organizations, and more than 360 experts from throughout the conservative movement have come together to continue the Mandate for Leadership… our next mission is just beginning.”
Pages 883-887

NOTE: This completes my series of excerpts from Project 2025 which I started in early July and have posted almost daily since.

I will note, in closing, that Trump’s claim to know nothing of Project 2025 is just another of his endless lies. The author here points out that the Trump Administration did more to implement Heritage’s program than any previous conservative president — from which Trump derived great satisfaction, although less from the accomplishment itself than the recognition and praise he got when boasting about it.

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.