Project 2025: What Would Change? What Would We Lose?

Project 2025, or The Presidential Transition Project, is no secret. A quick Google search opens Project 2025.com, and those interested can read on. Given the document’s daunting 900+ pages and extravagant language however, few people will. So, beyond the introduction that follows, I recommend the 17-page Foreword by Kevin Roberts, president of The Heritage Foundation, and a selective wade into the areas of greatest concern to you.

Because you should be concerned. We all should. If the Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity didn’t shake you, familiarity with the changes Project 2025 proposes in our government policies, programs, and personnel will. 

Authored by contributors from over 100 conservative organizations and facilitated by The Heritage Foundation, Project 2025 is a game plan for the next conservative president and his administration. As Paul Dans, Project 2025 director states in his opening note, “Our goal is to assemble an army of aligned, vetted, trained, and prepared conservatives to go to work on Day One to deconstruct the Administrative State.” (pg. xiv)

When Donald Trump won the 2016 election, he was surprised, unprepared, and ill-equipped. The chaos caused by his style and lack of experience in governing was, to some degree, offset by civil servants with expertise in their fields as well as the checks and balances established in the Constitution… inconveniences that Project 2025 seeks to address. 

One might hope Congress would be a check on the expanded presidential power outlined in Project 2025, but beyond the divisiveness and inertia apparent in that body, impoundment is a means to circumvent policies by withholding money already appropriated by Congress. We saw impoundment in action when the former president sought to withhold money from Ukraine unless President Zelenskyy launched an investigation into Hunter Biden. Also, the document states that some significant offices and acts, such as those within the FBI, can be eliminated “without any action from Congress.” (pg. 550)

In the work of deconstruction, the crosshairs of Project 2025 are focused on ending the independence of the Department of Justice and the FBI. The document aims to “place the FBI under a politically accountable leader” (pg. 550) and “prepare a plan to end immediately any policies, investigations, or cases that run contrary to law or Administration policies.” (pg. 557, italics, mine.) In this, one can foresee a rash of pardons and dropped court cases related to January 6th.

In his Foreword, Kevin Roberts states, “There are many executive tools a courageous conservative President can use to handcuff the bureaucracy.” (pg. 9) The word “handcuff” is certainly troubling, but that aside, another tool, Schedule F, would reclassify nonpartisan, merit-based, career civil servants – experts in fields such as science, health, etc. -  to facilitate firing those viewed as inadequately dedicated to the president’s agenda. Reportedly tens of thousands of jobs could be affected, making way for that army of loyalists who lack independence and expertise in arenas important to the American people.  

It's fair to say that those arenas are, to some degree, common to most of us. “Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” covers them well, assuming our health and well-being and that of our loved ones fall under those headings. But as much as Project 2025 pays lip service to reducing the size and scope of government, its recommendations send that conservative army nosing into bedrooms, bathrooms, and mailboxes to gnaw away at established freedoms in ways not seen in half a century, the privacy protections of the Fourth Amendment be damned. 

Project 2025 proposes new goals for the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS): “Protecting life, conscience, and bodily integrity.” Existing social services such as Head Start, school meal programs, and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) would be abolished or reduced. In reinforcing the “traditional family” – married mother, father, and their  children – programs supporting single mothers and funding for out-of-home daycare would be curtailed, all the better to restrict women’s job opportunities beyond motherhood. 

Across all departments, policies related to the LGBTQ+ community, gender-affirming care, and Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) would be assessed and for the most part, repealed. In the belief that “abortion pills pose the single greatest threat to unborn children in the post-Roe world,” Project 2025 states that the FDA should reverse approval of Mifepristone. Invoking the Comstock Act of 1873, the mailing and interstate sale of such medications would be prohibited. As Roberts affirms in the Foreword, “the Dobbs decision is just the beginning.” (pg. 6)  

The danger to women’s health in the wake of overturning Roe vs. Wade has been apparent in publicized cases of doctors immobilized by uncertainty as to abortion laws in their state. Whereas the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) was enacted to protect medical professionals deeming an abortion necessary for the health of the mother, Project 2025 states, “the EMTALA requires no abortion, preempts no pro-life laws, and explicitly requires stabilization of the unborn child.” (pg. 473) 

Funding for Planned Parenthood would be eliminated, and coverage under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) for “women’s preventative services” – i.e. contraception – would be rescinded. Despite a litany of new rules directed to women, their bodies, and reproductive rights, and in denial of the mutual responsibility for pregnancy, men are mentioned only to say that men’s “preventive services” should not be considered under a mandate for women.  

If the Christian Nationalism theme has not yet been apparent, Project 2025 proposes to change the name of the Office for Civil Rights to “Conscience Enforcement.” Feel free to think about that while your conscience is your own.

Beyond that, the Project seeks to rescind countless Biden initiatives and dismantle, reform, and reduce many departments and regulations established and enacted to protect and preserve the people, the planet, and the creatures. The authors ignore or disdain the reality of the importance of the health and connectivity of this shared Earth and global community in sustaining us all in terms of climate, trade, agreements, and alliances. 

Science that conflicts with the presidential agenda of “Energy Dominance” is seen as a threat. Offices, acts, and regulations that contain references to climate change, clean energy, renewable resources, and sustainability are viewed as impediments to the project’s reorientation of America’s energy programs toward nuclear research and development and increased drilling and mining for fossil fuels, natural gas, and coal. 

Viewed as “one of the main drivers of the climate change alarm industry” as it monitors and alerts the public to weather, storms, and rising temperatures, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) would be dismantled and many of its functions eliminated. “Scientific agencies like NOAA are vulnerable to obstructionism of an Administration’s aims if political appointees are not wholly in sync with Administration policy. Particular attention must be paid to appointments in this area.” (pg. 677)  

Through revocation of funding and termination of personnel, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would be reduced in size and scope. Provisions of the Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act would be reviewed as possible infringements on private property rights. Clean air standards related to interstate pollution, downwind impacts, greenhouse gases, etc. would be “reconsidered or repealed.” 

Redirection of Department of Commerce services would reduce protections for critical habitat and threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). In this time of rising seas and temperatures, extinctions, extreme storms, subsequent human migrations, and international turmoil, it is at our peril that experienced scientists and experts would be relegated to the visions of a president and his or her loyalists. 

Project 2025 recommends abolishing the federal Department of Education and turning that responsibility and funding over to the states, thereby eliminating national standards for academics, civil rights, and psycho-social support. Programs and references to DEI, gender identity, and Critical Race Theory would be purged. Rather than an emphasis on meeting the needs of students, the Project’s contention, voiced by Kevin Roberts, is that “schools serve parents.” (pg. 5) 

National security under Project 2025 will undergo a “most significant shift” in discerning “who are friends and who are not.” (pg. 179) The State Department must “right the ship,” and presumably in a quaint reference to President Lincoln’s hat, “Bureaucratic stovepipes of the past should be less important than commitment to, and achievement of, the President’s foreign policy agenda.” (pg. 176) The text is clear that those stovepipes are existing international treaties, agreements, and organizations. Since it is not George Washington running for president, one must question what that foreign policy might look like under a president who admires authoritarian leaders and stores classified documents in his bathroom.

In the “execution of U.S. policy that is focused on [the president’s] vision for the nation and the world” (pg. 196), the authors propose dismantling the Department of Homeland Security while investing in a Department of Defense (DOD) devoted to “warfighting.” Additionally, military personnel would be deployed to prevent illegal crossing at U.S. points of entry as well as assist  in completion of the wall at the southern border. The Department of Energy would veer from alternative energy initiatives toward nuclear research programs and expansion of the nuclear arsenal. International nonproliferation agreements with the United Nations and Iran would be terminated.  

DACA, or Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, is viewed as “unlawful,” thereby opening the “Dreamers” previously protected to inclusion in the expanded and expedited arrests, detention, and deportation of illegal immigrants outlined in Project 2025. State and local enforcement officials, as well as the military and secret service personnel not involved in a protective capacity, would also be enlisted in these actions. 

While Candidate Trump has claimed lack of knowledge or support for the Project, 25 of the 36 principal authors are involved in the former president’s current campaign or served in his administration. His speeches and posts have reflected many of the stances and policies outlined in the document. Presidential adherence to the Constitution and the rule of law is a drumbeat throughout the pages of Project 2025, but that rings hollow in the face of January 6, election denial, and 34 counts of falsifying business records.  

Federal safety nets for American citizens, from children to seniors, would be compromised as food programs, Medicare, Medicaid, Head Start, and the like are reduced or eliminated. In fact, the long-standing role, in a broad sense, of the United States federal government as a safety net for humans, planetary ecosystems, and world peace would be abdicated in consolidating power to serve the president’s agenda. Economics – bolstered by resource exploitation, military sales, and elimination and reduction of “entitlements” – would take precedence. States’ rights, touted as a cornerstone of Project 2025, would remain in force only in areas that suit that agenda. State policies governing environmental regulations, immigrant protections, and women’s health and reproductive rights would be overridden.  

Throughout their writings, the Founders considered the needs of future generations in an America beyond 1787. They enshrined the guard rails of checks and balances to protect against the rise of a dictator and included amendments to allow for a changing world. Partisanship has weakened those safeguards. Christian Nationalism and near-unbounded presidential power dominate Project 2025, and Americans are left with a new take on our unalienable rights as: Life (certainly for fetuses), “ordered Liberty” (whatever that means), and the Pursuit of “Blessedness” (or doing “what we ought.” Pg. 13). 

If that’s not your vision, VOTE… for Democracy.

 

Lady Liberty, the Sylvestros, and the Littles

Dave’s grandfather, Michael, was a boy when his uncle from Rome came for dinner at the family home in Caserta, Italy. Business was good, the uncle announced, and he needed another street vendor to help sell shirts. From the head of the table, Michael’s father surveyed his children until his gaze fell upon his eight -year-old son. “Take Michael,” he said. “He eats too much.”

Perhaps, in part, it was that forced early independence that led Michael, like thousands of Italians in the early 20^thcentury, to seek new opportunities in America a decade later. By the time the Statue of Liberty came into view, Michael had met his future wife, Lucia, on board. 

 

Michael and Lucia settled in Worcester where he became a tanner preparing raw cow hides, while Lucia cooked, cleaned, and raised the family. As often happens, their children were staunchly American, and had little interest in the language and culture their parents left behind. However, beyond the barrier of their grandparents’ mystifying inability to speak like normal people, their grandchildren, Dave and Steve, found life at Nanny and Grampa’s house fascinating.

                                                               Michael and Lucia Sylvestro

There was Grampa’s homemade wine served in jelly jars, shelf upon shelf in the basement of canned vegetables from Uncle Jack’s garden, and Auntie Carmela’s heavenly pasta sprinkled with crumbled nuts. When Rinny, the family dog, brought home an unlucky rabbit, Nanny praised the pup, and served the rabbit for dinner. Nothing was ever wasted, much less perfectly good meat. 

Auntie Carmela always told Dave he had the map of Italy all over his face, and when Trinity College offered a semester in Rome, it was a chance to find out. But when we departed in 1973, we flew, never glimpsing the statue that had welcomed Dave’s grandparents.   

 

At age 69, I sheepishly confess, I’d never seen Lady Liberty up close. So, when our son Tucker invited us to join him, his wife Lisa, and our grandchildren Paul (6) and Lexi (3 ¾) on a visit this summer, Dave and I were all over it.  

 

Given their ages, it was unlikely the littles would be moved by the statue’s symbolism nor her impact on those escaping persecution and economic hardship as she seemingly rose from the sea in welcome. As yet, Paul and Lexi knew nothing of the Lady’s role in greeting their great-great grandparents, but we hoped the fun of the ferry ride, the whir of helicopters overhead, and a glimpse of massive toes would captivate the kids in ways that heritage, freedom, and opportunity would not. 

 

It was sweltering the day of our visit, and we were grateful Lisa had insisted on early morning tickets. For most of our time on the dock, we were shielded by an overhang, but before the ferry was even in sight, crew members waved, shouted, and hustled the prospective passengers, herding us like driven cattle onto the sun-baked dock to await transport.  I wondered how similar this discourteous boarding might have been to the start of Michael and Lucia’s journey. They spoke no English, and all that awaited was unknown. What courage to endure the jostle and push, and the lengthy voyage over uncertain seas. 

 

As we waited in the heat for the ferry to pull in, the kids were amazing.  They really were. But despite our efforts to distract them with glimpses of ships, seagulls, and a treasure trove of coins tossed into gullies along the docks, Lexi and Paul were wilting. Dave hoisted Lexi onto his shoulders and when he tired, transferred her to Tucker’s. When she was finally set on her feet, she gave up and lay down, not whiney or grumpy, mind you, just ready to rest in the shadow of encircling grownups. True to form, Paul used his time constructively, playing chess on Tucker’s phone. 

 

When the ferry arrived, the staff urged us forward. It was unnerving: the rocking of the boat, the shifting of the gangplank, the press of masked passengers, the unrelenting heat, and the insistent staff. “Keep moving, keep moving. Step up! Step Up!” Again, I imagined Michael and Lucia and all the anxious immigrants like them hoping this gamble was a move forward, a step up. 

 

Blessedly, we found seats inside, out of the sun. The trip to the island was quick, and as we drew closer, despite my lifelong citizenship and lack of desperation, my first glimpse of Lady Liberty filled my heart with yearning. Unlike the waves of immigrants arriving at the Statue’s feet from 1886-1914, the pang in my heart grew from the beauty and poignancy of the Statue’s message, and America’s failures to meet her promise of refuge. Thoughts of Japanese internment camps; ships turned back to Nazi Europe; and most recently, caged, weeping children separated from their parents weighed on my mind. 

 

Much as it is my way to sully pleasures with painful reflections, it is the kids’ way to find fun where they can. Soon after docking, we came upon a water system spraying droplets and mist over the brick walkway.  A delightful respite on this steamy day! Visitors of every age, size, and color, speaking countless languages, frolicked, giggled, soaked, and took selfies in the sparkling shower of water. True to form, Paul was primarily intrigued by the hose hook-up. 

Whether it was mindfulness of the kids or the aging grandparents, Lisa, wisely, had not purchased tickets for the crown, and opted only for the pedestal. High enough! Dave and Lisa braved the 195 steps while Tucker, Paul, Lexi, and I waited in line for the elevator. 

 

For Edouard de Laboulaye, the end of slavery and America’s Civil war signaled an inspirational turning point with potentially global implications. With sculptor Auguste Bartholdi and Gustave Eiffel, he set out to shine the light of freedom around the world with a gift to the newly re-United States in the form of this monumental statue. In October, 1886, “Liberty Enlightening the World” was re-assembled on Bedloe Island. As time passed, the statue came to mean something other than enlightenment. Her torch, her face, and the sunburst of her crown were beacons of freedom, signs of arrival in a safe place. Lady Liberty came to symbolize America itself. 

 

As it should be, the walkway around the pedestal is surrounded by a wall too high for Paul and Lexi to see beyond. So Tucker and Dave held them aloft while I fluttered about, anxious at mental images of a child going over the side. Better to keep our stay at the pedestal brief, and hustle along to the shelter of the air-conditioned museum.

 

Vintage souvenirs and posters, and a variety of artistic interpretations of the statue were on display. While Paul and Lexi were drawn to climb and probe massive models of the Lady’s face and foot, I searched for and found the original bronze plaque bearing Emma Lazarus’s poem. “The New Colossus” echoes the vision that motivated de Laboulaye and Bartholdi: “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.” 

For our littles, and perhaps their adults as well, sitting was our current goal. Three darkened theaters, thoughtfully carpeted, offered the refuge we needed. Lexi sat in my lap and Paul snuggled with Tucker as we sat on the floor. Churning waves rolled across the screen as an audience of immigrants’ descendants listened to the story of the Statue of Liberty and her role in the lives of their ancestors.