Screenshot 2024-08-05 at 3.19.23 PM
Resources

Project 2025 – Talking Points to Protect our Democratic Institutions

June 28, 2021

Editorial credit: Shutterstock.com

Project 2025 embodies an agenda led by the Heritage Foundation to revise, reorganize and eliminate vast portions of the statutes, rules and norms that were built over decades, and that have guided our democracy and preserved our freedoms during Republican and Democratic administrations alike. Embodied in a 900-page document entitled “Mandate for Leadership – The Conservative Promise,” and developed in collaboration with more than 100 other organizations, Project 2025 would dramatically change both.

It is important to stress that recent changes in the Project’s leadership alter neither the document’s text nor the “Mandate for Leadership” that lies behind it.

All of us, and lawyers in particular, have a role to play in discussing with others the nature of the proposed changes and how they endanger our freedom. To facilitate those discussions, Lawyers Defending American Democracy's “Talking Points” series highlights changes that Project 2025 is intent on making and their potential effect.

Each Talking Point will quote directly from the document and explain its impact on our democracy, our freedom, and the rule of law. Please share this information widely with your friends, family, and colleagues in the upcoming months.

Project 2025 Talking Points

Introductory Chapter: A Note on Project 2025 (Page xiv)

"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."

Why it Matters: Talking Points

The words "Administrative State" have become a pejorative description used to denigrate workers who perform the functions of the federal government. Those functions include, for example: national defense; law enforcement; the protection of public health and the environment; the postal service; public works; and all forms of public transportation, including rail and air travel. 

The dismantling of these functions ignores the carefully crafted checks and balances that have been built into the governmental workforce over many decades. As future LDAD Talking Points will further develop, Project 2025 seeks to upend these checks and balances in a way that will directly threaten the rule of law by removing legions of federal workers whose fidelity remains fixed on the oath they took to support and defend, and to bear true faith and allegiance to, the Constitution of the United States. But, as future comments will show, Project 2025 envisions measures far beyond dramatic changes in personnel, measures that, if enacted, would have a dramatic impact on our democracy and on our freedoms.

Foreword (Pages 4-5)

“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.”

Why it Matters: Talking Points

This proposal is appalling in its breadth, scope, and cruelty. The impact of Project 2025’s callous elimination of these words from every federal statute, rule, or regulation would bring this country back to a time when, for example, Jim Crow laws were legal, sexual harassment in the workplace was a normalized part of the workday, and gay and lesbian workers were unable to live authentic lives because of the discrimination they faced. All of the laws and policies that currently offer reproductive health care coverage, pregnancy benefits, workplace accommodations for persons with disabilities, and other protections against discrimination would be eliminated.

Deleting the words described would, in effect, erase the right to be protected from discrimination and wipe out the comprehensive body of legislation and case law that has developed for more than half a century to protect categories of individuals and to affirm legal rights.

Project 2025’s appalling reference to these legal protections as “hard targets for woke culture warriors” is an affront to a civilized society and undermines long-held and cherished principles of human decency.

Foreword (Page 5)

“In our schools, the question of parental authority over their children’s education is a simple one: Schools serve parents, not the other way around. That is, of course, the best argument for universal school choice—a goal all conservatives and conservative Presidents must pursue. But even before we achieve that long-term goal, parents’ rights as their children’s primary educators should be non-negotiable in American schools. States, cities and counties, school boards, union bosses, principals, and teachers who disagree should be immediately cut off from federal funds.”

Why it Matters: Talking Points

Parents surely have a strong interest in the education their children are receiving. They always have and they always should. However, this proposal must be viewed against the backdrop of recent efforts to empower individual parents to veto teaching from or about books they do not like and course components with which they disagree. Such a veto power invites a chaotic free-for-all in which choices made by one parent seriously and adversely affect the freedom other parents have to make a different choice. Elected school boards and administrators have maintained a robust educational system for decades and can continue to ensure that all parental voices be heard in the process of choosing a curriculum and other aspects of a public education.

Foreword – The False Narrative of Causing Harm in the Name of Protection (Page 5)

“Pornography, manifested today in the omnipresent propagation of transgender ideology and sexualization of children … has no claim to First Amendment protection. Its purveyors are child predators and misogynistic exploiters of women. … Pornography should be outlawed. The people who produce and distribute it should be imprisoned. Educators and public librarians who  purvey it should be classed as registered sex offenders. And telecommunications and technology firms that facilitate its spread should be shuttered.”

Why it Matters: Talking Points

This statement essentially sets forth a belief that study and discussion (“propagation”) of topics that include transgender individuals (“ideology”) and childhood sexual development (“sexualization”) constitute “pornography”. The statement also describes those who study and discuss these subjects as child predators and exploiters of women who should be sent to prison and treated as registered sex offenders.

With these words, Project 2025 reveals its deeply troubling threat to the First Amendment and to any behavior that does not fit within the square box of a straight married couple raising children who also fit within the authors’ narrow definition of what constitutes normative behaviors.

We leave to others the policy argument that, despite Supreme Court decisions to the contrary, pornography warrants additional restrictions. We focus here on the actual target intended by the authors. In this proposal, Project 2025 seeks the criminalization of educators and librarians who, for example, use their expertise to identify literature that teaches tolerance and acceptance, and that helps children grapple with the difficulties of adolescence, including their own gender expression and identity.

“Pornography” will be defined by the Heritage Foundation and the groups that contributed to Project 2025’s mandate for intolerance in a way that will spread fear and prejudice through the threat of prosecution. And, as we have already begun to see, it will also produce demands for removal from public and school libraries of all but the most bland and uninformative materials.

It will be another step in eliminating hard-fought rights and freedoms by replacing these rights with the policing of behaviors, further undermining the Constitution and the principles and norms of democracy.

Foreword (Page 6)

“[C]onservatives 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. Conservatives should ardently pursue these pro-life and pro-family policies while recognizing the many women who find themselves in immensely difficult and often tragic situations and the heroism of every choice to become a mother. Alternative options to abortion, especially adoption, should receive federal and state support.”

Why it Matters: Talking Points

This proposal is designed, in the words of the authors, to “[r]estore the family as the centerpiece of American life and protect our children.”  The proposal builds on and celebrates Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the Supreme Court’s recent decision that, after fifty years, overturned Roe v. Wade, a decision recognizing a woman’s constitutional right to control her own body and to make her own decision about whether to have a family. Project 2025’s proposal for a universal ban on abortion would not only take the family-planning decision away from women and places it in the hands of the state, but would similarly control other reproductive health decisions. A more extraordinary assault on individual freedom is difficult to imagine.   

Foreward (Page 13)

“When the Founders spoke of ‘pursuit of Happiness,’ what they meant might be understood today as in essence ‘pursuit of Blessedness.’ That is, an individual must be free to live as his Creator ordained – to flourish. Our Constitution grants each of us the liberty to do not what we want, but what we ought. This pursuit of the good life is found primarily in family – marriage, children, Thanksgiving dinners, and the like.”

Why it Matters: Talking Points

Here, in the Foreword to Project 2025, the authors lay bare what they mean by freedom. Not the freedom of each person to choose how they wish to live, but the requirement that each person obey the duties imposed by the authors’ particular view of Christianity. Not the freedom of each person to pursue their own view of happiness, but the requirement that they pursue “Blessedness.” Not the freedom to find fulfillment where they wish, but the requirement that they do so within the confines of marriage and children.

Our democracy and our freedom depend on respect for individual autonomy. While Project 2025 repeatedly uses the words “democracy” and “freedom,” its program envisions exactly the opposite: a country in which all people must live according to one conception of the good life, namely a life of Christian blessedness. This violates the First Amendment’s guarantee of religious freedom and its requirement that church and state be separate. Most fundamentally, it represents neither democracy nor freedom, but an anti-democratic state controlling the lives of its citizens.

Unbridled Presidential Powers (Pages 43-44)

“The modern conservative President’s task is to limit, control, and direct the executive branch on behalf of the American people. This challenge is created and exacerbated by factors like Congress’s decades-long tendency to delegate its lawmaking power to agency bureaucracies, the pervasive notion of expert ‘independence’ that protects so-called expert authorities from scrutiny, the presumed inability to hold career civil servants accountable for their performance, and the increasing reality that many agencies are not only too big and powerful, but also increasingly weaponized against the public and a President who is elected by the people and empowered by the Constitution to govern. 

. . .

The great challenge confronting a conservative President is the existential need for aggressive use of the vast powers of the executive branch to return power— including power currently held by the executive branch—to the American people. Success in meeting that challenge will require a rare combination of boldness and self-denial: boldness to bend or break the bureaucracy to the presidential will and self-denial to use the bureaucratic machine to send power away from Washington and back to America’s families, faith communities, local governments, and states.” 

Why it Matters: Talking Points

These two paragraphs appear quite early in the 900-page tome that is Project 2025 and set a tone that is pervasive throughout the manifesto. The words also signal to readers that it is not necessary to continue reading, for this is the work of ideologs, not of serious analytical thinkers.

The idea that we should let America’s families, faith communities, and local governments develop regulations and policies now researched and implemented by agencies like the Department of Health and Human Services, the Federal Aviation Administration, the Interstate Commerce Commission, or the Securities and Exchange Commission is simply preposterous.

Parse each sentence in the quoted paragraphs and you will see clearly how the authors embed their ideology, trampling on any notion that the agencies of the executive branch should craft careful, thoughtful, and sound proposals as the foundation of proposed federal activity. This is an early blaring indication that is the hallmark of Project 2025. It is a blueprint for amassing total power in the presidency with the actual stated goal of exercising “the boldness to bend or break the bureaucracy to the presidential will”.

These quotes confirm the worst fears of unbridled presidential power, offering a strong example of why it is critical to prevent Project 2025 from ever being implemented.

Hostility to Science (Page 60)

“[T]he 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.”

Why it Matters: Talking Points

From beginning to end, the Project 2025 blueprint for America reflects an unabashed hostility to the independence of science. The plan does not reject all science, just science that supports an outcome the Project’s authors consider to be “woke.” Hence the plan would eliminate dozens of science-based policies that address climate change, the environment, abortion, health care access, technology and education. Science that confirms or supports their definition of “woke” initiatives or policies is summarily dismissed as “junk.” The director of the Climate and Energy program at the nonpartisan Union of Concerned Scientists has observed that the independence of science is attacked across the board in the Project’s plan. 

Project 2025 identifies scientific agencies and divisions as “vulnerable to obstructionism” and recommends that thousands of civil service positions be reclassified as political positions answerable to the President. The objective is to assure that the appointees to these scientific agencies, and other agencies, are “wholly in sync” with Presidential policy.

This turns scientific integrity on its head: rather than hire experienced scientists to conduct research and fairly report the results and conclusions, Project 2025 proposes to screen and hire “scientists” who will adhere to the administration’s preconceived policy, regardless of the facts and science.

Project 2025 proposes to abolish or dismantle federal agencies or offices whose mission includes scientific research and reporting. In keeping with this quote’s reference to climate science as “climate fanaticism,” Project 2025 proposes to dismantle the nation’s climate science infrastructure by eliminating multiple agencies and offices throughout the federal government.

A thriving democratic society requires leaders to openly debate and engage the public in discourse based on facts and science. If federal policies are grounded, not on facts and science, but on a slavish adherence to the preconceived beliefs and biases of those in power, the country will be on a path toward autocracy. 

Making America More Dangerous (Page 135)

“The bloated [Department of Homeland Security] DHS bureaucracy and budget, along with the wrong priorities, provide real opportunities for a conservative Administration to cut billions in spending and limit government’s role in Americans’ lives. These opportunities include privatizing TSA screening and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) National Flood Insurance Program, reforming FEMA emergency spending to shift the majority of preparedness and response costs to states and localities instead of the federal government, eliminating most of DHS’s grant programs, and removing all unions in the department for national security purposes.”

Why it Matters: Talking Points

This is another of the many breathtaking proposals Project 2025 contains. The authors provide little or no explanation for the changes they seek save a breezy reference to “bloat” and an unexplained claim of “wrong priorities” they attach to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

To fix those unexplained problems they would, among other things, privatize TSA, the agency created after the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, that has kept our planes safe from terrorists during the ensuing twenty-three years. They would privatize a national flood insurance program that now provides insurance at affordable costs to almost 23,000 communities in high-risk flood areas. And they would shift disaster preparation and response costs from the federal government to states and local communities.

One has only to look at the destruction wrought by recent hurricanes in this country to see the devastating impact, economic and other, that this proposal could have on America’s states, cities, and towns. Or perhaps the authors can ignore this wreckage if it meets their stated goal of “removing all unions” within DHS, in light of the anti-labor theme that pervades Project 2025.

Beyond that, this proposal fundamentally ignores who collectively we are. We are not simply a collection of individuals and entities engaged in a quest for personal profit. We are a Nation. We rely on each other. We have differences to be sure but, ultimately, we are prepared, often through the federal system we have created, to help each other in times of need and difficulty. The authors of this proposal ignore this history of success, simply to tear down crucial services within the federal government that have been designed to keep this country as safe as possible and to respond to disasters when they do happen.

Opposition to Dietary Guidelines and Hostility to Climate Change Considerations (Page 309)

“The USDA [United States Department of Agriculture], in collaboration with HHS [the Department of Health and Human Services]  publishes the Dietary Guidelines every five years. … In the 2015 Dietary Guidelines process, the influential Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee veered off mission and attempted to persuade the USDA and HHS to adopt nutritional advice that focused not just on human health, but the health of the planet. Issues such as climate change and sustainability infiltrated the process. …

There is no shortage of private sector dietary advice for the public, and nutrition and dietary choices are best left to individuals to address their personal needs. This includes working with their own health professionals.  . . .

The dietary guidelines have a major impact because they not only can influence how private health providers offer nutritional advice, but they also inform federal programs. School meals are required to be consistent with the guidelines. The next Administration should: Work with lawmakers to repeal the Dietary Guidelines. The USDA should help lead an effort to repeal the Dietary Guidelines.”

Why it Matters: Talking Points

This proposal is yet another example of the corrosive anti-democratic focus that pervades Project 2025. The premise is that thinking about nutrition in a way that takes climate change into account is bad, so the federal government should not only stop thinking about climate change as it considers nutritional choices, but it should stop thinking about nutritional choices entirely.  

No harm will come from that, the authors suggest, because “[t]here is no shortage of private sector dietary advice for the public.” But the authors then describe the wide influence of the guidelines, including in the advice that private health providers offer and in the content of school meals, prepared for millions of young people throughout the country. This suggests that the Project 2025 proposal arises from those who seek opportunities for individual gain above efforts to enhance the general welfare.

The Dietary Guidelines focus on nutrition, health, and disease prevention; they do not dictate what Americans must eat and drink but are simply a tool to help Americans make healthy food choices - hardly a threat that warrants elimination by a future president.

The recommendation to eliminate these Guidelines also connects to Project 2025’s antipathy towards the science of climate change. Yet there is a science-based relationship between providing beneficial nutritional advice and understanding how our food supply is impacted by or is otherwise impacting global climate change.

A thriving democracy requires the ability to make fact-based decision-making. Future administrations should have the freedom to continue adapting the new Guidelines in accordance with the latest science findings, helping to serve as the basis for all Americans to make their own informed choices.

Eliminate Medicaid Funding for Planned Parenthood Health Care Services (Page 471-472)

“Policymakers should end taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood and all other abortion providers and redirect funding to health centers that provide real health care for women. The bulk of federal funding for Planned Parenthood comes through the Medicaid program. HHS should take two actions to limit this funding:

  • Issue guidance reemphasizing that states are free to defund Planned Parenthood in their state Medicaid plans.
  • Propose rulemaking to interpret the Medicaid statute to disqualify providers of elective abortion from the Medicaid program.
Why it Matters: Talking Points

This utterly deceptive proposal is based on the false premise that Planned Parenthood, the oldest and largest provider of family planning services in the nation, uses federal dollars to provide abortion services. Pursuant to the Hyde Amendment adopted initially in 1977, federal Medicaid funding does not cover abortions for its beneficiaries except in cases of incest, rape, or to save the life of the woman.

What Planned Parenthood does provide is a full range of health care services to women, including testing and treatment for sexually transmitted diseases and cervical cancers, sex education, and contraception. Its services are particularly critical in underserved rural and inner-city communities that have few providers. Yet Project 2025 apparently does not view these critical services as “real health care” for women.

Family planning services have been required in the federal/state Medicaid program since landmark Supreme Court decisions in 1967 and 1972 upholding the privacy rights of Americans to purchase and use contraception and have access to family planning services. Every state Medicaid program must cover family planning for its beneficiaries, as well as offer and assure freedom of choice of family planning providers and methods. The federal government provides a 90/10 federal match to each state to do so.

Under this deceptive proposal, Project 2025 seeks to destroy Planned Parenthood, thus depriving millions of women of needed family planning services based upon its false claims that the organization is receiving federal Medicaid funds for elective abortions.

A Federal Ban on Abortion through Agency Action, without Legislation (Page 450)

“From the moment of conception, every human being possesses inherent dignity and worth… The Secretary [of the Department of Health and Human Services] must ensure that all HHS programs and activities are rooted in a deep respect for innocent human life from day one until natural death: Abortion and euthanasia are not health care.”

Why it Matters: Talking Points

This assertion is intended to codify the radical concept of fetal personhood, which claims that a fertilized egg (as well as an embryo and fetus) has all of the rights a living child has after being born. It is a theological doctrine, not science or objective fact. 

It is also a pathway to a federal ban on abortions through agency action. Critically, Project 2025 lays out specific recommendations for the Department of Health and Human Services to implement measures that would prevent the use of long-accepted medications for abortions. The sweeping recommendations throughout Project 2025 would effectively establish fetal personhood through agency rules and regulations, and without Congressional legislation or vote.

Under the doctrine of fetal personhood, any abortion – no matter how early in pregnancy or how endangered the mother’s life might be – would constitute murder, with no exceptions for rape, incest, or the mother’s health. In vitro fertilization (IVF) and other procedures could similarly be crimes. Even automobile accidents resulting in miscarriage could be manslaughter. Other consequences are easy to imagine.

The concept of fetal personhood would destroy the freedom to make individual healthcare decisions. It also would elevate one religious point of view over others, violating the principles of religious freedom established in the First Amendment. Fundamentalist attacks on other freedoms would not be far behind.

Comstock Act (Page 459)

“Stop promoting or approving mail-order abortions in violation of long-standing federal laws that prohibit the mailing and interstate carriage of abortion drugs.”

Why it Matters: Talking Points

This is a reference to the Comstock Act, a moribund federal law passed in 1873 and named for Anthony Comstock, an anti-vice crusader who advocated for female chastity and against pornography, birth control and abortion.

As part of his assault on fundamental freedoms, Comstock’s law purports to prohibit mailing anything that could be used in an abortion – even ordinary surgical supplies such as gloves and sutures. For more than 100 years, however, the courts and the Justice Department have consistently ruled that the law does not apply to mailing items for a lawful purpose.

Project 2025 would reverse this understanding and prosecute people if they mailed FDA-approved abortion medicines, even to states where abortion is legal. This would effectively institute a national abortion ban, depriving women of their rights under state law. It also raises the specter of a President resurrecting and reinterpreting other laws to destroy freedoms.

Eliminate the Head Start Program (Page 482)

“Research has demonstrated that federal Head Start centers, which provide preschool care to children from low-income families, have little or no long-term academic value for children. Given its unaddressed crisis of rampant abuse and lack of positive outcomes, this program should be eliminated along with the entire OHS [Office of Head Start].”

Why it Matters: Talking Points

A well-educated citizenry is essential to the functioning of American democracy. Established in 1965, Head Start provides enriched childcare to low-income children designed to help them succeed in school and become a part of that well-educated citizenry. Toward that goal, it also offers early diagnosis, evaluation, and intervention for children with learning limitations. Head Start plays a vital role in rural, low-income,  and tribal communities where there are few other childcare services available.

Grantees are subject to extensive health and safety oversight by their states and by the federal government. Violations found following a nearly five-year review by the Office of Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services were addressed through the implementation of recommended improvements.

Ending this program is a key component of Project 2025’s efforts to end the federal government’s historic roles in helping low-income and disadvantaged children access a better education, better life opportunities, and an ability to contribute fully to our vibrant democracy.

Director of the FBI (Page 552)

“The Director of the FBI must remain political accountable to the President in the same manner as the head of any other federal department or agency. To ensure prompt political accountability and to rein in perceived or actual abuses, the next conservative Administration should seek a legislative change to align the FBI Director’s position with those of all other major departments and agencies.”

Why it Matters: Talking Points

This proposal is intended to eliminate the FBI Director’s ten-year maximum term of office that was enacted following the 1972 death of J. Edgar Hoover and the revelations that preceded his passing. Equally important, the proposal would take the FBI out of the Department of Justice where, under the supervision and control of law-enforcement professionals, it currently serves as the Department’s principal investigative office. Worse, it would place the FBI under the direct control of a political office-holder with all of the potential for political machinations that would bring, and, in light of the suggestion that the change await the next ‘conservative Administration,’ perhaps is intended to bring.

Legal Actions Against Local Prosecutors (Page 553)

“Where warranted and proper under federal law, initiate legal action against local officials—including District Attorneys—who deny American citizens the ‘equal protection of the laws’ by refusing to prosecute criminal offenses in their jurisdictions. This holds true particularly for jurisdictions that refuse to enforce the law against criminals based on the Left’s favored defining characteristics of the would-be offender (race, so-called gender identity, sexual orientation, etc.) or other political considerations (e.g., immigration status).”

Why it Matters: Talking Points

There are over 2,000 locally elected district attorneys who have authority to pursue criminal charges, enforce the law, and administer justice in accordance with the state and local laws of their respective jurisdictions. They have – and should retain – the sole decision-making authority to determine whether criminal charges should be filed against a person or entity and, if so, what charges are to be filed.

Authorizing the Department of Justice to pursue undefined “legal action” against local prosecutors would constitute an unprecedented, inappropriate, and unlawful federal intrusion into local prosecutorial decision-making. District Attorneys could face lawsuits or possibly criminal prosecution for lawfully deciding not to pursue criminal prosecution against an individual based on the totality of the evidence and the terms of the local criminal statute.

The unmistakable objective is to empower extremists who will control the Justice Department to compel more aggressive criminal prosecution of any cause that meets their agenda, without regard to whether the underlying law is constitutional, whether it fits within the priorities of the local District Attorney's and the region's criminal justice needs and priorities, or whether there are sufficient funds available for local prosecutors to pursue a federal agenda.

Lastly, federal interference in decisions made by local prosecutors who know their communities and the people they serve would substantially diminish the freedoms those prosecutors seek to protect.

Department of Justice – Civil Rights Division (Pages 561-562)

“Even though numerous federal laws prohibit discrimination based on notable immutable characteristics such as race and sex, the Biden Administration— through the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division and other federal entities— has enshrined affirmative discrimination in all aspects of its operations under the guise of ‘equity.’ Federal agencies and their components have established so-called diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) offices that have become the vehicles for this unlawful discrimination, and all departments and agencies have created ‘equity’ plans to carry out these invidious schemes. To reverse this trend, the next conservative Administration should: ...

Reorganize and refocus the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division to serve as the vanguard for this return to lawfulness. The Attorney General and other DOJ political leadership should provide the resources and moral support needed for these efforts. The Civil Rights Division should spend its first year under the next Administration using the full force of federal prosecutorial resources to investigate and prosecute all state and local governments, institutions of higher education, corporations, and any other private employers who are engaged in discrimination in violation of constitutional and legal requirements.”

Why it Matters: Talking Points

From beginning to end, Project 2025 reflects deep-seated hostility to any aspect of diversity, equity and inclusion. This section is an extreme example of this hostility. It proposes not simply to transform the Civil Rights Division, but to reverse the Division’s mission. Rather than prosecute public and private entities which discriminate against people of color and women, the Division would be compelled to utilize “the full force of federal prosecutorial resources” against employers that promote diversity in their workforce. The inevitable result will be that public and private entities will hire fewer people of color and women. The express premise is that any policy promoting diversity in the workforce necessarily constitutes “affirmative discrimination” against whites. This premise is not simply racist and untrue – it is also unconstitutional and inconsistent with established Supreme Court precedent upholding voluntary affirmative action plans adopted by employers to remedy past discrimination.

Department of Labor and Related Agencies - Education and Vocational Training (Page 595)

“[R]eligious organizations should be encouraged to participate in apprenticeship programs. America has a long history of religious organizations working to advance the dignity of workers and provide them with greater opportunity, from the many prominent Christian and Jewish voices in the early labor movement to the “labor priests” who would appear on picket lines to support their flocks. Today, the role of religion in helping workers has diminished, but a country committed to strengthening civil society must ask more from religious organizations and make sure that their important role is not impeded by regulatory roadblocks or the bureaucratic status quo.”

Why it Matters: Talking Points

Apprenticeship programs sponsored by unions, or as a component of vocational education or otherwise, are an important part of workforce development and deserve governmental support. And it is true that some religious organizations played an important role in the labor movement, particularly in the early 20th century. But those organizations did it on their own, in their own fashion and at their own speed.

Government “encouragement” of their participation risks breeching the wall that separates church and state and risks significant problems should the “encouragement” become a form of coercion, subtle or otherwise. Moreover, limiting the proposal to “Christian and Jewish voices” ignores a broad range of other religious organizations, setting up the kind of state sponsored favoritism the First Amendment was designed to avoid.

Department of Labor and Related Agencies (Page 616)

“The good of the American family is at the heart of conservative labor policy recommendations. The longstanding tradition of a strong work ethic in American culture must be encouraged and strengthened by policies that promote family-sustaining jobs. By eliminating the policies promoted by the DEI agenda, promoting pro-life policies that support family life, expanding available apprenticeship programs including by encouraging the role of religious organizations in apprenticeships, making family-sustaining jobs accessible, simplifying employment requirements, and allowing employers to prefer American citizens when making hiring decisions… we can begin to secure a future in which the American worker, and by extension the American family, can thrive and prosper.”

Why it Matters: Talking Points

This quotation is from the conclusion to a section in Project 2025 that proposes sweeping recommendations that would eliminate significant laws, including Title Vll of the Civil Rights Act, as well as regulatory and policy requirements implementing these statutes. Rather than strengthening the American worker, these extensive proposals would eradicate longstanding reforms that have taken place over decades to ensure that workplaces are diverse, equitable, inclusive, and promote equal opportunities for all.

Unquestionably, the good of families living in America should be one of the primary goals of American labor policy. The diversity, equity, inclusion, and other policies these proposals would abandon are designed to ensure that all families living in America and contributing to its success share in the available good.

To eliminate such policies that provide families with a pathway to achieving family-sustaining jobs would be to reinstall barriers that long have blocked that pathway.

The National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (Pages 674 - 675)

“[The components of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)] form a colossal operation that has become one of the main drivers of the climate change alarm industry, and, as such, is harmful to future U.S. prosperity. This industry’s mission emphasis on prediction and management seems designed around the fatal conceit of planning for the unplannable. … It should be broken up and downsized.”

Why it Matters: Talking Points

The pejorative reference to “the climate change alarm industry,” speaks volumes about the commercial origins of this proposal. NOAA’s critical roles, in addition to producing scientific studies about climate change, routinely include, among many other functions, timely and accurate information that farmers, fishermen, airlines, firefighters, urban and rural first responders, and others with the information they need to prepare for weather events that occur throughout the year.

Proper preparation for those events is an essential governmental function. But the authors dismiss the need to plan as an exercise in “planning for the unplannable.” That is simply nonsense. What really underlies this proposal is an effort to transfer a critical governmental service and responsibility to private, profit-making organizations. That is not how things are supposed to work in our democratic system.

Moreover, with respect to the dismissal of global climate change as related to an “alarm industry,” the authors again demonstrate how Project 2025 dismisses basic norms and principles of democracy. As recognized by the Human Rights Council of the United Nations, “Climate change threatens the effective enjoyment of a range of human rights including those to life, water and sanitation, food, health, housing, self-determination, culture and development.” 

 

Stay Informed —

Be the first to know about LDAD news by following us on LinkedIn or signing up for our newsletter.

featured press