Project 2025 is a guide for the months after an upcoming republican victory in the 2024 election. Where in the result of a right-wing victory, it helps shape what the term and policies should look like. Today we will be breaking down the plan section by section, showing the pros and cons, and then discussing the feasibility of its implementation in the United States House and Senate. Now please understand that this is not going to be the most in-depth guide for Project 2025, I strongly advise anyone who reads this to go directly look at the proposal for further clarification on the policies as well as the language used.

Analyzing the Four Promises Of the Bill

Firstly, the promise to “Restore” the family leaves a lot to unpack. First, the most alarming aspect is the blatant violation of freedom of speech. It calls for a federal ban on legislation of words like sexual orientation, gender identity, gender, gender equality, abortion, reproductive rights, etc. Now none of these words pose a danger to the American people, and what’s really shocking is that this Republican agenda, that wants to ban these words, constantly uses these as the most important issues in America. The bill also calls for the banning of all pornography that includes actors that “sexualize children”, with no proof that they do, and the prohibition of pornography that includes transgender citizens. Thus, this plan effectively makes it illegal to be trans and work in the industry, simply because the government disagrees with their lifestyle. Next, they talk about the fatherlessness crisis, which while does need to be fixed, they never really provide any solvency about. So while it would be amazing to try to fix this problem, it’s clear they don’t have a plan to actually do anything for these people in need of genuine help. They call for ending marriage penalties such as in federal programs and tax codes, but these really can be fixed in a variety of other ways outside of this uninformed proposal. Truth be told, just finding alternative ways of encouraging a prenup when married can have the desired effect without a radical shift of a full-on ban. It talks about how liberals want to end the tax exemption of churches and charities, which can be seen as a violation from Republicans of trying to end the separation of church and state. It should also be known that this has nothing to do with the restoration of a family—it’s not topical. Later on, it talks about how parents should have more power in public school curricula and teachings. While this is true, it also talks about how certain topics should be barred from the curriculum, fully contradicting its promise and endangering education as a whole. It threatens social media and its negative effects on children saying the federal government should have a part to play in taking them down. This could be seen as a violation of the 10th Amendment and freedom of speech as people would have a harder time allowing kids and teens on the internet. It finally ends by glorifying the overturning of “Roe v Wade” and calling for a total ban on abortions.

Secondly, the promise to dismantle the administrative state and return self-governance to the people is confusing. It starts off by saying “Washington” wants a constitutionally limited government because they would be held more in contempt by the people. This obfuscates the fact that the majority of Americans vote left-wing and against Republicans. However, they do acknowledge that the entire population of the House and Senate are irresponsible with what they pass, how they pass, or how they budget, saying that it fails to reflect the interest of the everyday American. This isn’t completely false., However many Americans aren’t worrying about how much money other countries are receiving in aid, but if they can afford a house. They also call out an occurring problem, that the process is only designed to help the elites, which most people will say is true. They speak about how some elites are corrupt because they circumvent democratic regulations. They then go on to say how the House and Senate are purposefully not taking the power that they have responsibility. Furthermore, providing examples of the house’s bills, they claim the checks and balances system is corrupt because the bureaucrats of the administrative state are receiving vague bills and then forming them to fit their narrative. They then establish that the motive for saying this is because it is in the Woke left power, and they are the reason we should fix this. In summary, it calls for giving power back to the Senate and House, thus forth giving power back to the people.

Thirdly, the promise to Defend America’s borders and bounty against global threats is economically harmful. It starts with blatant criticism saying that the left outsources our money, hasn’t and won’t help the people, and ends with saying they only serve the corrupt and elite families. The main reason they have for this is saying “wokeness” harms the American people. They insult global affairs, like trade with China, even though Foreign trade has been around since the early days of America. It’s also important to note that trade increased heavily around the 1950’s and after WW2 ended under many left and right-wing administrations. Later on, the right seems to call for an end to America’s participation in international treaties and support to the UN (United Nations), with how critical they are writing about these international affairs. As well as saying America should stop supporting the EU (European Union), they insult “Cheap Grace” ideology while talking about the border crisis and say the left has caused a humanitarian crisis. They criticize the “Extremist” environmental care the left has, indicating the democrat’s involvement with helping the environment and support for less dirty energy. They call this anti-human and make claims that the left wants to hurt the majority of the American economic and social sectors, as well as many day-to-day “needs”. They then go on to say that the left’s goals are the same goals that fuel communist China while hollowing out communist China. And while they do criticize both parties’ involvement in saying China will help our economy, they say that it has failed, and call for an end to our involvement with them. They make claims about the CCP (Chinese Communist Party), spying and stealing from America. Other claims talk about the CCP infiltrating our colleges and affecting our youth through TikTok. It should be noted that there isn’t any full proof for any of these claims, and TikTok is currently suing the government for many constitutional violations. Ending involvement with China, which Project 2025 calls for, would severely hurt American GDP. And with the decoupling currently with China, jobs will be lost, thus increasing the unemployment rate. Lastly it ends with calling out for an offensive America of reshaping borders of our economy, which seems, on paper, similar to calls for a hegemonic America.

Fourth and lastly the promise to secure our “God-given right” to enjoy the “Blessing of liberty” is nothing more than a promise to end societal “wokeness”.  They speak a lot about what the founding fathers meant when establishing the country and the constitution. They want to make sure they keep the liberty of America, and the people have full access to live life how they want, or in their words how their creator ordained. Further along, they talk about rejecting socialism, monarchy, communism, fascism, progressivism, Marxism, etc. They tell the next president to respect the rich cultural heritage America has and how we were built as a melting pot of diversity. They compare the suburbs of Washington D.C. to the capital of North Korea, which holds their dictatorial president. They call out many billionaires and left-wing politicians for being plagued by the same corruption as Kim Jung Un, whether it’s reform for green energy or the shutdown from COVID-19. They continue on this rant for a couple of paragraphs before calling for an economic reform. Essentially the next right-wing president should promote pro-growth economic policies in a variety of ways. They end it by saying the next president should defend their First Amendment rights, which in my personal opinion contradicts a lot of what they want to promise.

Analyzing “Section 1: Taking the reins of Government”

First, we must talk about the language. The conservatives that supported and drafted the proposal seem to think that the biggest problem in America is “wokeness”. They show intolerance by saying that only they can save America and that only they are true Americans. They talk about how the Democrats are destroying America from within, providing examples of mask and vaccine mandates, far-left movements to defund the police, or even just the acceptance of more than 2 genders as the downfall of the nation. And while I will not get into personal beliefs on these topics, they seem to downplay societal issues simply by calling them “Insanity”. They also take shots at current president Joe Biden implying that he uses dictatorial means to “Control the people”. The one thing they do say which is usually true of any politician is that the federal bureaucracy has ideals of its own and not the American people. Project 2025 has a goal of making sure to overpower the human resource departments and stop the “obstructionist” nature of it. 

Now going to the essence of the first section they talk about putting the whole federal bureaucracy into the president’s control. This will include agencies like the DOJ (Department of Justice). This is accredited to the “Unitary Executive Theory” which would allow the president to directly influence and implement policies across various areas, streamlining normal procedure under his fist. Another proposal is the elimination of federal job protections, which can replace them with appointees of that political party. This is an aim, most likely, to try to reverse setbacks from the Trump administration, where many extremist ideals and proposals were blocked by those who deemed them to be breaking the norms of the president or even that he was overextending his power. Now, this portion completely contradicts the second promise being made by giving more power to the president only.

Besides the full presidential control of many administrations, two crucial branches are being destroyed/dismantled. This includes the Department of Education, which they say is to give the power back to local and state governments. However, this poses challenges of an unequal education for certain counties or states that need more federal assistance. This also gives power to extremist groups to push a certain agenda that maybe shouldn’t be brought up to kids. Or even misinformation and disinformation from political groups who deem certain topics bad or untrue. Another important one is NOAA (The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), which plays a part in predicting national and global changes in weather, oceans, shorelines, and more. They attribute this to saying it’s the reason that the size of the climate change agenda is the size it is. They also want to either eliminate or privatize many crucial functions of the agency, destroying its vital role. 

Analyzing “Section 2: The Common Defense”

First, the DOD (Department of Defense) section calls for an increasing expansion of the United States military for the sections of, “Army, Navy, Airforce, and Spaceforce”,as well as increasing spending for nuclear warfare and offensive and defensive equipment and weapons. This entire section can be summarized as a reformation of every type of defensive program, ranging from the US Navy to ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement). Before we get into the substance of the four chapters, it should be said that this is all underscored by a large anti-left agenda. Trump’s old Acting secretary of the DOD, wrote this and blamed all status quo problems on the Biden administration. While this will only be a summary of what this section is, the majority of it is spending more money and making sure there are minimums of how much equipment our military has to have to protect America. 

Now first, we start with the DOD reforms. The first I would like to introduce is the plan to start limiting the advancements of existing cadres. A cadre is essentially a group of higher-ranked individuals. The reason for this limitation is most likely attributed to other administrations giving advancements other than pure war or military-related reasons. We then go into the reviewing of all flag officers and general promotions, which will include a rigorous review that upholds the original core values of their rank. Project 2025 also says that America should only recruit who is in their best interest, which contradicts the law making all 18-25-year-olds forced into the draft. They then later acknowledge that China is a current threat towards America, and that we should continue bettering our military to face the imminent threat they pose. Going to the end of the section, they call for strengthening relationships with Congress, fostering adaptability and innovation, as well as modernizing business and data.

Then, we go to the next part of section two, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). This proposal calls for an immediate dismantlement of the DHS, for the sole reason there are too many parts of the department This includes but is not limited to, CBP, ICE, USCIS, DOJ, and OIL. Essentially the majority of its responsibilities revolve around immigration and customs. Now, even though it calls for a dismantling of the DHS, it is nothing more than combining many different aspects of it into bigger sections. Project 2025, like most of its policies, talks about how the DHS suffers from the Liberal wokeness and that’s the reason it’s troubled. They then proceed to give eight key pillars of what will make a successful DHS. This includes controlling the borders, enforcing immigration laws, efficiently adjudicating the cases of good applicants for immigration while rejecting fraudulent claims, securing the cyber domain and maintaining its security, providing states with a limited FEMA, securing economic zones and coasts, protecting any political figure and their family on American soil whether foreign or domestic, and lastly oversee transportation security. 

Thirdly, we go into the DOS (Department of State) which is discussed by a shorter article in the second section. While they do have their own goals, a lot of this section is saying they protect and serve the president’s wishes for the American people. Honestly, this serves as a pillar of saying the DOS needs to be at the president’s will. I will only be showing and paraphrasing the section titled “Righting the Ship” as this is the most important part of the DOS reforms. Number one, retroactively reviewing, even before the president takes office, his team needs to prepare. Number two is to implement repair, the DOS will change foreign affairs to find under the constitution. Number Three, Agencies’ coordination with each other, calls for a new environment where agencies talk and work together more efficiently. Number four, coordination with Congress, the DOS should ensure full cooperation with the House and Senate. Number five, making sure there is a response to Chinese threats, essentially saying to not tolerate the CCP’s threats to America. And lastly, number six, make sure there is a review of immigration requirements, pretty self-explanatory and going to be used as a means to stop mass migration. 

Fourth, we have an article on the intelligence community. This will be another very brief description of what this article of the section is saying. It calls for giving the next conservative president the knowledge and ability to reinforce the USIC (United States Intelligence Community). To protect the homeland from all foreign threats that risk the freedom and laws of the USA. As well as “Devoid all political movements”, and “to maintain constitutional civil liberties”. Lastly, to sum it all up, it also calls for cooperation between agencies and addressing the China threat—another theme which underscores large amounts of its ideas.

Fifth, and yet another short article, it discusses Media Agencies. I will keep this part brief as well, because, unlike other sections and articles, it can be summed up very quickly. This is a reform of the media that the government controls, reaching through all of the world. This part of Project 2025 will most likely be used to control how the world sees America and President Trump as well as the Republican party. They call for restoring the media to accurately show our views and civil liberties. However, they will most likely suppress certain viewpoints that they, the next administration, disagree with because it is “woke”, a clear suppression of first amendment rights. 

To end this section, we have the agency for international development. This is a full article about nothing more than the protection of their outlined goals. Here, they call for helping hunger, counteracting crime, and stopping the proliferation of sickness worldwide. They go on to say USAID brings communal growth by reducing many bad aspects that harm them, which were listed above. But then go on to say it’ll help the exports of American goods that will expand markets and create a new playing field for the USA market. They say this will also help to stop acting against American ideals and respect communal liberties.

Analyzing “Section 3: The General Welfare”

Firstly, Project 2025 talks about the Department of Agriculture. This Department is in the center of major reforms targeted by Project 2025, most of which is directed at reducing federal intervention and increasing state and local control over agricultural policies, thus aligning with the conservative stride for a small government. The initiative would aim to slash bureaucratic parts of DOA traditionally perceived as overreaching and ineffective. Additionally, it encourages more involvement from the private sector in order to spur innovation and competition in farming. These are reforms mainly targeted at doing away with what they perceive as the overly burdensome regulation to farmers and agribusinesses. It seeks, through a neoliberal view, to enhance efficiency, productivity, and global competitiveness of American agriculture through diminished federal oversight over the specific agriculture sectors. Fundamentally, the policies intend to revitalize American agriculture to become more vibrant and responsive by accurately relating with free markets. In this sense,new changes to agricultural policy are necessary to increase the innovative and competing potential of the sector at a global scale and provide more resilience and self-sufficiency in the food supply chain.

Secondly, like we talked about earlier, there are many reforms to the Department of Education. It would, therefore, require this subsection of Project 2025 to undertake massive restructuring in order to make a reduction in Federal oversight possible, hence ensuring energy independence through the market drive. The proposal seeks to break through regulatory barriers and shift responsibility from the federal government to state and local governments for innovation and competition to thrive in the energy sector. Key reforms are certainly aimed at cutting subsidies to renewable sources of energy to support more traditional ways of production connected with oil, gas, and coal. More than anything else, the project has become a call to ensure that security and independence in energy be located within a scenario of increased domestic production and less foreign dependence. It also sees the privatization of many DOE functions and a reduction in size and scope for the department. For them, this is the way to slim down operations and reduce costs, which gives the incentive needed for private investment in energy infrastructure and technology

Thirdly, it talks about the Department of Energy and other related commissions. First, it will break down the perceived red tape that holds back innovation and progress of energy. The mission here is to unleash the power of energy by shifting responsibility away from the federal government into the hands of states and local authorities, thereby empowering local entities with the power to drive energy policies best suited for them—a tenet of small government. This decentralization is expected to provide an avenue for competition and innovation—crucial drivers of progress in the energy sector. A major part of the proposal is the removal of subsidies for renewable energy sources. Project 2025 supports government subsidies for traditional energy production, such as oil, gas, and coal. The reason for changing this policy is that the country’s energy security and independence will be more reliable with enhanced domestic production of energy sources, hence reducing foreign dependence. The bastions of the proposed reforms have revolved around privatization. What the project action plan has emphasized is that many functions, which are now within the DOE’s purview, can be better handled or managed by private entities. Such privatization would bring forth a shorn-up mechanism for operations, reduce costs, and attract private investment in energy infrastructure and technology. Moreover, Project 2025 emphasizes the need to reduce both in size and scope the DOE. It calls for a leaner department that much more sharply focuses on improving the energy competitiveness security of the United States. This approach is in line with the broader goals of cutting federal bureaucracy and tending toward market-based strategies on several fronts.

Next, we have the Environmental Protection Agency. Project 2025 saw the Environmental Protection Agency undertaking significant changes with purpose. It would reduce both the size and function of the EPA, transferring much of the power to the states and localities. This plan believes that these more localized governments are in a better position to meet their particular needs on environmental difficulties without a broad, sweeping set of regulations administered by a central federal agency. One of the major points relates to a substantial rollback in regulations thought to be overly restrictive on businesses and development. It has insisted that its policy is all in the name of economic development and is working to lessen what it determined to be compliance costs on businesses for environmental protection that are excessively onerous. This includes revisiting and repealing regulations to climate change, air and water quality standards, and endangered animals protections.

Project 2025 also emphasizes this approach with better interaction from the commercial sectors to suggest that the involvement of businesses in driving environmental policy is one that should be at the forefront. Compliance would now be on a voluntary basis, which suggests that the market-driven solutions were the best approach over binding regulations.

We further have the Department of Health and Human Services. Project 2025’s attempt at the reforming of the Department of Health and Human Services will advance state control of health policy and less oversight from the federal government. Less bureaucracy in red tape and efficient, locally managed healthcare services are some of the things the plan has to offer. It’s an impairment of personal responsibility in healthcare; it incorporates the reduction of federal role in Medicaid, vesting proper authority in states to establish their own designed model in healthcare. To them, doing so would allow innovation and mold healthcare solutions to fit each state’s needs individually. 

For the Department of Housing and Urban Development, Project 2025 decentralizes the housing programs, again moving control to the level of local government and the private sector. There are two targets set in such an offensive strategy: reduce federal funding coupled with oversight to probably encourage private investment, while inducing market-based solutions to housing problems. This would include scaling down federal involvement in affordable housing and promoting policies that stimulate development and homeownership in the private sector.

Project 2025 visualizes profound changes in the role of the Department of the Interior, primarily by reducing its regulatory scope and increasing state and private control over public lands and natural resources. This article in the third section, shows ways that energy development, mining, and other land uses could move forward by streamlining environmental reviews and permitting processes. It wants to achieve a correct balance between conservation and economic growth by shifting more decision-making to local levels and involving more private sectors in land management 

Looking further ahead, Project 2025 wants to increase executive control at the expense of departmental independence in an attempt to bring its policies more in line with the administration at the Department of Justice. It wants to implement harsher policies on crime, in particular, enforcement of immigration laws and securing the borders and interior enforcement. This program aims to cut what it sees as political bias inside the department, ensuring law enforcement activities are brought more in line with conservative policies.

The Labor Department is looking to cut federal labor regulations in an effort to make it easier to operate. In fact, Project 2025 stands behind policies that give employers more flexibilityᅳeasing what’s called burdensome labor protections. It supports the shifting of more control over labor laws to the states, hence creating diverse approaches that would better adjust to local economic conditions and needs. Tying this back to the overall goal of fostering job creation and economic growth through the minimization of federal intervention completes the circle.

The vision of Project 2025 for the Department of Transportation is the reduction of federal transportation regulations burdening the private sector in infrastructure projects. Project 2025 advocates reducing federal funding to public transportation and burdening state and local governments. It would also introduce privatization in all transport initiatives, such as toll roads and rail systems, as a strategy toward efficiency and innovation in developing and maintaining the infrastructure.

Under Project 2025, there will be an incredible change in the healthcare service that veterans got under the Veterans Affairs. Specifically, it provides for cutting down the federal government’s role in direct healthcare service provision and increasing the reliance and use of private healthcare providers by amplifying programs like the Veterans Choice Program. The approach will bring efficiency to the system, reduce wait times, and increase options available to veterans to acquire healthcare in order to ensure that veterans receive timely and quality care.

Analyzing “Section 4: The Economy”

Under Project 2025, the Commerce Department aims to roll back federal oversight, again returning power to state and local governments to decide the nature and contours of economic regulation. A central point in this plan is to reduce the burden on businesses of compliance with so much regulation, helping the economy to grow and increasing innovation. This will foster some privatization for effectiveness and cost reduction and promote market-driven approaches instead of federal intervention.

Project 2025 would dramatically alter the Department of Treasury in an effort to yet again downsize operations and reduce regulatory scope, shrinking federal control over financial markets and returning more responsibilities to state governments and private sectors. An important ingredient in this is tax reforms aimed at simplifying the tax code and lessening the burden on individuals and businesses to really get the economy going.

Under Project 2025, the Export-Import Bank’s role shrinks to increasing the private sector’s involvement in export financing. The new strategy has a more significant role for the private sector banks in extending export credits, arguing that this would be an efficient allocation of resources toward the better support of American businesses in world competition.

Project 2025 wants reforms inside the Federal Reserve to make it more open and accountable. It offers measures for monetary policy decisions that are more attuned to economic realities and less controlled by political considerations. The move is toward a more rule-based system of monetary policy that will give financial markets more predictability and stability.

Under Project 2025, SBA would more be about state and local support to small businesses than anything else. The plan will be reducing federal grants and loans but will provide varieties of incentives for private investment and entrepreneurship. On the whole, it can create the most dynamic and competitive environment for small businesses to thrive in.

Project 2025 spells out a highly principled and practical trade agenda that focuses on protection of the American economy. The policy has been to renegotiate all existing agreements that badly hurt the various industries in our country. More rigorous enforcement, in particular with regard to trade rules, has also been called for, together with the use of tariffs to normally offset unfair trade practices. It calls at great length for a reduction of major trade deficits and the establishment of fair competition levels in the world market.

Analyzing “Section 5: Independent Regulatory Agencies”

Starting off with section five, It plans to rationalize financial regulatory agencies to reduce bureaucratic inefficiencies and form better coordination. Thus, Project 2025 is Decrease the number of regulations for which financial institutions have to comply, arguing that excessive regulation stifles innovation and economic growth. It also favors giving more prominent roles to state regulators in financial markets. 

Project 2025 provides drastic reforms to the Federal Communications Commission, rolling back its regulatory reach to ensure that free market principles guide the communications and telecommunications sectors. It calls for deregulation to unleash innovation and competition—especially in broadband and wireless services—and lower barriers to entry of newer market entrants.

Project 2025 would reform the Federal Election Commission to give real transparency and accountability to our electoral process. The plan will make the FEC more efficient while increasing its capacity to enforce the law effectively. It would also back changes to campaign finance regulations to lessen the money influence on politics and guarantee fairer elections.

It would involve the reforming of the Federal Trade Commission to lighten its burden on businesses. Under Project 2025, FTC involvement in antitrust enforcement and consumer protection would be sliced narrowly to clear and substantial harm. The plan also insists that a competitive market environment be fostered through deregulation and reducing government intervention. 

The Feasibility of Implementation of Project 2025 in two ways.

Implementing Project 2025 through Congress would involve wading through a complex, highly polarized legislative landscape. The prospects for being able to get major elements of the Project 2025 agenda enacted depend very substantially on the political nature of both the House and the Senate. Only if the Republicans win majorities in both houses can they have a better possibility of passing comprehensive reforms put forward by Project 2025. With majority opinion, however, there are diverse views within the party over such drastic changes and probable dissensions from the moderate wing of the Republicans. Moreover, if the filibuster were to be deployed in the Senate, most of the more controversial aspects of the project would have a 60-vote supermajority requirement, thereby needing bipartisan support for major changes to legislation.

How Project 2025 could be enacted through SCOTUS rests on judicial review, which allows them to demolish existing regulatory frameworks and further conservative policy shifts. A core element of Project 2025’s strategy is reducing the power of federal agencies. Recent SCOTUS decisions have favored limiting the reach of the administrative state. One such landmark step taken toward that end was the overturning of Chevron’s deference doctrine, which usually gave agencies wide latitude in interpreting ambiguous statutes. It is such a decision that does accord with the vision of Project 2025: a judiciary that would rein in the power of unelected bureaucrats and underscore a more literal reading of the Constitution. The chances of appointing justices with similar judicial philosophy, strong enough to achieve the goals of Project 2025, could be much enhanced, particularly in cases attacking federal regulations and executive actions.