.png)
Overview
“The Republican plan to impose repressive measures on every single one of us”. In an unwithering, blasé and frank account of The Heritage Foundation’s treatise which aims to outline the playbook for the next conservative administration, Joy Ann Reid summarises the trepidation top political pundits on the left of American electoral commentary feel towards Project 2025. The Wall Street Journal referred to the over 900 page document as “radical” and from a quick scan of some its proposals, Project 2025’s plan for the country would appear to some degree divorced from the moderate palate of most politically-engaged Americans.
Among some of its divisive proposals include: minimising or eliminating (depending on one’s interpretation) the US department of Education; withdrawing mifepristone (a form of the abortion bill) from the market; targeting DEI programmes mandated by state and federal bureaucracies; advocating for the Department of Health and Human Services to “maintain a biblically based, social science-reinforced definition of marriage and family” and calls for increased distance and a frostier approach to China- US relations moving forward.
Whilst the Trump campaign have disavowed any links to document and the organisers of Project 2025 have refuted accusations that the proposals were written with any particular candidate in mind, the name of the project with its intended implementation date suggests that Trump would be the candidate most likely to bring to life its lofty goals. Furthermore, given that top officials in the last Trump administration such as Paul Dans, Chief of Staff at the Office of Personnel Management and Spencer Chretien, former special assistant to the then President have been so involved with the creation of the treatise, the campaigns efforts to distance itself from the accusation have largely fallen on deaf ears.
One thing for sure and two things for certain is that without a doubt Project 2025 will continue appearing in conversations about the 2024 presidential race and for anyone watching the race with an eagle’s focus, it is certainly helpful to have an understanding of what exactly the project is synonymous with, its nuances, arguments and criticism it has consequently garnered. It is my hope that you enjoy this interdisciplinary analysis provided across a range of subjects on the topic.
Happy Reading,
Ivan Alexei Ampiah
Head of Content
One of the overarching themes throughout Project 2025 is to concentrate the power of the executive back to the president, as opposed to an overly powerful federal bureaucracy which uses executive power however they wish, bypassing the thoughts and policies of the president. The writers of this treatise argue that the current executive gives too much power to bureaucrats and offices, which are being controlled without the input of the president, or even by the liberals and ‘woke’ Americans within these offices.
Currently, under Article II of the American constitution, the President is responsible for the execution and enforcement of laws created by Congress. They also introduced ‘principal officers’, the highest ranking and/or main officers in charge of the different departments. Although the constitution does not explicitly state how these main officers should be organised, George Washington created a cabinet, inspired by the British model of executive politics, to run meetings between them. Ever since, all presidents have a cabinet with the heads of the top departments in the federal governments such as the State Department, the Transportation Department, the Interior etc. However, Project 2025 argues that a conservative president should be more aggressive with the executive powers given to them by the constitution, and that the president should seize the executive power from the bureaucrats, and share them with the people. This piece will analyse three of the most poignant chapters that are used to propel this argument; The Department of Justice (written by Hamilton), The Federal Election Commission (Spakovsky) and the White House Office (Dearborn)
Department of Justice
The Department of Justice was created in 1789, and is a federal bureau which administers and oversees the deliverance of justice across the US, and oversees courts. This makes it an incredibly important department, which makes its important role unsurprising in the Project 2025 document. It includes multiple offices and federal law agencies. Hamilton argues that the department has lost its way due to being taken control by unaccountable bureaucrats and the supposed radical left. Despite the department supposedly being impartial, Project 2025 argues that this function has been corroded due to the people controlling it. Most named examples target Democrats, including a lack of in depth investigation into Hunter Biden’s potential ties with Russia, not protecting the “victims” of abortion, and enforcing immigration laws Therefore, Project 2025 calls for a complete reform which can achieve impartiality and thereby restore its original functions of delivering justice across different American states. However, the people and methods which the writers choose to achieve this could politically be aligned with more right wing politicians, which could cause questions over the impartiality it claims to achieve.
Do check out MSNBC's punditry on further proposed DOJ changes
Federal Election Commission
The Federal Election Commission is the office of the US which oversees elections and election spending, and was formed in 1974. Since the 1990s however, as the main two political parties have become polarised ideologically, their efficiency and functions have started to decrease, due to the frequent deadlocks in decision making. There is a long list of suggested reforms surrounding the Federal Election Commission in Project 2025, with the most important ones surrounding the most powerful functions of the president to change the commission. These include more bipartisan nominations with the six commissioners of the commission through discussions with Democratic leaders, how the president should coordinate the decisions between the Department of Justice and the Federal Election Commission, and implementing legislative changes. However, one of the more controversial reforms suggested in Project 2025 includes increasing the contribution limits and index reporting requirements to inflation. This can allow more think tanks and different organisations to donate as much money as they wish to political parties which can support them in election campaigns. Since the SCOTUS case Citizens United v FEC in 2010, which has removed campaign finance limits in the country as it is an infringement on the First Amendment, the immense amounts of money invested in election campaigns have received criticism, saying that whoever raises the most money wins. Therefore, although increasing impartiality in the commission will likely improve the efficiency and effectiveness of decision making, their suggested reforms for finance may be received less well.
The White House Office
The White House Office is an office within the Executive Office of the President of the United States, and is headed by the US Chief of Staff. Almost, if not all staff have a high political ranking and are political appointees from the president, meaning that they do not require Senate confirmation and can only be dismissed by the president. They comprise important officials which act as personal advisors and assistants to the president, the spouse of the president, or manage the workings of the White House office. The office has three policy councils, being Policy Coordination, Policy Advice and Policy Implementation, which are carried out by different smaller offices in the White House Office. Notably, Project 2025 does not offer reforms towards the White House Office, and just lists out the different components within the office and their functions. Perhaps Project 2025 is satisfied with the accessibility of assistants and officials in the White House Office, and does not wish to change this any further.
Commentaires