Click Image Below to Learn More About the Heritage Foundation | |
|
Click Image Below to Read Full Mandate
for Project 2025
| |
What is Project 2025? Project 2025 Explained | 5 Criticisms of Project 2025 | |
|
Project 2025
Presidential Transition Project
| |
|
The actions of liberal politicians in Washington have created a desperate need and unique opportunity for conservatives to start undoing the damage the Left has wrought and build a better country for all Americans in 2025.
It is not enough for conservatives to win elections. If we are going to rescue the country from the grip of the radical Left, we need both a governing agenda and the right people in place, ready to carry this agenda out on day one of the next conservative administration.
This is the goal of the 2025 Presidential Transition Project. The project will build on four pillars that will, collectively, pave th
e way for an effective conservative administration: a policy agenda, personnel, training, and a 180-day playbook.
The project is the effort of a broad coalition of conservative organizations that have come together to ensure a successful administration begins in January 2025. With the right conservative policy recommendations and properly vetted and trained personnel to implement them, we will take back our government.
The 2025 Presidential Transition Project is being organized by The Heritage Foundation and builds off Heritage’s longstanding “Mandate for Leadership,” which has been highly influential for presidential administrations since the Reagan era. Most recently, the Trump administration relied heavily on Heritage’s “Mandate” for policy guidance, embracing nearly two-thirds of
Heritage’s proposals within just one year in office.
Paul Dans, former chief of staff at the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) during the Trump administration, serves as the director of the 2025 Presidential Transition Project. Spencer Chretien, former special assistant to the president and associate director of Presidential Personnel, serves as associate director of the project.
| Th Four Pillars of Project 2025 | |
Pillar #1: Policy Agenda
Click Image Below to Learn More
| |
"This volume—puts in one place a consensus view of how major federal agencies must be governed and where disagreement exists brackets out these differences for the next President to choose a path."
-Mandate for Leadership, Project 2025
| |
The Heritage Foundation Reports
April 21, 2023
|
Project 2025 Publishes Comprehensive Policy Guide, ‘Mandate for Leadership:
The Conservative Promise’
| |
WASHINGTON—With the goal of shaping policy decisions among presidential candidates, the 2025 Presidential Transition Project announced the publication of the ninth edition of “Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise.” It’s the earliest publication of “Mandate” ever—months before candidates square off in the first presidential primary debate.
A comprehensive policy guide for the next conservative U.S. president, the book pulls from the expertise of hundreds of political appointees, policy scholars, and conservative leaders across the conservative movement. The book builds upon the legacy of the 1981 edition of “Mandate for Leadership,” which appeared on The Washington Post’s paperback bestseller list.
| |
Pillar #2: Presidential Personnel Database
Click Image Below to Learn More
| |
"Pillar II is a personnel database that allows candidates to build their own professional profiles and our coalition members to review and voice their recommendations. These recommendations will then be collated and shared with the President-elect’s team, greatly streamlining the appointment process."
-Mandate for Leadership, Project 2025
| Click Image Below to Read Presidential Personnel Database Questionnaire | |
Pillar #3: Presidential Administration Academy
Click Image Below to Learn More
| |
"Pillar III is the Presidential Administration Academy, an online educational system taught by experts from our coalition. For the newcomer, this will explain how the government functions and how to function in government. For the experienced, we will host in-person seminars with advanced training and set the bar for what is expected of senior leadership."
-Mandate for Leadership, Project 2025
| Project 2025 Presidential Administration Academy | |
Pillar #4: 180-Day Playbook
Click Image Below to Learn More
| |
"In Pillar IV—the Playbook—we are forming agency teams and drafting transition plans to move out upon the President’s utterance of “so help me God.”
-Mandate for Leadership, Project 2025
| |
The Conservative Mandate
Key Takeaways of Pillar #1: Policy Agenda
| |
Section 2: The Common Defense
| |
"Rank creep is pervasive. The number of 0-6 to 0-9 officers is at an all-time high across the armed services (above World War II levels), and the actual battlefield experience of this officer corps is at an all-time low. The next President should limit the continued advancement of many of the existing cadre, many of whom have been advanced by prior Administrations for reasons other than their warfighting prowess."
-Christopher Miller, Mandate for Leadership, page 104
|
The Fulcrum Reports
June 28, 2024
| Project 2025: The Department of Defense |  | |
After reading the 45-page section on the Defense Department and related arms of the government, it is pretty clear that Project 2025’s recommendations would give nearly unlimited power to the president and that its overly partisan attacks on our institutions would make the United States less safe.
The second section of “The Mandate for Leadership. The Conservative Promise” is titled “The Common Defense” and also covers the Department of Homeland Security, the State Department, the intelligence community and Media agencies.
Christopher Miller, who briefly served as acting secretary of defense at the end of Donald Trump’s presidency, wrote the chapter on the Defense Department and is widely quoted in the section’s preamble. Right out of the gate, Miller calls the DOD “a deeply troubled institution,” claiming the department “has emphasized leftist politics over military readiness.” He writes that “recruiting was the worst in 2022 that it has been in two generations” and blames “the Biden Administration’s profoundly unserious equity agenda and vaccine mandates have taken a serious toll.” (Enlistments have been dropping for decades.)
Paragraph three of the introduction throws out this incomprehensible and undefined sentence:
"But this is now Barack Obama’s general officer corps.” A serious policy report should be devoid of innuendo but unfortunately this sentence is only one example of pejorative statements made against past and present presidents.
| |
Task and Purpose Reports
July 19, 2024
| |
Project 2025’s plan for the US military | A Task & Purpose review of Project 2025’s plan for the Pentagon and active duty troops finds a number of starkly partisan changes already pushed by Republicans. But the plan also includes a wide range of day-to-day changes to the force that don’t fit neatly into political labels but would change life in the military. Those include drastically reducing the number of generals, adding 50,000 soldiers to the Army with more planes and ships for the Air Force and Army, and reaching all the way down to the platoon level in the Marine Corps to mandate how senior a Marine must be to lead a rifle squad. | |
|
What does Project 2025 mean for military veterans?
| |
Task & Purpose reached out to six national veterans advocacy organizations for comment for this story. Three said they had no comment on Project 2025’s policy recommendations, the others did not respond, nor did two experts on veteran affairs at a major defense policy research organization.
Some veterans argue that Project 2025’s goals would impact veterans directly before any changes to the VA. In a July 9 op-ed, Michael Embrich, a veteran and former member of the secretary of Veterans Affairs’ Advisory Committee on the Readjustment of Veterans, wrote that the proposed cuts to federal agencies like the FBI and Justice Department could “disproportionately affect” the 300,000 veterans who make up roughly 30% of the federal workforce.
| |
|
Government Executive Reports
July 9, 2024
| |
Project 2025: The worst-case scenario
for veterans
| |
|
By dismantling key agencies and slashing federal jobs, Project 2025 risks undermining not only government efficiency but also the livelihoods of tens of thousands of veterans. These actions will have far-reaching consequences, weakening the very fabric of our nation’s administrative capabilities, betraying our veterans, and damaging the economy to prove a twisted point. We must ask ourselves what is more important: the livelihoods of our veterans and the health of our economy, or the whims of the few who want to dismantle the government.
| | What Project 2025 says about veterans' benefits | |
The Department of Homeland Security
| |
"Our primary recommendation is that the President pursue legislation to dismantle the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). After 20 years, it has not gelled into “One DHS.” Instead, its various components’ different missions have outweighed its decades-long attempt to function as one department, rendering the whole disjointed rather than cohesive. Breaking up the department along its mission lines would facilitate mission focus and provide opportunities to reduce overhead and achieve more limited government."
-Ken Cuccinelli, Mandate for Leadership, page 133
| |
Fulcrum Reports
July 8, 2024
| |
Project 2025: The Department of
Homeland Security
|  | |
Perhaps the most alarming of all of the recommendations is moving front-office functions under the Office of Presidential Personnel, “which is not reliant on detailees from other parts of the department, to help ensure the completion of the next President’s agenda.”
It also suggests bypassing the constitutionally mandated Senate confirmation of agency leadership and placing their nominees as “actings” as well as removing lower-level positions from Senate confirmations. This would take power away from Congress and give it to the executive branch. What if a rogue president’s agenda was in conflict with the nation’s national security interest?
It recommends that the secretary “Can and should use his or her inherent, discretionary leadership authority to 'soft close’ ineffective and problematic corners of the department” and “Should plan to quickly remove all current members of the Homeland Security Advisory Committee and replace them as quickly as is feasible.”
| |
Department of Homeland Security
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)
| |
"The role of ICE Deportation Officers should be clarified. ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) should be identified as being primarily responsible for enforcing civil immigration regulations, including the civil arrest, detention, and removal of immigration violators anywhere in the United States, without warrant where appropriate, subject only to the civil warrant requirements of the INA where appropriate."
--Ken Cuccinelli, Mandate for Leadership, page 142
| |
America's Voice Reports
July 12, 2024
| Project 2024: Immigration | |
Selected immigration components of Project 2025 are below:
Mass Detention and Family Separation: Project 2025 paves the way for mass family separation by eliminating important benefits for unaccompanied children and transfers the care of unaccompanied minors from Health and Human Services to DHS to allow for large scale detention of young children. The proposal recommends weakening standards for migrant detention, calling for mass detention in temporary structures such as tents.
Attacks on Dreamers and Parents of US Citizens: Project 2025 calls for the elimination of family-based immigration and DACA.
Raid Schools Hospitals and Religious Zones: Project 2025 removes prohibitions on ICE acting in ‘sensitive zones’ thus allowing raids on schools, hospitals, and religious institutions.
| |
Niskanen Center Reports
February 2024
| Unveiling the far right’s plan to demolish immigration in a second Trump term | he Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 is the policy playbook for a second Trump administration, and its impacts on immigration would be far more complex and destructive than previously reported. It isn’t simply a refresh of first-term ideas, dusted off and ready to be re-implemented. Rather, it reflects a meticulously orchestrated, comprehensive plan to drive immigration levels to unprecedented lows and increase the federal government’s power to the states’ detriment. These proposals circumvent Congress and the courts and are specifically engineered to dismantle the foundations of our immigration system. The most troubling proposals include plans to. | Immigration rhetoric and border policy in the 2024 election | |
U.S. Agency for International Development
| |
"The next conservative Administration should dismantle USAID’s DEI apparatus by eliminating the Chief Diversity Officer position along with the DEI advisers and committees; cancel the DEI scorecard and dashboard; remove DEI requirements from contract and grant tenders and awards; issue a directive to cease promotion of the DEI agenda, including the bullying LGBTQ+ agenda; and provide staff a confidential medium through which to adjudicate cases of political retaliation that agency or implementing staff suffered during the Biden Administration. It should eliminate funding for partners that promote discriminatory DEI practices and consider debarment in egregious cases."
-Max Primorac, Mandate for Leadership, page 258
| |
Inside Higher Education Reports
February 2024
| Project 2025 Would Radically Overhaul Higher Ed. Here’s How. | |
Project 2025 reflects Republicans’ push against diversity, equity and inclusion policies across the federal government, calling for stripping DEI requirements and references to sexual orientation and gender identity, among other terms, from “every federal rule, agency regulation, contract, grant, regulation, and piece of legislation that exists.”
“This book, this agenda, the entire Project 2025 is a plan to unite the conservative movement and the American people against elite rule and woke culture warriors,” Heritage president Kevin Roberts writes in the foreward to the manual. “With enemies at home and abroad, there is no margin for error. Time is running short. If we fail, the fight for the very idea of America may be lost.”
| |
Jasmine Crockett On DEI Vs. Qualifications In Congress: Project 2025 Debate
Click Image Below to View Video
| |
Linked In Reports
July 8, 2024
| Three Ways Project 2025 Will Impact American Workplaces |  | Widen systemic inequities in the workplace. The Project 2025 playbook calls for a complete gutting of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs in the workplace, stating the need for a reversal of the “DEI Revolution in Labor Policy,” and insisting that the next conservative Administration “eliminate every one of these wrongful and burdensome ideological projects.” Project 2025 also proposes an amendment to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the legislation that protects against discrimination based on a set of protected classes that includes race, color, religion, sex, and national origin, suggesting that the collecting of EEO-1 data like race, should be prohibited. Without collecting demographic data about employees, organizations will not be able to recognize disparities in representation (e.g., hiring and promotion rates). What gets measured gets improved and without adequate data collection, systemic inequities in the workplace will persist. | |
Section 3: The General Welfare
|  |  | |
By its very design, critical race theory has an “applied” dimension, as its founders state in their essays that define the theory. Those who subscribe to the theory believe that racism (in this case, treating individuals differently based on race) is appropriate—necessary, even—making the theory more than merely an analytical tool to describe race in public
and private life.
The theory disrupts America’s Founding ideals of freedom and opportunity. So, when critical race theory is used as part of school activities such as mandatory affinity groups, teacher training programs in which educators are required to confess their privilege, or school — 343 — Department of Education assignments in which students must defend the false idea that America is systemically racist, the theory is actively disrupting the values that hold communities together such as equality under the law and colorblindness.
As such, lawmakers should design legislation that prevents the theory from spreading discrimination. For K–12 systems under their jurisdiction, federal lawmakers should adopt proposals that say no individual should receive punishment or benefits based on the color of their skin. Furthermore, school officials should not require students or teachers to believe that individuals are guilty or responsible for the actions of others based on race or ethnicity.
-Lindsey M. Burke, Mandate for Leadership, page 343
| |
WTTW News Reports
July 1, 2024
| Florida Bans ‘Critical Race Theory’ From its Classrooms | State Rep. La Shawn Ford and Nathan Hoffman of the Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism discuss critical race theory on “Chicago Tonight.” (Produced by Blair Paddock) | |
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (AP) — Florida’s state Board of Education banned “critical race theory” from public school classrooms Thursday, adopting new rules it said would shield schoolchildren from curricula that could “distort historical events.”
Florida’s move was widely expected as a national debate intensifies about how race should be used as a lens in classrooms to examine the country’s tumultuous history.
Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis appeared by video at the top of the board’s meeting, urging its members, many of whom he appointed, to adopt the new measures he asserted would serve students with the facts rather than “trying to indoctrinate them with ideology.”
The Black Lives Matter movement has helped bring contentious discussions about race to the forefront of American discourse, and classrooms have become a battleground. Supporters contend that federal law has preserved the unequal treatment of people on the basis of race and that the country was founded on the theft of land and labor.
| Rep. La Shawn K. Ford Demands Major Changes To History Teaching | |
Capital V Reports
July 14, 2024
| Kimberlé Crenshaw: ‘You Can’t Outrun’ the Attack on Racial Equality |  | |
“If you attack an opponent where they don’t have too much defense, then of course you take that and you keep going until you reach your ultimate objective,” said Crenshaw, a pioneering scholar of critical race theory and the co-founder and executive director of the African American Policy Forum, a think tank. “It shouldn’t be a shock that they’re treating this as a battle where they’re trying to gain as much territory as they possibly can.”
A few years ago, the main threats to the country’s social order, per conservative actors, were critical race theory and “woke.” But in the year since the U.S. Supreme Court gutted affirmative action in higher education, they’ve found a new menace: DEI — or, really, any initiative created to confront our long, ongoing history of racial inequality. Already, we can see the consequences of this engineered panic: Duke University has axed a full-ride scholarship for Black students; a federal court has banned an Atlanta-based venture capital firm from continuing a grant contest for Black women business owners. Supposedly, these programs discriminate against white Americans.
| |
WBEZ Chicago Reports
July 1, 2024
| Teachers Say Laws Banning Critical Race Theory Are Putting A Chill On Their Lessons |  | |
A bill signed into law by Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt bans lessons that include the concept that "one race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex," that a person's "moral character is inherently determined by his or her race or sex," or that someone should feel discomfort, guilt or distress on account of their race or sex.
Nonetheless, educators say the newly adopted and proposed laws are already forcing teachers to second-guess whether they can lead students in conversations about race and structural racism that many feel are critical at a time the nation is navigating an important reckoning on those issues.
This year, many teachers in Oklahoma are planning lessons on the 100th anniversary of the Tulsa Race Massacre, when hundreds of the city's Black residents were killed by white mobs. It's taken years for education officials to integrate the episode into state teaching standards. While the new law does not ban its teaching, Lewis said it is likely to limit how much teachers feel they can dive into conversations about topics such as structural racism and white supremacy before and since the massacre.
Lewis acknowledged that in a conservative state such as Oklahoma, there are many parents – especially white ones – who support the idea of shielding their children from uncomfortable conversations about race. But she said that's why they're so important.
|
Department of Health and Human Services
|  |  | |
"Prohibit abortion travel funding. Providing funding for abortions increases the number of abortions and violates the conscience and religious freedom rights of Americans who object to subsidizing the taking of life..." (Page 458)
"Prohibit Planned Parenthood from receiving Medicaid funds. During the 2020–2021 reporting period, Planned Parenthood performed more than 383,000 abortions..." (Page 471)
"Stop promoting or approving mail-order abortions in violation of long-standing federal laws that prohibit the mailing and interstate carriage of
abortion drugs..." (Page. 459)
"Reverse its approval of chemical abortion drugs because the politicized approval process was illegal from the start. The FDA failed to abide by its legal obligations to protect the health, safety, and welfare of girls and women. It never studied the safety of the drugs under the labeled conditions of use, ignored the potential impacts of the hormone-blocking regimen on the developing bodies of adolescent girls, disregarded the substantial evidence that chemical abortion drugs cause more complications than surgical abortions, and eliminated necessary safeguards for pregnant girls and women who undergo this dangerous
drug regimen..." (Page 458)
-Roger Serverino, Mandate for Leadership
| |
Center for American Progress Action Fund Reports
July 13, 2024
| Project 2025’s Distortion of a Reconstruction-Era Law Could Enact a National Abortion Ban | For decades, the far right has pushed radical and dangerous ideas that have already successfully stripped Americans of some of their fundamental reproductive freedoms. However, an authoritarian playbook from the Heritage Foundation, called Project 2025, reveals that the eradication of the constitutional right to abortion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Center was just the first step in a long-term plan to exert complete control over reproductive freedom for all Americans. Notably, Dobbs was brought to the U.S. Supreme Court by a prominent member of the advisory council of Project 2025, Alliance Defending Freedom. | |
Project 2025 Would Take Away Access to Free Emergency Contraception for 48 Million Women |  | |
For more than a decade, most people have been able to access contraception and other preventive health services at no cost. This guaranteed coverage has been a lifeline for millions of women. But extremists want to restrict women’s access to contraception—limiting their right to control their own futures.
In “Project 2025: A Presidential Transition Project,” far-right extremists outline their intent to exclude some forms of emergency contraception from no-cost coverage. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) requires most private health insurance plans to provide no-cost coverage—without copayment, coinsurance, or deductible—for recommended preventive services. This benefit includes the full range of U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved birth control methods and counseling, including emergency contraception. Rescinding no-cost coverage could have lifelong consequences for women nationwide. A new Center for American Progress analysis estimates that if Project 2025 were enacted, nearly 48 million women of reproductive age would lose their guaranteed no-cost access to emergency contraception.
| |
The Sweeping Consequences of the Far Right’s Plan To Effectuate a Backdoor National Abortion Ban in Project 2025
|  | |
Far-right extremists have already captured the U.S. Supreme Court and worsened dysfunction in a polarized Congress. Now, they have set their sights on usurping independent agencies such as the U.S. Department of Justice and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to eradicate abortion access. If they succeed, the far-reaching consequences will be detrimental to women, families, and providers and fuel the politicization of medicine in the United States:
-
More women will die. Without a mail option for medication abortion, the steep logistical and financial burdens of traveling for abortion access will exacerbate the maternal mortality and morbidity crisis in the United States, particularly for women of color.
- Fearing criminalization, providers will be forced to deny care to patients. An even broader array of medical providers will be in the untenable position of providing care or facing potential jail time, which will lead to delay—if not outright denial— of maternity care.
- Maternity care deserts will proliferate. The criminalization of medical providers will lead to an even greater shortage of maternity care professionals and resources, eradicating access to basic and vital maternity care for entire families and communities.
- Politics—not science—will regulate drug safety determinations. By weakening the independence of the FDA to advance their personal ideology, far-right extremists will fuel the politicization of medicine to the detriment of the well-being of every patient in America.
| |
|
News Nation Reports
July 19, 2024
| How Project 2025 could affect women | |
The document notes the “heroism” of women who chose life and lists several policies that would all but ban abortion access.
It would eliminate access to abortion pills, citing the largely dormant Comstock Act that prohibits the mailing of obscene materials and articles intended for “producing abortion.”
Abortion pills accounted for 63% of abortions in the U.S. in 2023, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a reproductive rights nonprofit.
“In doing this, it would pretty much eliminate access to reproductive care and abortion access to many people who can’t afford to travel, live in rural communities and don’t have access to OBGYNs,” Nunes said.
| |
Ostracizing single women? Inside Heritage Foundation's Project 2025 plan to strip women's rights | |
|
"Eliminate the Head Start program. Head Start, originally established and funded to support low-income families, is fraught with scandal and abuse. With a budget of more than $11 billion, the program should function to protect and educate minors. Sadly, it has done exactly the opposite."
(Page 482)
-Roger Serverino, Mandate for Leadership
| |
|
Center for American Progress Action Fund Reports
June 26, 2024
| |
Project 2025 Would Eliminate Head Start, Severely Restricting Access to Child Care in Rural America | |
Eliminating Head Start would also strip the comprehensive services that the hundreds of thousands of low-income families enrolled in Head Start currently receive. While reflecting on how Head Start helped her family, Javona said, “[Without it] I never would have been able to work.” Eliminating Head Start would deprive families of opportunities to pursue entrepreneurial endeavors, develop professionally, and obtain additional educational certifications and degrees. Moreover, children would lose access to the emotional, social, health, nutritional, and educational supports necessary to succeed once they enter kindergarten.
| |
Center for American Progress Action Fund Reports
April 12, 2018
| |
Head Start in Rural America | |
|
As a geographically dispersed program, Head Start reaches families in even the most remote parts of the country and successfully delivers services to children at one of the most critical developmental stages. Without Head Start, many rural families would be without many of the resources their children need to thrive.
These fact sheets examine the scope of services that the Head Start program provides to children and families in 10 rural states and highlights the key role that Head Start plays in the supply of quality child care in rural communities.
| |
|
New America Reports
July 17, 2024
| |
Project 2025 Would End Head Start and Hurt Children with Disabilities | The 2024 Republican National Convention has highlighted the party’s platform this week, drawing heavily from Project 2025. The conservative policy plan calls for the elimination of Head Start, alarming education advocates who note that doing so would remove access to early learning for over 787,000 children from families with low-incomes across the U.S. Of those children served, over 111,000 (about 14.2%) are children with disabilities, and many more are at risk for developing disabilities. Head Start specializes in providing comprehensive services to young children with disabilities from families with low incomes, who face intertwined challenges from inequitable access to food, health care, housing, and high-quality early learning. If Head Start ends, so will critical services for thousands of children with delays and disabilities living in poverty across the country. | |
 | |
"Remove barriers to direct primary care. Direct primary care (DPC) is an innovative health care delivery model in which doctors contract directly with patients for their care on a subscription basis regardless of how or where the care is provided..." (Page 469)
"Revisit the No Surprises Act on surprise medical billing. The No Surprises Act37 protected consumers against balance bills, but it also established a deeply flawed system for resolving payment disputes between insurers and providers..." (Page 469)
"Facilitate the development of shared savings and reference pricing plan options. Under traditional insurance, patients who choose lowercost care do not benefit financially from that choice..." (Page 469)
"Separate the subsidized ACA exchange market from the nonsubsidized insurance market. The Affordable Care Act has made insurance more expensive and less competitive, and the ACA subsidy scheme simply masks these impacts...." (Page 469)
"Strengthen hospital price transparency. In 2020, CMS completed its rule to require hospitals to post the prices of common hospital procedures..." (Page 470)
-Roger Severino, Mandate for Leadership
| |
Physicians for a National Health Program Reports
April, 2024
| Project 2025 proposes changes to private insurance that will remove important protections put in place by the Affordable Care Act. | |
|
Remove barriers to direct primary care. Direct primary care (DPC) is an innovative health care delivery model in which doctors contract directly with patients for their care on a subscription basis regardless of how or where the care is provided. The DPC model is improving patient access, driving higher quality and lower cost, and strengthening the doctor–patient relationship. DPC has faced many challenges from government policymakers, including overly exuberant attempts at regulation and misclassification. Changes should clarify that DPC’s fixed fee for care does not constitute insurance in the context of health savings accounts.
HJM comment: IMO, DPC has some genuine pluses – it facilitates clinical focus for physicians by cutting payment-related paperwork, and fosters continuity of care. However, the “health savings accounts” promoted in the last sentence are expensive to administer (far more than single payer) and are regressive, shifting scarce health insurance resources to tax free retirement accounts of the healthy and wealthy. Under single payer, DPC will be easy to implement.
| |
|
Georgetown University Reports
June 17, 2024
| Project 2025 Blueprint Also Includes Draconian Cuts to Medicaid |  | |
The Project 2025 plan would convert federal Medicaid funding to block grants or per capita caps. Under the current federal-state financial partnership, the federal government pays a fixed percentage of states’ Medicaid costs, whatever those costs are. In contrast, under block grants and per capita caps, federal funding would be capped, with states receiving only a fixed amount of federal Medicaid funding either in the aggregate or on a per-beneficiary basis, irrespective of states’ actual costs. While the plan does not specify how the block grants or per capita caps would be initially set or how they would be annually adjusted, such funding caps are typically designed to fail to keep pace with expected enrollment and/or health care cost growth in order to deeply cut federal Medicaid spending over time, relative to current law. The caps would also fail to account for any unexpected cost growth such as from a recession, natural disaster, public health emergency or a new, costly drug therapy.
| |
|
"Inflation is ravaging family budgets, drug overdose deaths continue to escalate, and children suffer the toxic normalization of transgenderism with drag queens and pornography invading their school libraries..." (Page 1)
"Pornography, manifested today in the omnipresent propagation of transgender ideology and sexualization of children, for instance, is not a political Gordian knot inextricably binding up disparate claims about free speech, property rights, sexual liberation, and child welfare. It has no claim to First Amendment protection. Its purveyors are child predators and misogynistic exploiters of women. Their product is as addictive as any illicit drug and as psychologically destructive as any crime. 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..." (Page 5)
-Kevin D. Roberts, Mandate for Leadership
| |
|
"Families comprised of a married mother, father, and their children are the foundation of a well-ordered nation and healthy society. Unfortunately, family policies and programs under President Biden’s HHS are fraught with agenda items focusing on “LGBTQ+ equity,” subsidizing single-motherhood, disincentivizing work, and penalizing marriage. These policies should be repealed and replaced by policies that support the formation of stable, married, nuclear families..."(Page 451)
"Respect for Marriage Act that redefine marriage to be the union between any two individuals, HMRE program grants should be available to faithbased recipients who affirm that marriage is between not just any two adults, but one man and one unrelated woman..." (Page 481)
-Roger Serverino, Mandate for Leadership
| |
|
The Nevada Current Reports
July 26, 2024
| Family values, LGBTQ+ rights would backslide with Project 2025 | |
|
Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation’s ultra-conservative blueprint for the next Republican president, envisions an Ozzie and Harriet-style society where children are raised by married heterosexual parents, unburdened by the prospect of same-sex neighbors or drag queen story hours at the local library.
The cornerstone of Project 2025’s “Conservative promise” is to “restore the family as the centerpiece of American life and protect our children.”
| |
|
Verify Reports
July 18, 2024
|
No, Project 2025 doesn’t eliminate
gay marriage
| |
|
Project 2025 includes no policy proposals that would forbid gay marriage. However, several of its proposals would roll back anti-discrimination protections for LGBTQ+ people and favor federal funding and support for heterosexual marriages over gay marriage.
Gay marriage became legal nationwide in 2015 when the Supreme Court ruled in Obergefell v. Hodges that it was unconstitutional for a state to deny a same-sex couple the right to marry. That means gay marriage is unlikely to be eliminated unless the Supreme Court overturns Obergefell.
None of the chapters in "Mandate for Leadership: A Conservative Promise," which outlines the plan for Project 2025, include any proposal to completely eliminate gay marriage.
However, several of the chapters include proposals that favor heterosexual couples over gay couples or are otherwise anti-LGBTQ+.
| |
 | |
"Not surprisingly, the EPA under the Biden Administration has returned to the same top-down, coercive approach that defined the Obama Administration. There has been a reinstitution of unachievable standards designed to aid in the “transition” away from politically disfavored industries and technologies and toward the Biden Administration’s preferred alternatives. This approach is most obvious in the Biden Administration’s assault on the energy sector as the Administration uses its regulatory might to make coal, oil, and natural gas operations very expensive and increasingly inaccessible while forcing the economy to build out and rely on unreliable renewables..." (Page 418)
"The EPA has been a breeding ground for expansion of the federal government’s influence and control across the economy. Embedded activists have sought to evade legal restraints in pursuit of a global, climate-themed agenda, aiming to achieve that agenda by implementing costly policies that otherwise have failed to gain the requisite political traction in Congress. Many EPA actions in liberal Administrations have simply ignored the will of Congress, aligning instead with the goals and wants of politically connected activists..." (Page 418)
Although the U.S. environmental story is very positive, there has been a return to fear-based rhetoric within the agency, especially as it pertains to the perceived threat of climate change. Mischaracterizing the state of our environment generally and the actual harms reasonably attributable to climate change specifically is a favored tool that the Left uses to scare the American public into accepting their ineffective, liberty-crushing regulations, diminished private property rights, and exorbitant costs. In effect, the Biden EPA has once again presented a false choice to the American people: that they have to choose between a healthy environment and a strong, growing economy..." (Page 418)
"EPA’s structure and mission should be greatly circumscribed to reflect the principles of cooperative federalism and limited government..." (Page 420)
"Returning the environmental justice function to the AO, eliminating the stand-alone Office of Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights..." (Page 421)
"Eliminating the Office of Public Engagement and Environmental Education as a stand-alone entity and reabsorbing substantive elements into the Office of Public Affairs..." (Page 421)
"Remove the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP) for any source category that is not currently being regulated. The overall reporting program imposes significant burdens on small businesses and companies that are not being regulated. This is either a pointless burden or a sword-of Damocles threat of future regulation, neither of which is appropriate..." (Page 421)
-Mandy M. Gunasekera, Mandate for Leadership
| |
|
Forbes Reports
July 11, 2024
| |
Project 2025 Calls For EPA To Shift Focus From Climate Change | Project 2025 has gained attention recently as Democrats have latched onto it to try to draw policy contrasts between President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump. A look at the chapter on the Environmental Protection Agency highlights the conservative disagreement with climate change policies and greenhouse gas reporting. Although not the official policy of the Trump campaign, it signals a reprioritization of climate change policies and struggles for environmental, social, and governance reporting if Trump wins a second term. | |
|
E &E News Reports
July 18, 2024
| |
Inside the Project 2025 plan to gut
climate regs
| |
 | |
Gunasekara blamed first term policy failures in part on resistance from career staff — something Project 2025 would take pains to root out through extensive structural and workforce changes. She also acknowledged that the Trump administration sometimes cut corners — something she said wouldn’t be repeated.
“The biggest difference is we have a plan from Day One, we’re going to start implementing it, and we won’t be as susceptible to process problems that really sunk a couple of those final regulatory proposals and actions we took at the tail end of the administration,” said Gunasekara, who spoke by phone with POLITICO’s E&E News as she attended the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee.
Gunasekara said four Trump-era political appointees helped write the chapter: David Harlow, Scott Mason IV, Justin Schwab and Clint Woods. Schwab declined to comment, and the others did not respond to requests for interviews.
The bulk of the chapter is devoted to reshaping EPA — “an agency that has long been amenable to being coopted by the Left for political ends” — into an entity suited to carry out a “conservative vision.”
| |
Grist News Reports
July 19, 2024
| |
What Project 2025 would do to climate policy in the US
| |
 | |
As delegates arrived at the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee earlier this week to officially nominate former president Donald Trump as their 2024 candidate, a right-wing policy think tank held an all-day event nearby. The Heritage Foundation, a key sponsor of the convention and a group that has been influencing Republican presidential policy since the 1980s, gathered its supporters to tout Project 2025, a 900-plus-page policy blueprint that seeks to fundamentally restructure the federal government.
An analysis conducted by the United Kingdom-based Carbon Brief found that a Trump presidency would lead to 400 billion metric tons of additional emissions in the U.S. by 2030 — the emissions output of the European Union and Japan combined.
Above all else, Segall, from Evergreen Action, is worried about the effect Project 2025 would have on the personnel who make up the federal government. Much of the way the administrative state works is safeguarded in the minds of career staff who pass their knowledge on to the next cadre of federal workers. When this institutional knowledge is curbed, as it was by budget cuts and hostile management during Trump’s first term, the government loses crucial information that helps it run. The personnel “scatter,” he said, disrupts bottom-line operations and grinds the government to a halt.
Although Project 2025’s proposals are radical, Segall said that its effect on public servants would echo a pattern that has been playing out for decades. “This is a common theme in Republican administrations dating back to presidents Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan,” he said. “What you do is you break the government, make it very hard for the government to function, and then you loudly announce that the government can’t do anything.”
| |
|
MSNBC News Reports
July 26, 2024
| A second Trump term would actively make climate change worse | |
 | |
His campaign, meantime, targeted environmental regulations such as electric vehicle mandates in its Agenda 47, a scattershot series of videos outlining its plans for a second term. And at rallies, Trump frequently criticizes electric cars, claiming in one bizarre aside that buying one made his friend gain weight because he would eat at restaurants while it charged. Trump has also gone off on weird tangents about the risks of electric batteries on boats.
In his first "rolling coal" term, Trump rolled back or loosened nearly 100 rules and regulations on pollution, many of which set the U.S. further behind in the effort to stop the worst effects of climate change, according to a tally by The New York Times. But that record would be dwarfed by the damage that the Project 2025 proposals could do if he followed through on them, even as Monday was the hottest day ever measured by humans, according to a European Union science agency.
The 922-page document drips with disdain for what it calls "climate alarmism" that it argues is being used as propaganda for "ineffective, liberty-crushing regulations." But its most damaging proposal looks like it would launch what amounts to a propaganda effort against climate science.
| |
Could U.S. climate policy be up for sale under a second Trump presidency? | |
|
"The next President should promote pro-growth economic policies that spur new jobs and investment, higher wages, and productivity. Yes, that agenda should include overdue tax and regulatory reform, but it should go further and include antitrust enforcement against corporate
monopolies..." (Page 48)
-Kevin D. Roberts, Mandate for Leadership
| |
|
CBS News Reports
July 12, 2024
| |
Project 2025 would overhaul the U.S. tax system. Here's how it could impact you.
|  | |
Project 2025, a 900-page blueprint for the next Republican president, is gaining attention for its proposals to overhaul the federal government. Among those changes: a major restructuring of the U.S. tax code.
President Biden and Democrats have been citing Project 2025 in recent weeks as they seek to highlight what could be in store if former President Donald Trump wins at the polls in November and retakes the White House in January. Many of the blueprint's proposals touch on economic matters that could impact millions of Americans, as well as social issues such as abortion and diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI, topics.
Project 2025, overseen by the conservative Heritage Foundation, is spearheaded by two ex-Trump administration officials: project director Paul Dans, who was chief of staff at the Office of Personnel Management, and Spencer Chretien, former special assistant to Trump who is now the project's associate director.
| |
|
CNBC News Reports
July 20, 2024
| |
How Project 2025 could impact your tax bracket and capital gains under a second Trump term | |
|
Project 2025 aims to “promote prosperity” by reducing marginal tax rates, lowering the cost of capital and broadening the tax base.
The plan departs from the current federal income tax brackets with a “simple two-rate individual tax system” with flat rates of 15% and 30%. The higher tier would start around the Social Security wage base, which is $168,600 for 2024.
For 2024, there are seven brackets with a top rate of 37%. But without action from Congress, some of these rates will increase after 2025 once provisions from the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, or TCJA, sunset.
| |
Click Below to View job Highlights From Previous Dates | | | | |
