By Anne Zeiser, Founder of Azure Media ,
Author of Transmedia Marketing: From Film and TV to Games and Digital Media
Project 2025's "Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise" is a 900+ page document creating a roadmap for a new conservative world order. I strongly suggest you read the entire document. I believe it adds up to a dystopian future. Expect children dying of measles. Expect extreme weather events. Expect policing of our minds and bodies. Expect the loss of due process of law. Expect huge costs of goods, food, and gas. Expect a constant state of fear.
It disregards the Founding Fathers and the Constitution, it mocks the hard-fought rights and freedoms of this country that our military has protected over decades, and it strips individuals of their rights and thwarts the will of the people. It’s largely about about serving corporate and wealthy individuals’ greed and spewing anger and hate toward those deemed as “other” -- cloaked in “faith-based” doctrine. It's hurtful to the very young, the old, the disabled, the poor, and the sick while espousing these “faith-based” policy solutions. (What Bible were the writers reading?) The United States is a democratic republic, not a religious cult or an autocratic state.
In short, Project 2025 is a prescription for an authoritarian regime and widespread, unfettered corruption. Here are a few examples -- with direct quotes from the document -- that demonstrate why:
_____________________________________________________
1. Providing Unilateral Power to the Executive Branch
“The Constitution gives the ‘executive Power’ to the President.”
What this means & consequences for democracy:
Not only does this signal the expansion of power to the executive branch but also includes the potential dismissal of civil servants or overriding regulations without congressional input.
Expanding executive powers risks undermining the balance of power among the three branches of government. By concentrating decision-making in the executive branch, it diminishes legislative and judicial oversight, leading toward authoritarian governance. It takes power away from Congress, which provides an important check and balance. This eliminates the public will and "we the people" having a voice in our government through our elected officials.
Also, it allows a power-hungry or financially incentivized presidents to set up alliances with other authoritarian governments like Iran, Russia, and North Korea or private entities and corporations for personal gain -- with no consequences. That’s how oligarchies are formed.
The Founding Fathers were clear that we need THREE balanced branches of government to prevent abuses and protect us from infiltration from both domestic and foreign bad actors.
To ensure a true dictator state is established, Project 2025 removes the independence of the FBI and the Department of Justice and places them under presidential control, creating a true police state. When law enforcement is under the direct influence of a political leader, agencies like the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI (are used to target political opponents and dissenting voices leading to partisan policing. The reason the FBI is independent is so that it can enforce the law impartially. But with presidential autonomy, this will diminish the principle of equal protection under the law and also can create a state of surveillance monitoring of citizens, erosion of personal freedoms and privacy, mass data collection, unwarranted searches, and infringements on free speech. In extreme cases, the police state controls and silences protest or opposition movements. If Putin can do it why shouldn't his wannabe bromance, Trump do the same?
Eliminating or minimizing the Department of Justice (DOJ) would halt or severely hinder several critical functions, including civil rights protections of anti-discrimination laws in housing, employment, education, and voting, leaving vulnerable groups unprotected. Criminal prosecution to combat organized crime, terrorism, human trafficking, and large-scale drug trafficking would be disrupted and antitrust enforcement of the DOJ to prevent corporate monopolies and promote fair competition in the marketplace would end. Public corruption oversight by investigating misconduct by public officials at all levels of government would cease, risking unchecked abuse of power. Environmental enforcement and prosecution of environmental crimes, such as illegal pollution or wildlife trafficking, would stop and consumer protection efforts to hold companies accountable for fraud, false advertising, and financial crimes would weaken significantly. Finally, election security in the form of oversight and legal actions to ensure the integrity of federal elections would no longer occur.
With executive control over the DOJ, political weaponization of law enforcement agencies can occur where the DOJ targets political opponents, activists, or groups the administration disagrees with. A tenet of the Founding Fathers was an independent judiciary, but if the president wields substantial control over the DOJ, it can interfere with judicial processes, appointments of judges who are sympathetic to the administration’s agenda, and undermine the separation of powers, allowing the executive branch to exert undue influence over Court decisions, prosecutions, and investigations. In addition to mass surveillance and suppression of dissent, it might result in selective prosecution, choosing to enforce certain laws disproportionately or only against certain groups or individuals based on political loyalties or opposition. In short equal treatment under the law will disappear, there will be no accountability for government actions anymore, and there will be complete unchecked power where law-enforcement agencies operate with impunity and can violate civil liberties. The entire Constitution falls at this point.
Trump is angry at the DOJ for a perceived witch hunt against him, but his retribution by restricting or eliminating it would erode public trust, diminish the rule of law, and weaken the nation’s ability to address systemic challenges.
_______________________________________________________
2A. Restricting or eliminating The Department of Education.
“Proposals include restructuring or eliminating agencies such as the Department of Education.”
2B. Removing federal standard of education to states:
“Return power to the states on issues of education.”
What this means & consequences for democracy:
Elimination of the Department of Education removes minimum standards for K-12 and higher education, including academic benchmarks and equal access initiatives. Without it, educational quality and curriculum could vary drastically by state, leading to inequities in the knowledge and skills students receive. With the removal of national educational guidelines for students the poorest states’ schools will be even worse off and there’s no baseline of educational standards in this country. We are already well below the pack in Westernized countries. We will fall much further behind, negatively affecting our motivation for innovation and the quality of our workforce. There will be long-term economic effects.
Project 2025 also reduces Federal funds for schools, particularly in low-income areas. Programs like Title I (for disadvantaged schools) and IDEA (for students with disabilities) rely on this funding. There would increased threat to Civil Rights Protections because the DOE enforces anti-discrimination laws to ensure equal access to education regardless of race, gender, disability, or socioeconomic status. Without this enforcement, schools could refuse services to marginalized students or foster discriminatory practices unchecked. Students with physical disabilities -- from hearing or sight loss or mobility limits and other learning differences, ADHD, autism, and dyslexia -- would be in jeopardy and need to pay for private schools to serve their needs. Federal programs that support students with disabilities, English language learners, and other vulnerable populations would vanish. Federal aid and student loan programs like Pell Grants, which help millions afford higher education would be curbed or eliminated, preventing access to affordable college. The DOE funds research into effective teaching strategies, curriculum innovation, and technology integration in schools. Eliminating this research would hinder progress in adapting education systems to modern challenges.
Elimination of the DOE would increase the financial and administrative burden on states, which are already stretched to their limits. States would be forced to take on responsibilities previously handled by the federal government, such as funding, oversight, and standardization. Additionally, there would be an erosion of accountability because DOE oversight ensures that states and schools are accountable for the use of public funds and the outcomes of their educational systems. Without this oversight, corruption, inefficiencies, or neglect could flourish in state or local systems. Without the DOE, the inequity between states would sharpen, and states with better resources and governance could maintain stronger education systems, while others might severely underfund or mismanage schools. Wealthier states might manage, but poorer states would struggle, increasing inequities across the country. Students’ education — and opportunities — would increasingly depend on where they live. Finally, a decline in educational quality and accessibility nationwide would result in a less skilled workforce. This would hurt U.S. economic competitiveness, increase unemployment, and deepen income inequality.
Removing federal standards would allow states more leeway in setting educational curriculums, with fewer enforced protections for inclusive and science-based education. This will lead to disparities in education quality, with some states adopting ideologically driven curriculums (Florida has added Christian ideology, whitewashed American history, and banned books that mention slavery of gay characters), depriving students of equitable learning opportunities. Instead of upholding educational rigor, project 2025 espuses infusing ideological and outwardly religious doctrine into our public schools. In keeping with a dictator state, it proposes to ban free speech and ban classic books because they include themes of racism or questioning the status quo. Some of the books already banned in this new world order: “To Kill a Mockingbird” by Harper Lee, “Of Mice and Men” by John Steinbeck, “The Great Gatsby” by F. Scott Fitzgerald, “1984” by George Orwell, “Brave New World” by Aldous Huxley., “The Handmaid’s Tale” by Margaret Atwood, and “The Kite Runner” by Khaled Hosseini. Instead of classic literature, Projecvt 2025 adds volunteer chaplains to our public school to provide spiritual guidance, civics education training for teachers that emphasize Judeo-Christian foundations, and display religious texts in public schools, like the 10 Commandments already in Florida. This is so blatantly Unconstitutional— the Founding Fathers called for a separation of church and state. But the Constitution doesn’t matter anymore if you control the DOJ, Congress, and the Supreme Court.
To create an anti-"woke” environment, in fact, we will eliminate common core standards, and the quality of education will drop, and the U.S. will fall further behind the world.
__________________________________________________________
3A. Eliminating federal agencies
“Proposals include restructuring or eliminating agencies (such as the Department of Education.”)
3B. Cutting back on the administrative state
“Curtailing the administrative state is critical to restoring governance aligned with conservative principles.”
What this means & consequences for democracy:
The plan recommends significant reductions or outright abolition of key federal agencies, particularly those focused on education, justice, environmental regulation, and elder services. Drafters and proponents of Project 2025 have publicly discussed goals to dismantle regulatory bodies like the Department of Justice, Social Security, Medicare, the CDC, and the EPA (further below) by rolling back protections for justice, security, public health, and the environment in favor of deregulation to favor individuals and corporations. Weakened regulatory structures can lead to corporate overreach, environmental degradation, and harm to public welfare without recourse, impacting citizens’ trust in government protection.
Project 2025 includes a heartbreaking raft of removal of protections and support for the elderly, very young (babies), the sick, the poor, and much more. Project 2025 plans to completely restructure and diminish The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) (which provides public health initiatives for disease, prevention, health, promotion, and epidemic response; and social support programs, including food assistance, housing services, and emergency aid; and health access and equity through Medicaid and Medicare and community health centers; and family and child welfare programs for foster programs, parenting support, and child protective services; and mental and behavioral health support; and aging and elderly care; and unemployment and financial stability through job training and temporary assistance for needy families). Cuts to these HHS services could adversely affect more than a trillion people served through its various programs.
Project 2025 recommends cutting SNAP, which puts food in the mouths of young families and the elderly. It proposes to reduce funding to Free School Meals, often the only meal some children receive daily, and to completely eliminate the Headstart Program (which offers childhood education, health, and nutrition to low-income, children and families). Medicaid will take big hits with measures to reduce access to healthcare for low-income individuals.
And the great American stalwarts, Social Security and Medicare we’ve all paid into our whole working lives, are on the chopping block. The plans for both are to increase eligibility requirements (making it harder to qualify) and reduce benefits.
Eliminating or curbing Social Security (SS) would have far-reaching and devastating effects, impacting individuals, families, and the broader economy. It would significantly increase poverty among seniors. Millions of retirees would lose their primary source of income, pushing them into poverty. Currently, Social Security lifts around 40% of elderly Americans out of poverty. Elderly individuals may be unable to afford basic necessities like housing, food, and healthcare. The strain on families would because without Social Security, the financial burden of supporting elderly parents or relatives would fall heavily on younger generations. This could create intergenerational financial strain, leading to reduced savings and investment for younger workers.
Homelessness among elders would increase as Social Security enables seniors and disabled individuals to remain in their homes. Without it, many would lose housing, exacerbating homelessness among vulnerable populations. It would also lead to a rise in health crises because seniors and disabled individuals would lose access to healthcare and medications funded through SS payments. Poorer health outcomes, more frequent hospitalizations, and an increase in preventable deaths. Social Security provides critical income to disabled workers and families of deceased breadwinners. The loss of disability and survivor’s benefits means these individuals would face severe financial hardship, potentially leading to a higher dependency on already strained charity systems. Inequality would worsen because Social Security is a lifeline for lower-income workers who lack other retirement savings or pensions. Eliminating it would widen the wealth gap, leaving only the wealthy able to afford secure retirements.
We’d see an increase in the elderly workforce because, without Social Security, many retirees would be forced to continue working far beyond the typical retirement age. This would displace younger workers, worsen unemployment, and strain workplace infrastructure. Older people would lose economic security as SS serves as a safety net for sudden life changes like unemployment, disability, or loss of a spouse. Its elimination would create financial chaos for countless families in crisis. Also, it would throw the country into economic instability because SS payments contribute significantly to consumer spending, especially in local economies. It would reduce purchasing power and could lead to widespread economic downturns, particularly in communities reliant on these payments.
People from newborns to 100+ will have no retirement plan, including those who have paid into the system for their entire careers. Our older generations could be homeless and hungry, and their children will need to take in their parents or let them suffer.
Eliminating or cutting back on Medicare, the federal health insurance program for seniors and certain disabled individuals, would have far-reaching and devastating effects on healthcare access, financial security, and public health. A loss of healthcare coverage for seniors would impact 65+ million Americans, mainly seniors aged 65 and older, who rely on Medicare for their healthcare. These individuals would face a lack of affordable insurance, leading to potentially catastrophic out-of-pocket medical expenses, limited access to care, and poorer health outcomes. It would lead to increased poverty among seniors because Medicare helps protect seniors from high medical costs, especially during retirement when many live on fixed incomes. Without Medicare, many older Americans would be pushed deeper into poverty due to the financial burden of paying for healthcare out-of-pocket. Like disruptions of Social Security, changing Medicare benefits would place extreme financial strain on families. Families would likely need to provide care for elderly members, draining personal finances or potentially forcing younger relatives to forgo savings or work. The economic stress could harm younger generations’ financial stability as well.
Without Medicare, our health systems would be overburdened. Seniors would either go without care or flood emergency rooms, creating strain on hospitals and healthcare providers. This would increase wait times for everyone and lead to higher costs for hospitals and healthcare workers, reducing care quality. An increase in the number of uninsured Americans, who are less likely to seek early care, would lead to worse health outcomes and increased financial burdens on hospitals, which would still need to treat these patients. Without Medicare, there would be reduced access to necessary care. Many seniors would be unable to afford critical services like regular doctor visits, hospitalization, prescription medications, or preventive care (e.g., vaccinations). This would lead to worsening health conditions, untreated illnesses, and a general decline in the quality of life for the elderly population.
All this would lead to worsening health inequities. Low-income and minority groups who rely on Medicare would experience more severe disruptions in healthcare coverage. These groups, who already face disparities in healthcare access, would bear a disproportionate burden in the absence of Medicare, further exacerbating health inequities. This would lead to lower life expectancy and declining public health, because seniors would be foregoing necessary medical treatments, leading to preventable health decline, and mortality rates among the elderly could increase. Reduced access to preventive care, timely treatment, and ongoing care management would negatively impact overall life expectancy and public health in the U.S.
We’d see a rise in medical bankruptcies because seniors, who often have few financial resources due to their inability to pay medical bills, further destabilizing financial security for vulnerable populations. This would lead to increased healthcare costs for younger generations because, without Medicare and other insurance, the cost of treating seniors’ illnesses may ultimately shift to younger generations and taxpayers. Younger families, particularly those with children, would face higher taxes and insurance premiums as the system attempts to manage costs without Medicare’s support.
The effects of eliminating the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) would be devastating. We would lose the ability to contain pandemics, because the U.S. would lack centralized expertise and coordination for identifying, tracking, and containing infectious diseases. In fact, during his first administration in 2019, Trump all but eliminated our CDC surveillance and disease prevention presence in China (Asia and Africa are the top “ground zero” areas for pandemics), leaving us at a disadvantage when the COVID-19 pandemic broke out. The CDC and other U.S. health agencies faced challenges in obtaining real-time on-the-ground information directly from China, and since we could no longer supply our early intelligence to the U.S., we had to rely on the World Health Organization to receive information. Therefore, the U.S. was slower in understanding and responding to the pandemic. And had a delayed global ability for coordination.
The CDC also manages vaccine programs and vaccine protocols and without these immunization programs -- that have eradicated diseases like polio and significantly reduced others -- preventable illnesses would resurge. We will see polio back in the U.S., paralyzing and killing children. Polio causes irreversible paralysis in about 1 in 200 infections. Among those paralyzed, 5 to 10% die when respiratory muscles are affected. Without the MMR vaccine, measles outbreaks would take over the country because it is the most highly contagious preventable disease, requiring a vaccination rate of about 94% to acquire herd immunity. Measles is debilitating and deadly. Thirty percent of unvaccinated children get pneumonia, severe diarrhea, dehydration, and ear infections, resulting in hearing loss, or encephalitis of the brain. One to three out of 1000 children infected with measles will die due to complications in the U.S., and in regions with poor access to healthcare, the fatality rate is around 10%. The threat of measles will become a common part of families with young children’s lives. Other very dangerous and fully PREVENTABLE diseases will surge, including smallpox, which has a mortality rate of 30%; rabies which is nearly 100% fatal; tetanus with a 10 to 20% fatality rate; meningitis, with a fatality rate of 15% with treatment and 50% without treatment; yellow fever with a mortality rate of 50%; and influenza (the flu) with a high mortality rate in the very young and very old -- killing hundreds of thousands every year.
As a result, mortality rates will increase precipitously. Without guidance on chronic disease prevention or responses to emerging threats, life expectancy, and general health would decline. Our health standards would no longer be among those in the Western or developed world, and we would be somewhere closer to health outcomes in the developing world. Without the CDC, there will be a huge loss to the research and ongoing understanding of public health because critical data collection and analysis on health trends, disease outbreaks, and preventive care would stop, leaving policymakers without evidence-based insights. Our emergency preparedness would be very weak as our federal preparedness for bioterrorism, natural disasters, and outbreaks like COVID-19 or Ebola would collapse. Healthcare costs will increase because of the uncontrolled spread of diseases that would overwhelm hospitals, increasing costs and reducing care quality.
Project 2025 will restructure the CDC, limit it from issuing public health advice and alerts, and cut its funding. The CDC is the critical agency monitoring the outbreaks of dangerous diseases and handling vaccine distribution and public health responses. The plan also calls to eliminate the no-cost vaccines for 54 million Medicare beneficiaries to ensure vaccine access to all communities. Not only are there many fatal diseases that are almost at bay because of the CDC’s vaccination protocols in concert with the WHO, but inevitably, there will be another pandemic. Great idea to lose ground and be less prepared and staffed than we were on the last pandemic ! (Must be retribution for COVID during the first administration). All this equals a much less safe and healthy population. You and your family will be more vulnerable to diseases without the preservation of herd immunity levels for polio, measles, mumps, rubella, and other preventable diseases, and you or your family member will be less able to be treated when you get cancer or heart disease. These measures will reverse decades of progress in medicine and public health.
There are further allowances for corporations in Project 2025. It plans to restructure anti-trust enforcement to reduce the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) role in regulating corporate mergers and acquisitions, lessening regulatory hurdles for businesses seeking to consolidate. It also advocates for substantial deregulation benefiting large corporations, including in tech by rolling back environmental and labor regulations, leading to reduced oversight in increased corporate autonomy.
In addition to eliminating, restructuring, or diluting the many administrative agencies of the government, Project 2025 will remove the training and merit hiring criteria for government administrative positions. You no longer need to be qualified for your job -- as an accountant or legal expert; you simply have to be a cronie of Trump or some future president. It will place even more unfettered government power in the executive branch.
_____________________________________________________________
4. Eliminate the EPA’s climate and environmental power.
“Climate policies under existing regulations impose undue burdens on the economy.”
What this means & consequences for democracy:
This language signals intent to deregulate climate policies, allowing companies to operate without stringent environmental and public saftety and health requirements. Removing environmental safeguards prioritizes corporate profit over public welfare.
Eliminating or throttling the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would result in unregulated pollution. Without the EPA, air and water pollution limits would disappear, and companies – from power plants to Monsanto could put mercury, lead, and other toxins into our waterways and air unfettered. Since the Clean Air Act of 1963 and the Clean Water Act of 1972, we have cleaned up many toxic zones, which have proven to be breeding zones for cancers and other danagerous health outcomes. Without these regulations in place, we’d see a spike again in health problems like respiratory diseases, cancers, and neurological issues. As a result, a health crisis could occur because of increased exposure to contaminants (e.g., lead, mercury, and pesticides) would lead to higher incidences of chronic illnesses and birth defects.
We’d also see a stalling of climate action. Federal climate change mitigation efforts, including clean energy programs and greenhouse gas regulations, would cease, accelerating environmental damage. Currently, climate damage is accelerating due to human-induced global warming. Global temperatures are rising at an average rate of 0.2 Celsius, or .36 Fahrenheit per decade with the last decade being the hottest on record, providing frequent and intense heat waves affecting human health, agriculture, and ecosystems.
There’s been an increase in the frequency of extreme weather events, such as hurricanes, wildfires (California, Australia), droughts, and floods worldwide, which are accelerating exponentiallyy. The Greenland Ice Sheet is losing 279,000,000,000 tons of ice per year at the Atlantic Sheet has lost 2,720,000,000,000 tons of ice since 1992. Glaciers worldwide are retreating at accelerating rates therefore the rising sea levels -- currently rising at an average rate of 3.3 mm per year – are threatening coastal cities and islands. The sea levels have risen about 8 to 9 inches (or 21 to 23 cm) since 1880, with the rate increasing to about 3.3 mm per year since 1993. This is causing extreme coastal flooding, erosion, and damage to infrastructure, with major risks to low-lying cities and ecosystems.
Additionally, ocean acidification has increased by 30% since the Industrial Revolution due to the absorption of excess CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels. This causes harm to marine life, particularly coral reefs and shellfish, impacting biodiversity, fisheries, and tourism. The global extinction rate of species is estimated to be 1,000 times the natural rate, exacerbated by climate change and habitat destruction. Species extinction, ecosystem degradation, and loss of essential ecosystem services like pollination have burgeoned. This affects agricultural and food security as well because crop yields are projected to decline globally by 3 to 7% per decade due to climate stressors like drought and shifts in precipitation patterns. We’ll see food scarcity and rising costs, particularly in vulnerable regions, exacerbating hunger and poverty. Without the EPA, these climate impacts will accelerate exponentially, affecting health, safety, real estate, prices, food supply, transportation, health, tourism, and much more.
Curbing or eliminating the EPA will create state-level disparities because environmental standards would vary wildly by state, with some lacking the resources or political will to regulate effectively. A health crisis -- especially among children and the elderly -- could occur because of increased exposure to toxins and pollutants. Finally, there would be increased economic costs because poor environmental oversight would raise healthcare costs and harm industries reliant on clean resources (e.g., tourism, fishing, and agriculture).
Project 2025 calls for removing water and air pollution regulations so corporations can do what they want despite the dangerous health risks. It will dismantle most government agencies meant to protect our health and safety which directly affect the toxins in the water you drink, the food you eat, the air you breathe, and the overall climate conditions of the planet we live on. All the things the Eagles music group of the ’70s fought for.
In addition, project 2025 wants to eliminate the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Weather Service (that track the growing extreme weather conditions both in outer space and on planet Earth and have systems in place to predict and provide warnings for our power grid and extreme weather events and call for preparations and evacuations.) What better way to deny the impacts of climate change than to downplay these disasters and not predict them properly so more people die?!
___________________________________________________________
5A. Placing traditional or religious values into policymaking.
“Strengthen the role of traditional values in federal policymaking.”
5 B: Removing “woke” protections in the military and government.
“Eliminate protections against ‘woke policies’ in the military and government workforce.”
What this means & consequences for democracy:
“Traditional values” is a conservative speak for anti-“woke” policies, associated with efforts to suppress discussions of systemic inequalities, diversity, inclusion, and social justice. While some people may relish the idea of restricting LGBTQ+ rights or advancing legislation rooted in specific religious ideologies, they may not understand the dangers they pose to undermining the U.S.'s core principles of democracy, human rights, and societal progress.
These policies inherently suppress free speech and thought, and anti-“woke” policies often involve restrictions on educational curricula, public discussions, or corporate training programs that address systemic racism, sexism, or historical injustices. Limiting open dialogue and the ability to critique societal structures violates the First Amendment and stifles intellectual growth. It undermines the ability to grapple with complex social issues and can lead to widespread ignorance of history and ongoing inequalities.
These policies undermine diversity and inclusion targeting diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, including workplace training, school programs, and government policies aimed at reducing disparities. DEI initiatives promote fair access to opportunities, create innovation through diverse perspectives, and address the systemic barriers faced by marginalized groups. Dismantling these efforts exacerbates inequality, fosters workplace and societal discrimination, and stymies progress in addressing issues like gender pay gaps, racial disparities, and social mobility.
These policies also invoke historical erasure, frequently calling for the removal or sanitization of historical content that highlights oppression, colonialism, slavery, or genocide (e.g., opposition to critical race theory or banning books addressing systemic racism). Erasing or diminishing the harsh realities of history prevents citizens from understanding how past injustices shape current inequities. Without this understanding, societal reconciliation and the ability to build a more equitable future are hindered. We have not let Germany forget what it did leading up to and during World War II. Nor should we forget or white wash what we have done to Native Americans, African Americans, and Asian Americans.
By framing the world with “woke” versus “anti-woke” rhetoric, we are polarizing and creating social division, positioning social justice advocates as adversaries, and stoking a culture war over basic issues of fairness and equity. Dividing society into factions escalates tension and reduces the likelihood of meaningful dialogue and compromise. Polarization destabilizes social cohesion and trust in democratic institutions. Misinformation and fearmongering, which often underpins anti-“woke” rhetoric, rely on exaggeration and misinformation to paint social justice efforts as radical or harmful. Spreading fear about “wokeness” distracts from real societal problems, creates unnecessary fear, and erodes trust in institutions striving for equity and fairness.
There are economic consequences of undermining companies, institutions, and communities that embrace diversity, equity, and inclusion that enjoy tangible economic benefits such as innovation, employee retention, and competitiveness. Anti-“woke” policies discourage such efforts. Policies that discourage DEI initiatives make the U.S. less attractive to global businesses, hinder the development of a diverse workforce, and limit economic opportunities for marginalized communities, harming long-term economic growth. Silencing marginal communities is never the route to a healthy democracy.
Anti-“woke” policies often target the rights and voices of historically marginalized groups, such as Black, Indigenous, LGBTQ+, or immigrant communities. Silencing these communities not only perpetuates systemic inequalities but also delegitimizes their experiences and hinders their ability to advocate for fairness and justice, which are foundational to a functioning democracy.
Attacking diversity initiatives undermines equal opportunity and inclusivity, creating workplaces and public policies that favor the majority demographic while silencing minority concerns. As a country that has thrived because of the diversity of our immigrant roots and the valuable differences, this stance will ultimately weaken the U.S.’s global leadership position as it throttles our inherent core strength and advantage. Anti-"woke” policies conflict with global movements for human rights, equity, and social justice, positioning the U.S. as regressive on the world stage. Countries that limit social justice and inclusion undermine their reputation as leaders in democracy and human rights, reducing their influence in global affairs and risk diminished collaboration in areas like trade and climate change
_______________________________________________________________
6. Infusing faith into policy.
“Promote faith-based solutions as a cornerstone of public policy.”
What this means & consequences for democracy:
This suggests that policies might prioritize religious organizations in delivering public services or shape laws around specific faith perspectives. However, promoting faith-based solutions as a cornerstone of public policy in the U.S. presents risks to democracy, equality, and the separation of church and state.
First, this stance violates the spirit of the Constitutional separation of church and state, alienating citizens who do not share the same religious views. The U.S. Constitution mandates a clear separation between church and state, with the Establishment Clause prohibiting the government from promoting any religion. Promoting faith-based solutions in public policy may blur this line and could lead to the endorsement or favoritism of specific religions, making some citizens feel marginalized or excluded, especially in a diverse and pluralistic society. This includes putting religious doctrine into education in the form of Creationist Science (which presents Bible-based explanations for the creation of man in the species presented as an alternative to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution).
· Currently in Florida, students are permitted to pray and engage in religious activities before, during, and after the school day; they are allowed to form religious clubs, and the Florida Department of Education has established a policy to guide school districts in accommodating religious expression. The Florida House has passed a measure authorizing chaplains to provide services in school settings. Under the state; ‘s Civic Literacy Excellence Initiative, teacher training emphasizes Judeo-Christian roots and links U.S. laws to the 10 Commandments, and the state’s school voucher program has facilitated the establishment of religious schools, including those affiliated with churches
These examples from Florida are “Judeo-Christian” values being infused into our schools. But faith-based policy actually means introducing the doctrine of Buddhist, Muslim, or any cult claiming to be a religion to be taught or supported within your child’s schools. The Founding Fathers understood the critical need for the separation of church and state. Embedding one set of values into federal governance erodes the pluralistic foundation of democracy, marginalizing diverse cultural or social groups and infringing on individual liberties.
This stance reduces accessibility inclusivity because faith-based programs are often rooted in specific religious ideologies or practices. While some communities may find comfort in these programs, they can be alienating for those who do not share the same beliefs or for non-religious individuals. Policies that prioritize religious solutions may fail to address the needs of all citizens, particularly minorities, atheists, agnostics, or people with diverse spiritual beliefs. Bringing faith into policy also creates an environment of inequity. If religious organizations are given the power to influence policy decisions, there may be inequities in how services are delivered. For example, certain groups may be denied services or funding based on moral or doctrinal disagreements, such as LGBTQ+ individuals or people who don’t adhere to the predominant faith.
This approach also deemphasizes evidence-based approaches to knowledge and information. Public policy needs to be driven by data, research, and proven outcomes. Faith-based solutions may not always be grounded in scientific evidence, which could lead to ineffective policies that fail to address pressing social issues or that do not work as intended. Faith in our policy undermines social services and public health initiatives because policies based on religious principles could undermine critical public health or social service efforts that are essential for everyone, regardless of their faith. For instance, faith-based policies might reject evidence-based methods of combating diseases (like using contraception or addressing addiction) in favor of religious teachings that could jeopardize public health. Finally, it may reinforce authoritarian or dogmatic practices. By placing faith-based solutions at the heart of public policy, there’s a risk that religious dogma could be prioritized over rational governance. This can restrict freedom of thought and impose religious-based moral codes onto the entire population, making it harder for citizens to live in a pluralistic society with diverse beliefs.
__________________________________________________________
7. Banning and criminalizing abortion across the nation
“Criminalizing abortion in all states.”
What this means & consequences for democracy:
The document’s approach aims to establish a nationwide abortion ban. This is not what conservatives nor Trump touted before the election. They said, “Leave it to the states.” Such involvement in state rule violates the Federalist principle, allowing states to set independent policies. It also strips bodily autonomy from women, a direct infringement on human rights and personal freedoms.
Criminalizing abortion is dangerous for the U.S. because it undermines individual freedoms, endangers public health, exacerbates societal inequities, and threatens the nation’s legal and healthcare systems. First, criminalizing abortion erodes individual rights, stripping individuals of the ability to make critical personal and medical decisions. It sets a precedent for government intrusion into personal freedoms, eroding privacy, and autonomy. Such precedents risk leading to broader restrictions on other healthcare and civil rights, such as access to contraception and other rights.
Banning abortions nationally will lead to increased maternal mortality and health risks because when abortion is criminalized, people often resort to unsafe methods or carry dangerous pregnancies to term. This will bring our health standards back to the developing world's, because unsafe abortions are the leading cause of maternal deaths globally. Pregnancies with medical complications that threaten the pregnant person’s health might not receive timely intervention due to fear of legal repercussions. This leads to preventable deaths and long-term health complications.
This will have a disproportionate impact on marginalized communities because criminalizing abortion affects low-income individuals, people of color, and rural residents. Wealthier individuals can afford to travel for safe procedures, while others are forced to endure financial, physical, and emotional harm. Existing systemic inequities worsen, increasing cycles of poverty and reducing social mobility. This will undermine our public health and international standing because it highlights a disregard for gender equality in public health.It devalues public health initiatives that prioritize comprehensive reproductive care. As a result, the U.S. risks being viewed as regressive by global peers, weakening its leadership in advancing human rights.
Banning abortion is a threat to healthcare access and trust because it forces healthcare providers to choose between offering necessary care and risking legal consequences. Physicians may hesitate or refuse to provide life-saving treatment out of fear of criminal prosecution. It creates a chilling effect on all reproductive healthcare, including miscarriage management and fertility treatments. Trust in the healthcare system erodes, potentially leading to poorer health outcomes across the board.
Criminalizing abortion will unnecessarily overburden the legal and criminal justice system, resulting in criminal investigations of miscarriages and suspected abortions. Individuals can be wrongfully prosecuted, including for natural pregnancy loss. As a result, invaluable resources in law enforcement and the judicial system are diverted from other critical issues to police reproductive healthcare decisions.
There will be significant economic consequences as well, because denying abortion access forces many people to carry pregnancies they cannot afford, impacting their ability to work, pursue education, or achieve financial stability. The average cost of raising a child in the U.S. to the age of 18 is conservatively $233,000 for a middle-income, two-parent family. This figure is based on data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture for 2015 and adjusted for inflation, which may bring it closer to $260,000. This includes costs for housing, food, childcare, education, transportation, healthcare, clothing, and entertainment. and miscellaneous. For a single-family household, this is far more financially onerous. Families may fall into poverty, and the economic burden increases on public assistance programs. The workforce may shrink as individuals, especially women, are forced out due to caregiving responsibilities.
Some of the states’ antiabortion laws are punitive and do not acknowledge the realities of everyday life. One in five women in the U.S. have experienced a completed or attempted rape during their lifetime. Eight-one percent experienced it before the age of 25 and almost half before the age of 18. According to Rape, Abuse, and Incest National Network (RAINN), approximately 44% of sexual assault victims are under the age of 18, and many are of reproductive age (ages 10- through 19). Some 5% of rape victims become pregnant, which translates into 25,000 pregnancies annually in the U.S. caused by rape. In addition, one to three percent of all abortions in the U.S. occur when a woman’s life is at risk because of ectopic pregnancy, severe infections, or complications related to chronic health issues like heart disease or cancer. Additionally, if abortions were not performed, these conditions would lead to infertility because of infection and scarring. Some exmaples of anti-abortion laws in the U'S.:
· Texas (SB 8 - 2021): Bans abortion after approximately 6 weeks of pregnancy, before many people even know they’re pregnant, with no exceptions for rape or incest. It also allows private citizens to sue anyone who aids or performs an abortion.
· Alabama (Human Life Protection Act - 2019): Imposes a near-total abortion ban with exceptions only to prevent serious health risks or if the pregnancy is life-threatening, but no exceptions for rape or incest.
· Missouri (HB 126 - 2019): Bans abortions at 8 weeks with no exceptions for rape or incest and threatens criminal penalties for providers who violate the law.
__________________________________________________________
8. Allowing for easier elimination of civil servants or dismantling civil service.
“Streamlining civil service regulations to allow easier terminations.”
What this means & consequences for democracy:
This measure is about allowing the new administration to target nonpartisan civil servants for their views, eroding the independence of government agencies, leading to politically motivated purges and reduced institutional integrity.
Streamlining the civil service and allowing easier terminations of government employees could become a threat to job security and accountability. Civil service protections are in place to ensure that government employees are not unduly influenced by political pressure and can carry out their duties independently and impartially. Removing these protections compromises job security and accountability, making it easier for political leaders to act on political motivations, rewarding loyalists or punishing critics -- undermining objectivity in government actions.
This could erode the current system of meritocracy, instead promoting individuals based on political alignment rather than merit or qualifications. The merit-based nature of the civil service is essential to ensure that decisions are made by individuals who are well-suited for their roles based on their abilities, qualifications, and experience. The erosion of this system reduces transparency and fairness, leading to cronyism and less effective governance.
The civil service is often composed of impartial individuals with specialized expertise and long-term experience in their fields. Their knowledge is critical for the functioning of government departments and institutions. Eliminating civil service employees could reduce expertise and institutional knowledge. Constant turnover may undermine continuity, weakening the effectiveness and long-term planning of government agencies and slowing the implementation of essential policies.
Erosion of civil service protections could lead to perceptions of a politicized or unstable bureaucracy, undermining public trust. When citizens perceive that government agencies are being influenced by political ideologies rather than working for the public good, it diminishes confidence in the integrity and reliability of the civil service. This distrust could lead to disengagement from civic processes and a general weakening of the social contract between the government and the public.
Finally, the loss of skilled and dedicated employees could hurt public services, ultimately affecting government efficiency and service quality. An ongoing and stable civil service workforce is vital to providing essential public services, from social services to environmental protection. If qualified individuals are removed due to political pressure or arbitrary decisions, the ability of government agencies to provide consistent, quality services can be severely compromised.
These are but a few examples of what's ahead with Project 2025. Read it.
Read newspapers. Think critically. Distinguish the difference between journalism and opinion. Understand the scientific method. Discern the difference between facts and propaganda. Take responsibility for the state of this world. Become an informed citizen. Think for yourself.
To read more of the author's analysis of Project 2025 read this: https://www.quora.com/Why-do-liberals-lie-about-Project-2025-Why-do-they-ignore-that-Project-2025-is-good-for-America/answer/Anne-Zeiser-1?__nsrc__=4&__snid3__=80844890324&comment_id=448928901&comment_type=2
Posts
