Goals
Goals
Project 2025's goals are clearly outlined in their Policy Playbook.
There are 4 "Key Principles" and 4 "Key Pillars."
It's a bit confusing, but the Principles guide the implementation of the Pillars.
Think of the "Principles" as their "Big Ideas," and the "Pillars" as "how they plan to do it."
The 4 Key Principles
The 4 Key Principles
Traditional American Values
01
Traditional American Values
01
Free Enterprise
02
Free Enterprise
02
Limited Government
03
Limited Government
03
Individual Freedom
04
Individual Freedom
04
The 4 Key Pillars
The 4 Key Pillars
Policy Agenda
01
Policy Agenda
01
Personnel Database
02
Personnel Database
02
Training Academy
03
Training Academy
03
180-Day Playbook
04
180-Day Playbook
04
Traditional American Values
"Restoring the family as the centerpiece of American Life"
What Does It Mean?
The goal is to make traditional families (heterosexual, married, with biological children) the most important part of American society. They want to give parents more control over their kids' education and values.
What Does It Mean?
The goal is to make traditional families (heterosexual, married, with biological children) the most important part of American society. They want to give parents more control over their kids' education and values.
What Does It Mean?
The goal is to make traditional families (heterosexual, married, with biological children) the most important part of American society. They want to give parents more control over their kids' education and values.
What's Their Plan?
Create only one definition of "family" — a heterosexual married couple with biological children — and delegitimize all others. More control over education means taking funds away from public schools and giving it to private schools in the form of "vouchers."
What's Their Plan?
Create only one definition of "family" — a heterosexual married couple with biological children — and delegitimize all others. More control over education means taking funds away from public schools and giving it to private schools in the form of "vouchers."
What's Their Plan?
Create only one definition of "family" — a heterosexual married couple with biological children — and delegitimize all others. More control over education means taking funds away from public schools and giving it to private schools in the form of "vouchers."
What's the Implication Here?
Single-Parent Families:
Single-parent families often rely heavily on public education. Diverting funds to voucher programs and charter schools will weaken public schools, reducing the quality of education available to children.
Public schools often provide essential support services like free or reduced-price lunch programs, after-school care, and counseling. Reduced funding will limit these resources, placing additional strain on single parents who may not have alternative options.
LGBTQ+ Families:
Policies emphasizing traditional family structures will implicitly or explicitly exclude LGBTQ+ families. This will manifest in biased school environments where their children may not receive the same level of acceptance or support.
Schools focused on traditional family values will not implement inclusive policies or programs that support LGBTQ+ students, leading to exclusion, invalidation, increased bullying, violence, and mental health issues.
Blended Families (Stepfamilies):
Blended families often face complicated legal and custodial arrangements. The proposed policies that do not recognize these complexities will fail to provide adequate support and resources.
Blended families might struggle with logistics if school choice options are not aligned with their unique living arrangements, making it difficult for step-siblings to attend the same schools or for parents to coordinate multiple school drop-offs and pick-ups.
Low-Income Families:
Low-income families rely on public schools. Taking funds from public schools and giving it to private schools will exacerbate educational, opportunity, and access disparities.
Reduced funding for public schools will result in fewer educational resources, extracurricular activities, and support services, disproportionately affecting low-income students and families who already face numerous challenges.
What's the Implication Here?
Single-Parent Families:
Single-parent families often rely heavily on public education. Diverting funds to voucher programs and charter schools will weaken public schools, reducing the quality of education available to children.
Public schools often provide essential support services like free or reduced-price lunch programs, after-school care, and counseling. Reduced funding will limit these resources, placing additional strain on single parents who may not have alternative options.
LGBTQ+ Families:
Policies emphasizing traditional family structures will implicitly or explicitly exclude LGBTQ+ families. This will manifest in biased school environments where their children may not receive the same level of acceptance or support.
Schools focused on traditional family values will not implement inclusive policies or programs that support LGBTQ+ students, leading to exclusion, invalidation, increased bullying, violence, and mental health issues.
Blended Families (Stepfamilies):
Blended families often face complicated legal and custodial arrangements. The proposed policies that do not recognize these complexities will fail to provide adequate support and resources.
Blended families might struggle with logistics if school choice options are not aligned with their unique living arrangements, making it difficult for step-siblings to attend the same schools or for parents to coordinate multiple school drop-offs and pick-ups.
Low-Income Families:
Low-income families rely on public schools. Taking funds from public schools and giving it to private schools will exacerbate educational, opportunity, and access disparities.
Reduced funding for public schools will result in fewer educational resources, extracurricular activities, and support services, disproportionately affecting low-income students and families who already face numerous challenges.
What's the Implication Here?
Single-Parent Families:
Single-parent families often rely heavily on public education. Diverting funds to voucher programs and charter schools will weaken public schools, reducing the quality of education available to children.
Public schools often provide essential support services like free or reduced-price lunch programs, after-school care, and counseling. Reduced funding will limit these resources, placing additional strain on single parents who may not have alternative options.
LGBTQ+ Families:
Policies emphasizing traditional family structures will implicitly or explicitly exclude LGBTQ+ families. This will manifest in biased school environments where their children may not receive the same level of acceptance or support.
Schools focused on traditional family values will not implement inclusive policies or programs that support LGBTQ+ students, leading to exclusion, invalidation, increased bullying, violence, and mental health issues.
Blended Families (Stepfamilies):
Blended families often face complicated legal and custodial arrangements. The proposed policies that do not recognize these complexities will fail to provide adequate support and resources.
Blended families might struggle with logistics if school choice options are not aligned with their unique living arrangements, making it difficult for step-siblings to attend the same schools or for parents to coordinate multiple school drop-offs and pick-ups.
Low-Income Families:
Low-income families rely on public schools. Taking funds from public schools and giving it to private schools will exacerbate educational, opportunity, and access disparities.
Reduced funding for public schools will result in fewer educational resources, extracurricular activities, and support services, disproportionately affecting low-income students and families who already face numerous challenges.
The Takeaway
While Project 2025 aims to empower families and enhance parental control over education, they will hurt the public school system and all types of American families. The risks of their policies include weakening public education systems and marginalizing diverse family structures. These impacts highlight the need for policies that support diverse family structures and ensure equal access to quality education and resources for all students.
The Takeaway
While Project 2025 aims to empower families and enhance parental control over education, they will hurt the public school system and all types of American families. The risks of their policies include weakening public education systems and marginalizing diverse family structures. These impacts highlight the need for policies that support diverse family structures and ensure equal access to quality education and resources for all students.
The Takeaway
While Project 2025 aims to empower families and enhance parental control over education, they will hurt the public school system and all types of American families. The risks of their policies include weakening public education systems and marginalizing diverse family structures. These impacts highlight the need for policies that support diverse family structures and ensure equal access to quality education and resources for all students.
Free Enterprise:
"Dismantling the Administrative State"
What Does It Mean?
The goal is to reduce the size and power of federal government agencies, which they see as overly bureaucratic and inefficient.
What Does It Mean?
The goal is to reduce the size and power of federal government agencies, which they see as overly bureaucratic and inefficient.
What Does It Mean?
The goal is to reduce the size and power of federal government agencies, which they see as overly bureaucratic and inefficient.
What's Their Plan?
They will cut the number of federal employees, merging or eliminating certain agencies, and roll back regulations to streamline government operations.
What's Their Plan?
They will cut the number of federal employees, merging or eliminating certain agencies, and roll back regulations to streamline government operations.
What's Their Plan?
They will cut the number of federal employees, merging or eliminating certain agencies, and roll back regulations to streamline government operations.
What's the Implication Here?
Loss of Essential Services for Americans:
Cutting back on federal employees and agencies will lead to a reduction in essential services like public health, environmental protection, and social welfare programs.
Agencies like the CDC would no longer be able to respond to health crises and manage public health programs effectively. This could lead to another COVID pandemic, more deaths, and slower recovery rates.
The EPA would no longer be able to enforce environmental regulations, which will result in increased pollution, dirty air, unsafe water, increased risks of diseases, more severe weather events, and long term ecological damage.
Decreased Regulatory Oversight:
Rolling back regulations can lead to insufficient oversight of industries, increasing the risk of financial crises, environmental disasters, and public safety issues.
This would make our financial system more vulnerable to crises similar to the 2008 financial meltdown.
Cuts to Welfare Programs:
Cuts to agencies that administer welfare programs (like SNAP and Medicaid) will lead to fewer resources for low-income families, increasing poverty and economic inequality.
SNAP and Medicaid help over 41 million people per month and 76 million people per year, respectively.
Decreased Worker Protections:
Cuts to agencies like the Department of Labor will result in weaker enforcement of labor laws, reducing workplace safety and protections for workers. Without strict oversight, businesses will be allowed to neglect safety standards, leading to increased workplace accidents and injuries.
What's the Implication Here?
Loss of Essential Services for Americans:
Cutting back on federal employees and agencies will lead to a reduction in essential services like public health, environmental protection, and social welfare programs.
Agencies like the CDC would no longer be able to respond to health crises and manage public health programs effectively. This could lead to another COVID pandemic, more deaths, and slower recovery rates.
The EPA would no longer be able to enforce environmental regulations, which will result in increased pollution, dirty air, unsafe water, increased risks of diseases, more severe weather events, and long term ecological damage.
Decreased Regulatory Oversight:
Rolling back regulations can lead to insufficient oversight of industries, increasing the risk of financial crises, environmental disasters, and public safety issues.
This would make our financial system more vulnerable to crises similar to the 2008 financial meltdown.
Cuts to Welfare Programs:
Cuts to agencies that administer welfare programs (like SNAP and Medicaid) will lead to fewer resources for low-income families, increasing poverty and economic inequality.
SNAP and Medicaid help over 41 million people per month and 76 million people per year, respectively.
Decreased Worker Protections:
Cuts to agencies like the Department of Labor will result in weaker enforcement of labor laws, reducing workplace safety and protections for workers. Without strict oversight, businesses will be allowed to neglect safety standards, leading to increased workplace accidents and injuries.
What's the Implication Here?
Loss of Essential Services for Americans:
Cutting back on federal employees and agencies will lead to a reduction in essential services like public health, environmental protection, and social welfare programs.
Agencies like the CDC would no longer be able to respond to health crises and manage public health programs effectively. This could lead to another COVID pandemic, more deaths, and slower recovery rates.
The EPA would no longer be able to enforce environmental regulations, which will result in increased pollution, dirty air, unsafe water, increased risks of diseases, more severe weather events, and long term ecological damage.
Decreased Regulatory Oversight:
Rolling back regulations can lead to insufficient oversight of industries, increasing the risk of financial crises, environmental disasters, and public safety issues.
This would make our financial system more vulnerable to crises similar to the 2008 financial meltdown.
Cuts to Welfare Programs:
Cuts to agencies that administer welfare programs (like SNAP and Medicaid) will lead to fewer resources for low-income families, increasing poverty and economic inequality.
SNAP and Medicaid help over 41 million people per month and 76 million people per year, respectively.
Decreased Worker Protections:
Cuts to agencies like the Department of Labor will result in weaker enforcement of labor laws, reducing workplace safety and protections for workers. Without strict oversight, businesses will be allowed to neglect safety standards, leading to increased workplace accidents and injuries.
The Takeaway
While defending national sovereignty and borders aims to enhance national security and streamline immigration processes, the actual risks include humanitarian crises, economic disruption, and social tensions. Stricter immigration policies and increased border enforcement will adversely affect immigrant families, labor-intensive industries, and border communities.
The Takeaway
While defending national sovereignty and borders aims to enhance national security and streamline immigration processes, the actual risks include humanitarian crises, economic disruption, and social tensions. Stricter immigration policies and increased border enforcement will adversely affect immigrant families, labor-intensive industries, and border communities.
The Takeaway
While defending national sovereignty and borders aims to enhance national security and streamline immigration processes, the actual risks include humanitarian crises, economic disruption, and social tensions. Stricter immigration policies and increased border enforcement will adversely affect immigrant families, labor-intensive industries, and border communities.
Limited Government:
"Defending National Sovereignty and Borders"
What Does It Mean?
Their goal is to strengthen U.S. borders and ensure national security by enforcing stricter immigration policies and enhancing border protection.
What Does It Mean?
Their goal is to strengthen U.S. borders and ensure national security by enforcing stricter immigration policies and enhancing border protection.
What Does It Mean?
Their goal is to strengthen U.S. borders and ensure national security by enforcing stricter immigration policies and enhancing border protection.
What's Their Plan?
They will increase border security measures, restructure immigration processes, and enforce existing immigration laws more aggressively.
What's Their Plan?
They will increase border security measures, restructure immigration processes, and enforce existing immigration laws more aggressively.
What's Their Plan?
They will increase border security measures, restructure immigration processes, and enforce existing immigration laws more aggressively.
What's the Implication Here?
Human Rights Concerns:
Stricter immigration policies and increased border security leads to harsher treatment of immigrants and asylum seekers, overcrowded detention centers, and poor living conditions for detainees, which raises humanitarian concerns.
We've seen families separated at the border, which harms children and families forever.
Labor Shortages:
Many industries rely on immigrant labor for jobs that are difficult to fill domestically. Stricter immigration policies can lead to significant labor shortages, affecting productivity and economic output.
This will increase operational costs for businesses, leading to higher prices for consumers and reduced competitiveness.
Economic Consequences:
Border communities often rely on cross-border trade and movement. Stricter border controls can disrupt these economic activities, affecting local economies.
Increased border enforcement will lead to heightened tensions between local populations and law enforcement agencies, affecting community relations and causing upheaval and violence.
What's the Implication Here?
Human Rights Concerns:
Stricter immigration policies and increased border security leads to harsher treatment of immigrants and asylum seekers, overcrowded detention centers, and poor living conditions for detainees, which raises humanitarian concerns.
We've seen families separated at the border, which harms children and families forever.
Labor Shortages:
Many industries rely on immigrant labor for jobs that are difficult to fill domestically. Stricter immigration policies can lead to significant labor shortages, affecting productivity and economic output.
This will increase operational costs for businesses, leading to higher prices for consumers and reduced competitiveness.
Economic Consequences:
Border communities often rely on cross-border trade and movement. Stricter border controls can disrupt these economic activities, affecting local economies.
Increased border enforcement will lead to heightened tensions between local populations and law enforcement agencies, affecting community relations and causing upheaval and violence.
What's the Implication Here?
Human Rights Concerns:
Stricter immigration policies and increased border security leads to harsher treatment of immigrants and asylum seekers, overcrowded detention centers, and poor living conditions for detainees, which raises humanitarian concerns.
We've seen families separated at the border, which harms children and families forever.
Labor Shortages:
Many industries rely on immigrant labor for jobs that are difficult to fill domestically. Stricter immigration policies can lead to significant labor shortages, affecting productivity and economic output.
This will increase operational costs for businesses, leading to higher prices for consumers and reduced competitiveness.
Economic Consequences:
Border communities often rely on cross-border trade and movement. Stricter border controls can disrupt these economic activities, affecting local economies.
Increased border enforcement will lead to heightened tensions between local populations and law enforcement agencies, affecting community relations and causing upheaval and violence.
The Takeaway
While the goal of dismantling the administrative state aims to reduce government spending and increase efficiency, the risks include weakened public services, reduced regulatory oversight, and greater inequality for all Americans. These changes will disproportionately impact low-income and vulnerable populations, public health, environmental health, and worker protections.
The Takeaway
While the goal of dismantling the administrative state aims to reduce government spending and increase efficiency, the risks include weakened public services, reduced regulatory oversight, and greater inequality for all Americans. These changes will disproportionately impact low-income and vulnerable populations, public health, environmental health, and worker protections.
The Takeaway
While the goal of dismantling the administrative state aims to reduce government spending and increase efficiency, the risks include weakened public services, reduced regulatory oversight, and greater inequality for all Americans. These changes will disproportionately impact low-income and vulnerable populations, public health, environmental health, and worker protections.
Individual Freedom:
"Securing Individual Rights as Defined by Conservative Interpretations"
What Does It Mean?
Their goal is to protect individual rights based on conservative principles, focusing on religious freedom, gun rights, and free speech while limiting government regulations that they see as overreach.
What Does It Mean?
Their goal is to protect individual rights based on conservative principles, focusing on religious freedom, gun rights, and free speech while limiting government regulations that they see as overreach.
What Does It Mean?
Their goal is to protect individual rights based on conservative principles, focusing on religious freedom, gun rights, and free speech while limiting government regulations that they see as overreach.
What's Their Plan?
They plan to appoint conservative judges, roll back regulations, and implement policies that align with their specific interpretation of individual rights.
What's Their Plan?
They plan to appoint conservative judges, roll back regulations, and implement policies that align with their specific interpretation of individual rights.
What's Their Plan?
They plan to appoint conservative judges, roll back regulations, and implement policies that align with their specific interpretation of individual rights.
What's the Implication Here?
Discrimination:
Policies emphasizing religious freedom will lead to discrimination against LGBTQ+ individuals, women seeking reproductive health services, and other marginalized groups. Businesses would be allowed to refuse customers based on the owners' religious beliefs.
Allowing healthcare providers to refuse services based on religious beliefs would limit access to essential care for LGBTQ+ individuals and women.
Reduced Regulatory Protections:
Rolling back regulations will undermine protections for consumers, workers, and the environment.
Weaker labor regulations will result in unsafe working conditions, affecting workers' rights and safety.
Rolling back financial regulations will increase the risk of predatory lending and financial crises, disproportionately affecting low-income individuals.
Weaker environmental regulations will lead to increased pollution, disproportionately impacting low-income and minority communities that are more likely to live near industrial areas.
Bias in our Judicial System:
Appointing conservative judges will lead to court rulings that roll back civil rights advancements and restrict individual freedoms, such as voting rights and reproductive rights.
This very clearly violates the Separation of Church and State in our Constitution.
What's the Implication Here?
Discrimination:
Policies emphasizing religious freedom will lead to discrimination against LGBTQ+ individuals, women seeking reproductive health services, and other marginalized groups. Businesses would be allowed to refuse customers based on the owners' religious beliefs.
Allowing healthcare providers to refuse services based on religious beliefs would limit access to essential care for LGBTQ+ individuals and women.
Reduced Regulatory Protections:
Rolling back regulations will undermine protections for consumers, workers, and the environment.
Weaker labor regulations will result in unsafe working conditions, affecting workers' rights and safety.
Rolling back financial regulations will increase the risk of predatory lending and financial crises, disproportionately affecting low-income individuals.
Weaker environmental regulations will lead to increased pollution, disproportionately impacting low-income and minority communities that are more likely to live near industrial areas.
Bias in our Judicial System:
Appointing conservative judges will lead to court rulings that roll back civil rights advancements and restrict individual freedoms, such as voting rights and reproductive rights.
This very clearly violates the Separation of Church and State in our Constitution.
What's the Implication Here?
Discrimination:
Policies emphasizing religious freedom will lead to discrimination against LGBTQ+ individuals, women seeking reproductive health services, and other marginalized groups. Businesses would be allowed to refuse customers based on the owners' religious beliefs.
Allowing healthcare providers to refuse services based on religious beliefs would limit access to essential care for LGBTQ+ individuals and women.
Reduced Regulatory Protections:
Rolling back regulations will undermine protections for consumers, workers, and the environment.
Weaker labor regulations will result in unsafe working conditions, affecting workers' rights and safety.
Rolling back financial regulations will increase the risk of predatory lending and financial crises, disproportionately affecting low-income individuals.
Weaker environmental regulations will lead to increased pollution, disproportionately impacting low-income and minority communities that are more likely to live near industrial areas.
Bias in our Judicial System:
Appointing conservative judges will lead to court rulings that roll back civil rights advancements and restrict individual freedoms, such as voting rights and reproductive rights.
This very clearly violates the Separation of Church and State in our Constitution.
The Takeaway
While Project 2025 aims to secure individual rights as defined by conservative interpretations, the risks include increased discrimination, reduced regulatory protections, and bias in the judicial system. These impacts highlight the need for balanced policies that protect all individuals' rights and ensure fair and equitable treatment under the law. The focus on religious freedom, gun rights, and free speech, as interpreted by conservative principles, will undermine civil liberties and protections for marginalized groups, such as LGBTQ+ individuals, women, and low-income populations.
The Takeaway
While Project 2025 aims to secure individual rights as defined by conservative interpretations, the risks include increased discrimination, reduced regulatory protections, and bias in the judicial system. These impacts highlight the need for balanced policies that protect all individuals' rights and ensure fair and equitable treatment under the law. The focus on religious freedom, gun rights, and free speech, as interpreted by conservative principles, will undermine civil liberties and protections for marginalized groups, such as LGBTQ+ individuals, women, and low-income populations.
The Takeaway
While Project 2025 aims to secure individual rights as defined by conservative interpretations, the risks include increased discrimination, reduced regulatory protections, and bias in the judicial system. These impacts highlight the need for balanced policies that protect all individuals' rights and ensure fair and equitable treatment under the law. The focus on religious freedom, gun rights, and free speech, as interpreted by conservative principles, will undermine civil liberties and protections for marginalized groups, such as LGBTQ+ individuals, women, and low-income populations.