Project 2025

Project 2025

 

Watch this on Rumble: https://rumble.com/v6g0nfv-project-2025.html

 

So, America First which was renamed from Agenda 2025 is being hammered by the left as a coup from the Christians to take over America. It is the political initiative published in April 2023 by the American conservative think tank The Heritage Foundation. The project aims to promote conservative and right-wing policies to reshape the federal government of the United States and consolidate executive power, originally under the premise that Donald Trump would win the 2024 presidential election.

 

Progressives are saying it is exactly what happened to Germany right when Hitler was elected. They went after pornography and homosexuality. That is not true. Although the third reich frowned upon pornography, it was not in their policies to suppress. Well, we won’t hear what is going on behind closed doors, but I have a summary of what they plan to do publicly.

 

Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise outlines numerous proposed reforms across various U.S. government agencies. The document advocates for a conservative agenda, focusing on reducing the size and scope of government, strengthening national security, and promoting traditional values. Specific recommendations target agency operations, budgets, and personnel appointments to align with a conservative vision. The authors emphasize returning power to the states and American people, while also advocating for stronger enforcement of existing laws and regulations. The proposed reforms aim to reverse what the authors perceive as detrimental policies implemented by recent administrations.

 

Here is the 995 page summary: Project 2025: Mandate for Leadership" is a comprehensive policy and transition plan developed by the Heritage Foundation, designed to provide a blueprint for a future conservative presidential administration. This document aims to analyze the main themes, specific proposals, and underlying philosophy presented in the provided excerpts. It is structured around the sections of the document to maintain context.

Key Themes:

1. Executive Power and Control: A recurring theme is the emphasis on consolidating power within the Executive Branch, particularly under the direct control of the President and their appointees. This includes streamlining operations, reducing bureaucracy, and asserting the authority of political appointees over career civil servants. This is explicitly addressed in the foreword: "the success of the next presidency will be determined in part by whether [the Departments of Defense and State] can be significantly improved in short order."
2. Nationalism and "America First": The document advocates for policies that prioritize American interests, often at the expense of international cooperation or agreements. This is particularly evident in trade policies, immigration, and foreign aid. There is a strong emphasis on self-reliance in areas like energy and manufacturing, coupled with skepticism about international entities and treaties.
3. Skepticism of the Administrative State: There's a clear distrust of the federal bureaucracy, viewed as inefficient, overreaching, and often ideologically opposed to conservative principles. Project 2025 seeks to dismantle and restructure large parts of the government, aiming to reduce its size, scope, and influence. This is particularly evident in the section on central personnel agencies, where there is focus on "managing the bureaucracy".
4. Traditional Values and Social Conservatism: The document promotes socially conservative policies in areas such as education, family, and healthcare. This includes calls to restrict abortion access, promote school choice, and prioritize traditional family structures.
5. Economic Deregulation and Market Liberalism: There's a strong emphasis on deregulation, tax cuts, and a free-market approach to the economy. This includes reducing government intervention, promoting fossil fuel development, and questioning regulations seen as hindering economic growth. This is clearly evident in its recommendations for the Department of Energy.
6. Military Strength and Readiness: A core objective of Project 2025 is to bolster the US Military and to make it better prepared for war with key adversaries like China and Russia, but also with an eye toward North Korea and Iran. The document stresses the importance of modernizing armed forces and investing heavily in new technology, alongside developing a "defense ecosystem".

Analysis of Specific Proposals:

Section 1: Taking the Reins of Government

• White House Office: Emphasis on the importance of a loyal and effective staff that works in service of the President's agenda. A focus on ensuring that the Vice President's office has "strong and sound policy minds to effectively assist the President in fulfilling his agenda."
• Executive Office of the President (EOP): The document proposes centralizing control of key EOP functions to enable the President to effectively implement their agenda. It is also recommended that the EOP be filled with political appointees rather than career civil servants.
• Central Personnel Agencies: Focus on controlling the bureaucracy through appointments, with an intention of "managing the bureaucracy".

Section 2: The Common Defense

• Department of Defense (DOD):
• Significant increases to the US Navy with the goal of building "a fleet of more than 355 ships".
• Prioritization of weapons development that is interoperable with allies and partners: "We must reverse the recent dip in FMS to ensure both that our partners remain interoperable with the United States".
• Emphasis on rapidly producing key munitions and establishing resilient infrastructure.
• Divestment of some older systems in the Marine Corps in favor of newer, lighter more relevant systems.
• Strong focus on space-based assets and capabilities as a core part of military operations.
• Arms control is seen not as an end to itself, but as a means to an end. "[P]ursue arms control as a way to secure the national security interests of the U.S. and its allies rather than as an end in itself".
• Emphasis on developing new missile defense technologies, including those to counter hypersonic missiles.
• Reforms to the JCIDS process to speed up major defense acquisitions.
• Department of Homeland Security (DHS): A focus on securing the border, enforcing immigration laws, and deporting individuals who are in the country illegally. It suggests using visa sanctions to force countries to accept their deported citizens: "[R]ecalcitrant countries’ failure to accept deportees by imposing stiff sanctions until deportees are in fact accepted for return". It proposes allowing DHS to lead international engagement in the Western Hemisphere on issues of security and migration.
• Department of State: The text outlines the position that "The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK, or North Korea) must be deterred from military conflict. The United States cannot permit the DPRK to remain a de facto nuclear power with the capacity to threaten the United States or its allies."
• Intelligence Community: Focus on ensuring that the DNI is recognized as head of the IC, with clear authority over all agencies. The authors believe that the DNI position has been weakened by agency power grabs. They cite John Ratcliffe: "Prior DNIs were the head of the IC only on paper and were routinely accustomed to yielding IC actions and decisions to the preferences of the CIA and other agencies." There is an idea that the President should consider using DOD's clandestine capabilities for potential covert operations.
• Media Agencies: There's a focus on limiting the scope of government media organizations, and in some cases, dismantling them.
• Agency for International Development (USAID): The document recommends reorienting USAID programming to support "America's Indo-Pacific strategy."

Section 3: The General Welfare

• Department of Education: Calls for school choice, denying loan access to non-citizens, and denying federal funds to universities that provide in-state tuition to non-citizens.
• Department of Energy: A focus on expanding fossil fuel energy production and reducing investment in renewables, with an emphasis on natural gas and the nuclear sector. The text makes clear that "Subsidized renewable resources are undermining electric reliability". There is a call for greater investment in nuclear energy, including new nuclear weapons development.
• Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): The document proposes rolling back environmental regulations and prioritizing economic growth. The text states that "[p]utting guardrails on downwind states is an abuse of the CAA § 126(b) petition process." The authors also argue for including the life cycle emissions of electric vehicles when they are analyzed environmentally and for restoring the position that California's waiver applies only to California specific issues and not global climate issues.
• Department of Health and Human Services (HHS): A focus on socially conservative policies such as eliminating certain contraceptive coverage mandates. This includes eliminating men's preventative services and "the week-after-pill" from the contraceptive mandate.
• Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD): Prioritizing housing for citizens and lawful permanent residents only.
• Department of the Interior (DOI): Calls for increased resource extraction and energy production on federal lands. This includes a push to "Recognize Alaska’s authority to manage fish and game on all federal lands". It also recommends "Issu[ing] a secretarial order declaring navigable waters in Alaska to be owned by the state."
• Department of Justice (DOJ): The document recommends aligning the FBI's placement within the department and the federal government with its law enforcement and national security purposes, with a view toward making the FBI less independent.
• Department of Labor: No significant information in excerpts
• Department of Transportation (DOT): It proposes transferring the Maritime Administration (MARAD) to the Department of Homeland Security or Defense, and calls for repealing or substantially reforming the Jones Act.
• Department of Veterans Affairs (VA): No significant information in excerpts

Section 4: The Economy

• Department of Commerce: A push to enforce export controls on China and Russia by expanding the entities placed on the Entity List. It includes a recommendation to "Streamline NMFS" and "Harmonize the Magnuson–Stevens Act with the National Marine Sanctuaries Act".
• Department of the Treasury: Includes the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, the IRS, the Bureau of Engraving and Printing, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), the United States Mint and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC).
• Export-Import Bank: The document presents both sides of the argument about whether this agency should exist. One side advocates for its complete abolishment, while the other presents the case for its existence. The text argues that "The Export–Import Bank should be abolished".
• Federal Reserve: The document proposes a shift towards a free banking system where money is backed by a valuable commodity (like gold). The intention is to "abolish the Federal Reserve" and move away from monetary discretion. It cites historical precedent, noting: "Regions of the U.S. actually had a similar system, known as the “Suffolk System,” from 1824 until the 1850s, and it minimized both inflation and economic disruption while allowing lending to flourish."
• Small Business Administration: No significant information in excerpts.
• Trade: Presents competing arguments on fair trade and free trade. Includes a detailed explanation of China's economic aggression, which seeks to: "Protect China’s home market from competition and imports; Expand China’s share of global markets; Secure and control core natural resources globally; Dominate traditional manufacturing industries; Acquire key technologies and IP from other countries and the U.S.; and Capture emerging high-tech industries that drive future growth and advancements in defense industry."

Section 5: Independent Regulatory Agencies

• Financial Regulatory Agencies: Focuses on reforming the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) to reduce regulatory burdens. The text argues for an amended definition of digital assets which would classify them as commodities unless they meet certain tests related to rights to earnings or liquidation.
• Federal Communications Commission (FCC): No significant information in excerpts.
• Federal Election Commission (FEC): No significant information in excerpts.
• Federal Trade Commission (FTC): No significant information in excerpts.

"Project 2025: Mandate for Leadership" presents a highly ambitious, detailed, and ideologically driven plan for a conservative administration. The proposals aim to dramatically reshape the role of the federal government, prioritizing national interests, reducing regulations, and promoting socially conservative policies. Its core themes suggest a radical re-evaluation of how the executive branch operates, combined with an aggressive attitude toward both the civil service and international norms. The document suggests that its authors believe that existing systems of governance have failed, and that it's time for a radical departure. The emphasis on executive control, combined with skepticism towards international cooperation and a desire to reduce the influence of the bureaucracy, would represent a significant shift in American governance.

 

The timing couldn’t have been any worse as the left has huge numbers. To me, this looks like a strategy to crack down on the left. It appears benign to the conservatives, which it’s made to look that way, but combined with the Noahide Laws, will be more like a judgment of sin versus equality. I just don’t think this is the way to go about it. Trump inadvertently or on purpose stopped all aid to welfare, social security, medicare/medicaid and the like, which drove Americans insane. Where is the wisdom in this? How is this going to convince the opposite party whom hate you that this new idea is going to help Americans? It looks more like a control grab than anything else.

 

Some are saying it is Agenda 2030 being pushed to 2025. Recently the United Nations just signed agreements with the World Economic Forum to stabilize whatever commitments they have planned for each other. In January 2025, the World Economic Forum (WEF) announced agreements with the United Nations for three new Centres for the Fourth Industrial Revolution (C4IR). The C4IRs will be launched in 2025 in Muscat, Pretoria, and Riyadh. The United Arab Emirates C4IR was also renewed. This is apparently their commitment to speed up Agenda 2030. Those at Davos pushed for action now on climate change as they said our thirst for oil was compared to Frankenstein.

 

Paul Dans, former director of Project 2025, recently explained on CNN that “Trump has nothing to do with Project 2025, sure a lot of us worked in the [Trump administration] and came together, but this started long before he even announced for president.” 

 

Whether Trump will carry out the policies of Project 2025 is an object for political discussion and debate in the election, no doubt. A larger question is why an arcane 900-page public policy book has become such a trigger for political outrage. Perhaps the most likely answer has to do with the content of its policies.

 

In a forthcoming series of articles, Valuetainment will be dissecting Project 2025 to discover its orientation and policies in the authors’ own words. Whether you agree or disagree with its contents, it is important to get the facts directly from the source without sweeping adjectives blindly attached to it. 

 

In Part I of this series, we will examine the opening sections of Project 2025, which outline the Heritage Foundation’s primary motivations and policy goals.

 

The document was published in 2023, primarily attributed to the Heritage Foundation. The Advisory Board for Project 2025 is a who’s-who of conservative think tanks and political organizations, with 54 listed in total. The Claremont Institute, Hillsdale College, Liberty University, and the Intercollegiate Studies Institute are just some of the organizations mentioned. The document’s 34 authors describe in five sections policy proposals regarding the executive branch that a new president could implement.

 

Heritage Foundation president Kevin Roberts gives an overview of the document in a foreword entitled “A Promise to America.” Roberts frames our contemporary political environment as akin to the position of the country in the late 1970s, before explaining that the Heritage Foundation played a role in launching the 1979 Mandate for Leadership project. Roberts boasts that, by the end of 1981, “more than 60 percent of its recommendations had become policy.”

 

Four key areas are said to be the primary motivation for the policy recommendations:

 

1. Restore the family as the centerpiece of American life and protect our children.

 

2. Dismantle the administrative state and return self-governance to the American people.

 

3. Defend our nation’s sovereignty, borders, and bounty against global threats.

 

4. Secure our God-given individual rights to live freely—what our Constitution calls ‘the Blessings of Liberty.’

 

The Family

 

Writing on the first topic, Roberts describes the state of the American family as being “in crisis.”

 

“In many ways, the entire point of centralizing political power is to subvert the family,” he adds, criticizing the progressive worldview. Several policy recommendations are mentioned to reverse the crisis underway, including “eliminating marriage penalties in federal welfare programs and the tax code and installing work requirements for food stamps.” Roberts calls for eliminating a list of jargon words “out of every federal rule, agency regulation, contract, grant, regulation, and piece of legislation that exists.” The list of these words includes “sexual orientation and gender identity (‘SOGI’), diversity, equity, and inclusion (‘DEI’)…gender equality…abortion,” and “reproductive health.”

 

In regards to education, a maxim is introduced: “Schools serve parents, not the other way around.”

 

School choice is promoted, and Roberts calls for “‘critical race theory’ and ‘gender ideology’” to be banned from all public schools. 

 

Roberts compares tech companies to drug dealers, arguing that they seek to get children addicted to their apps. “TikTok, Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, and other social media platforms are specifically designed to create the digital dependencies that fuel mental illness and anxiety, to fray children’s bonds with their parents and siblings,” he writes.

 

The Administrative State

 

In regards to dismantling the administrative state, Roberts points to the Constitution as a guide. The annual federal budget process serves as a prime example of how far we’ve gone from the Constitution. As Roberts writes:

 

Under current law, Congress is required to pass a budget—and 12 issue-specific spending bills comporting with it—every single year. The last time Congress did so was in 1996. Congress no longer meaningfully budgets, authorizes, or categorizes spending. This process is not designed to empower 330 million American citizens and their elected representatives, but rather to empower the party elites secretly negotiating without any public scrutiny or oversight.

 

The “Administrative State” is defined as “the policymaking work done by the bureaucracies of all the federal government’s departments, agencies, and millions of employees.” While the federal budget that funds these organizations is deemed a corrupt enterprise in itself, Roberts considers the Administrative State an even worse corruption. He explains:

 

Congress passes intentionally vague laws that delegate decision-making over a given issue to a federal agency. That agency’s bureaucrats—not just unelected but seemingly un-fireable—then leap at the chance to fill the vacuum created by Congress’s preening cowardice. The federal government is growing larger and less constitutionally accountable—even to the President—every year… A conservative President [should move] swiftly to do away with these vast abuses of presidential power and remove the career and political bureaucrats who fuel it.

 

Sovereignty, Borders, and Bounty

 

The principle of democracy is called upon to support the third tenet, “All government authority derives from the consent of the people.” Roberts criticizes Progressive elites and their position of “openness, progress, expertise, cooperation, and globalization,” calling them “Trojan horses concealing their true intention—stripping ‘we the people’ of our constitutional authority over the country’s future.” He describes this “woke agenda” as “Wilsonian hubris,” referring to the progressive and domineering orientation of President Woodrow Wilson:

 

Like the progressive Woodrow Wilson a century ago, the woke Left today seeks a world, bound by global treaties they write, in which they exercise dictatorial powers over all nations without being subject to democratic accountability.

The specific policies comprising this “Wilsonian hubris” are said to be open borders, “environmental extremism,” and economic globalization. Open borders are criticized for leading to a “lawless humanitarian crisis…created along America’s southern border.” The left’s stance on the environment is said to be a “pseudo-religion meant to baptize liberals’ ruthless pursuit of absolute power in the holy water of environmental virtue.”

 

Roberts also sharply condemns economic engagement with China, arguing that “the corporations profiting failed to export our values of human rights and freedom; rather, they imported China’s anti-American values into their C-suites.” Roberts strongly recommends that “economic engagement with China should be ended, not rethought.” He also adds that “international organizations and agreements that erode our Constitution, rule of law, or popular sovereignty should not be reformed: They should be abandoned.” 

 

“The Blessing of Liberty”

 

Writing on the fourth topic, collective principles are criticized in favor of freedom and self-determination.

 

“The next conservative President should champion the dynamic genius of free enterprise against the grim miseries of elite-directed socialism,” Roberts says. The Soviet Union and North Korea are called out as examples of economic failure.

 

“The next President should promote pro-growth economic policies that spur new jobs and investment, higher wages, and productivity,” Roberts recommends. He also adds that “antitrust enforcement against corporate monopolies” should be done to fight a ”crony capitalist structure.”

 

In summary of the foreword and entire document, Roberts says “The entire Project 2025 is a plan to unite the conservative movement and the American people against elite rule and woke culture warriors.” 

 

The democrats are using this against Trump, obviously. They lost the election. They need every arrow they can throw at him. They even convicted him of a felony and that didn’t stick so, I highly doubt they can make this one go anywhere. They believe this is true mainly because the Heritage Foundation had a watch party. This doesn’t prove anything and believe me I am not for Agenda 2025 or the conservative movement, but here is what the left say about Project 2025:

 

1.) The Department of Education would no longer exist.

 

Fine. It’s a mess anyways and we don’t get anything out of Public schools other than babysitting. When compared to other countries, we are 13th below other countries.

 

2.) Access to abortion drugs mifepristone and misoprostol would be removed nationwide.

 

This argument is political. Nature provided supplements can do the same thing. Papaya, cotton root bark, walled carrot seed, black/blue cohosh root, mugwort, angelica, pennyroyal, emmenagogue, oxytocic herbs which all have been available since ancient times. This argument appeals to those who are lazy at researching natural home remedies. I have no stance on abortion. It is not my moral duty to tell people what to do. They will do it anyways, so logic would mean we make abortion private and get the government out of its control.

 

3.) The US military would be deployed as law enforcement.

 

That’s a stretch. There isn’t enough to replace what we currently have. Martial law for Jesus? This is a political argument.

 

4.) Protections for LGBTQ+ families would be removed to center a traditional Christian view of marriage.

 

Again, political argument using sex against a narrative. You can’t force or legislate homosexuals to be hetero for the greater good. We seem to forget the studies of glyphosate and how round up messes with our DNA creating babies with male brain’s and female bodies and vice versa. Chemical destruction of our genome should be considered when trying to argue pushing homosexuals who may have been born different due to chemicals.

 

5.) Birth control would become more difficult to obtain.

 

Repeated statement to arouse anger. We already covered this.

 

6.) The FBI would no longer be allowed to combat the spread of "misinformation" or "disinformation."

 

And this is bad, why? Are we so lazy we can’t look up information ourselves and need the FBI to help us with critical thinking? 

 

7.) Climate change and renewable energy priorities would be removed from the Department of Agriculture.

 

I would agree 100% with all of this. They are just money making power grabbing opportunities and are bad for the people unless they release the real free energy patents.

 

8.) The Department of Homeland Security would be dismantled.

 

This is the gestapo disguised as an emergency team. They have way too much responsibility and never arrive on time nor do they take care of people. We saw this with Katrina where they took guns away from people during a hurricane and Helena where they closed it all off and took the food from volunteers leaving hundreds to die.

 

9.) Diversity and inclusion programs within government agencies would be cut.

 

These are minority heart tugging scams to give the people the idea that the leaders care. They don’t. Minorities are being used and abused by them while this program continues to destroy small to medium sized business for the monopoly’s favor.

 

10.) The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would be downsized.

 

If the EPA isn’t protecting us from geonengineering, there is no way they are protecting us at all. Spraying heavy metals is the second worst crime against humanity with the mRNA gene therapy drug being number one.

 

The only negative I am hearing about this conservative plan are from the left and they have no proof they are connected to Trump. Nor have they provided any proof. I have watched videos of whistleblowers of this group who exposed they are grooming teenagers to work in the office of politics. One woman who left and became a democrat said they are going after the LGBTQ+ movement but never released details about it other than they believe a household should be husband and wife. Lastly, The director of the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 vision for a complete overhaul of the federal government stepped down Tuesday after blowback from Donald Trump’s campaign, which has tried to disavow the program created by many of the former president’s allies and former aides.

 

It’s too early to tell if they are evil or not. I can’t fin anything bad on them. They are keeping quiet and covering their tracks. If they are sincere, they have a right to their beliefs and wants. Just like the LGBTQ+ thus have a right to do wha they are doing. But as I mentioned, anyone with a million subscribers is approached by national security and already have an informant inside. They could be used as an agent of chaos to continue to sew division between the people. 

 

Source

 

https://static.project2025.org/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf

https://thephaser.com/2023/09/agenda-2030-is-now-agenda-2025-complete-with-massive-depop/

https://valuetainment.com/what-is-project-2025-an-inside-look-at-the-controversial-agenda/

https://www.buzzfeed.com/michaelabramwell/project-2025-ten-things-you-need-to-know