Topic: General Statements
“This is an agenda prepared by and for conservatives who will be ready on Day One of the next Administration to save our country from the brink of disaster.”
No immediate context necessary.
Full contextual analysis of the foreword here.
- Restore the family as the centerpiece of American life and protect our children.
- Dismantle the administrative state and return self-governance to the American people.
- Defend our Nation’s sovereignty, borders, and bounty against global threats.
- Secure our God-given individual rights to live freely – what our Constitution calls “the Blessings of Liberty.”
We’ve seen their version of “protecting children”, and it involves dismantling public education, banning books, separating children from their parents at the border, and their complete and utter refusal to enact ANY legislation which might prevent children from being murdered in their classrooms. The cognitive dissonance between #2 and #3 is interesting to me – after you dismantle the government, with what will you be defending the borders? Surely you don’t want to use the government-funded military, correct? Point #4 comes with a heaping helping of cognitive dissonance as well, since so many of their policies involve restricting people’s freedoms, rather than expanding them.
Full contextual analysis of the foreword here.
“The next conservative President must make the institutions of American civil society hard targets for woke culture warriors. This starts with deleting the terms sexual orientation and gender identity (“SOGI”), diversity, equity, and inclusion (“DEI”), gender, gender equality, gender equity, gender awareness, gender-sensitive, abortion, reproductive health, reproductive rights, and any other term used to deprive Americans of their First Amendment rights out of every federal rule, agency regulation, contract, grant, regulation, and piece of legislation that exists.”
I’m curious how words merely existing are depriving Americans of their First Amendment Rights, and how deleting those words from government regulations/legislation is going to restore those rights. If anything, removing those words arbitrarily is a violation of 1A – it’s literally censorship by the government. Again, lots of cognitive dissonance here, and he’s unclear on what removing these words actually hopes to accomplish, other than effectively legalizing discrimination against anyone who fits into any of those phrases. Seriously? The phrase “reproductive health” is woke? Insanity.
Full contextual analysis of foreword here.
“When the Founders spoke of “pursuit of Happiness,” what they meant might be understood today as in essence “pursuit of Blessedness.” That is, an individual must be free to live as his Creator ordained—to flourish. Our Constitution grants each of us the liberty to do not what we want, but what we ought. This pursuit of the good life is found primarily in family—marriage, children, Thanksgiving dinners, and the like.”
One interpretation of this is that he (and by extent, the authors of Project 2025), wish to dictate what it is we “ought” – that is, have families and children. He goes on to say that the government resents that we (Americans) don’t want to be told how to live (I agree), but then tacitly supports the government dictating how people should live.
Full contextual analysis of the foreword here.
“This book, this agenda, the entire Project 2025 is a plan to unite the conservative movement and the American people against elite rule and woke culture warriors.”
No context necessary.
“Only in the federal government could an applicant in the hiring process be sent to the front of the line because of a “history of drug addiction” or “alcoholism,” or due to “morbid obesity,” “irritable bowel syndrome,” or a “psychiatric disorder.”
Where in the federal government is this actually occurring? I tried Googling “preferential federal hiring practices for fat alcoholics”, but came up short. (I’m joking, for the sarcasm-impaired.) I DID find, however, that ever having been treated for alcoholism can prevent you from obtaining a security clearance, so that seems like the opposite of a preferential hiring practice (although I supposed it could be argued that the Republican party demonstrated preferential treatment for alcoholics when they appointed Brett “I like beer, okay?” Kavanaugh – an admitted blackout drunk – to the Supreme Court.
Full contextual analysis of Section 1: Taking the Reins of Government here.
“Above all, the President and those who serve under him or her must be committed to the Constitution and the rule of law.”
Ideally, I agree! Except that the writer goes on to say in the same paragraph, “…the White House Counsel “must take seriously the duty to protect the powers and privileges of the President from encroachments by Congress, the judiciary, and the administrative components of departments and agencies.” (Project 2025, Section 1, page 53, paragraph 1.) This sounds suspiciously like advocating for removing all checks and balances from the Federal government, which certainly does not support The Constitution.
Full contextual analysis of Section 1: Taking the Reins of Government here.
“Choosing who will carry out that agenda on a daily basis is not only one of the first decisions a President makes in office, but also one of the most critical. The tone and tempo of an administration are often determined on January 20.”
Full contextual analysis of Section 1.1: White House Office here.
“…incoming policy councils will need to move rapidly to lead policy processes around cross-cutting agency topics, including countering China, enforcing immigration laws, reversing regulatory policies in order to promote energy production, combating the Left’s aggressive attacks on life and religious liberty, and confronting “wokeism” throughout the federal government.”
Full contextual analysis of Section 1.1: White House Office here.
“During the Trump and Biden Administrations, there has been a bipartisan focus on prioritizing R&D funding around the so-called Industries of the Future (IOTF). Under President Trump, IOTF priorities were artificial intelligence (AI), quantum information science (QIS), advanced communications/5G, advanced manufacturing, and biotechnology. Under President Biden, this list has been expanded to include advanced materials, robotics, battery technology, cybersecurity, green products and clean technology, plant genetics and agricultural technologies, nanotechnology, and semiconductor and microelectronics technologies. These priorities should be evaluated and narrowed to ensure consistency with the next Administration’s priorities.”
I take this to mean that Vought is offended by the addition of green products and clean technology to their “Industries of the Future.”
Full contextual analysis of Section 1.2: Executive Office of the President of the United States here.
Share this quote from Project 2025: