The section begins by talking about America’s July 4, 1776 Bicentennial. America’s 250th anniversary will take place during the next presidency.

“America is now divided between two opposing forces: woke revolutionaries, and those who believe in the ideals of the American Revolution.” (Project 2025, Section 1: Taking the Reins of Government, page 51, paragraph 1.)

They continue under the premise that “woke” people believe that “America is – and always has been – systemically racist, and not worth celebrating, and must be fundamentally transformed, largely through a centralized administrative state.” (Project 2025, Section 1: Taking the Reins of Government, page 51, paragraph 1.)

The fact that America is (and always has been) systemically racist, is undisputably factual. We are a country founded and built on the backs of enslaved people. To suggest that wanting to remedy systemic inequality in the United States equates to a belief that the United States is “not worth celebrating” is utterly ludicrous. Almost as ludicrous as suggesting that “real” Americans (i.e., the non-“woke”), must thereby be celebrating systemic racism (although they’re implicitly arguing that this is true if A follows B.)

The author goes on to say that they’re fighting for the soul of America, which is “in peril.”

“(Whether it be) mask and vaccine mandates, school and business closures, efforts to keep Americans from driving gas cars or using gas stoves, or efforts to defund the police, indoctrinate schoolchildren, alter beloved books, abridge free speech, undermine the colorblind ideal, or deny the biological reality that there are only two sexes, the Left’s steady stream of insanity appears to be never-ending.” (Project 2025, Section 1, page 51, paragraph 2.)

There’s a lot to unpack here.

The Biden-Harris vaccine mandates only applied to Federal Workers, Federal Contractors, and International air travelers, and they were rescinded once the worst of COVID was over, in May 2023.¹ Many states additionally decided on their own vaccine mandates², or didn’t.

But did the vaccine save lives? According to the Lancet: “Based on official reported COVID-19 deaths, we estimated that vaccinations prevented 14.4 million (95% credible interval [Crl] 13.7–15.9) deaths from COVID-19 in 185 countries and territories between Dec 8, 2020, and Dec 8, 2021. This estimate rose to 19.8 million (95% Crl 19.1–20.4) deaths from COVID-19 averted when we used excess deaths as an estimate of the true extent of the pandemic, representing a global reduction of 63% in total deaths (19.8 million of 31.4 million) during the first year of COVID-19 vaccination.” [Source]³

Moreover, the United States is no stranger to vaccine mandates, nor to mandating various measures for public safety in times of crisis. Both are well within their purview. The mandate for schoolchildren to be vaccinated against smallpox began in 1855 in Massachusetts and was widespread by the early 1900’s. [Source]⁴

Even today, all but four states require vaccinations in children unless they have a religious exemption. The military has required vaccines since George Washington required them in 1777. [Source]⁵ In fact, the DoD already administers 17 different vaccines to service members—outlined in the “Joint Regulation on Immunization and Chemoprophylaxis for the Prevention of Infectious Diseases.”⁶

It would appear that the writer doesn’t object to ALL vaccines, simply the COVID-19 vaccine in particular. There are myriad objections to the COVID-19 vaccine, too numerous to be listed here, but most have been debunked or are anecdotal. The concept of mRNA vaccines dates back to the 1960’s⁷.

States determined school and business closures, not the federal government. I’m not sure what the writer is trying to even claim here – it would seem that states making their own choices is the “small government” that the authors of this project claim to want. They can’t have it both ways. “Make your own choices, unless we don’t like them” isn’t small government.

Apparently, incentivizing Americans to get away from using fossil fuels is “woke” and “unAmerican.” Yes, the federal government offers incentives to support EVs (electric vehicles.) But so do state governments and local governments. Again, there’s the pesky small government, making choices the writer doesn’t like!

But are EVs actually better for the environment than gas-powered vehicles? According to MIT, yes.⁸

From the linked article:

“We shouldn’t claim victory that with this switch to electric cars, problem solved, we are going to have zero emissions,” he says. “No, that’s not the case. But electric cars are actually much, much better in terms of the impact on the climate in comparison to internal combustion vehicles. And in time, that comparative advantage of electric cars is going to grow.”

Is the government coming to take your gas stove? In a word? No.⁹ The DoE (Department of Energy) announced new energy-efficient guidelines for gas and electric stoves that slightly improve the current standard. 97% of gas stove models and 77% of electric stove models already meet the new standards. So no, no federal ban on gas stoves. According to a tracker¹⁰ from the nonprofit Building Decarbonization Coalition, there are, however, 143 local governments with policies regulating or banning the use of natural gas and six states with similar statewide policies. Small government strikes again!

(I should point out here that I’m not against small government or FOR big government. Just pointing out the cognitive dissonance involved with the claims being made here.)

As for the “colorblind ideal”, the writer is presumably referring to the social and political philosophy of treating people equally without regard to race, ethnicity, or color. It’s where the phrase “I don’t see color”, that people like to use, comes from.

However, the hypocrisy here is astounding: Why would you claim that you believe everyone should be treated equally without regard to race or ethnicity, and then deliberately remove all diversity training and legislative guardrails that are designed to help ensure that everyone gets treated equally?

Such policies ignore the reality of racism and structural inequalities that affect people differently based on race. Colorblindness is a wonderful ideal, and worthy of striving for, but it isn’t reality, and will not be realized by deliberately ignoring reality.

And how about, “the biological reality that there are only two sexes”?

Well, that’s not really a “biological reality.” Biology is complex and fascinating, and rarely has any true binaries. MOST people are XX or XY (one biological sex or the other), and that’s a great, accessible way to teach elementary biology. An adult-level understanding of biology must recognize that’s an overly simplistic view of a complex reality. [Source]¹¹ [Source]¹² In truth, biological sex is determined not just by chromosomes (which can 100% live outside of the XX/XY binary), but also by hormones, physical anatomy, and more.

Whew, I’m only two paragraphs in! Moving on. Summary of this section thus far: The writer is hypocritical, bigoted, and not living in reality.

“The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” Accordingly, Vought writes, “it is the President’s agenda that should matter to the departments and agencies,” not their own.” (Project 2025, Section 1, page 52, paragraph 2.)

Well, what happens when we have a President with a terrible agenda? The writer is advocating for a system with no departmental checks and balances on a tyrannical President.

“Federal employees are often ideologically aligned—not with the majority of the American people—but with one another, posing a profound problem for republican government, a government “of, by, and for” the people.” (Project 2025, Section 1, page 52, paragraph 2.)

The writer is operating under the assumption here that the majority of “the people” are ideologically aligned with Republicans, which simply isn’t true.¹³

“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.” (Project 2025, Section 1, page 52, paragraph 3).

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 clearance¹⁴, 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 drunk¹⁵ – to the Supreme Court. Getting a little snarky here. Moving on.

“Above all, the President and those who serve under him or her must be committed to the Constitution and the rule of law.” (Project 2025, Section 1, page 53, paragraph 1.)

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.

The writer goes on to gripe again about vaccine mandates and student loan forgiveness.

Now we’re all over the map (again): “It is crucial that all three branches of the federal government respect what Madison called the “double security” to our liberties: the separation of powers among the three branches, and the separation of powers between the federal government and the states.” (Project 2025, Section 1, page 53, paragraph 2.) Again, protecting the President from “encroachments by Congress” is the exact opposite of the separate but equal powers/checks and balances enumerated in The Constitution.

“Political appointees who are answerable to the President and have decision-making authority in the executive branch are key to this essential task. The next Administration must not cede such authority to non-partisan “experts,” who pursue their own ends while engaging in groupthink, insulated from American voters.” (Project 2025, Section 1, page 53, paragraph 3.)

This is frightening – he’s basically saying, the people in charge of the government should by no means be experts in their fields, but instead be loyalists who answer to a dictatorial president with unchecked power.