After a brief introduction, Miller begins, “The DOD is also a deeply troubled institution. Historically, the military has been one of America’s most trusted institutions, but years of sustained misuse, a two-tiered culture of accountability that shields senior officers and officials while exposing junior officers in the field, wasteful spending, wildly shifting security policies, exceedingly poor discipline in program execution, and (most recently) the Biden Administration’s profoundly unserious equity agenda and vaccine mandates have taken a serious toll.” (Project 2025, Section 2.1: Department of Defense, Christopher Miller, page 123, paragraph 3.)

I touched on this a bit in the introduction to Section 2¹. In point of fact, the Biden administration stopped requiring COVID-19 vaccines for the military² in January 2023.

What strikes me about this passage is its disdain for the military, and this coming from a former member of the armed forces and former (acting) Secretary of Defense. Evidence seems to suggest that he is a deeply disenfranchised former soldier³. More about Christopher Miller here.⁴

“Our disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan, our impossibly muddled China strategy, the growing involvement of senior military officers in the political arena, and deep confusion about the purpose of our military are clear signals of a disturbing decay and markers of a dangerous decline in our nation’s capabilities and will.” (Project 2025, Section 2.1: Department of Defense, Christopher Miller, page 123, paragraph 4.)

I’m going to stop you right there, Christopher. It was Donald Trump and the Trump administration who orchestrated our “disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan.” The Trump administration negotiated a withdrawal agreement⁵ with the Taliban, excluding the Afghan government.⁶ This resulted in 5,000 imprisoned Taliban soldiers being freed, and Trump set a date of May 1, 2021 for the withdrawal.

The Trump administration kept to the agreement even though the Taliban didn’t (what a surprise!), reducing U.S. Troop levels from about 13,000⁷ to 2,500⁸, even though the Taliban continued to attack Afghan government forces⁹ and welcomed al-Qaeda terrorists¹⁰ into the Taliban leadership.

More on that timeline here.¹¹ Biden essentially had no choice but to follow through with Trump’s agreement – otherwise, the word of the United States means nothing. Biden did delay the May 1 deadline by a few months. In truth, the withdrawal had its roots in four Administrations.¹²

Even Trump’s own former national security adviser, retired Army Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster, says Trump bears a portion of the blame¹³ for the botched withdrawal:

“Oh, yes,” McMaster said after being asked by (Anderson) Cooper if Trump bears “part of the responsibility for what happened.” McMaster then added, “The whole premise of talking to the Taliban before you leave Afghanistan…why the heck were we even doing that? The Obama administration didn’t negotiate with al-Qaeda and Iraq on the way out,” he continued. “If we were gonna leave, why not just leave? What happened in these series of negotiations is we kind of threw the Afghans under the bus on the way out…then forced them to release 5,000 of some of the most heinous people on the earth.”

While the withdrawal was taking place, the Republican National Committee scrubbed its website¹⁴ of content that previously praised the former president’s “historic peace agreement with the Taliban.” To say nothing of Trump’s original plan to negotiate with the Taliban at Camp David¹⁵.

So, for Miller to place 100% of the blame for a “disastrous withdrawal” on the Biden Administration is disingenuous at best.

Miller next points out that 100K Americans die annually because of “illicit narcotics flows”, but it’s unclear here what he thinks that has to do with the military. Spoiler: He has wedged in this talking point as a means to argue later for militarizing the border. More on that below. An NPR-Ipsos poll in September 2022 found that “39% of Americans and 60% of Republicans believe that most of the fentanyl entering the U.S. is smuggled in by unauthorized migrants crossing the border.” In fact, 86.3% of convicted fentanyl drug traffickers, and fentanyl smuggling is ultimately funded by U.S. consumers who pay for illicit opioids, 99% of whom are U.S. citizens. [Source]¹⁶.

“We also are witnessing a transformation in the character of war. The democratization of technology and the collapse of time and space require dramatic, thoughtful changes in how we defend, deter, and fight.” (Project 2025, Section 2.1: Department of Defense, Christopher Miller, page 124, paragraph 2.)

This one is interesting to unpack. Miller here is referring to the shift from traditional, large-scale conflicts to more hands-off and complex types of warfare, including cyber attacks, et al. I can agree that we need to adapt our defense strategies to accommodate these types of situations. By “democratization of technology”, he’s referring to the fact that advanced technologies which used to be in the hands of just a few powerful nations, are now available to almost anyone. This means that the barriers to entry for engaging in warfare or causing significant disruption have been lowered. This means that smaller nations can now pose significant threats.

The “collapse of time and space” refers to the way technology has compressed the time and distance between actors in a conflict. For example, cyberattacks can be launched instantly from anywhere in the world, and advanced missile systems can reach targets across enormous distances in minutes.

Miller goes on to list his four main priorities for the military as a whole going forward:

1. Reestablish a culture of command accountability, nonpoliticization, and warfighting focus.
2. Transform our armed forces for maximum effectiveness in an era of great-power competition.
3. Provide necessary support to Department of Homeland Security (DHS) border protection operations. Border protection is a national security issue that requires sustained attention and effort by all elements of the executive branch.
4. Demand financial transparency and accountability.

(Project 2025, Section 2.1: Department of Defense, Christopher Miller, page 124, paragraph 3.)

Wait, what was that third one? Federally sanction using the United States Military to patrol the border? What would the results of that look like?

“A militarized approach to the border not only harms undocumented people, but it also harms entire communities. Border Patrol agents racially profile and harass people of color across the region. They drive recklessly through our communities and fatally wound our neighbors in vehicle pursuits. CBP’s use of intrusive surveillance technologies erode border residents’ privacy rights and force them to live under the constant gaze of the federal government.” Source: Maria Coronado, Immigrant Rights Field Organizer¹⁷

Texas Governor Greg Abbott’s militarization of the border resulted in widespread human rights abuses¹⁸:

“Texas’ Operation Lone Star is an abusive system of border policing that has been found unconstitutional by a Texas district court. The federal government, including the Department of Homeland Security, has been on notice since at least December 2021 that Operation Lone Star targets people based on race and national origin, disregards due process, and subjects them to abuses in detention.” [Source]¹⁹ The cost to the Texas taxpayers for funding these human rights abuses? More than 3 billion dollars.²⁰

So. Is militarizing the border a good idea? History suggests no, it results in human rights abuses and discrimination. It’s yet another deeply racist policy, which wouldn’t resolve the fentanyl crisis in the first place (see above.) Alternatively, there are humane approaches to border security²¹.

“By far the most significant danger to Americans’ security, freedoms, and prosperity is China.” (Project 2025, Section 2.1: Department of Defense, Christopher Miller, page 124, paragraph 4.)

Miller’s position is that we must prevent China from becoming the most powerful country in the world, and says that they’re currently #2, behind the United States of America. He notes that they’re expanding their military and their nuclear capacity.

“The most severe immediate threat that Beijing’s military poses, however, is to Taiwan and other U.S. allies along the first island chain in the Western Pacific. If China could subordinate Taiwan or allies like the Philippines, South Korea, and Japan, it could break apart any balancing coalition that is designed to prevent Beijing’s hegemony over Asia. Accordingly, the United States must ensure that China does not succeed. This requires a denial defense: the ability to make the subordination of Taiwan or other U.S. allies in Asia prohibitively difficult.” (Project 2025, Section 2.1: Department of Defense, Christopher Miller, page 125, paragraph 3.)

Miller acknowledges that Russia, Iran, and North Korea also pose threats to the U.S. He goes on to argue for expanding the U.S. nuclear arsenal, and spending more money on defense in order to meet the goal of “ensuring that China does not succeed”.

He then goes into specific reforms he recommends. Among them are increasing defense burden-sharing amongst our allies, sustaining support for Israel (who is currently committing a genocide), and expanding our nuclear arsenal in order to compete with Russia and China.

At some point, we’d do well to examine the law of diminishing returns as it pertains to our nuclear arsenal. The United States has a nuclear arsenal of around 3,708 warheads²² as of 2024. Number of nuclear bombs it would take to completely wipe out humanity? About 400.²³

This tells me that after about the 400th bomb you own, there’s little point in having many beyond that, is there?

“Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.” – The Bhagavad Gita

“According to UN estimates, more than 2,000 nuclear tests have been conducted all over the world, with around 22,000 nuclear weapons globally – enough to destroy humanity and other biological organisms on earth 55 times over.” [Source] ²⁴Nuclear reductions, not expansions, make the world safer. [Source]²⁵.

Many of Miller’s subsequent recommendations, particularly in the area of strengthening technological advancement, aren’t offensive in and of themselves, but all would require strict ethical oversight and security to be successful, and that aspect of managing these strategies is never mentioned.

“Informal congressional notification or “tiered review” is a hinderance to ensuring timely sales to our global partners. The tiered review process is not codified in law; it is merely a practice by which the Department of State provides a preview of prospective arms transfers before Congress is formally notified.” (Project 2025, Section 2.1: Department of Defense, Christopher Miller, page 133, paragraph 3.)

He’s arguing here for ending the tiered review process, which would result in the President being able to unilaterally transfer or sell arms to other nations without Congressional approval. This is a horrifying recommendation. He continues, “Use the tiered review process only when unanimous congressional support is guaranteed in order to eliminate the “weaponization” by select Members of Congress that has prevented billions of dollars of arms sales from moving into formal congressional notification.” (Project 2025, Section 2.1: Department of Defense, Christopher Miller, page 133, paragraph 5.)

If you’re only using the review process when congressional support is “guaranteed”, that’s a completely pointless review process.

Miller further recommends: “Improve military recruiters’ access to secondary schools and require completion of the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB)—the military entrance examination—by all students in schools that receive federal funding.” (Project 2025, Section 2.1: Department of Defense, Christopher Miller, pages 133 and 134.)

This would effectively force all public school students to take the military entrance exam, and make it easier for recruiters to influence them.

“Exceptions for individuals who are already predisposed to require medical treatment (for example, HIV positive or suffering from gender dysphoria) should be removed, and those with gender dysphoria should be expelled from military service.” (Project 2025, Section 2.1: Department of Defense, Christopher Miller, pages 135, paragraph 3.)

Yikes. It’s interesting that he specifically sites HIV and gender dysphoria (gotta cover the homophobic and transphobic bases, I suppose.) “Requiring ongoing medical treatment” applies to people with cancer, lupus, diabetes, arthritis, asthma, pregnancy, and so much more. It’s also important to note that military leadership does not support removing transgender individuals²⁶ from their ranks.

“Codify language to instruct senior military officers (three and four stars) to make certain that they understand their primary duty to be ensuring the readiness of the armed forces, not pursuing a social engineering agenda. This direction should be reinforced during the Senate confirmation process. Orders and direction motivated by purely partisan motives should be identified as threats to readiness.” (Project 2025, Section 2.1: Department of Defense, Christopher Miller, pages 135, paragraph 7.)

This amounts to halting any promotions for military personnel unless they are loyal to the Project 2025 agenda. In fact, Miller is explicitly stating that disloyalty would be seen as a threat to the United States. Russ Vought touches on the same in Section 1.2²⁷ (Project 2025, Section 1.2: Executive Office of the President of the United States, Russ Vought, page 84, paragraph 2). This is textbook fascism.

“Eliminate Marxist indoctrination and divisive critical race theory programs and abolish newly established diversity, equity, and inclusion offices and staff.” (Project 2025, Section 2.1: Department of Defense, Christopher Miller, pages 135, paragraph 7.)

Let’s be clear, here. The military isn’t performing “Marxist indoctrination”, nor does it have any real CRT programs. This is according to the military itself.²⁸ They do acknowledge that even talking about race is relatively new for the military, and they’re finding their footing. “For a largely nascent effort, it’s not surprising that commanders would be experiencing some trial and error with how they convey the notion that the color of a person’s skin might affect their experiences in the world. After all, the discussion of ideas like systemic racism and white privilege are new for a lot of Americans, who for decades have been told that simply not acknowledging race or ethnicity was the best way to demonstrate one’s own lack of bigotry.”

In fact, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Mark Milley (who served under Trump as well as Biden), defended DEI training in the U.S. military:

“I’ve read Mao Zedong. I’ve read Karl Marx. I’ve read Lenin. That doesn’t make me a communist. So what is wrong with understanding — having some situational understanding about the country for which we are here to defend? And I personally find it offensive that we are accusing the United States military, our general officers, our commissioned, noncommissioned officers of being, quote, ‘woke’ or something else, because we’re studying some theories that are out there.” [Source]²⁹

According to Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, the nation’s first Black defense secretary: “We do not teach critical race theory. We don’t embrace critical race theory, and I think that’s a spurious conversation.”

General Milley continued, saying that such education could be useful in understanding the Capitol insurrection on January 6: “I want to understand white rage, and I’m white, and I want to understand it,” he said. “So what is it that caused thousands of people to assault this building and try to overturn the Constitution of the United States of America? What caused that? I want to find that out.”

Miller’s claims here are baseless fearmongering. He simply wants to return to a time when nobody acknowledged anything at all about race.

“Reverse policies that allow transgender individuals to serve in the military. Gender dysphoria is incompatible with the demands of military service, and the use of public monies for transgender surgeries or to facilitate abortion for servicemembers should be ended.” (Project 2025, Section 2.1: Department of Defense, Christopher Miller, pages 136, paragraph 3.)

The prevalence of rape in the military is well-known. In 2018 alone, there were an estimated 20,500 sexual assaults on 13,000 women and 7,500 men.³⁰ Donald Trump, of course, has dismissed this as “normal” and even expected:

Call us crazy, Donald, but we expected the men not to rape the women. That’s a real tweet that’s still up today. The image is linked to it.

In any case, ending abortion services for military personnel is not only an infringement of freedom of choice, but another insidious form of forcing women to give birth to their rapists’ children. Given Miller’s previous statement that anyone requiring ongoing medical treatment (such as a pregnancy) should simply be kicked out of the military, not only is he advocating for military rape victims to be forced to give birth, he’s additionally plunging these women into instant poverty by stripping them of their jobs and benefits. And I’d be willing to bet he’d say he was “pro-life.”

I’d like to acknowledge here that I’m deliberately using a slippery slope argument – Miller may or may not advocate for throwing pregnant servicewomen out into the street, but when one makes sweeping generalizations such as, “people who require ongoing medical treatment should be kicked out of the military”, without being extremely specific, you invite this kind of scrutiny and curiosity about what your positions truly are.

Miller goes on to make a number of specific recommendations for each branch of the armed forces.

“End USCYBERCOM’s participation in federal efforts to “fortify” U.S. elections to eliminate the perception that DOD is engaging in partisan politics.” (Project 2025, Section 2.1: Department of Defense, Christopher Miller, pages 152, paragraph 2.)

This is a recommendation Miller is making for USCYBERCOM. He’s straight up arguing for ending federal oversight of election security. USCYBERCOM plays a critical role in protecting the U.S. from cyber threats, including those targeting elections. Removing its involvement could potentially increase the risk of cyberattacks on election infrastructure. It’s almost certainly going to result in weakening election security and integrity. It’s 100% in the service of paving the way for a dictatorship.