“Our primary recommendation is that the President pursue legislation to dismantle the Department of Homeland Security (DHS.)” (Project 2025, Section 2.2: Department of Homeland Security, Ken Cuccinelli, page 165, paragraph 1.)

So begins this section! Let’s examine the potential impact of this recommendation, which includes combining CBP (U.S. Customs and Border Protection) with ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement), then combining USCIS (U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services), HHS (Department of Health and Human Services), ORR (Office of Refugee Resettlement), EOIR (Executive Office for Immigration Review), and OIL (Office of Immigrant Litigation) into a standalone agency.

Further, it would move CISA (Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency) under the DOT (Department of Transportation), FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) under the Department of the Interior (or the DOT), and the U.S. Coast Guard to the DOJ (Department of Justice) and in times of war, under the DOD (Department of Defense) (or, conversely moving to the DOD for all purposes).

It also includes dividing the USSS (U.S. Secret Service) in two, with the protective element moved to the DOJ and the financial enforcement element moved to the Department of the Treasury. Cuccinelli also proposes privatizing the TSA (Transportation Security Administration), and moving the S&T (Science and Technology Directorate) to the DOD and the Office of Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction to the FBI.

That’s a lot of rearranging, and it would have far-reaching impact.

1. Combining CBP and ICE could lead to a more cohesive strategy for addressing illegal immigration, provided such a strategy exists and is communicated effectively. Simply combining the two would lead to a blurring of their distinct roles, leading to overlapping responsibilities and challenges in accountability. The different missions of CBP (focused on border security) and ICE (focused on interior enforcement and investigations) could become muddled, possibly resulting in ineffiencies or conflicts within the new entity.

2. Making USCIS, HHS, ORR, EOIR, and OIL into a standalone agency could centralize and potentially improve the coordination of immigration services, refugee resettlement, and immigration litigation. This might lead to more consistent policies and streamlined processing for immigration benefits, asylum claims, and refugee services. However, separating these functions from DHS could weaken the connection between immigration services and enforcement. This might create silos where enforcement and humanitarian considerations are not as well-integrated, potentially leading to conflicts in policy and practice. The new agency could face challenges in securing adequate resources, establishing clear leadership, and maintaining effective coordination with other federal agencies involved in immigration.

3. Moving CISA to the DOT could lead to a stronger focus on securing critical transportation infrastructure, such as roads, bridges, ports, and aviation systems, aligning cybersecurity efforts with broader transportation safety and efficiency goals. However, this move might dilute CISA’s broader mission of protecting national critical infrastructure, which spans beyond transportation to include energy, water, and communications sectors. The DOT might lack the expertise and mandate to oversee the full spectrum of CISA’s current responsibilities, potentially weakening overall cybersecurity efforts.

4. Moving FEMA to the DOI or DOT could improve its response to natural disaster management (because the DOI manages public lands and natural resources), and if moved to the DOT, could lead to better responses to transportation-related disasters. However, FEMA’s all-hazards approach, which includes responses to natural disasters, terrorism, pandemics, and other emergencies, could be constrained by the narrower focus of DOI or DOT. The agency’s ability to coordinate with other federal, state, and local partners on a wide range of emergencies might be reduced.

5. Moving the Coast Guard to the DOJ or DOD could emphasize its law enforcement role, focusing on drug interdiction, immigration enforcement, and maritime security. Moving it to the DOD would enhance its military readiness and integration with the other armed services, particularly during wartime. Each option could reduce the Coast Guard’s current flexibility in balancing its dual roles of law enforcement and military service. Under the DOJ, its military readiness might be deprioritized, while under the DOD, its law enforcement and humanitarian missions might receive less attention.

6. Dividing the USSS might create coordination challenges, as the protective and investigative functions currently benefit from shared resources and intelligence. Separate entities might struggle to maintain the same level of efficiency and effectiveness without the close collaboration they currently enjoy.

7. Privatizing the TSA, in a perfect world, would lead to increased efficiency, innovation, and cost-effectiveness in airport security operations, potentially reducing wait times and improving passenger experiences. In THIS world, it could result in inconsistent security standards across airports, as private companies might prioritize cost savings over actual security. There could be increased risks of vulnerabilities in airport security, and the federal government would have less control over the implementation and enforcement of security protocols.

You get the picture. In a perfect world, things would work out, well, perfectly. In this one, there are significant risks of fragmentation, reduced coordination, and challenges in maintaining the broad, integrated approach currently provided by DHS.

Moreover, dismantling DHS – an agency created in response to the 9/11 attacks – might lead to concerns about weakening the overall coordination of national security efforts. DHS currently integrates various functions, including counterterrorism, cybersecurity, emergency management, and border security – under one umbrella, which facilitates a comprehensive approach to homeland security. The removal of these integrated functions could lead to fragmentation in national security efforts. Coordination among various agencies might become more difficult, potentially creating gaps in security measures or slowing down response times during emergencies. The dismantling could also lead to a loss of institutional knowledge and a decrease in the efficiency of counterterrorism and other critical security operations.

More potential challenges:

• The reorganization could lead to bureaucratic challenges, including the need to establish new leadership structures, define new roles and responsibilities, and create new processes for interagency coordination. There would likely be significant short-term disruption as the new structures are implemented, potentially leading to delays in services and enforcement actions.
• Operational challenges might include difficulties in integrating systems, data sharing, and communication across the newly created entities. This could lead to inefficiencies, increased costs, and confusion among both employees and the public. Additionally, transitioning employees and resources to new agencies could create morale issues and reduce overall effectiveness during the transition period.
• Such a significant reorganization raises concerns about national security, the potential for increased inefficiencies, and the humanitarian impact of separating enforcement from services.
• Public perception could be mixed, with some viewing the dismantling of DHS as a necessary step to reduce government overreach, while others might fear that it would undermine the government’s ability to protect the nation and manage immigration effectively.

The success of such a restructuring would depend on careful planning, clear communication, and strong leadership to manage the transition and mitigate the risks associated with such a fundamental change. Is it a terrible idea? Not necessarily. But it also feels like it comes with many challenges that it’s simply not worth it to undertake, and gamble on the result, when Cuccinelli doesn’t actually articulate WHY such a restructure is necessary in the first place (other than nebulous rumblings about cost-cutting), nor does he acknowledge any of the potential downsides.

Cuccinelli goes on to, in the absence of performing the above restructure, make recommendations for reforms in the Department of Homeland Security as it currently exists.

“Unfortunately for our nation, the federal government’s newest department became like every other federal agency: bloated, bureaucratic, and expensive. It also lost sight of its mission priorities. DHS has also suffered from the Left’s wokeness and weaponization against Americans whom the Left perceives as its political opponents.” (Project 2025, Section 2.2: Department of Homeland Security, Ken Cuccinelli, page 167, paragraph 1.)

I wish I could tell you what the author means by this. He’s saying the the Department of Homeland Security is weaponized against anyone who isn’t “woke” (apparently), but he doesn’t actually cite any examples of this, nor explain in any way. This must be the blanket mention of the “woke” boogeyman at work here.

“The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) is a DHS component that the Left has weaponized to censor speech and affect elections at the expense of securing the cyber domain and critical infrastructure, which are threatened daily. A conservative Administration should return CISA to its statutory and important but narrow mission.” (Project 2025, Section 2.2: Department of Homeland Security, Ken Cuccinelli, page 167, paragraph 3.)

There’s the woke boogeyman again! Cuccinelli doesn’t cite any specific examples of CISA being weaponized either. He’s suggesting that CISA has been involved in activities that go beyond its intended role, such as monitoring or influencing online speech, possibly through partnerships with social media companies or other platforms to address misinformation or disinformation. It’s telling that he thinks that combating disinformation harms the Right – it indicates that they’re reliant on lies to keep their messaging intact. Again, I’m taking a stab at what Cuccinelli is talking about here – he doesn’t specify how CISA is being “weaponized” against the “non-woke.”

Full disclosure – Murthy v. Missouri, a case which began in the Fifth Circuit Court in July 2023, was fueled by allegations that federal agencies such as CISA were coercing platforms to remove content related to vaccine safety and 2020 presidential election results. The Supreme Court is expected to decide whether agencies are allowed to stay in touch with social media firms about potential disinformation. It’s being claimed that combating disinformation “suppresses conservative voices”, which is a fancy way of saying that they’re mad that they’re not allowed to lie with impunity. This would include preventing CISA (or other federal agencies) from interfering with blatant election interference on online platforms. More about that here¹.

While I don’t think that the government should have blanket discretion over what social media platforms allow to be advertised or posted on their services by private individuals, I also don’t agree that social media platforms should have carte blanche to promote harmful disinformation that could actually put the public at risk. Part of CISA’s purview includes monitoring for AI-fueled cyber influence campaigns, which can compromise election or endanger public health. Not that election security is a priority for the authors of Project 2025 – in Section 2.1², Christopher Miller explicitly argues for ending federal oversight of election security.

“These opportunities include privatizing TSA screening and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) National Flood Insurance Program, reforming FEMA emergency spending to shift the majority of preparedness and response costs to states and localities instead of the federal government, eliminating most of DHS’s grant programs, and removing all unions in the department for national security purposes.” (Project 2025, Section 2.2: Department of Homeland Security, Ken Cuccinelli, page 167, paragraph 4.)

We touched on TSA already, so let’s look at the rest of this statement. Privatizing the National Flood Insurance Program would almost certainly lead to higher premiums for policyholders, as private insurers might not be willing to offer the same level of subsidized coverage that the federal program currently provides. This could make flood insurance less affordable for homeowners, particularly in high-risk areas, potentially leading to decreased coverage and higher financial risk for individuals and communities.

States and local governments in flood-prone areas might face increased pressure to subsidize or provide alternative insurance options to ensure residents can obtain affordable coverage. Additionally, there could be a greater reliance on state resources to assist uninsured or underinsured residents in the event of major floods.

Shifting the majority of emergency preparedness and response costs from the federal government to states and localities could lead to a reduction in federal disaster aid and a greater financial burden on state and local governments. This could strain state budgets, particularly in areas prone to natural disasters, and might result in reduced disaster preparedness and slower recovery efforts.

Many states and localities might struggle to absorb these additional costs, especially smaller or less wealthy jurisdictions. The increased financial burden could lead to higher state and local taxes, cuts to other services, or inadequate disaster response capabilities. States would need to develop more robust disaster preparedness and response plans, which could be challenging without sufficient federal support.

DHS grant programs currently provide significant funding to states and localities for various homeland security initiatives, including emergency preparedness, cybersecurity, and counterterrorism. Eliminating these grants would reduce the resources available to state and local governments to address these critical areas, which would introduce vulnerabilities.

In essence, Cuccinelli is arguing that we should let states sink or swim on their own in terms of preparing for disasters (and making another argument for eliminating workers’ unions in the process.) This would lead to a huge disparity in the preparedness that states are capable of offering – obviously poorer states won’t be able to shoulder this burden, and won’t be able to scale up their capabilities to even begin to meet these demands, resulting in a higher state tax burden for the American public, for which they’re receiving worse disaster response services.

Cuccinelli goes on to argue that the Office of the Secretary of the DHS should have their own dedicated staff (as opposed to Senate-confirmed political appointees), to “help ensure the completion of the next President’s agenda.” (Project 2025, Section 2.2: Department of Homeland Security, Ken Cuccinelli, page 168, paragraph 3.)

“While Senate confirmation is a constitutionally necessary requirement for appointing agency leadership, the next Administration may need to take a novel approach to the confirmations process to ensure an adequate and rapid transition. For example, the next Administration arguably should place its nominees for key positions into similar positions as “actings” (for example, putting in a person to serve as the Senior Official Performing the Duties of the Commissioner of CBP while that person is going through the confirmation process to direct ICE or become the Secretary). This approach would both guarantee implementation of the Day One agenda and equip the department for potential emergency situations while still honoring the confirmation requirement.” (Project 2025, Section 2.2: Department of Homeland Security, Ken Cuccinelli, page 168, paragraph 4.)

This is more of Project 2025’s core tenet – staff the government completely with loyalists to their agenda, bypassing Congressional approval, and simply installing them as “acting” in their official capacities. Trump did this a LOT. If elected to another term, this practice would become the rule. Examples of Trump having done this include Matthew Whitaker (acting Attorney General), Mick Mulvaney (acting White House Chief of Staff), Chad Wolf (acting Secretary of Homeland Security), Patrick Shanahan (acting Secretary of Defense), Kevin McAleenan (acting Secretary of Homeland Security), John Sullivan (acting Secretary of State), Mark Esper (acting Secretary of Defense), David Bernhardt (acting Secretary of the Interior), Andrew Wheeler (acting Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency), and Richard Grenell (acting Director of National Intelligence.)

“The Secretary should direct FEMA to ensure that all FEMA-issued grant funding for states, localities, and private organizations is going to recipients who are lawful actors, can demonstrate that they are in compliance with federal law, and can show that their mission and actions support the broader homeland security mission.” (Project 2025, Section 2.2: Department of Homeland Security, Ken Cuccinelli, page 169, paragraph 4.)

That’s a recommendation that the federal government deny disaster aid to states that don’t support their regime (in this case, blue states.) There’s not another way to see that statement. It gets freakier. One of the compliance requirements he suggests is, “If the applicant is a state or locality, commitment by that state or locality to total information-sharing in the context of both federal law enforcement and immigration enforcement. This would include access to department of motor vehicles and voter registration databases.” (Project 2025, Section 2.2: Department of Homeland Security, Ken Cuccinelli, page 170, paragraph 2.) Read that last part again. Access to the department of motor vehicles and voter registration databases.

They’re going to say it’s going to be used for immigration enforcement, so they can root out illegals and have them deported (more on the economic impact of that here)³ but for both citizens and non-citizens, it’s a privacy nightmare and a blatant infringement upon our civil liberties.

“The Secretary should plan to quickly remove all current members of the Homeland Security Advisory Committee and replace them as quickly as is feasible.” (Project 2025, Section 2.2: Department of Homeland Security, Ken Cuccinelli, page 170, paragraph 7.) This is another recommendation for staffing the government entirely with loyalists to the regime.

Cuccinelli goes on to point out the same potential pros that I did above when discussing the consolidation of various agencies. He’s couching them as definites, rather than “not guaranteed unless they’re handled properly.”

“CBP should restart and expand use of the horseback-mounted Border Patrol. As part of this announcement, the Secretary should clear the records and personnel files of those who were falsely accused by Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas of whipping migrants and issue a formal apology on behalf of DHS and CBP.” (Project 2025, Section 2.2: Department of Homeland Security, Ken Cuccinelli, page 171, paragraph 6.)

Let’s fact check this one – while the agents involved in the Del Rio incident⁴ (to which he is referring) were not carrying actual whips, The commissioner did note at least one agent involved in the incident reported twirling his horse’s reins as a “distancing tactic.” So…that one is kind of potato potahto, if you ask me. “I wasn’t whipping them with a whip, I was menacing them them with horse reins” isn’t a particularly compelling argument, and certainly does not warrant an apology.

“The CBP investigation found the agent who yelled at the migrant acted in an unprofessional manner. The same agent, investigators said, also acted unsafely by chasing a migrant with his horse, which nearly hit a child.” The agent in question was not fired. There’s no evidence suggesting that horse-mounted border control efforts were halted⁵ because of this incident, despite spurious headlines to the contrary.⁶ The linked article’s headline reads “Border patrol suspends horse patrols in Del Rio, Texas. Why were they on horses at all?”, then literally has an included section in the article titled “Horses remain key part of patrol.” Irresponsible journalism practices are a topic warranting an entire separate website. Suffice it to say, Ken, we can tell you didn’t read the articles.

“Direct ICE to stop ignoring criminal aliens identified through the 287(g) program.” (Project 2025, Section 2.2: Department of Homeland Security, Ken Cuccinelli, page 173, paragraph 2.)

ICE doesn’t “ignore” criminals identified by the 287(g) program, which is a collaboration between Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and state and local law enforcement agencies that allows local officials to act as immigration agents. They DO prioritize removing individuals who pose the greatest threat to public safety, based on factors like the severity of their crimes. Moreover, the 287(g) program itself is a civil liberties nightmare with well-documented abuses⁷.

From the linked article: “In 2017, Gerardo Martinez-Morales was driving to the doctor’s office when he was pulled over by sheriff’s deputies in Galveston County, Tex.. One week later, the father of four and grandfather of three who lived in the U.S. for more than two decades was deported to Mexico. The reason given for the traffic stop that caused him to be torn from his family of U.S. citizens? A broken taillight.”

“In a new research report, the ACLU found that dozens of sheriff partners in the 287(g) program have records of racism, abuse, and violence. Our analysis reveals that the majority of local partners have documented incidents of civil rights violations and other abuses. Our report makes clear that xenophobia is at the very heart of the program, which expanded five-fold under the anti-immigrant efforts of the Trump administration.”

For Cuccinelli to advocate for expanding this program is cruel, racist, and xenophobic. In fact, the Center for American Progress even found that 287(g) agreements are harmful to public safety.⁸

“Eliminate T and U visas. Victimization should not be a basis for an immigration benefit. If an alien who was a trafficking or crime victim is actively and significantly cooperating with law enforcement as a witness, the S visa is already available and should be used. Pending elimination of the T and U visas, the Secretary should significantly restrict eligibility for each visa to prevent fraud.” (Project 2025, Section 2.2: Department of Homeland Security, Ken Cuccinelli, page 173, paragraph 4.)

A little context – T visas are designed for victims of human trafficking, and allows victims to stay in the United States if they assist law enforcement in the investigation or prosecution of human trafficking cases. The U visa is for victims of certain crimes, such as domestic violence, sexual assault, and other serious offenses. It is granted to victims who have suffered substantial mental or physical abuse and are willing to assist law enforcement in investigating or prosecuting the crime. S visas are specifically for informants or witnesses in criminal investigations or prosecutions.

Cuccinelli is arguing here that T and U visas can be shuffled under the “S” category. Again, there’s really no reason for this or explanation why it’s necessary. Furthermore, doing so would negatively impact victims of human trafficking and crimes, and harm overall public safety. S visas are limited in number and scope, and their use is more narrowly defined. This could result in fewer victims being eligible for protection, thereby reducing the overall effectiveness of crime-fighting efforts. Without the protection of T and U visas, victims of trafficking and other serious crimes would be more vulnerable to continued exploitation and abuse. They might be forced to remain in dangerous situations or avoid seeking help due to the lack of legal protection.

Additionally, T and U visas are valuable tools for law enforcement, enabling them to gain the trust of immigrant communities and secure the cooperation of victims in investigations and prosecutions. Eliminating these visas could hinder law enforcement efforts, making it more difficult to build cases against traffickers and criminals who target vulnerable populations.

The elimination of T and U visas would be a huge step back in the U.S.’s commitment to protecting human rights, particularly the rights of trafficking victims and crime victims.

“To that end, the diversity visa lottery should be repealed, chain migration should be ended while focusing on the nuclear family, and the existing employment visa program should be replaced with a system to award visas only to the “best and brightest.” (Project 2025, Section 2.2: Department of Homeland Security, Ken Cuccinelli, page 177, paragraph 4.)

It’s hilarious that they’re arguing for ending chain migration, when Trump’s current wife’s family is here as a result of it.⁹

“The oft-abused H-1B program should be transformed into an elite program through which employers are vying to bring in only the top foreign workers at the highest wages so as not to depress American opportunities.” (Project 2025, Section 2.2: Department of Homeland Security, Ken Cuccinelli, page 177, paragraph 5.)

The H1B visa requires employer sponsorship. U.S. Employers must file a petition on behalf of the foreign worker. It sounds like either he’s arguing for reducing the cap on these, which, as of right now, is set at 85,000 visas per fiscal year (65,000 for regular applicants, 20,000 for those with a U.S. Masters’ degree or higher), or introducing reforms. There is already a requirement that employers must pay H-1B workers the prevailing wage or the actual wage paid to similarly employed workers, whichever is higher. Employers must also ensure that hiring H-1B workers does not adversely affect the working conditions or wages of U.S. workers. Cuccinelli does not elaborate on what “transformed into an elite program” looks like.

Cuccinelli goes on to propose “Mandatory appropriation for border wall system infrastructure.” (Project 2025, Section 2.2: Department of Homeland Security, Ken Cuccinelli, page 179, paragraph 4.)

This is costly performative nonsense. First of all, it’s pointless to have a wall if you’re not going to man it, since ladders and shovels are things that exist, and second, if you’re going to man the border, you don’t need a wall – borders can be more efficiently manned with technology and numbers than with physical barriers. At least he’s not claiming erroneously that Mexico will pay for it. Quite simply, walls don’t work:

“The funneling of migrants to alternative routes points to one statistic that correlates closely with the construction of more walls: an increase in the number of deaths.” [Source]¹⁰.

From the same source: “Despite these clear material impacts on the lives of migrants, millions of people globally continue to cross borders without authorization—meaning walls are relatively ineffective.”

“If walls did not work in the past and today only work to divert, not prevent, migrant flows—while simultaneously having a grave human cost—why have so many gone up in the past 30 years? They are effective as symbols that demonstrate that politicians are doing something to address the perceived threats brought by unauthorized movement.“ [Source]¹¹.

“This border wall, if built (at U.S. taxpayer expense), will probably have a lot in common with the 600 miles of barriers along the southern border already built under the 2006 Secure Fence Act. The project razed delicate environments¹², trampled on long-standing property rights¹³, and cut communities in two¹⁴. It was also expensive and ineffective, not to mention ugly.” [Source]¹⁵

“The Bush administration bullied property owners, threatening to sue them if they did not “voluntarily” hand over the rights to their land. It offered no compensation for doing so. Thinking that they had no recourse, some people signed off, but others refused. The government then attempted to use eminent domain, a procedure Trump has long defended, to seize their property, but the lawsuits imposed serious delays—seven years in one case.” [Source].¹⁶

According to the Southern Border Community Coalition¹⁷, walls are “lethal, kill wildlife, cause flooding resulting in millions of dollars of damages to businesses, homes, and endangering residents’ lives, infringe on property rights, cost billions of taxpayer dollars to build and maintain, erode the rule of law, interfere with tribal sovereignty, and more.”

Here’s more about why walls don’t work¹⁸.

For Cuccinelli to argue that we need to MANDATE an estimated $21.6 BILLION dollars¹⁹ of taxpayer money to throw away on a project that will be not only ineffective, but actively harmful, is shameful. Moreover, “mandatory appropriation” is deliberately vague and quite likely would encompass forced government seizure of private lands in support of building a wall. If it’s “mandatory”, I’m guessing that they’re going to roundly ignore the Eminent Domain requirement that the landowner must be justly compensated, but the author (perhaps purposely) does not specify this.

“Congress should amend the Homeland Security Act and portions of the TVPRA to move detention of alien children expressly from the Department of Health and Human Services to DHS.” (Project 2025, Section 2.2: Department of Homeland Security, Ken Cuccinelli, page 180, paragraph 4.)

There would be no reason to move the responsibility for detained immigrant children to the Department of Homeland Security from Health and Human Services other than cruelty. Currently, HHS manages programs specifically designed to meet the needs of children. Removing these in favor of leaving them in the care of an agency whose primary directive is law enforcement, would lead to neglect and lack of care.

“Of the utmost urgency is immediately ending CISA’s counter-mis/disinformation efforts. The federal government cannot be the arbiter of truth. CISA began this work because of alleged Russian misinformation in the 2016 election, which in fact turned out to be a Clinton campaign “dirty trick.”” (Project 2025, Section 2.2: Department of Homeland Security, Ken Cuccinelli, page 187, paragraph 3.)

“The government cannot be the arbiter of truth” is a telling statement. While I don’t believe the government should be the “arbiter” of truth, I do think they bear some responsibility to TELL the truth, which includes promoting it, if not requiring private companies to do the same (I think dictating what private social media companies platform is a step too far, but generally speaking, the public should be able to expect the truth from the Federal Government, and social media companies bear some responsibility to self-regulate and not platform blatant and harmful disinformation – by which I mean, false information which leads to real and tangible public harm. The Federal Government has a role to play here – they’re better positioned, intelligence-wise, to be able to recognize broad disinformation attacks on social media from bad actors, and need to be a mechanism for enforcement and correction when social media companies fail to self-regulate.)

The rest of this statement is defamatory nonsense. The claim that Hillary Clinton was behind any kind of “Russia hoax” was based on unverified Russian intelligence²⁰ released by Lindsey Graham and declassified by Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe. In point of fact,

“Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe on Tuesday declassified a Russian intelligence assessment that was previously rejected by Democrats and Republicans on the Senate Intelligence Committee as having no factual basis, according to two sources familiar with the matter.” [Source]²¹

“Nick Shapiro, former CIA deputy chief of staff under Brennan, has confirmed Russian interference in the 2016 election was real and authorized personally by Russian President Vladimir Putin to hurt Clinton and boost Trump’s prospects. “Trump’s own head of counterintelligence has publicly stated that the Russians are once again helping Donald Trump,” Shapiro said.” [Source]²²

It’s no wonder Project 2025 is seeking to preserve disinformation on the internet – it helps their cause. It’s designed to help their cause. Here’s more on that:

“Again: There’s no evidence Hillary Clinton triggered the Russia probe”.²³

“The Office of Intelligence and Analysis should be eliminated both because it has not added value and because it has been weaponized for domestic political purposes.” (Project 2025, Section 2.2: Department of Homeland Security, Ken Cuccinelli, page 193, paragraph 5.)

The OIA is a division of DHS responsible for collecting, analyzing, and disseminating intelligence related to threats against the U.S. homeland. Its focus includes terrorism, cybersecurity, and other national security threats. The OIA provides intelligence support to state, local, tribal, and territorial governments, as well as to private sector partners. Considering that, according to the Department of Homeland Security itself, white supremacists now pose the gravest terror threat to the United States²⁴, it’s unsurprising that they’d like to remove focus from that, including allowing white supremacy to flourish online and on social media.

“[The Department of Defense will] Assist in aggressively building the border wall system on America’s southern border. Additionally, explicitly acknowledge and adjust personnel and priorities to participate actively in the defense of America’s borders, including using military personnel and hardware to prevent illegal crossings between ports of entry and channel all cross-border traffic to legal ports of entry.” (Project 2025, Section 2.2: Department of Homeland Security, Ken Cuccinelli, pages 198 and 199.)

This is another argument for militarizing the border, which Christopher Miller argues for this as well in Section 2.1²⁵, and I talk more about the implications there.

“Deny loan access to those who are not U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents, and deny loan access to students at schools that provide in-state tuition to illegal aliens.” (Project 2025, Section 2.2: Department of Homeland Security, Ken Cuccinelli, page 199, paragraph 5.)

Under existing U.S. law, federal student loans are generally only available to U.S. citizens and eligible non-citizens, which typically includes lawful permanent residents (green card holders) and certain other categories of non-citizens, such as refugees and those granted asylum. Undocumented immigrants are not eligible for federal student loans.

Some states, such as California, Texas, and New York, allow undocumented students to qualify for in-state tuition rates at public colleges and universities. These policies are often based on the student meeting certain criteria, such as attending and graduating from a high school in the state. But again, they’re not qualifying these students for federal student loans, just offering them in-state tuition rates. Those students must find some other way of paying for college.

Denying access to federal student loans to students at schools with these policies is unnecessarily punitive to ordinary students of those schools. The potential effects include loss of critical financial aid, increased financial pressures, limited educational choices, and broader equity and access issues. The policy would disproportionately affect low-income students and could result in lower college enrollment and completion rates, thereby impacting their long-term economic prospects and exacerbating social inequalities. As of the 2020-2021 academic year, 85.4% of full-time, first-year students received some type of federal financial aid.²⁶

As of now, more than 20 states have laws or policies that allow undocumented immigrants, often referred to as “DREAMers,” to qualify for in-state tuition rates at public colleges and universities. If a policy were enacted to deny federal student loan access to students attending schools that offer in-state tuition to DREAMers, US citizen students in the following states would be affected and not able to access federal financial aid:

• California
• Colorado
• Connecticut
• Florida
• Hawaii
• Illinois
• Kansas
• Maryland
• Michigan
• Minnesota
• Nebraska
• Nevada
• New Jersey
• New Mexico
• New York
• Oklahoma
• Oregon
• Rhode Island
• Texas
• Utah
• Virginia
• Washington
• Washington, DC

Obviously, the cruelty is by design, here. After the ensuing public backlash, colleges would cave first, fairly eliminating educational opportunities for DREAMers.