“The Federal Bureau of Investigation, knowing that claims of collusion with Russia were false, collaborated with Democratic operatives to inject the story into the 2016 election through strategic media leaks, falsified Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant applications, and lied to Congress.” (Project 2025, Section 3.8: Department of Justice, Gene Hamilton, page 577, paragraph 4).

We’re off to a bad start, here. Many people have written about this far better than I and a greater length. In fact, there are entire books written¹ detailing Trump’s proven collusion with Russia.

Mueller’s report on the Trump campaign’s contacts with Russia included 200 pages chronicling Trump’s attempts to obstruct justice² by impeding Mueller’s investigation.

“For example, Trump asked his former White House Counsel Don McGahn to remove Mueller and then create a false record denying that it happened, the investigation found. Mueller’s team also found that Trump attempted to enlist his former campaign manager Corey Lewandowski to pressure former Attorney General Jeff Sessions to curb the investigation.”

“Former special counsel Robert S. Mueller III wasted no time during his House Judiciary Committee testimony Wednesday in undercutting President Trump’s ongoing insistence that Mueller’s probe cleared him of all wrongdoing. In fact, it was only about an hour after Trump’s most recent³ claim that there was “NO COLLUSION, NO OBSTRUCTION” that Mueller slowly read into the record an opening statement that made obvious how wrong Trump was. [Source]⁴

Trump’s then-attorney-general, William Barr, completely mischaracterized the Mueller Report to deliberately mislead the public⁵ about it:

“By the time anyone outside the Justice Department saw the Mueller report, they’d already been exposed to Barr’s misleading letter and press conference. He had, by Mueller’s reckoning, allowed incorrect interpretations of the report’s findings to circulate in public for two weeks. Senator Chris Coons, a Delaware Democrat, explained the importance during Wednesday’s hearing. “A critical three weeks passed between when you delivered the letter with the focus on the principal conclusions and when we ultimately got the redacted report,” Coons said. “My concern is that that gave President Trump and his folks more than three weeks of an open field to say, ‘I was completely exonerated.’”

A federal judge found that Barr had mishandled the report⁶ and deliberately misled the public⁷ as well.

Trump’s former “fixer” and attorney of more than a decade, wrote a book detailing how Trump colluded with Russia to win the 2016 election.⁸ However you feel about Cohen personally, the fact remains that he was disbarred and went to prison in part for lying to U.S. Congressional Committees about efforts to build a Trump Tower in Moscow, Russia. [Source]⁸

Then, in August 2020, the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee Report confirmed that the Trump campaign definitely colluded with Russia⁹. So, “yes collusion! yes obstruction!” The press statement about it read, in part:

“This report confirms that President Donald Trump colluded with Russia during the 2016 election. It confirms the worst suspicions about Trump’s relationship with Russia, filling in the holes left in the report from former special counsel Robert Mueller. As Trump excuses Russian President Vladimir Putin placing bounties on U.S. troops and Russia continues to interfere in our democracy to aid Trump’s reelection, this report makes clear that there is no such thing as a coincidence with Trump and Russia.”

“The report from the Republican-led panel details close political coordination among the Trump campaign, Wikileaks, and Russian intelligence and operatives in 2016. At the most pivotal moment of that campaign, when the Access Hollywood tape revealing President Trump’s confession of a lifetime of sexual assault, Trump’s confidante Roger Stone successfully requested that Russia’s illegally hacked materials be released immediately.”

“This revelation also explains why President Trump dangled a pardon for Roger Stone for months, why U.S. Attorney General William Barr gave Stone special treatment amidst an open rebellion from U.S. Department of Justice professionals, and why Trump went even further to commute Stone’s sentence as Stone was concealing these facts from federal investigators. Trump lied to law enforcement about his conversations with Stone and needed Stone to keep quiet about it. This raises serious criminal questions for both Trump and Stone to which the next administration should give full scrutiny.”

This was while Trump was still in office, not under the Biden administration. Here’s a good timeline on that.¹⁰

The Senate report further concluded that former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort definitely colluded with Russia¹¹ when he was heading Trump’s campaign. In 2021, U.S. Intelligence discovered that Manafort had passed Trump campaign information to Konstantin Kilimnik¹², a Russian spy. Here’s some more on that.¹³

Then, in 2024, Lev Parnas, who worked directly with the Trump campaign and Rudy Giuliani, and was convicted in 2021 of fraud and campaign finance crimes and sentenced to 20 months in prison, called Trump’s collusion with Russia “blatant.”¹⁴

“During the podcast episode, Cohen asked him, “Would you say Trump either has worked or is currently working with the Russians to sow more misinformation, disinformation, malinformation?”

Parnas responded that “it’s blatant.”

He added: “They are still pushing the same Russian information…you still have Trump’s inner circle pushing that, not only that, but you now have Paul Manafort coming into the mix. For people who don’t know who Paul Manafort is, that is a direct link into the Kremlin…Just because he spent a year in prison doesn’t mean that those relationships are dead.”

The fact that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia and continues to do so is not in dispute. Some news outlets question whether or not voters care¹⁵, and history suggests that Trump’s voters do not.

For Trump’s part, he pardoned Paul Manafort, Roger Stone, and Charles Kushner¹⁶ right before his term was up. Perhaps it would be prudent to ask oneself, “if the Trump campaign did nothing wrong, why did so many people who worked on the Trump campaign admit in court to wrongdoing and go to prison for it?”

I digress. For Gene Hamilton to still be touting the “no collusion” lie in 2024 is embarrassing, given the preponderance of evidence.

“Personnel within the FBI engaged in a campaign to convince social media companies and the media generally that the story about the contents of Hunter Biden’s laptop was the result of a Russian misinformation campaign—while the FBI had possession of the laptop the entire time and could have clarified the authenticity of the source.” (Project 2025, Section 3.8: Department of Justice, Gene Hamilton, page 578, paragraph 2).

Nope. More about that here¹⁷.

“The DOJ engaged in conduct to chill the free speech rights of parents across the United States in response to supposed “threats” against school boards, yet it failed to engage in any concerted campaign to protect the rights of Americans who actually were terrorized by acts of violence like those perpetrated against pregnancy care centers.” (Project 2025, Section 3.8: Department of Justice, Gene Hamilton, page 578, paragraph 3).

This is a false equivalency wrapped in an overstatement. The term “chilling effect” suggests that the DOJ’s actions made parents afraid to speak out for fear of legal or governmental consequences. He gives no examples of this happening, nor could I find any.

Hamilton could be talking about local schoolboards having people arrested for disruptive behavior¹⁸, of which there is more than one example, but also would be local law enforcement’s purview, not the Department of Justice. It’s laughable for him to claim that local schoolboard meetings are somehow under the purview of the Department of Justice.

The idea that if the DOJ hadn’t been so focused on squashing free speech at schoolboard meetings, they could have prevented pro-life health care clinics from being vandalized by pro-choice advocates, is ludicrous. (And yes, he’s talking about that, not the FAR more common incidents of pregnant women seeking care who are terrorized by pro-life advocates.)

Hamilton’s list of unfounded grievances against the FBI goes on for several pages here.

“The department has devoted unprecedented resources to prosecuting American citizens for misdemeanor trespassing offenses or violations of the FACE Act while dismissing prosecutions against radical agents of the Left like Antifa.” (Project 2025, Section 3.8: Department of Justice, Gene Hamilton, page 578, paragraph 6).

We might have our first mention of the ANTIFA boogeyman, here! Here’s the difference. ANTIFA is an ideology, which is short for “anti-fascism.” Know who used to be anti-fascism? EVERYONE IN AMERICA. My grandfathers were ANTIFA. Back then, they just called it the U.S. Navy. Being anti-fascist is not a crime. Misdemeanor trespassing IS a crime. Violations of the FACE Act ARE CRIMES. (The FACE act is the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act¹⁹, which makes it a federal crime to use force, the threat of force, or physical obstruction to prevent individuals from obtaining or providing reproductive health care services.)

The false equivalence/whataboutism is strong with this one. He’s actually suggesting that being anti-fascist, while committing no crimes, is on par with terrorizing pregnant women or trespassing (and seems to be suggesting that terrorizing pregnant women shouldn’t be prosecuted with any enthusiasm.) The secondary false equivalence is the idea that terrorizing pregnant women is equally as offensive as trespassing.

“The department has consistently threatened that any conduct not aligning with the liberal agenda “could” violate federal law—without actually taking a position that the conduct in question is illegal—using the prospect of protracted litigation and federal sanctions to chill disfavored behavior such as with state efforts to restrict abortion or prevent genital mutilation of children.” (Project 2025, Section 3.8: Department of Justice, Gene Hamilton, page 578, paragraph 7).

Note that he provides zero examples of the DOJ threatening to prosecute people for crimes for not “aligning with the liberal agenda.”

The phrase “genital mutilation of children” is particularly inflammatory and misleading. It refers to gender-affirming surgeries, but using this term intentionally evokes a sense of horror and human rights violations, conflating a medical and ethical debate about transgender healthcare with the practice of female genital mutilation (FGM), a widely condemned cultural practice. The language here is designed to provoke outrage rather than engage in a good faith debate about gender-affirming care.

This statement is intended to fearmonger, inflame, and create further cultural division. Are trans children undergoing genital surgeries? No. Gender-affirming care can start as early as age 11, and can be things like allowing the child to dress as they want, and be called the names they want. Sometimes it means reversible hormone therapy. Surgery is held off until the trans child is legally an adult²⁰, with extremely limited exceptions.

“The general recommendation is for gender affirming surgeries to be done after age 18 with limited exceptions,” Dr. Michael Irwig, director of transgender medicine at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, wrote in an email. “The patient should always be of an age where they have adequate maturity including the ability to understand the potential risks and benefits of any treatment.” [Source]²¹

In short, nobody is out there “mutilating childrens’ genitals”, unless you count circumcision.

“The department has sued multiple states regarding their efforts to enhance election integrity.” (Project 2025, Section 3.8: Department of Justice, Gene Hamilton, page 578, paragraph 8).

No. Hamilton is mischaracterizing here the DOJ’s lawsuits to ensure that voting rights protections are not undermined by state laws that discriminate in the name of “security.” Two examples of this are Georgia’s SB202 and Texas’s SB1.

In 2021, the DOJ filed a lawsuit against Georgia²², alleging that its new election law, SB202, discriminated against Black voters and violated the Voting Rights Act. The law introduced measures such as voter ID requirements for absentee ballots and restrictions on ballot drop boxes, which opponents argued disproportionately affected minority voters.

“Kristen Clarke, assistant attorney general for civil rights at the DOJ, alleged that Georgia’s law violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits racially discriminatory voting laws – and not only has a disproportionate impact on voters of color but includes several provisions that were “adopted with the intent to deny or abridge Black citizens’ equal access to the political process.”

The DOJ also filed a lawsuit against Texas in 2021²³, challenging certain provisions of its voting law, SB1. The lawsuit alleged that the new rules, which limited absentee voting and empowered partisan poll watchers, violated the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by making it harder for certain groups, such as disabled individuals and non-English speakers, to vote.

Neither of the measures would have enhanced election “security”, which is why the DOJ sued.

“The department has failed to do its part to stop the flood of fentanyl and other deadly drugs that are flowing across our borders and decimating families and communities across the United States.” (Project 2025, Section 3.8: Department of Justice, Gene Hamilton, page 579, paragraph 1).

Nope. Shameless lie, here.

“CBP’s fentanyl seizures have increased more than 860% from fiscal years 2019-2023, and fentanyl seizures nearly doubled from fiscal years 2022-2023.” [Source]²⁴

So, we’ve established Hamilton as a partisan hack at best, outright liar at worst. On to his specific recommendations for DOJ reforms:

“A department that prosecutes FACE Act cases while ignoring dozens of violent attacks on pregnancy care centers and/or the coordinated violation of laws that prohibit attempts to intimidate Supreme Court Justices by parading outside of their homes has clearly lost its way. A department that has twice engaged in covert domestic election interference and propaganda operations—the Russian collusion hoax in 2016 and the Hunter Biden laptop suppression in 2020—is a threat to the Republic.” (Project 2025, Section 3.8: Department of Justice, Gene Hamilton, page 580, paragraph 3).

More lies and exaggerations. The incident he’s referring to of people ‘parading’ outside conservative Supreme Court Justice’s homes were peaceful legal protestors and picketers, being monitored by U.S. Marshals^25, who didn’t hurt anyone while exercising their First Amendment rights. 

“The relatively orderly scene, with no sign of any local police presence, stands in stark contrast to the portrait painted by Republicans and conservative activists.”

So, it’s perfectly clear why the DOJ didn’t pursue charges against any of these protestors: What they were doing wasn’t illegal. Nicholas Roske, the man who was arrested near Kavanaugh’s home while in possession of a handgun (AND WHO TURNED HIMSELF IN AND SURRENDERED), did have attempted murder charges levied against him.

Hamilton arguing that the FBI should “protect the Constitution” while at the same time prosecuting legal protestors is insanity. I couldn’t find an example of “violent attacks on pregnancy care centers”, i.e., people protesting at pro-life clinics and getting violent, without facing prosecution. Here’s a case where three protestors graffitied threats on a pro-life clinic²⁶, and all three pleaded guilty, indicating that they were indeed prosecuted. They did not commit physical violence (although the threat of violence is still violence under the law.)

In this article by the Guardian²⁷, they detail some instances of this type of thing occurring, but note that nobody has been injured (which is not to downplay the seriousness – sometimes arson has been involved). But again, there’s no evidence that the DOJ has failed to prosecute these events equally.

“Conduct an immediate, comprehensive review of all major active FBI investigations and activities and terminate any that are unlawful or contrary to the national interest.” (Project 2025, Section 3.8: Department of Justice, Gene Hamilton, page 581, paragraph 3).

I guarantee you that the next Trump administration would simply find any FBI investigation into any of his criminal activities “not in the national interest” and drop them. This is by design and in the service of declaring the President above the law.

“The next conservative Administration must ensure that the Department of Justice devotes significant effort to reducing violent crime nationwide.” (Project 2025, Section 3.8: Department of Justice, Gene Hamilton, page 584, paragraph 3).

In point of fact, violent crime has dropped sharply²⁸ recently:

“The drop in violent crime puts a serious dent in one of the most frequently used lines of attack by former President Trump and his allies, who have sought to tie Democrats to the issue since 2020.”

Hamilton goes on to argue that the Federal Government should step in and prosecute criminals wherever they feel states aren’t prosecuting people appropriately, which is federal overreach and violates state sovereignty. He claims that “leftist” jurisdictions are refusing to enforce the law against LGBTQ+ people and immigrants (explicitly argued on page 585, paragraph 4.) This is ridiculous, and he cites no examples of what he means. Does he mean they should be prosecuted BECAUSE they’re LGBTQ+ or immigrants? Or does he mean that leftists are letting LGBTQ+ people and immigrants commit crimes with impunity? Either one is alarmingly false.

“Enforce the death penalty where appropriate and applicable. Capital punishment is a sensitive matter, as it should be, but the current crime wave makes deterrence vital at the federal, state, and local levels. However, providing this punishment without ever enforcing it provides justice neither for the victims’ families nor for the defendant. The next conservative Administration should therefore do everything possible to obtain finality for the 44 prisoners currently on federal death row. It should also pursue the death penalty for applicable crimes – particularly heinous crimes involving violence and sexual abuse of children – until Congress says otherwise through legislation.” (Project 2025, Section 3.8: Department of Justice, Gene Hamilton, page 586, paragraph 2).

This is concerning on a lot of levels. He has previously suggested that the “current crime wave” is illegal immigration, among other things. Is he suggesting putting illegal immigrants to death? 

My personal opinion is that in theory, I don’t necessarily have a problem with capital punishment in cases where the appeals process has been exhausted and the person will never get out of prison. Why pay to house them year after year, at that point? I feel like (humanely perpetrated) death is less cruel than life in prison. There are, however, serious concerns about the death penalty, including false accusations, official misconduct, coerced confessions, inadequate legal defense, and more. For these reasons alone, the “sentenced to death” process needs to be very, VERY carefully considered and applied only when absolutely appropriately, and every single piece of the process and piece of evidence scrutinized to the highest possible degree, before taking a human life is deemed appropriate.

“For every eight people executed, one person on death row has been exonerated. In Alabama alone, over 160 death sentences have been invalidated by state and federal courts, resulting in conviction of a lesser offense or a lesser sentence on retrial.” [Source]²⁹

Since it seems that we cannot (or will not) treat these cases with the gravity they deserve, it would be appropriate to take the death penalty off the table entirely until such time as we are committed to seeing that nobody is ever wrongly convicted.

His choice of words here is interesting… “It should also pursue the death penalty for applicable crimes – particularly heinous crimes involving violence and sexual abuse of children – until Congress says otherwise through legislation.”

UNTIL CONGRESS SAYS OTHERWISE THROUGH LEGISLATION.

I’m not theoretically opposed, either, to putting sexual abusers of children to death. I don’t happen to believe that restorative justice applies here – the evidence suggests that child predators cannot be rehabilitated in most cases³⁰. A compromise I like better than murder is chemical castration³¹.

But why would Congress “say otherwise” with legislation that child sex offenders should not be punished (or at least not punished with death?) Could it be because so many Congressional Republicans have been accused of sexual misconduct involving children?

See Florida Representative Mark Foley, former Republican Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert (who pleaded guilty to child molestation), Alabama Republican Senate candidate Roy Moore, Republican Jim Jordan, Republican congressman Matt Gaetz, and Donald Trump himself, accused by dozens of women (and at least one child) of sexual assault, including barging in on Miss Teen USA pageant contestants as young as 15, who were changing clothes.

Republicans have rallied around these people. There are many more examples than mentioned above.

“The Republicans have apparently decided that the committee in charge of sex crimes legislation should include one guy currently being investigated for actual sex crimes—and another who allegedly looked the other way on them. It’s not exactly the behavior of a party that cares deeply about sexual abuse.” [Source]³² (They’re referring to Gaetz and Jordan respectively.)

“In addition to finalizing the southwestern land border wall, the next Administration should take a creative and aggressive approach to tackling these dangerous criminal organizations at the border. This could include use of active-duty military personnel and National Guardsmen to assist in arrest operations along the border—something that has not yet been done.” (Project 2025, Section 3.8: Department of Justice, Gene Hamilton, page 587, paragraph 4).

It hasn’t been done because militarizing the border and building a wall are stupid, ineffectual and prohibitively expensive ideas. I touch on that extensively here³³ and here³⁴.

Now he’s back to being angry that people who violate the FACE Act (terrorize pregnant women at care clinics), are being prosecuted. He’s weirdly obsessed with this.

“The next conservative Administration should therefore: 1) Issue guidance to ensure that litigation decisions are consistent with the President’s agenda and the rule of law. 2) Ensure that, consistent with this principle, the department’s leadership is prepared to impose appropriate disciplinary action as circumstances arise.” (Project 2025, Section 3.8: Department of Justice, Gene Hamilton, page 591, paragraph 3).

In context, this is a mandate to staff the DOJ with loyalists to the regime and punish employees if they deviate from the President’s agenda.

“One example includes potentially seeking the overruling of Humphrey’s Executor v. United States. This case approved so-called independent agencies whose directors are not removable by the President at will.” (Project 2025, Section 3.8: Department of Justice, Gene Hamilton, page 592, paragraph 2).

More arguments for staffing the government with regime loyalists. Humphrey’s Executor vs. the United States (1935) clarified the limits of the President’s power to remove executive branch officials, particularly in the context of independent regulatory agencies.

The case arose when President Franklin D. Roosevelt removed William E. Humphrey, a commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), in 1933. Roosevelt wanted to replace Humphrey, who was appointed by President Herbert Hoover, because Humphrey opposed the New Deal policies that Roosevelt was promoting. However, Humphrey refused to resign, arguing that his removal was not legally valid.

Humphrey had been appointed to the FTC, which was created under the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914. This law stipulated that commissioners could only be removed by the President for specific reasons like “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” This was in contrast to most executive officials, who serve at the pleasure of the President and can be removed at will.

After Humphrey’s death, his executor (hence the name of the case) sued for the salary that Humphrey would have received had he not been removed. In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court ruled against President Roosevelt. The Court held that:

• The FTC Act’s provision limiting the President’s power to remove commissioners was constitutional.
• The FTC was an independent regulatory agency, and its commissioners were intended to function independently of the executive branch’s political control.
• The President could only remove FTC commissioners for the reasons explicitly listed in the law (inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance), and not simply because they disagreed with the President’s policies.

In short, it was about limiting the power of the President (also known as “checks and balances.”) Overturning this would enable the President to more easily fire people his disagrees with personally, even if that was their only offense.

“During oral argument, the United States took the remarkable position that government can compel a Christian website designer to imagine, create, and publish a custom website celebrating same-sex marriage but cannot compel an LGBT person to design a similar website celebrating opposite-sex marriage.” (Project 2025, Section 3.8: Department of Justice, Gene Hamilton, page 592, paragraph 4).

He’s referring here to 303 Creative vs. Elenis, which was rife with so many shenanigans that I wrote a brief informal piece on it when it happened (written June 30, 2023). He’s also twisting the nature of the ruling. Here’s what I wrote at the time:

“So. The Supreme Court ruled today that businesses can discriminate against LGBTQ people if they want to.

Despite what’s obviously not okay about that, here’s what a farce the decision was:

The plaintiff, a “Christian Web Designer” named Lorie Smith, isn’t actually a web designer. Meaning, she hasn’t designed any websites so far. This case was her bringing an imaginary defendant to the highest court in the land to allow LGBTQA discrimination.

Can you call yourself something, if you’ve never done that thing? It doesn’t feel like she should be able to claim she’s a web designer. If that’s all good, though, I have a short list of things I’d like to claim I am, too, assuming it benefits me.

So she’s not a person who was asked to design a gay wedding website. She’s a person who “is thinking about” starting a web design business, made up an imaginary story in her head about something she’s “afraid would happen”, and now the SCOTUS is ruling on it?

Huh?

There’s no standing. How did this even get to the Supreme Court in the first place? Also – and I hate to sound like a conspiracy theorist here – but this absolutely REEKS of a GOP operative putting someone up to this and pulling strings to get it in front of the court. Nothing else makes sense. Lorie Smith and the ADF (her lawyers – “Alliance Defending Freedom” – and what a JOKE of a name that is!) invented a fake gay couple to discriminate against, and the Supreme Court said, “Why not!”

Can you imagine being such a bigot that you make up fake gay people to discriminate against? Despite our culture of ridiculous fearmongering and inventing things to be afraid that aren’t really happening, we typically don’t get to decide that our rights are being trampled by POSSIBILITIES.

(Side note: Most web designers, when asked to build something they don’t agree with, simply triple their price and the problem goes away. Nobody was going to “force” this woman to build a website she didn’t want to build. Not that she has built any. In the industry, we call it a “fuck-off fee.”)

This article goes into more detail about the absolute shenanigans at play³⁵ here.

Spoiler: The man she claimed made the gay wedding website request to her never made such a request, and isn’t gay. He’s also a fairly renowned web designer himself, which makes the idea that he might have wanted to hire her extremely dubious, in my opinion.

If the law is now overturned and it’s okay to discriminate against people for any reason citing “free speech” rights (which is what SCOTUS did here), it would be fun to see a rash of businesses turning away bigots like Lorie Smith. I suspect, however, that most people are better than that, even if the highest court in our land is not.”

It’s unclear here why Hamilton is mischaracterizing the ruling so badly.

“The Civil Rights Division should spend its first year under the next Administration using the full force of federal prosecutorial resources to investigate and prosecute all state and local governments, institutions of higher education, corporations, and any other private employers who are engaged in discrimination in violation of constitutional and legal requirements.” (Project 2025, Section 3.8: Department of Justice, Gene Hamilton, page 594, paragraph 2).

This one is insidiously awful. Out of context, he appears to be combating discrimination, which is something we can all get behind. IN context, however, he has argued that DEI and anti-discrimination policies are actually discriminatory to “non-woke” people, and he’s promising to weaponize the DOJ against states who actually have real anti-discrimination laws in place. He does not detail what those prosecutions would look like. His vague language is intentional.

“Enforce the Criminal Prohibitions in 18 U.S. Code §§ 1461 and 1462 Against Providers and Distributors of Abortion Pills That Use the Mail.” (Project 2025, Section 3.8: Department of Justice, Gene Hamilton, page 594, paragraph 3).

This one is self-explanatory, and would prohibit women from receiving pills for abortion treatment via mail, further isolating women in states which have prohibited abortion.

“Reassigning Responsibility for Prosecuting Election-Related Offenses from the Civil Rights Division to the Criminal Division.” (Project 2025, Section 3.8: Department of Justice, Gene Hamilton, page 594, paragraph 4).

This would effectively make voter fraud a criminal offense rather than a civil one. More about the current penalties here³⁶.

This is a solution begging for a problem. Voter fraud, again, is extremely rare. A comprehensive study found 31 credible instances³⁷ between 2000 to 2014, out of more than a billion votes cast.

“Pursue appropriate steps to assist the Department of Homeland Security in obtaining information about criminal aliens in jurisdictions across the United States, particularly those inside “sanctuary” jurisdictions.” (Project 2025, Section 3.8: Department of Justice, Gene Hamilton, page 599, paragraph 4).

This mischaracterizes what sanctuary cities are. They do not protect undocumented immigrants from criminal prosecution if they commit crimes. They prevent them from being arrested solely for their immigration status if they’re in the process of REPORTING crime. For example, an undocumented woman could report having been raped, without fear of being deported for simply reporting a crime, if her immigration status is her only offense.

This is for safety reasons, and ensures that everyone – regardless of immigration status – can engage with law enforcement safely when necessary. Hamilton’s recommendation here would destroy Sanctuary cities, making them a thing of the past, and make it impossible for undocumented immigrants to report crime for any reason. That’s definitely NOT what you want, and is almost certainly in service to their “round up all illegals and deport them” ethos, which would have devastating humanitarian as well as economic³⁸ consequences.