“And under the Biden Administration, that administrative state has imposed the most assertive left-wing social-engineering agenda in the agencies’ history and ratcheted up regulatory costs on small businesses and other productive industry. The agencies’ authorities have been abused by the Left to favor human resources bureaucracies, climate-change activists, and union bosses—all against the interest of American workers.” (Project 2025, Section 3.9: Department of Labor and Related Agencies, Jonathan Berry, page 614, paragraph 1.) 

He’s actually arguing here that unionizing hurts American workers, when the exact opposite is true. By “ideological social engineering”, he means DEI initiatives, climate action, or labor-friendly regulations, seeing them as politically driven rather than neutral or beneficial to all.

Berry clearly believes that climate and safety regulations, diversity and inclusion initiatives, and the existence of unions impose too much on businesses, but he’s claiming that these things are bad for workers. This is a spectacular bit of gaslighting.

Under “Needed Reforms”:

“Reverse the DEI Revolution in Labor Policy. Under the Obama and Biden Administrations, labor policy was yet another target of the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) revolution. Under this managerialist left-wing race and gender ideology, every aspect of labor policy became a vehicle with which to advance race, sex, and other classifications and discriminate against conservative and religious viewpoints on these subjects and others, including pro-life views. The next Administration should eliminate every one of these wrongful and burdensome ideological projects.” (Project 2025, Section 3.9: Department of Labor and Related Agencies, Jonathan Berry, page 614, paragraph 3.)

Yes, because requiring businesses to treat everyone equally is a horrible burden that must be reversed! Making me treat people with respect is a violation of my God-given right to discriminate! Seriously, this is just so much garbage. I’d be curious how he thinks being forced to treat people equally under the law as a business violates his “religious, pro-life” views. Normally, religion doesn’t come up a lot in the workplace.

He also points out that “Title VII flatly prohibits discrimination in employment on the basis of race, color, and national origin”, and that should be plenty. So, that’s pretty anti-LGBTQ+, and he also goes on to “eliminate racial classifications” and prohibit any “critical race theory trainings.” So, if not discriminating being the law should be enough, but you don’t teach people how to guard against discrimination, and you still allow discrimination against people for non-racial intersections, what’s the end result? Discrimination.

“Crudely categorizing employees by race or ethnicity fails to recognize the diversity of the American workforce and forces individuals into categories that do not fully reflect their racial and ethnic heritage.” (Project 2025, Section 3.9: Department of Labor and Related Agencies, Jonathan Berry, page 615, paragraph 2.)

That’s adorable, but I don’t believe for a second that Jonathan Berry gives a shit about anyone’s “ethnic heritage.”

“Eliminate disparate impact as a valid theory of discrimination for race and other bases under Title VII and other laws. Disparities do not (and should not legally) imply discrimination per se.” (Project 2025, Section 3.9: Department of Labor and Related Agencies, Jonathan Berry, page 615, paragraph 6.)

Disparate impact liability is a legal concept under civil rights law that addresses policies or practices that may be neutral on their face, but lead to disproportionate negative effects on a particular group, even if discriminatory intent did not exist. It focuses on the RESULT of the policy, not the INTENTION. Berry is arguing here that if a company has “good intentions”, we shouldn’t punish them if their policies result practically in discrimination.

This weakens civil rights protections, reduces oversight and scrutiny of policies, and will lead to greater inequality.

“Eliminate OFCCP.” (Project 2025, Section 3.9: Department of Labor and Related Agencies, Jonathan Berry, page 615, paragraph 9.)

The OFCCP (Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs) exists to enforce EO 11246 (signed in 1965), which requires federal contractors and subcontractors to commit to nondiscrimination. Berry goes on to describe anti-discrimination “theories” based on sexual orientation and gender identity as “novel.” I feel compelled to point out here that Berry is an admitted self-hating closeted gay man. Berry is the author of the book “Satisfaction Guaranteed” (2016)¹, which is a self-help book for same-sex attracted Christians (as he himself is one) designed to help them resist those attractions, and purports that real satisfaction can only be found via a relationship with Jesus Christ.

“Rescind regulations prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, transgender status, and sex characteristics.” (Project 2025, Section 3.9: Department of Labor and Related Agencies, Jonathan Berry, page 616, paragraph 6.)

That says it all, doesn’t it? He’s bringing back employment discrimination for LGBTQ+ people.

“Congress should pass a law requiring that to the extent an employer provides employee benefits for abortion, it must provide equal or greater benefits for pregnancy, childbirth, maternity, and adoption. That law should also clarify that no employer is required to provide any accommodations or benefits for abortion.” (Project 2025, Section 3.9: Department of Labor and Related Agencies, Jonathan Berry, page 617, paragraph 3.)

This would allow employer-provided insurance to not cover abortion (and as I pointed out in Section 3.5 and in this brief², abortion is often medically necessary.)

“ERISA should not be allowed to trump states’ ability to protect innocent human life in the womb. Congress and DOL should clarify that ERISA does not preempt states’ power to restrict abortion, surrogacy, or other anti-life “benefits.”” (Project 2025, Section 3.9: Department of Labor and Related Agencies, Jonathan Berry, page 617, paragraph 4.)

(ERISA) is a federal law that sets minimum standards for pension plans in private industry. [Source]³

Berry is arguing here that federal minimum standards don’t matter. If your state wants to ban abortion, your insurance doesn’t have to cover anything to do with it. He’s also couching surrogacy as “anti-life”, which is insane. I don’t know how that thought process even takes place. (Surrogacy is when a baby is voluntarily carried by a woman who isn’t the child’s biological mother, usually done because the biological mother is unable to safely carry a pregnancy to term.) Surrogacy is also sometimes used to enable same-sex male couples to have biological children. I’m guessing that’s the practice that so badly offends Berry. It is NOT, however, “anti-life.”

“Nevertheless, the Biden Administration has been hostile to people of faith, especially those with traditional beliefs about marriage, gender, and sexuality. The new Administration should enact policies with robust respect for religious exercise in the workplace, including under the First Amendment, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA), Title VII, and federal conscience protection laws.” (Project 2025, Section 3.9: Department of Labor and Related Agencies, Jonathan Berry, pages 617 and 618.)

Being tolerant of other people’s sexual orientation or gender identity does not equal being hostile to religious people. This is a common tactic of the right – they like to pretend that other people living their lives somehow victimizes them. “Nooo! My bigotry!”

Trump almost professionally paints himself as a victim. There have been studies done on this⁴:

“Victimhood is a central theme of modern political messaging. For instance, a Republican strategist observed, “At a Trump rally, central to the show is the idea of shared victimization…Trump revels in it, has consistently portrayed himself as a victim of the media and of his political opponents…”. However, if you consider Trump’s demographic characteristics (white and male) and his successes (in terms of wealth and being president), he is not a victim by any serious societal standard.”

The right has a long history of pretending that other people existing victimizes them. Not a mention of LGBTQ+ people passes by without someone griping “I’m tired of having [gay people] shoved down my throat!” Listen to the language used, there. SHOVED DOWN YOUR THROAT. Why are you so offended by gay people existing that you compare the very mention of them to being literally physically assaulted?

Second, you can already pray at work if you like. It’s in the First Amendment. You just can’t force others to pray with you, or, as a workplace, require your employees to pray or otherwise exercise any religious beliefs. So what’s he really arguing for, here?

In practice, this would look like people being able to claim “religious objections” at work to get out of things like diversity training, handling same-sex marriage licenses, or even working with someone who is LGBTQ+. This would create hostile work environments.

Faith-based organizations would be given broader exemptions for their beliefs, for instance, not being required to hire anyone who doesn’t adhere to their beliefs. Health care workers could refuse to treat LGBTQ+ people. Religious hospitals could refuse to provide abortion, contraception, or gender-affirming care. Government employees could refuse to issue same-sex marriage licenses without being penalized. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg – anyone could take advantage of this and claim religious exemption for getting out of almost any task at work.

More broadly, he’s saying that your religion trumps other people’s basic civil rights. This is called religious supremacy or religious exceptionalism. Berry is arguing for this, and supports the widespread discrimination against LGBTQ+ people that will result.

“The President should make clear via executive order that religious employers are free to run their businesses according to their religious beliefs, general nondiscrimination laws notwithstanding, and support participation of religious employees and employers as federal contractors and in federal activities and programs.” (Project 2025, Section 3.9: Department of Labor and Related Agencies, Jonathan Berry, page 618, paragraph 2.)

More legalizing discrimination and religious exceptionalism, here. I feel like Berry would be a happier man if he allowed himself to be who he is. I promise, Jesus will still love you, Jonathan!

“Congress should clarify Title VII’s religious organization exemptions to make it more explicit that those employers may make employment decisions based on religion regardless of nondiscrimination laws.” (Project 2025, Section 3.9: Department of Labor and Related Agencies, Jonathan Berry, page 618, paragraph 3.)

More of the same – allowing employers to have discriminatory hiring practices.

“EEOC should reorient its enforcement priorities toward claims of failure to accommodate disability, religion, and pregnancy (but not abortion).” (Project 2025, Section 3.9: Department of Labor and Related Agencies, Jonathan Berry, page 619, paragraph 2.)

EEOC is the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. It enforces laws that prohibit workplace discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex (including gender identity and sexual orientation), and religion. Note that he leaves out all of the racial and gender items from his statement about who deserves protections.

He goes on to argue for a number of good things as well, such as on-site child care options in the workplace and addressing the male-female wage gap. Interestingly, he also argues for universal Sundays off:

“God ordained the Sabbath as a day of rest, and until very recently the Judeo-Christian tradition sought to honor that mandate by moral and legal regulation of work on that day. Moreover, a shared day off makes it possible for families and communities to enjoy time off together, rather than as atomized individuals, and provides a healthier cadence of life for everyone. Unfortunately, that communal day of rest has eroded under the pressures of consumerism and secularism, especially for low-income workers.” (Project 2025, Section 3.9: Department of Labor and Related Agencies, Jonathan Berry, page 621, paragraph 2.)

Our capitalist economy will never go for that, but it’s an interesting idea. He incentivizes it by making it more expensive to make people work on a Sunday:

“Congress should encourage communal rest by amending the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) to require that workers be paid time and a half for hours worked on the Sabbath.” (Project 2025, Section 3.9: Department of Labor and Related Agencies, Jonathan Berry, page 621, paragraph 3.)

“Overtime requirements may discourage employers from offering certain fringe benefits such as reimbursement for education, childcare, or even free meals because the benefits’ value may be included in the “regular rate” that must be paid at 150 percent for all overtime hours.” (Project 2025, Section 3.9: Department of Labor and Related Agencies, Jonathan Berry, page 624, paragraph 2.)

The idea that employers would offer child care if they didn’t have to pay overtime is…certainly an opinion. I’m guessing a total of ZERO employers would do this out of the goodness of their hearts. They’d simply pocket the extra overtime money and offer no additional benefits.

“The labor agencies should exercise their available discretion and duties under the Regulatory Flexibility Act to exempt small entities from regulations where possible.” (Project 2025, Section 3.9: Department of Labor and Related Agencies, Jonathan Berry, page 626, paragraph 2.)

In context, he’s arguing here that small businesses should be exempt from complying with federal regulations. He’s unclear on the specifics – does he mean OSHA? Will workplaces no longer need to be safe? Does he mean that they no longer have to offer the federal minimum wage? This will reduce worker protections in the arenas of safety, wages, working conditions, and more. He goes on to argue for exempting small businesses from having to pay fines for violating safety standards:

“Congress (and DOL, in its enforcement discretion) should exempt small business, first-time, non-willful violators from fines issued by the Occupational Health and Safety Administration.” (Project 2025, Section 3.9: Department of Labor and Related Agencies, Jonathan Berry, page 626, paragraph 2.)

So yes, effectively making small businesses exempt from having to maintain safety standards. Berry also recommends lifting restrictions prohibiting teenagers from working in hazardous conditions.

“The Davis–Bacon Act redistributes wealth from hardworking Americans to those that benefit from government-funded construction projects. Repealing the Davis–Bacon Act would increase worker freedom and end a longstanding effective tax on American families.” (Project 2025, Section 3.9: Department of Labor and Related Agencies, Jonathan Berry, page 636, paragraph 3.)

He’s mischaracterizing what the Davis-Bacon Act does. The Act, signed in 1931, requires that workers on federally funded or assisted construction jobs be paid at least the prevailing local wages and benefits for similar jobs in the area. Repealing it would result in reduced wages for construction workers on federal projects. This would lower the cost of public construction projects, as contractors could hire cheaper labor, but that likely would result in the hiring of less skilled and less experienced workers, potentially causing the quality of the projects to take a hit. This could result in higher long-term costs for repairs or safety issues.

This would also disadvantage unions. Unionized contractors, who typically pay higher wages and offer more benefits, could struggle to compete with non-union contractors willing to pay lower wages. This might reduce union membership and weaken organized labor in the construction industry.

“Because ESG investing necessarily puts other considerations before the interests of the beneficiary, ESG investing by plan managers is an inappropriate strategy under ERISA.” (Project 2025, Section 3.9: Department of Labor and Related Agencies, Jonathan Berry, page 639, paragraph 2.)

This is an argument he begins on the previous page – what he’s saying here is that fiduciaries who manage employer-sponsored retirement plans (and invest them for you), shouldn’t be allowed to invest any of your retirement in “woke” companies (his word, not mine). ESG stands for “environmental, social, and governance.” He includes companies which focus on clean energy. This is an utterly ridiculous recommendation. He explicitly says that he believes that investors of your retirement account are making these “woke” investments on your behalf, even if they lose money, simply for the sake of being “woke”. He goes on to prohibit FRTIB (Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board) and the TSP (Thrift Savings Plan) from investing in China.

“Cap and phase down the H-2A visa program. Congress should immediately cap this program at its current levels and establish a schedule for its gradual and predictable phasedown over the subsequent 10 to 20 years, producing the necessary incentives for the industry to invest in raising productivity, including through capital investment in agricultural equipment, and increasing employment for Americans in the agricultural sector.” (Project 2025, Section 3.9: Department of Labor and Related Agencies, Jonathan Berry, page 643, paragraph 6.)

This will skyrocket food prices for Americans, put family farms out of business, and a look at North Carolina reveals that Americans aren’t going to work on farms. More about that here.⁵ Berry even acknowledges this: “Some conservatives believe that temporary worker programs help to fill jobs that Americans will not fill, prevent illegal immigration by giving farmers and others who hire low-skilled labor access to workers, and keep down the prices of food and other products and services produced by the temporary workers. Some credibly argue that, absent the H-2A program, many farmers would have to drastically increase wages, raising the price of food for all Americans, and that even such wage increases may not be sufficient to attract enough temporary American workers to complete the necessary farm tasks to get food products to market since those jobs are, by their nature, seasonal. Those who share this view argue that any plan to phase out the program should weigh the program’s current costs (relatively low) and the program’s current benefits (makes American farming more profitable and sustainable while keeping down food costs).” (Project 2025, Section 3.9: Department of Labor and Related Agencies, Jonathan Berry, page 644, paragraph 1.)

He goes on to argue for also phasing out the H-2B visa program, which covers seasonal non-agricultural immigrant labor.

“When government purchases goods or services, if at all possible, not only should the company be an American company and the products be manufactured in America, but the companies should also be encouraged to hire American workers. Likewise, private employers should be free to prefer our own countrymen.” (Project 2025, Section 3.9: Department of Labor and Related Agencies, Jonathan Berry, page 644, paragraph 4.)

Yikes, he probably should have left off that last sentence.

“Congress must amend the law so that employers can again have the freedom to make hiring Americans a priority. Despite the significant advantages that preferring citizens over (work-authorized) aliens in hiring would provide to American workers, businesses, and the country at large, such a practice has been illegal since 1986. This makes no sense.” (Project 2025, Section 3.9: Department of Labor and Related Agencies, Jonathan Berry, page 645, paragraph 1.)

He’s referring to the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. Under IRCA, employers are prohibited from discriminating against individuals based on their citizenship status, as long as they’re legally authorized to work. He’s arguing for bringing back and even encouraging this type of discrimination.