“HHS is home to Medicare and Medicaid, the principal drivers of our $31 trillion national debt.” (Project 2024, Section 3: The General Welfare, page 315, paragraph 2.)

In 2022, the United States spent $4.5 trillion – or 17% of the national economy – on health care. Per capita, our health care system is the most expensive among wealthy countries, but our health outcomes are generally no better than our peers, and in some cases, worse (such as in areas like life expectancy, infant mortality, asthma, and diabetes.) [Source]¹

One of the reasons we’re spending so much is a shift in demographics – more and more of the boomer generation is qualifying for Medicaid and Social Security, we have increased longevity, and we don’t have enough money to pay for it. From the linked article:

“Our tax code is also overly complex, confusing, inefficient, and unfair. For example, it remains riddled with tax expenditures, or “tax breaks,” that provide financial benefits to specific activities, entities, and groups of people. Those tax breaks, which totaled $1.8 trillion in 2023, increase annual deficits and can create market distortions that are damaging to economic growth and productivity.”

In other words, the wealthy not paying their fair share is finally jeopardizing the United States being able to properly care for our citizens. I suspect that rather than suggesting we appropriately tax the top 1%, this author (or authors of subsequent sections) will propose cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.

However, to see the National Debt as merely an (enormous) dollar amount is to not fully understand how it works:

“America’s national debt in dollars is generally viewed as less important than its proportion to the country’s gross domestic product (GDP) or the debt-to-GDP ratio because a country’s tax base grows alongside its economy. It increases revenue that the government can raise to service the debt. The U.S. national debt-to-GDP was 122.34% at the close of the first quarter of 2024.” [Source]²

Are Medicare and Medicaid really the principal drivers of our national debt? Only when you combine them. Social Security by itself is the largest driver, followed by the interest on the national debt, followed by the military, health spending, and Medicare, who are all tied at around 13% of our total spending. (Social Security is 22%, net interest is 14%.) [Source]² Veterans’ benefits and services account for 5%.

In any case, that’s no small potatoes. Other countries spend an average of 9.7% of their GDP on health care, and do it better than we do, even as we spend twice as much. Switzerland pays the next most after the United States, spending about 65% of what we spend, and theirs is a universal multi-payer system that is largely privatized but regulated by the government. [Source]³

So, given that it’s cheaper per capita and other countries do it quite well, why doesn’t the United States provide Universal Health Care?

The National Library of Medicine⁴ produced a study examining several historical theories, from Americans being more generally mistrustful of the government than other democratic countries, to having no self-identified “working class” in America – everyone tends to identify as middle class, which means no labor party, no national insurance.

The political/structural explanations include that because of the way that the Constitution is set up and the separation of powers are structured, it becomes nigh impossible to enact policies that would redistribute wealth from the top to the bottom (in other words, make the wealthy pay their fair share.) We have also structured our political system such that an individual politician cannot succeed without great personal wealth, and, as wealthy people, are unlikely to support policies which result in them having even slightly less money. Internally, we’ve structured our government so effectively around a middle ground that the presidency changes hands without much difference in policy between the two parties.

How do we enact change? By electing the party (in a fair and democratic election) that aligns best with our vision from the top of the government to the bottom. The Lyndon B. Johnson landslide of 1964 produced Medicare and Medicaid in 1965. The other ways change gets enacted in the United States are 1) domestic fallout from war, and 2) major cultural shifts. An example of a major cultural shift that produced policy is people’s attitudes about smoking. Inside of a generation, cigarettes became broadly stigmatized, and policies changed. Another example of this is gay marriage. Most people simply don’t have a problem with it any more.

So, we’re set up as a country to resist change. It’s unlikely, but not impossible. We simply have to demand health care en masse, if that’s what we want. It’s a little surprising we haven’t already – as Timothy Callaghan points out, “Bernie Sanders, running on a platform that included universal coverage or what he called Medicare for all, generated massive grassroots support and energized the millennial population that makes up an increasing percentage of the electorate.”” [Source]⁸

From the linked article:

“Second, advocates of universal health insurance need to remind not only themselves, but also their fellow citizens, of the moral and ethical roots of their position. For a host of complicated reasons, the growing infusion of religious and spiritual values into the political process in this country over the last generation has been primarily promoted by those religious groups opposed to progressive expansions of social benefits. Moral appeals play an increasingly large role in the political process, but advocates of universal health insurance, whose own beliefs are generally grounded in a broad values framework and not just narrow self-interest, have been reluctant to join the fray on those terms.”

Or, as Dr. Amy Finkelstein (MIT) and Dr. Liran Einav (Stanford) note,

“It’s true that as a share of its economy, the United States spends about twice as much on health care as other high-income countries. But in most other wealthy countries, this care is primarily financed by taxes, whereas only about half of U.S. health care spending is financed by taxes. For those of you following the math, half of twice as much is… well, the same amount of taxpayer-financed spending on health care as a share of the economy. In other words, U.S. taxes are already paying for the cost of universal basic coverage. Americans are just not getting it. They could be.” [Source]⁵

Still others posit that the reason we don’t have universal health care has its roots in racism⁶, or that we have a large private insurance industry⁷ with a vested interest in not moving to a system that would threaten their profits (and enough money to pay lobbyists) (More about that here.⁸)

In terms of a good reason we don’t have universal health care in this country, take your pick. The reason I explain in great detail why we could – and should – have universal health care is because Project 2025 is about to argue that we should cut all entitlement programs, which include Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, rather than simply tax the wealthy appropriately or provide us with what we’re already paying for.

The author continues by trashing the CDC and the NIH:

“All along, it was clear from randomized controlled trials – the gold standard of medical research – that masks provide little to no benefit in preventing the spread of viruses and might even be counterproductive.” (Project 2024, Section 3: The General Welfare, page 315, paragraph 3.)

This is an outright lie. Study after study after credible study has proven that masks help control the spread of viruses. There’s a reason that surgeons and doctors have been wearing them for decades. But fair enough – if you refuse to believe the CDC or the NIH, here’s a Mayo Clinic Study⁹, a study from PNAS (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America¹⁰, an article from Yale Medicine that essentially says make your own choices, but wearing a mask in public indoor spaces is the smart thing to do¹¹ if you’re at risk, an article from Johns Hopkins¹², and an article from UCSF¹³, all in support of masking up. The UCSF article goes into the science behind it.

From the PNAS study:

“The preponderance of evidence indicates that mask wearing reduces transmissibility per contact by reducing transmission of infected respiratory particles in both laboratory and clinical contexts. Public mask wearing is most effective at reducing spread of the virus when compliance is high.”

I’m not sure what the endgame of lying about the efficacy of masks is, given the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, but I suspect something akin to “freedom.” To which I say, you’re being asked to wear a mask, not a Nickelback T-shirt. Suck it up and be part of the solution, not part of the problem.

“Severino writes of the National Institutes of Health, “Despite its popular image as a benign science agency, NIH was responsible for paying for research in aborted baby body parts, human animal chimera experiments”—in which the genes of humans and animals are mixed, “and gain-of-function viral research that may have been responsible for COVID-19.” (Project 2024, Section 3: The General Welfare, page 316, paragraph 2.)

Seriously, I’m only about 6 paragraphs into this section so far. Let’s break this down a little.

Yes, the NIH has historically funded research involving fetal tissue from elective abortions (and with consent only after an abortion was already chosen – there are ethical constructs in place.) It’s a subject of debate, but it has also contributed to advances in vaccines, treatments for various diseases, and understanding human development. The Trump administration put restrictions on this in 2019, and the Biden administration lifted them again in 2021¹⁴. Specific advancements we’ve made from the use of fetal tissue in research and development have included the polio vaccine, the rubella vaccine, and the hepatitis A vaccine, which was derived from a fetus aborted in the 1960’s, as was the rubella vaccine. Also Adenovirus, chicken pox, Ebola, rabies, and shingles vaccines. [Source]¹⁵ The rubella vaccine has prevented literal millions of birth defects and fetal deaths worldwide, and rubella is the leading vaccine-preventable cause²⁷ of birth defects.

Additionally, fetal tissue has helped us study how congenital disabilities occur, given us insight into HIV/AIDS, and may eventually provide treatments for blindness, spinal cord injuries, neurodegenerative diseases such as Parkinson’s, Zika virus, and more. Fetal tissue has also been used as a source of stem cells, which can develop into a wide variety of tissues, which has broad implications for regenerative medicine and gene therapy, potentially treating osteoarthritis, heart disease, diabetes, and certain types of cancer. [Source]¹⁶

The NIH has also funded some research involving the mixing of human cells with animals, typically to study diseases or develop therapies. They’re referred to as “chimera” experiments. A prominent example of these is the creation of “human-pig chimeras”, which involves injecting human cells into pig embryos, aiming to grow organs like hearts or kidneys that can be transplanted into humans without being rejected due to their partially human cell composition. This is focused on organ shortage issues – a truly pro-life policy.

We have no definitive proof yet of where COVID-19 originated (and how), so the author has no reason to speculate that it had something to do with gain-of-function research.

“What’s more, NIH has long “been at the forefront in pushing junk gender science.” The next HHS secretary should immediately put an end to the department’s foray into woke transgender activism.” (Project 2024, Section 3: The General Welfare, page 316, paragraph 3.)

This is nothing more than transphobia/cheap pandering to transphobes.

“HHS also pushes abortion as a form of “health care,” skirting and sometimes blatantly defying the Hyde Amendment in the process.” (Project 2024, Section 3: The General Welfare, page 316, paragraph 4.)

This is another blatant lie. First of all, abortion is part of reproductive health care, because it’s a medical procedure sometimes necessary to protect a woman’s health or life. Labeling abortion as health care is a widespread practice in the medical community, not specific to HHS or political advocacy.

The HHS is tasked with ensuring that people have access to a wide range of medical services, including reproductive health care. Abortion access, when legal, is well within their purview.

The Hyde Amendment, as a refresher, was passed in 1976 and prohibits using federal funds for abortions, except in cases of rape, incest, or when the woman’s life is in danger. It applies specifically to federal funding programs like Medicaid. The HHS is bound by law to comply with the Hyde Amendment, and there is ZERO evidence suggesting that it “blatantly defies” it. In fact, federal funding for abortion services is still restricted under Medicaid, except under the aforementioned exceptions. If the HHS were to fund abortions in violation of the Hyde Amendment, there would be legal repercussions. Note that the author fails to give a single verified instance of this occurring.

“The next secretary should also reverse the Biden Administration’s focus on “‘LGBTQ+ equity,’ subsidizing single-motherhood, disincentivizing work, and penalizing marriage,” replacing such policies with those encouraging marriage, work, motherhood, fatherhood, and nuclear families.” (Project 2024, Section 3: The General Welfare, page 316, paragraph 4.)

By “subsidizing single motherhood”, the author means government assistance programs like TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families), and SNAP (food stamps), and any other form of financial aid that helps single mothers support their children. They think that by taking these things away, they’ll be “encouraging nuclear families”, but the reality is that it plunges many single mothers into poverty, and incentivizes them to stay in abusive marriages or relationships because there is no help for them outside of that. Vice president-elect J.D. Vance has publicly suggested that kids suffer when marriages fail, even when those marriages are violent (if not explicitly saying women should stay in violent marriages for the sake of their children, as the left is fond of claiming):

“This is one of the great tricks that I think the sexual revolution pulled on the American populace, which is this idea that, ‘Well, OK, these marriages were fundamentally, you know, they were maybe even violent, but certainly they were unhappy. And so getting rid of them and making it easier for people to shift spouses like they change their underwear, that’s going to make people happier in the long term.’ And maybe it worked out for the moms and dad, though I’m skeptical. But it really didn’t work out for the kids of those marriages.” [Source]¹⁷

Seems to me, however, that’s EXACTLY what he’s at least implying. And what of deadbeat dads who don’t want to be involved with their children? Why would you punish those mothers and children? Because punishing women is part of the appeal of these policies, for them. And has no needy family with a father figure ever existed? Has there never been a single father? Why are we singling out women when we’re deciding we’re denying needy people help?

The author goes on to claim that the DOJ, Biden, and Merrick Garland are a “threat to the Republic”, and calls the FBI “bloated, arrogant, and increasingly lawless.” These are bold claims for which the author provides no concrete examples (although the dog-whistling is loud.) The author states outright that we should dismantle the FBI:

“[t]he next conservative Administration should eliminate any offices within the FBI that it has the power to eliminate without any action from Congress.” (Project 2024, Section 3: The General Welfare, page 317, paragraph 2.)

“…and restart the Trump Administration’s “China Initiative” (to address Chinese espionage and theft of trade secrets), which the Biden Administration “terminated…largely out of a concern for poor ‘optics.'” (Project 2024, Section 3: The General Welfare, page 317, paragraph 3.)

The China initiative wasn’t terminated by Biden, it was refocused because Trump’s version of it resulted in disproportionately targeting Americans of Chinese descent for their race¹⁸, and for leading to a number of cases dropped due to lack of evidence. In 2022, the DOJ refocused it on threats from nations, not individuals¹⁹. So I guess this is a partially true statement, if you’re calling blatant racism merely “poor optics.”

Honestly, this section pretty much contains a lie in every sentence. I’ll try to stick to actual policy suggestions from here on out.

The author goes on to trash leftists and “woke” people, then trash the Department of Education.

“For the sake of American children, Congress should shutter [the Department of Education] and return control of education to the states.” (Project 2024, Section 3: The General Welfare, page 317, paragraph 4.)

That’s a radical change. Let’s examine what the results of that would likely be:

Republicans arguing to shut down the DoE isn’t a new thing. Republicans have been against it since the Reagan administration. Newt Gingrich argued for it in 1994. As did Bob Dole in 1996. So how worried should we be that this might actually happen? Hard to say.

Frederick Hess, director of education policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute and an executive editor of Education Next, dismisses talk of shuttering the Department as “hollow chatter.” [Source]²⁰

They’re also unclear on what they mean by “abolish the department.” I’ll explain.

• Does it mean completely eliminating all federal education programs and staff? (Difficult to do.)
• Does it mean just handing the programs to other agencies or cabinet departments?
• Does it mean turning all of these programs into block programs for the states? If so, how much federal direction and oversight would there be, and who would be charged with providing it?
• Does it mean cutting funding for Special Education, Title I, or Pell Grants along with it? (A complete elimination means yes.)

“Let’s shut down the head of the snake, the Department of Education,” Vivek Ramaswamy said. “Take that $80 billion, put it in the hands of parents across this country.” [Source]²¹

If you think American parents will see a dime of that money, I have a bridge to sell you. If the money went anywhere at all, it would be to the individual states. That’s assuming they’re not going to force states to shoulder the costs themselves, like they proposed with disaster relief.²²

From linked article 21: 

“On student loans, Butcher says the elimination could lead to the federal government getting “out of the business of awarding student loans, and then for what remains it would be moved to the Department of the Treasury.”

So, there is some evidence that they’re speaking of a total elimination, not a shuttering that preserves some programs. So what would a second Trump administration promise for K-12?

• Title I, the $18 billion federal fund that supports low-income students, would disappear in a decade.
• Federal special education funds would flow to school districts as block grants with no strings attached, or even to savings accounts for parents to use on private school or other education expenses.
• The U.S. Department of Education would be eliminated.
• The federal government’s ability to enforce civil rights laws in schools would be scaled back.

[Source]²³

I’m sure there will be more details in the upcoming Department of Education section, so I’ll wait to get into absolute specifics of what they recommend.

“Short of this, the Secretary of Education should insist that the department serve parents and American ideals, not advocates whose message is that children can choose their own sex, that America is “systemically racist,” that math itself is racist, and that Martin Luther King, Jr.’s ideal of a colorblind society should be rejected in favor of reinstating a color-conscious society.” (Project 2024, Section 3: The General Welfare, page 318, paragraph 1.)

There are so many mischaracterizations, oversimplifications, and inflammatory language inherent to this statement that it’s difficult to know where to begin.

First, schools don’t “push the idea that children can choose their own sex.” The statement conflates sex (biological attributes) with gender (social and personal identity.) Schools support the idea that gender identity can sometimes differ from biological sex, and that children should be supported in expressing that if they so choose. It’s not “pushed.” One wonders how they intend to enforce such ideas. Teachers firmly saying “nuh-uh!” to non-gender-conforming children? What would the alternative be? Going back to hitting children’s knuckles with a cane[Source]²⁴, as we used to do with left-handed children, when we thought there was something “wrong” with that? Where’s the line? Are we going to corporally punish tomboys, or boys who grow their hair long? Who determines what a boy is supposed to look like, and what a girl is supposed to look like? How far can one deviate before the way they look is an issue for the government? This is a ridiculous amount of government control over what amounts to nothing more than transphobia.

I touched on systemic racism and the “colorblind” ideal in previous sections. Absolutely nobody sane is claiming that “math itself is racist”, this is an insane statement. Efforts to reform math education focus on ensuring equitable access to high-quality math instruction for all students, which includes recognizing that students from underprivileged backgrounds may face barriers that are unrelated to their mathematical abilities.

As for Dr. King, they’re completely mischaracterizing his vision of a society where people are judged by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin as a “colorblind ideal.” Dr. King strongly advocated for the dismantling of racist systems, addressing racial injustices, and acknowledged that color-conscious approaches were necessary to address inequality – basically the exact opposite of everything Project 2025 stands for. They’re bastardizing his legacy. King was 100% a radical in his time, as much as white people would like to believe that his “I have a dream” speech was the extent of his politics. Things MLK also said?

“However difficult it is to hear, however shocking it is to hear, we’ve got to face the fact that America is a racist country.”

“Large segments of white society are more concerned about tranquility & the status quo than about justice and humanity.”

“America is going to hell if we don’t use her vast resources to end poverty and make it possible for all God’s children to have the basic necessities of life.”

“We can never be satisfied as long as the Negro is the victim of the unspeakable horrors of police brutality.”

“The trouble is that we live in a failed system. Capitalism does not permit an even flow of economic resources. With this system, a small privileged few are rich beyond conscience and almost all others are doomed to be poor at some level. And since we know that the system will not change the rules, we’re going to have to change the system.”

I believe that proper respect for Dr. King does not exist in the absence of a commitment to change these things; to right these injustices. And that means supporting lawmakers who have made a commitment to right injustice, not perpetrate it.

More ridiculous lies continue:

“Under the next President, the Department of Energy should end the Biden Administration’s unprovoked war on fossil fuels, restore America’s energy independence, oppose eyesore windmills built at taxpayer expense, and respect the right of Americans to buy and drive cars of their own choosing, rather than trying to force them into electric vehicles and eventually out of the driver’s seat altogether in favor of self-driving robots.” (Project 2024, Section 3: The General Welfare, page 318, paragraph 2.)

No, we’re not having a “war on fossil fuels.” If we were, we might actually be addressing what’s going to happen when fossil fuels run out in 2052²⁵. They’re a finite resource. I’m not sure how they believe they’re going to “restore” our energy independence, when it soared to a 70-year high in 2022²⁵ – under Joe Biden. (Although I’ll admit that leaving out the context is disingenuous here – we achieved energy independence under Trump, because of the shale boom that began in 2005. Biden has presided over even higher levels.)

Forbes underscores the importance of consistent terminology when we talk about energy independence:

“It’s important to understand that the following two statements are each true under a consistent definition of energy independence.

1. If the U.S. is not energy independent under Joe Biden, then it was never energy independent under Donald Trump.
2. If the U.S. was energy independent under Donald Trump, then energy independence has grown to record levels under Joe Biden.

[Source]²⁶

I don’t know why they think we’re being “forced into electric vehicles.” There are some incentives to purchase electric vehicles, sure, but nobody is “forcing” anything. To say so is another example of the common Republican trope of whining that they’re being physically victimized any time something they don’t like is being encouraged. We’re being “forced” into electric cars. Pride week is LGBTQ+ people “shoving themselves down (our) throats.” It’s tired and gross to imply that you’re being literally physically victimized by IDEAS.

As for those terrible eyesore windmills, they produced over 10% of the U.S.’ total energy requirements in 2022. Wind energy in the United States helps avoid 336+ million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions annually. Wind is the largest source of renewable electricity generation in the United States, and it’s growing. In 2023, the wind industry supported 120,000 jobs in the U.S. alone. Again, there is little point in driving us away from a renewable resource that helps protect the planet, and more towards a finite resource that destroys it. It makes zero sense. [Source for the statistics]²⁷

Let me talk for a moment about what rhetorical technique they’re using, here, and what their goal is.

It just took me five paragraphs to pick apart the lies contained in a single sentence of Project 2025. This is a purposeful rhetorical technique called the “firehose of falsehood” or the “gish gallop.” It involves flooding a conversation or debate with a large number of false or misleading statements in rapid succession. This strategy overwhelms the listener or opponent, making it difficult or impossible to fact-check each claim in real-time or even after the fact. Trump engages in this style of rhetoric often. In a debate, he lies so confidently and so often that it’s impossible for an opponent to address every single lie in the time allotted. Each individual claim might be easily debunked, but the sheer number of falsehoods makes it hard to address them all.

The audience is bombarded with so much information that it becomes hard to discern truth from lies. Fact-checkers, journalists, or opponents trying to correct the falsehoods are faced with an impossible task of addressing all claims simultaneously. There is also a time and effort disparity at work here. It’s fast and easy to make a false claim. Fact-checking requires much more time and effort (this website is a prime example). Each lie requires research, evidence, and explanation to debunk, whereas the original misinformation can be delivered without regard for truth, context or nuance. Even if some of the false claims are debunked, many of them may still stick with parts of the audience, especially if they reinforce existing biases. The volume of lies also helps spread misinformation faster than corrections can be issued.

The reason this technique is effective, is that people have a limited capacity to process information, and when they’re presented with too many claims at once – especially conflicting or false ones – their ability to critically evaluate each one diminishes. When confronted with numerous false statements, the audience might start to feel that “the truth is somewhere in the middle”, even when it’s not. This tactic works by creating doubt and eroding trust in credible sources or facts. Constantly fact-checking every lie becomes exhausting for the audience and the fact-checker. People may give up trying to discern what’s true and accept some misinformation by default. In a debate or discussion, the person using this technique may appear knowledgeable or confident simply because they have presented more information, regardless of its accuracy. Audiences sometimes mistake quantity for quality.

I’m really feeling fact-check fatigue! Fact-checkers have it hard. They have to choose and prioritize which claims to debunk, knowing they can’t address all of them. This often means some falsehoods go unchallenged, giving them room to spread. While lies can be simple and emotionally charged, the truth is often more complex and nuanced, requiring longer explanations. The truth also rarely appeals to emotion, another effective rhetorical technique. This makes it harder for debunkers to be as quick or effective as the original propagandist. Also, if fact-checkers focus only on the most egregious claims, they may be accused of cherry-picking or being biased, even though their capacity to check everything is limited.

This rhetorical style is not an accident. The writers of Project 2025 are hoping that the audience becomes too exhausted and confused to be able to call them out on all of their lies.

Suffice it to say, if I (inevitably) fail to address every single claim, it’s not that I’m deliberately letting that claim go unchallenged. I literally do not have enough time to debunk every single thing in the document. No one person does. And they’re counting on no one trying.

I go into more detail about which other rhetorical/propaganda techniques Project 2025 is using (and are inherent to common political discourse) in this Bite-Sized Brief²⁸.

Whew! That was a bit of a rabbit hole, there. It is important to understand and recognize when you’re being propagandized, so you can learn which information is credible and which is not, and how to find out.

The writer goes on to sum up the positions of the writers of the upcoming sections, so we’ll cross those bridges when we come to them.