They begin by arguing for reversing the “racist equity agenda” of the Biden administration and also the “economically destructive and ineffective climate related financial-risk agenda.”

As I have pointed out elsewhere on this website¹⁵, fossil fuels are a finite resource, and clean energy is adding literal trillions to the global economy:

“Global spending on renewables, nuclear, energy efficiency and low-emissions fuels like hydrogen is set to eclipse $2 trillion in 2024, double the $1 trillion spent on fossil fuels, according to the International Energy Agency’s annual review of global energy spending.” [Source]¹

“Clean energy investment is setting new records even in challenging economic conditions, highlighting the momentum behind the new global energy economy,” IEA Executive Director Fatih Birol said in a statement. “For every dollar going to fossil fuels today, almost two dollars are invested in clean energy.”

“Clean electricity accounted for around 80% of new capacity additions to the world’s electricity system in 2023, and electric vehicles for around one out of five cars sold globally. At the same time, global investment in clean energy manufacturing is booming, driven by industrial policies and market demand. Employment in clean energy jobs exceeded that of fossil fuels in 2021 and continues to grow.” [Source]²

With so much readily available evidence to the contrary, one can only conclude that they’re lying to us about this point.

“The Biden Administration Treasury Department has failed badly in achieving every one of the agency’s core objectives. The financial affairs of the nation have seldom been in worse condition, with the national debt expanding by more than $4 trillion in Biden’s first two years in office. No President in modern times—perhaps ever—has been more fiscally reckless than has the Biden Administration.” (Project 2025, Section 4.2: Department of the Treasury, William L. Walton, Stephen Moore, and David R. Burton, page 724, paragraph 4.)

This is a partially a disingenuous observation, partially a flat-out lie. Biden was stuck cleaning up the pandemic mess and in a recession when he took office. Furthermore, the National Debt did NOT expand by $4 trillion in Biden’s first two years, it was about $1.5 trillion. Trump’s four years, due to tax cuts and COVID, expanded the National Debt by more than $8 trillion, mostly due to tax cuts for the wealthy and his trade wars. [Source]³

See Also:

• Donald Trump Built a National Debt So Big (Even Before the Pandemic) That It’ll Weigh Down the Economy For Years⁴
• Trump added twice as much to the national debt as Biden: Analysis⁵
• Trump ran up national debt twice as much as Biden: new analysis⁶
• Tax Cuts Are Primarily Responsible for the Increasing Debt Ratio⁷

The president who added the most to the National Debt by percentage? FDR (Franklin Delano Roosevelt.) This was due to the Great Depression and the New Deal. After that, Wilson, Reagan, Bush Sr., and Obama, although it’s worthy of note that while Obama and Trump both added about $8 trillion to the National Debt, Trump only took four years to do it, not eight. [Source]¹⁶ 

“The average family has seen real annual earnings fall about $6,000 during the Biden Administration.” (Project 2025, Section 4.2: Department of the Treasury, William L. Walton, Stephen Moore, and David R. Burton, page 724, paragraph 5.)

Another lie.

This assertion is based on a “report” that the Heritage Foundation conducted themselves. As I have pointed out elsewhere on this website, when they can’t find real evidence that they can twist to support their points, they simply manufacture evidence.

So what’s accurate?

Trump’s Claim: “Under Biden, real incomes have gone down by $7,400 per family. Under President Trump, yearly income went up by more than $6,000.”

This is wrong on both ends.

In footnotes to the speech, the campaign cited inflation-adjusted median household income, saying it “increased from $66,657 in 2016 to $72,808 in 2019.”

Those numbers are correct — but Trump also served as president for all of 2020.

In 2020, the first year of the coronavirus pandemic, this income figure dropped to $71,186. So, the gain on Trump’s entire watch was $4,529, not “more than $6,000.”

If you use the same statistic for Biden, there has been a loss, but a much more modest one than Trump said. The most recent figure available is for 2021, which represented a drop of $402, not the $7,400 Trump cited. (It’s unknown what the 2022 data will show.)

To get the $7,400 loss under Biden, Trump cites an analysis by the conservative Heritage Foundation. It said in January 2023 that the average family “has effectively lost $7,400 in annual income since Biden took office” because of inflation.

The Heritage Foundation did not explain its calculation, but it would not have been an apples-to-apples comparison to the figure under Trump because the available inflation data stopped at December 2022. Since then, inflation has more than halved, slipping to about 3%. [Source]⁸

They go on to argue that the reason that the Biden administration has been such a failure fiscally (which is inaccurate), is because they’ve focused too much on equity and climate change (which is nonsensical.)

Now, on to the tax reforms suggested:

“The Treasury should work with Congress to simplify the tax code by enacting a simple two-rate individual tax system of 15 percent and 30 percent that eliminates most deductions, credits and exclusions. The 30 percent bracket should begin at or near the Social Security wage base to ensure the combined income and payroll tax structure acts as a nearly flat tax on wage income beyond the standard deduction. The corporate income tax rate should be reduced to 18 percent.” (Project 2025, Section 4.2: Department of the Treasury, William L. Walton, Stephen Moore, and David R. Burton, page 728, paragraph 5.)

The practical effects of these reforms include:

• Benefiting the wealthy and upper-middle class. With the 30% rate starting near the Social Security wage base (currently around $160,200), this system would essentially create a flat tax for higher-income individuals, combining income tax and payroll taxes. The shift to a flatter tax system may reduce the overall progressivity of the tax code, meaning higher-income individuals could benefit more in relative terms, especially with fewer deductions available to lower- and middle-income households.
• Reduce deductions and credits for average Americans. Many low- to middle-income taxpayers benefit from existing deductions and credits, such as the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and the Child Tax Credit (CTC). Eliminating these could raise effective tax burdens on low-income individuals, despite the 15% rate. This could negatively impact those who currently receive large refunds or who pay no net federal income taxes.
• Less take-home pay for for the average American. Since the 30% rate starts at or near the wage base for Social Security payroll taxes, low- to middle-income earners may face a higher effective marginal tax rate as their payroll and income taxes combine, resulting in less take-home pay.
• Increase the federal deficit. While the reduction in corporate tax rates may stimulate investment, it would also reduce the overall corporate tax revenue collected by the government, potentially contributing to a larger federal budget deficit unless offset by spending cuts or other revenue increases.
• Increase income inequality. Since wealthier individuals benefit more from a flat or less progressive tax system, this could potentially increase income inequality. Wealthy individuals might see their tax rates stabilize or decrease, while lower-income households may no longer benefit from the progressive tax advantages currently offered by credits and deductions.

In short: This tax reform proposal would simplify the tax code and likely increase economic efficiency, but it will also shift the tax burden more heavily onto middle- and lower-income Americans due to the loss of progressive tax benefits. The corporate tax cut could boost competitiveness but might reduce federal revenues, necessitating budget adjustments to avoid worsening the deficit.

How much would it affect the average American family in terms of real numbers? The Center for American Progress has done the math:

Specifically, Project 2025’s tax reform plan would:

• Enact a two-income tax bracket system that would raise taxes by $3,000 for the median family of four—which makes about $110,000 a year—and raise taxes by $950 for the typical single-person household, which makes about $40,000 a year. (see Appendix for state-specific data)
• Provide an average $1.5–2.4 million tax cut for the 45,000 U.S. households making more than $10 million annually from the combination of the “two-bracket” system and cuts to taxes on the wealthy’s investment income.
• Cut the corporate tax rate to 18 percent, which amounts to a $24 billion tax cut for the Fortune 100.
• Replace all individual and corporate income taxes with a consumption tax in the long term. This could take the form of a value-added tax well above 45 percent, which would produce an enormous one-time burst of inflation and raise prices.

The shift toward a flat consumption tax while eliminating income taxes would lead to an average $5,900 tax increase for the middle 20 percent of households and an average $2 million tax cut for the top 0.1 percent. [Source]⁹

Source: Center for American Progress

“In addition, intermediate tax reform should repeal all tax increases that were passed as part of the Inflation Reduction Act, including the book minimum tax, the stock buyback excise tax, the coal excise tax, the reinstated Superfund tax, and excise taxes on drug manufacturers to compel them to comply with Medicare price controls.” (Project 2025, Section 4.2: Department of the Treasury, William L. Walton, Stephen Moore, and David R. Burton, page 728, paragraph 6.)

Oh good, let’s go back to uncontrolled prescription prices. /sarcasm

“All non-business tax deductions and exemptions that were temporarily suspended by the 2017 tax bill should be permanently repealed, including the bicycle commuting expense exclusion, non-military moving expense deductions, and the miscellaneous itemized deductions. The individual state and local tax deduction, which was temporarily capped at $10,000, should be fully repealed. Deductions related to educational expenses should be repealed. Special business tax preferences, such as a special deduction for energy-efficient commercial building properties, should be eliminated.” (Project 2025, Section 4.2: Department of the Treasury, William L. Walton, Stephen Moore, and David R. Burton, page 729, paragraph 3.)

No more deductions for any of those things. If you were keeping track, that’s no more tax writeoffs for moving expenses related to work (unless you’re in the military), no more deductions for tax preparation fees, work-related expenses not reimbursed by an employer, or cost of your home office setup. No more being able to deduct any state or local taxes from your federal tax return. No more deducting student loan interest and certain tuition expenses. No more deductions based on sustainable construction practices, which will discourage businesses from doing them.

This means that WAY more of your income is subject to taxation under this plan. This is a regressive tax, meaning that it impacts the wealthy far less than it would everyone else.

“The public finance literature is clear that a consumption tax would minimize government’s distortion of private economic decisions and thus be the least economically harmful way to raise federal tax revenues.” (Project 2025, Section 4.2: Department of the Treasury, William L. Walton, Stephen Moore, and David R. Burton, page 730, paragraph 2.)

Consumption taxes are levied on what you spend, rather than what you earn. The theory is that it encourages people to spend less and save more. But this is also a regressive tax – if you live paycheck to paycheck and can’t save anything, you’re just being taxed even more on what you’re being forced to spend. There’s a huge equity problem here.

“Congress should repeal Title I, Title II, and Title VIII of the Dodd–Frank Act. Title I of Dodd–Frank created the Financial Stability Oversight Council, a kind of super-regulator tasked with identifying so-called systemically important financial institutions and singling them out for especially stringent regulation. The problem, of course, is that this process effectively identifies those firms regulators believe are “too big to fail.”” (Project 2025, Section 4.2: Department of the Treasury, William L. Walton, Stephen Moore, and David R. Burton, page 737, paragraph 6.)

This mischaracterizes the intention behind Dodd-Frank. It was passed in 2010 in response to the 2007-2008 financial crisis. It aimed to prevent another financial collapse by addressing the regulatory failures that contributed to the issue.

The crisis was caused by a number of factors, including excessive risk-taking by banks, a housing market bubble fueled by subprime mortgages, and the lack of adequate oversight of financial institutions. The collapse of Lehman Brothers in 2008 and the subsequent bank bailouts highlighted the need for major reforms. The government and taxpayers had to intervene to stabilize the economy, and Dodd-Frank was created to help ensure that doesn’t happen again (by introducing new regulations.) 

Some of those regulations included consumer protections against abusive and predatory financial practices in mortgage lending, credit cards, and banking. The Financial Stability Oversight Council is designed to identify and monitor “too big to fail” financial systems, yes, and step in before they’re able to threaten the broader economy if they’re in trouble. The law also established orderly procedures for the liquidation of banks that fail, to avoid future taxpayer bailouts.

The Volcker Rule of Dodd-Frank prevented banks from engaging in proprietary trading (speculative investments) using their own accounts, and from owning or investing in hedge funds and private equity funds. This was to reduce risky behavior.

The law also introduced protections and financial incentives for whistleblowers who reported securities law violations to the SEC.

A common criticism of Dodd-Frank was that it went too far in regulating smaller banks, and in fact, Trump rolled back some provisions of Dodd-Frank in 2018, deregulating smaller and mid-sized banks. Other critics say it didn’t go far enough in regulating the financial sector and protecting consumers. The fact remains that Dodd-Frank has been credited with significant improvement in consumer protection, including enforcement action against predatory lenders and deceptive practices in the financial industry.

The authors are arguing for repealing Titles I, II, and VIII of Dodd-Frank. So, what do those titles do, and what are the practical consequences to an American consumer, of repealing them?

Title I created the Financial Stability Oversight Council, as described above. Repealing it increases the likelihood of big banks taking on more risks without facing regulatory oversight, potentially leading to increased instability in the financial system. This means a greater risk of taxpayer-funded bailouts, which affects consumers’ access to credit, loans, and savings, and causes job losses, reduced home values, and losses in retirement savings.

Title II provided the orderly liquidation framework. Without it, the government might revert to bailouts using taxpayer money to rescue failing institutions, instead of letting them fail in a controlled way. Conversely, if the banks are allowed uncontrolled failures, this could see consumers finding their bank accounts frozen or losing access to funds if their bank collapses. If this becomes common, customer trust in the financial system will erode, potentially leading people to withdraw their money from banks, which in turn could lead to financial panics.

Title VIII provided regulators the authority to supervise and regulate the systems that handle the processing of trillions of dollars in transactions daily, ensuring the smooth transfer of money and securities between banks. Repealing this would lead to reduced oversight, increasing the risk of disruptions in payment, clearing, and settlement processes. It could lead to delays or failures in transactions, affecting everything from stock trades to everyday debit card purchases.

The bottom line is, as always, that deregulation is good for corporations; bad for people.

“Treasury plays a role in funding the conservatorships of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It should work to end the conservatorships and move toward privatization of these massive housing finance agencies. This would restore a sustainable housing finance market with a robust private mortgage market that does not rely on explicit or implicit taxpayer guarantees.” (Project 2025, Section 4.2: Department of the Treasury, William L. Walton, Stephen Moore, and David R. Burton, page 738, paragraph 2.)

This would not, by any means, “restore a sustainable housing finance market.”

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac buy mortgages from lenders, pool them, then sell them as mortgage-backed securities (MBSs) to investors. This process injects liquidity into the mortgage market, enabling banks to offer loans at lower rates.

Without government backing, the risk associated with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s securities would increase. Investors would demand higher returns to compensate for that risk, leading to higher interest rates for homebuyers. This will make homeownership even less affordable for average Americans.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac also ensure the availability of the 30-year fixed-rate mortgage – a staple of the American housing market – by purchasing these loans from lenders. Their guarantee of these mortgages gives lenders confidence to offer them widely. Privatizing these might reduce access to or eliminate the availability of 30-year mortgages, which are seen as risker for investors due to their long term. This means that homebuyers might have to rely on shorter-term or adjustable-rate mortgages.

As GSEs, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have mandates to promote affordable housing and serve a broader segment of the population. They help maintain access to mortgage credit for low- and middle-income borrowers. Privatization would shift the focus of these institutions to maximize profits rather than public policy goals. This means less access to affordable housing for low- to middle-income buyers.

In short, privatizing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would likely lead to higher mortgage rates, reduced availability of the 30-year fixed-rate mortgage, less access to credit for low- and middle-income borrowers, and potentially greater market volatility. While it could reduce government risk exposure – which is no doubt what the authors want – it would shift the focus from the greater good to maximum profitability, which will reduce  access to housing for millions of Americans.

“Congress should repeal the Corporate Transparency Act, and FinCEN should withdraw its poorly written and overbroad beneficial ownership reporting rule.” (Project 2025, Section 4.2: Department of the Treasury, William L. Walton, Stephen Moore, and David R. Burton, page 739, paragraph 9.)

This one is transparently (if you’ll excuse the pun) evil. The Corporate Transparency Act (CTA), passed in 2021, requires U.S. companies to disclose their beneficial ownership information – that is, the individuals who own or control them – to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN). The goal of the law is to combat money laundering, tax evasion, and illicit financial activities by increasing transparency regarding company ownership structures. The CTA mainly targets shell companies used to hide illicit financial dealings.

The CTA is also seen as an essential tool for disrupting networks involved in human trafficking, narcotics, and terrorism financing.¹⁰

So if we reduce oversight of this, what’s going to happen? Increased financial and other crimes, and decreased law enforcement visibility into it and capability of prosecuting it – with no visibility, it’s a LOT harder to prove the law was broken.

“Under the Biden Administration, the Treasury Department has appointed a Counselor for Racial Equity, established an Advisory Committee on Racial Equity, and created an office for Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility. All these should be eliminated.” (Project 2025, Section 4.2: Department of the Treasury, William L. Walton, Stephen Moore, and David R. Burton, page 740, paragraph 2.)

In context, he’s arguing that equity is racist, and recommends firing any government employee of the Department of the Treasury who participated in any of these initiatives. This mischaracterizes what equity is, as usual. See the FAQ.¹¹

“The next Administration should eliminate the Climate Hub Office and withdraw from climate change agreements that are inimical to the prosperity of the United States.” (Project 2025, Section 4.2: Department of the Treasury, William L. Walton, Stephen Moore, and David R. Burton, page 741, paragraph 1.)

More climate change denial / science denial. He goes on to argue that since other countries who joined the Paris agreement haven’t fully met their promises, that we should completely abandon ours because it makes no difference anyway. Absolutely abysmal opinion.

“The next Administration should use Treasury’s tools and authority to promote investment in domestic energy, including oil and gas. It should reverse support for international public- (and private-) based efforts promoting Environmental, Social, and Governance and Principles for Responsible Investment, both of which have badly damaged U.S. energy security.” (Project 2025, Section 4.2: Department of the Treasury, William L. Walton, Stephen Moore, and David R. Burton, page 741, paragraph 6.)

This is a flat-out lie. The U.S. is producing more oil and gas than ever before¹², and renewables haven’t threatened our energy security.¹³

“Our study shows that an increased reliance on renewable sources and nuclear energy reduced some countries’ dependence on fossil fuels and imported energy, ultimately improving energy security.”

It’s actually overreliance on fossil fuels that threatens energy security. Fossil fuels are a finite resource. What’s the plan for when they no longer exist?