Home » Policy by Issue » Asian American & Pacific islanders

Asian American & Pacific islanders

Summary of Impacts

Project 2025 recommends reducing environmental regulations on business which will lead to higher emissions and environmental harm. It suggests withdrawing from international environmental agreements which will lead to the breakdown of global efforts to fight climate change. It aims to cut funding for research into climate change and renewable energy, weakening future technological innovation.

Key Quotes

“Remove the U.S. from any association with U.N. and other efforts to push sustainable-development schemes connected to food production”
(Bakst 325)

“Revisit the designation of PFAS chemicals as ‘hazardous substances'”
(Gunasekara Page 463)

“Make the design, development, and deployment of new nuclear warheads a top priority.”
(McNamee 430)

Impacts on AAPI

Project 2025’s impact on Asian-American and Pacific Islander (AAPI) communities can be significant, affecting their health, education, and economic opportunities. For example, they face higher rates of COVID-19 infection and death due to systemic barriers and socioeconomic disparities.

In education, there are challenges in accessing quality schools and resources, leading to lower graduation rates compared to other groups. Economically, they often experience wage gaps and limited career advancement opportunities. These issues highlight the need for targeted policies and support systems to address these disparities and promote equity.

Such changes would deny AAPI students a full understanding of their own histories and identities, perpetuating existing educational inequalities and biases. By removing these critical perspectives, the policies would limit the comprehensive education that AAPI students need and deserve.

Additionally, in the workplace, the playbook supports religious exemptions that allow employers to make decisions based on their beliefs, even if it leads to discrimination against AAPI employees, especially those who identify as LGBTQIA+ or belong to minority religions. It also seeks to roll back civil rights protections, like those established by the Bostock v. Clayton County decision, which protects employees from discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. These proposals would increase workplace discrimination and reduce protections for AAPI individuals, further marginalizing these communities and exacerbating systemic inequalities.

Lastly, AAPI are subject to racial profiling, stereotyping and discrimination. For Asian Americans, this is often expressed in “The Model Minority” stereotype. Furthermore, health issues such as higher rates of diabetes and heart disease coupled with lower median household income and higher poverty rates are prevalent.

Pacific Islanders face numerous issues including climate change impacts, cultural erosion, and economic challenges.

Quotes from the Mandate

Page numbers refer to the Mandate for Leadership PDF

“Eliminate EEO-1 [Equal Employment Opportunity] data collection.” (General Welfare, Dept. of Labor, Page 615)

Eliminating EEO-1 data collection would make it harder to stop racial discrimination at work. This information helps us see if there are unfair differences in who gets hired and promoted, which is important for keeping anti-discrimination laws strong. Without this data, groups that are already facing challenges could have even less protection against unfair treatment, making it more difficult to prove and fix problems of systemic bias.

“The National Advisory Committee should immediately be abolished by the incoming Administration [and] also reevaluate and potentially abolish all non-statutory standing committees within the Census Bureau, including the Census Scientific Advisory Committee” (Economy, Dept. of Commerce, Page 714)

The National Advisory Committee on Racial, Ethnic, and Other Populations (NAC) helps ensure the Census Bureau understands and addresses the needs of hard-to-reach populations, race and ethnicity, language, aging populations, American Indian and Alaska Native tribal considerations, new immigrant populations, and more. The committee advises on data privacy, confidentiality, and strategies to improve census operations and reduce undercounts. Without NAC, policy decisions will be less informed. This will lead to reduced representation in census data and policy-making, harming these communities. The Census Scientific Advisory Committee (CSAC) provides advice on communications, decennial census planning, demographic research, economic analysis, field operations, geographic data, information technology, and statistical methods. The committee addresses emerging challenges related to adaptive design, cyber infrastructure, and demographic and economic research. It is likely that without CSAC (and any other committees they abolish), the quality and effectiveness of Census Bureau programs would suffer.

“Congress should wind down so-called ‘area studies’ programs at universities” (General Welfare, Dept. of Education, Page 388)

Area studies programs concentrate on a particular geographic area (e.g., Latin America, East Asia, Middle East) or cultural group (e.g., African studies, Indigenous studies). Students delve into the history, languages, arts, politics, and social issues of that region or culture. By undermining area studies programs, the recommendations in “Project 2025” would marginalize ethnic and cultural studies, weaken the nation’s global engagement capabilities, and compromise academic freedom. The proposal to realign these programs towards specific ideological orientations further raises concerns about the erosion of intellectual diversity and independence in higher education. Eliminating these programs would likely impact cultural understanding, diplomacy and international relations, language skills, research, and potentially threaten equity and inclusivity efforts.

“Review forthcoming changes to race and ethnicity questions.” (Economy, Dept. of Commerce, Page 712)

Recently, changes were made to the census form to combine the race and ethnicity questions and expand options for minority communities to ensure all persons were equally represented in census results. Reversing this change would lead to undercounts and disproportionally affect marginalized minority communities. Delaying or altering new methodologies designed to improve accuracy could continue or worsen this trend. Ultimately, doing so would lead to inequalities for the affected communities.

“Rescind the Equity in IDEA regulation. No replacement regulation is required.” (General Welfare, Dept. of Education, Page 368)

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) aims to ensure equitable access to education for students with disabilities. The equity regulations they refer to aim to prevent disproportionate racial impacts that may interact with disability (suspension/expulsion rates in Individualized Education Programs, inappropriate identification for special education, etc.) If the equity requirements are removed, students of color who have disabilities will have difficulty accessing education. For a deep dive into the requirements, see this guide from the IDEA Data Center.

“State that Title VI of the Civil Rights Act does not include a disparate impact standard” (General Welfare, Dept. of Education, Page 367)

Title VI prohibits discrimination based on race, color, or national origin in educational programs. Disparate impact refers to when policies, practices, or decisions unintentionally affect certain groups differently based on race, gender, age, or other protected characteristics. This can happen even if there’s no intention to discriminate. It can lead to unfair outcomes and perpetuate systemic inequalities.
For example, in Larry P. v. Riles, five African-American children were placed in special education classes based on a racially biased intelligence test. The court recognized that the use of IQ tests disproportionately affected African-American students, leading to their incorrect placement in special education classes. By ruling against the use of these tests, the court aimed to address the discriminatory impact of such assessments in education.
Without the disparate impact standard, marginalized communities will face more barriers when accessing educational programs and will have fewer legal pathways for removing those barriers.