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 Religious Minorities
“Project 2025” by The Heritage Foundation outlines several policies and proposed actions that could adversely affect religious minorities. Below are some critical points supported by specific examples from the text.
- Promotion of Christian Nationalist Ideology: The document outlines a framework that intertwines conservative Christian values with governance, potentially marginalizing those who do not share these views. For instance, the text emphasizes how policy decisions should reflect America’s “Judeo-Christian heritage,” which implicitly pushes for a homogenous religious culture. This may marginalize religious minorities, who could face diminished recognition and inclusivity in public policy and societal acknowledgment.
- Prioritizing Christian Practices in Public Institutions: The playbook discusses the reintegration of prayer in public schools and other government-related activities. While this may be framed as restoring traditional values, it can alienate students and civil servants from non-Christian backgrounds who might feel pressured to conform or excluded because of their own religious practices.
- Funding and Privileges for Christian Organizations: Section 5.2 details actions to increase federal funding and support for faith-based organizations. Although the policy does not explicitly exclude other religious organizations, the historical context and the greater influence and presence of Christian groups suggest a de facto favoritism, leading to unequal distribution of resources and support.
- Impacts on Legislation and Religious Freedom: In the policy proposals concerning religious freedom, there is a strong emphasis on protecting Christian businesses and individuals who refuse services based on religious beliefs. While framed as protecting religious freedom, this often translates into legal backing for discriminatory practices against individuals of other faiths or those who do not conform to certain religious norms.
- Immigration Policies Reflecting Religious Bias: The playbook’s discussion on immigration reform highlights a preference for immigrants who align with American “cultural values,” which is often code for Western, Christian values. This could result in biased immigration policies that favor immigrants from Christian-majority countries, disadvantaging those from Muslim-majority or other non-Christian-majority nations.
Each of these points reflects a broader trend within “Project 2025” that, while promoting a specific set of religious values, risks alienating and discriminating against religious minorities in the United States. These policies, as presented, could lead to a less inclusive society where religious minorities feel their beliefs are undervalued or threatened.
Quotes from the Mandate
Page numbers refer to the Mandate for Leadership PDF
SBA Form 1971, also known as the Religious Eligibility Worksheet, ensures transparency and compliance when religious entities apply for small business loans. It serves as a tool to evaluate eligibility and does not inherently make them ineligible. Religious organizations must demonstrate that their primary purpose for the loan is not religious in nature (bookstore, daycare services, coffee shop, etc.). For more information and its relation to the First Amendment, see this explainer.
On the next page, the author clarifies that they intend to take down SBA Form 1971 and will not enforce any related regulations. This means that religious entities will likely receive government loans for religious activities (worship services, religious education) under the next conservative administration.
On the next page, the author clarifies that they intend to take down SBA Form 1971 and will not enforce any related regulations. This means that religious entities will likely receive government loans for religious activities (worship services, religious education) under the next conservative administration.
Implementing work-rest regulations based on Judeo-Christian Sabbath observance could unfairly favor one religious tradition over others, affecting workers who observe different days of rest. This approach might lead to scheduling conflicts and economic disadvantages for those who need to work on Sundays due to personal or financial reasons. Furthermore, it could increase operational costs for businesses, potentially leading to reduced staffing hours. Overall, these regulations could infringe upon personal freedom, create feelings of exclusion among non-Judeo-Christian adherents, and exacerbate economic inequality and religious discrimination against minorities and affected workers.
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.
The “discrimination” they refer to here is actually any entity with a Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion program. To accomplish this prosecution, they plan to “reorganize and refocus the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division to serve as the vanguard for this return to lawfulness.” So in other words, they plan to weaponize the Civil Rights division against the very populations it’s supposed to protect.
DEI initiatives attempt to equalize outcomes and close disparities for populations that have historically faced discrimination (LGBTQIA+, BIPOC, women, and more). None of these programs seek to discriminate. They seek to give everyone equal access.
DEI initiatives attempt to equalize outcomes and close disparities for populations that have historically faced discrimination (LGBTQIA+, BIPOC, women, and more). None of these programs seek to discriminate. They seek to give everyone equal access.
This section of the book makes a number of unsupported false claims about the superiority of heterosexual relationships for raising children. In fact, research shows that same-sex parents may actually provide more benefits to children than heterosexual parents. The only downsides children of homosexual couples face, in general, are social stigma and discrimination, a direct result of the harmful rhetoric put forth by the authors of this book.
Regardless, Project 2025 stipulates that programs that discriminate against homosexual couples should still receive HMRE grant funding: “programs should affirm that children require and deserve both the love and nurturing of a mother and the play and protection of a father. Despite recent congressional bills like the Respect for Marriage Act that redefine marriage to be the union between any two individuals, HMRE program grants should be available to faith-based recipients who affirm that marriage is between not just any two adults, but one man and one unrelated woman.”
Regardless, Project 2025 stipulates that programs that discriminate against homosexual couples should still receive HMRE grant funding: “programs should affirm that children require and deserve both the love and nurturing of a mother and the play and protection of a father. Despite recent congressional bills like the Respect for Marriage Act that redefine marriage to be the union between any two individuals, HMRE program grants should be available to faith-based recipients who affirm that marriage is between not just any two adults, but one man and one unrelated woman.”
