Project 2025 uses language carefully designed to hide potential harm on minority groups and ordinary Americans. The authors carefully crafted how the document is written to avoid detection by the average reader. This tactic aims to unite people under a patriotic banner without explaining how policies might negatively affect them.
By using this language, Project 2025 aims to get broad support while keeping people unaware of how its policies might harm ordinary Americans, especially those in marginalized communities. Defeat Project 2025 aims to combat this by breaking down direct quotes from the Project 2025 policy document into accessible language and provide context where applicable.
Examples of Loaded Language from the Mandate
This quote uses positive language such as “promoting”, “expanding”, “encouraging”, “simplifying”, “thrive”, and “prosper” to hide the true meaning of their words. The policies they are referring to would reduce workplace diversity, allow discrimination against immigrants and non-Christians, and limit employer-sponsored reproductive healthcare coverage. Instead of being straightforward about the affects and intentions of their proposed policies, Project 2025 authors hide their meaning behind misleading language.
The statement “look the other way at the Administration’s own attacks on religious liberty” is a loaded phrase suggesting intentional neglect or malfeasance. However, this characterization may not account for the nuanced and complex nature of competing rights, such as religious freedom versus anti-discrimination protections. This language can be misleading as it simplifies a multifaceted issue into a partisan attack.
While emphasizing the “good or bad” potential of guidance documents, the text seeks to frame regulatory guidance as inherently problematic—”used to create new rules overnight,” which can mislead readers into thinking that regulatory bodies are acting in bad faith. This ignores the fact that guidance documents are typically used to clarify and interpret existing regulations, not to unfairly trap businesses. The mandate frequently uses this sort of language to paint government regulations as an attack on personal liberties, rather than necessary bounds within a functional society.
