Deep Dive on Project 2025

Shawn Lo • November 4, 2024

In April 2023, the Heritage Foundation, one of the largest conservative think tanks in the United States, released a 900-page document titled Project 2025, which outlined goals and initiatives for former president Donald Trump if he were to win the presidency. The broad preamble of the document includes restoring family values to American life, defending U.S. sovereignty and reducing the government’s jurisdiction for more “self-governance to the American people” (Project 2025). Many of Trump’s political allies, including Paul Dans, the Chief of Staff at the Office of Personnel Management during the Trump Administration, and J.D. Vance, Trump’s current running mate, are authors in the proposal. Recently, Project 2025 has come under major criticism from the Democratic Party and Kamala Harris’ campaign, calling the project a blueprint for radical policies (BBC News). Amid the scrutiny, Trump himself has distanced himself from the document, saying that “he has no idea who is behind it” (BBC News). Nevertheless, a hypothetical implementation of the policies of Project 2025 would see major changes to the status quo of the country, particularly in foreign policy and climate change.

In the wake of many geopolitical conflicts during the Biden Administration, from the Russo-Ukrainian War to the Israel-Gaza crisis, Project 2025 proposes significant changes to the U.S.’s position in international relations. While Biden’s stance has been leaning toward increasing American commitment to alliances like NATO, a military organization to counter Russia, Project 2025 proposes a different approach to these conflicts (U.S. Department of Defense). Christopher Miller, the former Secretary of Defense under Trump, claimed that there should be increased sharing of burdens with allies to counter countries like China and Russia (Project 2025). In other words, Miller argues that it is more sustainable for American allies like South Korea, NATO members and Saudi Arabia to develop their own military capabilities to keep Russia and China in check, rather than relying on the U.S., with the exception of nuclear deterrence. While this is a relevant point, some studies argue that reducing alliance commitments could create the perception that the U.S. is abandoning their allies, opening a window for exploitation (Georgetown Journal of International Affairs). Senior Marc Epp believes that increasing American funding for foreign alliances is unsustainable in the long term.

“I agree with [the U.S.] reducing [military commitments],” Epp said. “We should pull out of dealing with foreign issues and [focus more on domestic issues] because right now the U.S. is a mess. A lot of taxpayer money is going to Ukraine and the Middle East when [it] should be going toward the [American people].”

Another critical issue that Project 2025 addresses is the subject of climate change. One of the key environmental provisions includes pulling out of international environmental organizations like the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, a global platform for climate negotiations. Moreover, the document also proposes to increase energy independence by investing more in fossil fuels, repealing green energy investment bills like Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act and reducing government regulation in the private sector (Project 2025). Bernard L. McNamee, the former Commissioner of the U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the former executive director of the Office of Policy for the U.S. Department of Energy, wrote in Project 2025 that investing in fossil fuels will be crucial in achieving energy independence and that relying on foreign oil will be a threat to national security. Moreover, McNamee also points out that because billions of dollars of government aid are going to green energy, less money is going to the defense budget (Project 2025). At the same time, however, repealing subsidization of green energy could harm the fight against climate change. The Inflation Reduction Act specifically provided $525 million for 14 new projects in wind and solar energy to help remedy global warming (U.S. Department of Agriculture). Project 2025’s new green initiative cuts could reverse future projects. Sophomore Solena Lengauer describes the harm that Project 2025 initiatives could have on future generations.

“The potential effects of global warming are underestimated,” Lengauer said. “Climate change [is dangerous], and [the U.S.] should not be making cuts to green energy. Just because the effects of climate change [seem obsolete] that [does not] change the fact it will affect my generation and that fossil fuel companies [are hurting marginalized communities].”

Although Trump has distanced himself from Project 2025, over half of the 307 authors of the project worked for the Trump Administration, which suggests that the proposal isn’t completely improbable in the future if Trump were to win the election (The New York Times). Moreover, JD Vance is also a personal friend with Kevin Roberts, the president of the Heritage Foundation. Nevertheless, Project 2025’s policies could reshape how the U.S. approaches geopolitical issues and the future of the environment. It has the potential for American allies to increase their deterrence capabilities, but it might lead to exploitation by adversarial nations like Russia and China. While the U.S. could achieve energy independence, there could also be detrimental environmental effects. Senior Jinu Nam explains that Project 2025 would likely achieve the feat of significantly changing the U.S.

“Climate change and foreign policy are one of the most important aspects of global stability,” Nam said. “[I am] generally against reducing green energy initiatives. [Endless] increases in the military [are] also a pointless [endeavor]. Whether Trump plans to implement Project 2025’s policies or not, it could leave an [everlasting footprint] in our history books.”