Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Project 2025: The Department of Defense

The Pentagon

The Pentagon, home to the Department of Defense.

Schmidt is a syndicated columnist and editorial board member with the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

This is part of a series offering a nonpartisan counter to Project 2025, a conservative guideline to reforming government and policymaking during the first 180 days of a second Trump administration. The Fulcrum's "Cross-Partisan Project 2025" relies on unbiased critical thinking, reexamines outdated assumptions, and uses reason, scientific evidence, and data in analyzing and critiquing Project 2025.

After reading the 45-page section on the Defense Department and related arms of the government, it is pretty clear that Project 2025’s recommendations would give nearly unlimited power to the president and that its overly partisan attacks on our institutions would make the United States less safe.


The second section of “The Mandate for Leadership. The Conservative Promise” is titled “The Common Defense” and also covers the Department of Homeland Security, the State Department, the intelligence community and Media agencies.

Christopher Miller, who briefly served as acting secretary of defense at the end of Donald Trump’s presidency, wrote the chapter on the Defense Department and is widely quoted in the section’s preamble. Right out of the gate, Miller calls the DOD “a deeply troubled institution,” claiming the department “has emphasized leftist politics over military readiness.” He writes that “recruiting was the worst in 2022 that it has been in two generations” and blames “the Biden Administration’s profoundly unserious equity agenda and vaccine mandates have taken a serious toll.” (Enlistments have been dropping for decades.)

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Paragraph three of the introduction throws out this incomprehensible and undefined sentence:

"But this is now Barack Obama’s general officer corps.” A serious policy report should be devoid of innuendo but unfortunately this sentence is only one example of pejorative statements made against past and present presidents.

The section should of course focus on ensuring that America’s best and brightest choose military service, but Project 2025 suggests the following when it comes to recruitment: “Should rigorously review all general and flag officer promotions to prioritize the core roles and responsibilities of the military over social engineering and non-defense related matters, including climate change, critical race theory, manufactured extremism, and other polarizing policies that weaken our armed forces and discourage our nation’s finest men and women from enlisting.”

It is really not clear that any of the above is actually happening within the DOD nor impacting recruitment.

Project 2025 does admit that China poses the most significant danger to the U.S. from abroad and sets to make recommendations. It prioritizes a denial defense against China and, in general, the needed reforms suggested are strategic.

Following the portion on China and the need to secure our Southern border, the document is full of frightening authoritarian nuggets. The most concerning line in the entire section reads: “The recommendations outlined in this section provide guidance on how the next President should use the federal government’s vast resources to do just that.”

Project 2025’s recommendations include giving the president the power to reduce the number of generals. “The next President should limit the continued advancement of many of the existing cadre, many of whom have been advanced by prior Administrations for reasons other than their warfighting prowess.”

Presidents do have the power to remove generals under Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution. That said, traditionally generals or admirals have been relieved of their posts for misconduct or a failure to perform their duties. Relieving a group of them as a political act by a president would tarnish the perception that the military is apolitical.

Project 2025 recommends that the president usurp Congress’ constitutional mandate when it comes to national defense. “The President should examine the recommendations of the congressionally mandated Commission on Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution Reform and develop a strategy for implementing those that the Administration considers to be in the best interests of the American people.”

These suggestions are being made based on occurrences that are not taking place, like “using the Army as a test bed for social evolution.” and “Marxist indoctrination and divisive critical race theory programs.”

It is ironic that while Project 2025 wants to diminish the administrative state, it proposes appointing a special assistant to the President who would liaison with Congress, DOD and all other interested parties on the issue of recruiting and retention.

According to Pew Research, most Americans continue to express positive views of the military: 60 percent say it has a positive effect, while 36 percent say its effect is negative. Promoting this kind of negative propaganda of our military forces is irresponsible and would ultimately leave the country less safe.

Project 2025’s partisan recommendations for our common defense should be of great concern to all Americans because, if implemented, it would grant vast powers to the “next conservative president.”

Americans should be united in our desire for safety and security. Instead the proposals put for by the Heritage Foundation in Project 2025 would only make us more divided and therefore much less secure.

    More articles about Project 2025


      Read More

      Raising Taxes or Cutting Spending: House Budget Committee Argues Over Debt Crisis Fix

      Republican and Democratic representatives discussed the fiscal state of the United State in a House Budget hearing on May 7, 2025

      Huiyan Li | Medill News Service

      Raising Taxes or Cutting Spending: House Budget Committee Argues Over Debt Crisis Fix

      WASHINGTON –– Republicans and Democrats clashed on May 7 at a House Budget Committee hearing over how to address the nation’s mounting federal debt—whether to raise revenue through tax increases or cut spending on federal programs such as Medicaid.

      Both parties agreed that the United States was on an unsustainable fiscal path and that urgent action is needed to prevent a debt crisis.

      Keep ReadingShow less
      Taxing the Rich To Pay for Trump Priorities Wouldn’t Slow Economic Growth

      Under Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower, people who earned more than $400,000 a year paid a top tax rate of 92%. Today's top rate is 37%.

      Adobe Stock

      Taxing the Rich To Pay for Trump Priorities Wouldn’t Slow Economic Growth

      Reports of the Trump administration considering taxing wealthy Americans to pay for mass deportations and other priorities come on the heels of a new study showing how the move could generate significant revenues without slowing economic growth.

      Mary Eschelbach Hansen, associate professor of economics at American University and the report's co-author, said raising tax rates for people who earn more than $609,000 a year to 44% would add 3% to the nation's tax coffers, enough to stave off cuts to popular programs serving low-income Coloradans.

      "In current budget proportions, that's about enough to pay for some of the biggest, most important programs like food stamps SNAP, Children's Health Insurance Program, and also Temporary Assistance for Needy Families," Eschelbach Hansen outlined.

      While 44% may seem high compared to today's top rate of 37%, it is a lot less than the 92% paid by people who earned more than $400,000 a year under Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower. Republicans have long argued tax cuts create economic benefits for all, and leaders in Congress, including Rep. Mike Johnson, R-La., the House Speaker, have said they would oppose any tax hikes.

      Eschelbach Hansen argued raising the top tax rate would also increase how much of the national income pie most Americans get to keep, compared to how much the wealthiest get, by about 2%. She added years of trickle-down economics have shown only the wealthy benefit from low tax rates.

      "If lowering top tax rates was going to trickle down, then you and I would be much richer than we are now," Eschelbach Hansen pointed out. "Because we have had an era of low top tax rates for decades."

      Eschelbach Hansen stressed higher personal tax rates have virtually no impact on long-term economic growth, and lower personal tax rates lead to less economic growth, because people tend to take advantage of the lower rate by moving their income.

      "Instead of reinvesting it in your business, where it will grow your business and grow the economy, you'll be more likely to just take it as personal income, which is not going to stimulate growth," Eschelbach Hansen explained.

      Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

      Keep ReadingShow less
      Chicago Head Start Programs Face Uncertainty After Regional Office Closure

      Morning drop-off at the Carole Robertson Center for Learning.

      Claire Murphy

      Chicago Head Start Programs Face Uncertainty After Regional Office Closure

      ALBANY PARK – The laughter of preschool children permeates the hallways of the Carole Robertson Center for Learning on a sunny Thursday morning in Albany Park.

      Teachers line their students up outside classrooms, counting names off one by one. Children congregate by their playmats and colorful rugs, about to be served breakfast.

      Keep ReadingShow less
      Treasury Secretary Bessent Foreshadows Trade Deals With Major Economic Partners

      US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent talks with Rep. Chuck Edwards, R-NC, after testifying in front of the House Appropriations Committee May 6, 2025.

      Athan Yanos/MNS.

      Treasury Secretary Bessent Foreshadows Trade Deals With Major Economic Partners

      WASHINGTON – Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent attempted to reassure Americans about the state of the U.S. economy, despite President Donald Trump’s major economic changes and the instability they have brought to the stock market.

      “In the first 100 days of the new administration, we have set the table for a robust economy that allows Main Street to grow with Congress and the White House working hand in hand. We expect to see even more positive results over the next few months,” Bessent told the House Appropriations Committee last week.

      Keep ReadingShow less