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 The Fulcrum's "Cross-Partisan Project 2025" relies on unbiased critical thinking, reexamines outdated assumptions, and uses reason, scientific evidence, and data in analyzing and critiquing Project 2025.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

      Man stepping on ripped poster

      A man treads on a picture of Syria's ousted president, Bashar al-Assad, as people enter his residence in Damascus on Dec. 8.

      Omar Haj Kadour/AFP via Getty Images

      With Assad out, this is what we must do to help save Syria

      This was a long day coming, and frankly one I never thought I’d see.

      Thirteen years ago, Syria’s Bashar Assad unleashed a reign of unmitigated terror on his own people, in response to protests of his inhumane Ba’athist government.

      Keep ReadingShow less
      Men and a boy walking through a hallway

      Vivek Ramaswamy and Elon Musk, with his son X, depart the Capitol on Dec. 5.

      Craig Hudson for The Washington Post via Getty Images

      Will DOGE promote efficiency for its own sake?

      This is the first entry in a series on the Department of Government Efficiency, an advisory board created by President-elect Donald Trump to recommend cuts in government spending and regulations. DOGE, which is spearheaded by Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, has generated quite a bit of discussion in recent weeks.

      The goal of making government efficient is certainly an enviable one indeed. However, the potential for personal biases or political agendas to interfere with the process must be monitored.

      As DOGE suggests cuts to wasteful spending and ways to streamline government operations, potentially saving billions of dollars, The Fulcrum will focus on the pros and cons.

      We will not shy away from DOGE’s most controversial proposals and will call attention to dangerous thinking that threatens our democracy when we see it. However, in doing so, we are committing to not employing accusations, innuendos or misinformation. We will advocate for intellectual honesty to inform and persuade effectively.

      The new Department of Government Efficiency, an advisory board to be headed by Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, is designed to cut resources and avoid waste — indeed to save money. Few can argue this isn't a laudable goal as most Americans have experienced the inefficiencies and waste of various government agencies.

      Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

      Keep ReadingShow less
      From left: Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Emmanuel Macron, Donald Trump

      President-elect Donald Trump spoke with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and French President Emmanuel Macron on Dec. 7. No one will be able to restrain Trump's foreign policy efforts.

      The true Trump threat

      Many Americans fear what Donald Trump will do after assuming the presidency in January — and understandably so. Trump's pathological self-absorption has no place in American government, let alone at its very top.

      But the specific type of threat Trump poses is often misunderstood. Like all presidents, his domestic powers are limited. He will face stiff resistance at the federal, state and local levels of government.

      Keep ReadingShow less
      Donald Trump and Tulsi Gabbard on stage

      President-elect Donald Trump has nominated former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard to be the director of national intelligence.

      Adam J. Dewey/Anadolu via Getty Images

      How a director of national intelligence helps a president stay on top of threats from around the world

      In all the arguments over whether President-elect Donald Trump’s choice for director of national intelligence is fit for the job, it’s easy to lose sight of why it matters.

      It matters a lot. To speak of telling truth to power seems terribly old-fashioned these days, but as a veteran of White House intelligence operations, I know that is the essence of the job.

      Keep ReadingShow less