Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Project 2025 is a threat to democracy

Project 2025 is a threat to democracy

If Donald Trump implements the Heritage Foundation's policy plan, he'll take us down the path of authoritarianism, writes Corbin.

Jeff Bottari/Zuffa LLC via Getty Images

Corbin is professor emeritus of marketing at the University of Northern Iowa.

There are a multitude of issues that voters must assess when deciding between President Joe Biden, former President Donald Trump and the independent presidential candidates before casting their ballots in the fall. Logically, the importance of each issue differs between and among America’s 161.4 million registered voters.

One rundown of the issues, produced by NBC News, ranges from abortion to affordable housing to foreign relations to climate change to election integrity to immigration to education. But one issue missing from that report has become a focal point of the Biden camp, MAGA Republicans and third-party candidates: democracy vs. authoritarianism.


Specifically, at noon Eastern on Monday, Jan. 20, 2025, will the duly elected and inaugurated president of the United States keep America as a democracy that dates back to the 1630s or will the commander-in-chief start changing the country to authoritarian-fascism?

If you’ve not heard of Project 2025, it’s very worthy of your independent investigation. Project 2025 is a playbook specifically created for Donald Trump and his minions to use in the first 180 days of Trump’s second presidential administration. The far-right Heritage Foundation proudly takes credit for facilitating the creation of the 887-page document, which if implemented would turn our democracy into an authoritarian country.

Project 2025’s two editors had assistance from 34 authors, 277 contributors, a 54-member advisory board and a coalition of over 100 conservative organizations (including ALEC, The Heartland Institute, Liberty University, Middle East Forum, Moms for Liberty, the NRA, Pro-Life America and the Tea Party Patriots).

It is a serious endeavor — if Trump returns to the White House — to make America a fascist country. After all, on May 20, Trump posted a video on his Truth Social media account depicting his next administration as a “ Unified Reich.” (Hitler’s Third Reich occurred in 1933-1945.)

On Project 2025’s website you can check out the disconcerting manuscript that tells Trump what specifically to do from Jan. 20 to July 18, 2025, to convert America into an authoritarian regime.

The 30 chapters are a daunting read. Project 2025 proposes, among a host of things, eliminating the Department of Education, eliminating the Department of Commerce, deploying the U.S. military whenever protests erupt, dismantling the FBI and Department of Homeland Security, removing protections against sexual and gender discrimination, and terminating diversity, equity, inclusion and affirmative action.

Additional mandates include: siphoning off billions of public school funding, funding private school choice vouchers, phasing out public education’s Title 1 program, gutting the nation’s free school meals program, eliminating the Head Start program, banning books and suppressing any curriculum that discusses the evils of slavery.

Project 2025 also calls for banning abortion (which makes women second-class citizens), restricting access to contraception, forcing would-be immigrants to be detained in concentration camps, eliminating Title VII and Title IX of the Civil Rights Act, recruiting 54,000 loyal MAGA Republicans to replace existing federal civil servants, and ending America’s bedrock principle that separates church from state.

A Feb. 20 article in Politico described Project 2025 as an authoritarian Christian nationalist movement and a path for the United States to become an autocracy. Several legal experts have indicated implementing the 180-day manual would undermine the rule of law and the separation of powers.

Seriously consider reading one research-based book per month for the next five months as pre-election homework so you’ll know what authoritarianism looks like. Here’s my suggested reading list:

Reading even just one of these books will enable you to discern candidate- and party-based disinformation, misinformation and propaganda from truth. You’ll be ready to vote on Nov. 5 and keep America a democracy.

More articles about Project 2025



    Read More

    ​Teal shoes are displayed outside Naval Medical Center Portsmouth

    Teal shoes are displayed outside Naval Medical Center Portsmouth in April 2018 as part of Sexual Assault Awareness and Prevention Month.

    Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Kris R. Lindstrom/U.S. Navy

    Military Sexual Trauma Survivors Can’t Sue the Government. A New Bill Could Change That.

    When Mayra Diaz opened the door of her Army barracks room in 2022, she didn’t realize it was the beginning of the end of her military career.

    She had never met the soldier standing in front of her, Sgt. Greville Clarke. She didn’t know he had sexually assaulted three other women on base over the past 15 months, including one he threatened at knifepoint.

    Keep ReadingShow less
    ​Horizontal photo of a DEMOCRATIC PARTY FLAG

    Horizontal photo of a DEMOCRATIC PARTY FLAG with a stylized DONKEY with 3 white stars on blue top of donkey and two red feet. Flag is laying on top of a red, white, and blue American Flag.

    Getty Images

    How to Define the Democratic Party - Left or Centrist?

    Labels can be misleading and misused. The label "Centrist" is empowering because it signifies you are mainstream, not extreme, a place where all people can come together. To be labeled "Left" is to place you outside the mainstream, extreme; left connotes a kind of kookiness as well as—horror of horrors—Socialism.

    But are the labels accurate? For most of the 20th century, the Democratic Party was, without question, the party that championed the working man, the average person—the people. But they were nevertheless firm capitalists—they were not Socialists.

    Keep ReadingShow less
    Illustration of US Capitol

    Illustration of US Capitol

    Illustration provided

    Are States and Localities Required to Cooperate with ICE?

    Polls show a majority of Americans disapprove of how Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is doing its job, with outrage stoked by a surge in immigration arrests across the country and multiple killings by federal immigration officials. In many places, residents are against their state and local officials cooperating with immigration authorities. And many local law enforcement leaders argue that cooperating with federal immigration enforcement operations undermines public safety by taking resources away from local priorities and eroding communities’ trust in law enforcement.

    Trump administration officials have repeatedly argued that states and localities are legally obligated to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement efforts. They have also warned that state and local laws limiting cooperation with ICE will be met with harsh crackdowns.

    Keep ReadingShow less
    people in a boardroom


    Happy female entrepreneur with colleagues sitting at a desk in an office

    Getty images

    Understanding The Dissolution of Federal DEI Offices and Initiatives: Debate and Implications

    This nonpartisan policy brief, written by an ACE fellow, is republished by The Fulcrum as part of our partnership with the Alliance for Civic Engagement and our NextGen initiative — elevating student voices, strengthening civic education, and helping readers better understand democracy and public policy.

    Background

    Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) is a buzzword often used in political spaces, and its implementations, or lack thereof, have repercussions on many groups. Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion efforts are organizational policies and initiatives that aim to equitably distribute opportunities and to create accepting workplaces for marginalized populations. These policies create hiring and recruitment guidelines to hire, retain, and promote individuals from those backgrounds. Supporters of these policies argue they are necessary in driving meaningful social progress, while critics argue they subordinate the role of merit in awarding opportunities.

    Keep ReadingShow less