Project 2025 isn’t just a distant right-wing vision packed with extreme policies that are unlikely to be realized. The agenda is already emerging in states like Texas and Washington gradually centralizing away from individuals and testing the limits of legislative and judicial resilience. Policy schemes similar to those in Project 2025 have been tested in courts or attempted in legislation, essentially stress-testing their viability and setting the stage for easier implementation nationwide. These small, strategic moves are incrementally paving the way for the plan’s larger vision. This update highlights how policies suggested in project 2025 are being tested.

1. Criminalization of Reproductive Rights

On page 489 of Project 2025’s mandate, the Heritage Foundation outlines a vision to redefine the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) as the "Department of Life," rejecting abortion as healthcare and prioritizing a mission to "further the health and well-being of all Americans from conception to natural death."

The implications of a nationwide ban on abortion as healthcare is alarming for all women. When abortion is not considered healthcare, women facing severe health risks during pregnancy may be denied the life-saving care they need. Conditions such as ectopic pregnancies, sepsis, or hemorrhaging could lead to fatalities or lasting harm if physicians are restricted from providing necessary interventions. These restrictions ultimately force women to endure pregnancies, regardless of health complications or their well-being.

The project also calls for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to revoke approval of abortion drugs like mifepristone (pg. 485) and directs the Department of Justice (DOJ) to prosecute women and doctors who violate abortion bans, regardless of the physical state of the mother. Such policies criminalize pregnancies and could result in legal actions against women who experience miscarriages or stillbirths. When miscarriage is subject to scrutiny, every pregnancy loss could be viewed as suspect, increasing the risk of criminal investigations against women facing tragic personal losses.

In states like Texas, legal cases are already setting a precedent for the objectives of Project 2025. Recently, judge Matthew Kacsmaryk ruled in favor of revoking the FDA's approval of mifepristone, a ruling which subsequently reached the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. Although the case was ultimately dismissed by the Supreme Court on procedural grounds—specifically, that the plaintiffs lacked sufficient direct harm to justify their claims—the case itself served as a stress test for how far the law can be stretched to limit access to abortion medication. It provides a blueprint for a winning argument.

This case signals a potential future where Project 2025’s goals are realized through similar legal strategies. Each incremental step, from contested FDA approvals to targeted legal challenges, is paving the way for broader restrictions, with far-reaching consequences for reproductive rights in the United States.

2. Dismantling of the Department of Education

The Heritage Foundation proposes a drastic reformation of the American education system by defunding the federal Department of Education (pg. 319). By decentralizing control to individual states, federal support for programs benefiting low-income schools and college financial aid could vanish. Public school districts rely on approximately 11% of their funding—around $101 billion annually—from the federal government, according to the National Center for Education Statistics.

Wealthier states and districts may be able to fill this funding gap, but poorer communities would be left behind, exacerbating educational disparities that would disproportionately affect students in lower-income regions. For instance, while federal funding makes up just 4% of New York State's educational budget, states like Missouri depend on federal support for nearly 40% of their school funding. Stripping away these crucial resources would push already struggling districts to the brink, creating an education system where a child's access to quality schooling depends entirely on their zip code. This shift would effectively turn education into a privilege reserved for wealthier communities, abandoning millions of students in under-resourced areas and widening the wealth gap.

The project also emphasizes a selective approach to civil rights enforcement, aiming to reshape curricula by erasing the histories of ethnic groups deemed inconsistent with its interpretation of civil rights (page 322). This push is already underway in states like Florida, South Carolina, and Arkansas, where AP African American Studies courses have been banned from public schools, eliminating crucial content that forms a comprehensive understanding of U.S. history. Such restrictions go hand-in-hand with the push to ban discussions on systemic racism, narrowing the scope of what students can learn about cultural contributions and the challenges faced by nonwhite communities.

The result would be a less inclusive and less accurate historical education, depriving students of essential context about their country’s past. This narrowed approach not only erodes the value of diversity in education but also leaves students less equipped for higher education and the global workforce. As perspectives on race, culture, and social complexity are removed from curricula, students lose the critical thinking skills needed to engage thoughtfully with an increasingly diverse society and complex global economy. By selectively erasing nonwhite perspectives and histories, this approach risks producing generations unprepared for the demands of higher education and ill-suited to contribute meaningfully to America’s economy. The long-term economic impact of this narrowed education system will be a workforce lacking in cultural competence, adaptability, and the analytical skills necessary for innovation in an interconnected world—ultimately weakening America’s competitive edge and social cohesion.

On page 340 project 2025 calls for privatizing the student loan system. This shift would likely increase cost for students, as private lenders prioritize profit. Students will face increased financial burdens, making higher education less accessible for working class and middle class families and create further financial barriers for upwards mobility. These proposals point towards an education system that favors certain income brackets, leading to loss of diversity which will lead to a greater economic gap. These policies aim to turn education into a localized privilege rather than a universal right.

3. Mass Deportation

Project 2025 proposes transferring custody of immigrant children from Health and Human Services (HHS) to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), prioritizing enforcement over welfare (pg. 148). Handing this responsibility to DHS would likely expand these centers and normalize these inhumane practices, given DHS's primary focus on enforcement rather than on humanitarian or child welfare concerns. Increasing detention centers run by an enforcement-oriented agency will not only risk similar violations but will worsen the safety and psychological well-being of vulnerable immigrant children. This proposal, along with the suggested repeal of parts of the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA), would allow for large-scale detention center use across the country.

This shift raises significant concerns, especially given the current care-oriented approach, which already faces allegations of human rights abuses in detention centers. Reports from the Northwest Detention Center in Tacoma, Washington highlight serious conditions that endanger detainees' well-being, allegedly including limited access to medical care, unsanitary conditions, and maggot-infested food. These issues have reportedly been so severe that from January 1st to March 12th of this year, six detainees attempted suicide. Tragically, Charles Leo Daniel, a detainee at this facility, died by suicide, sparking further scrutiny and criticism of the conditions within the center.

Tacoma is a small example of what could happen if the mandate to detain 11 million people in detention centers and tents (140) is carried out. Estimates suggest that deporting one million individuals annually could cost approximately $88 Billion U.S. dollars a year. This economic burden is compounded not only by the economic consequence of losing millions of essential workers but also by the cost of building the infrastructure to make way for this push.

The large-scale detention of immigrants would have far-reaching economic implications. Immigrants contribute billions in taxes annually—often without receiving any benefits—meaning their removal would harm local businesses, strain state budgets, and negatively impact Social Security and other tax-based programs reliant on these contributions. A study by the American Immigration Council reveals that mass deportation could lead to a staggering $1.7 trillion reduction in gross domestic product (GDP)-- demonstrating the impact of removing 11.1 million tax-paying individuals from the economy. These estimates do not include the benefits these people contribute to the economy as consumers.

Project 2025’s mass deportation agenda may also pave the way for further restrictive measures on legal immigration. Historical data shows that between Q1 2017 and Q4 2020, the Trump administration reduced the number of green cards issued to new applicants by 418,453 and reduced non-immigrant visas by at least 11,178,668, resulting in a 63% reduction of legal immigration.

The actions proposed by Project 2025 and the Trump administration disregard the immense benefits that immigrants contribute to U.S. economic prosperity. Immigrants are not only crucial for meeting labor demands but are also vital drivers of economic growth and innovation. Immigrants are twice as likely to start a business and 50% more likely to register a patent than their native-born counterparts. By underestimating the value of immigrants, the proposed policies jeopardize the economic foundation of the country, emphasizing the need for an economically sound approach to immigration.

4. Establishing a Unitary Executive Branch

Project 2025 could significantly erode the country’s system of checks and balances by aiming to increase the president's authority over every aspect of the federal government. A critical aspect of this plan involves reissuing Trump’s Schedule F executive order within the new Department of the Interior, which would permit the dismissal of ‘non-performing’ employees (pg. 335). This measure would enable far-right extremists to discharge federal employees considered insufficiently loyal.

This proposal targets the vast federal workforce comprising approximately 3.5 million individuals responsible for managing a $6.2 trillion federal budget. Currently, only about 4,000 of the more than 3 million federal employees are political appointees who are typically replaced with each presidential administration. The majority, considered career civil servants, play essential roles in maintaining the continuity and integrity of government operations.

In 2020, former President Trump's executive order aimed to create a new class of federal workers, known as “Schedule F” employees to increase the amount of presidential appointees he could appoint and to replace career civil servants by the thousands. This designation would include career staff members engaged in “confidential, policy-determining, policy-making” work, thereby placing a significant portion of the civil service at risk of political purges. Such changes not only threaten the stability of federal institutions but also compromise their ability to function independently and effectively, further undermining the foundational principles of democracy. Should the schedule F be reinstated, president Trump would have the means to carry out the project 2025 agenda.

The movement toward consolidating executive power is evident in how recent administrations have navigated the electoral transition process. Typically, a smooth presidential power transition is facilitated by the Presidential Transition Act, which was established by Congress to ensure the federal government is prepared for new leadership. A vital part of this process is a memorandum of understanding (MOU), signed by both parties, which secures funding from the transition budget to support appointees and maintain continuity between administrations.

Under this act, the General Services Administration (GSA) is required to provide essential office space and core support services to the incoming president-elect and vice-president-elect. Additionally, eligible candidates are provided pre-election resources, enabling both first and second-term presidents to plan adequately for transitions well before election results are finalized. This funding is essential for establishing a stable, transparent, and efficient transition.

However, President Trump’s refusal to sign the MOU, despite multiple opportunities, demonstrates a deviation from the norms of presidential transition. By declining to sign the MOU, Trump could avoid the public oversight that comes with using federal funds for transition activities. This opens the door for private, untraceable funding—often called "dark money"—to fill the financial gaps. This reluctance suggests a preference for a more unitary executive branch, a concept akin to a unitary state– such that the executive branch maintains the majority of power, leaving the judiciary and legislative branches significantly subordinate.

Such shifts toward centralization could undermine the U.S. model of checks and balances, concentrating power in the executive branch and potentially weakening the independent functioning of federal institutions designed to serve a diverse and democratic society.

Not only could a poor transition of power undermine the integrity of our democracy, but it could also lead to a complete shutdown of the federal government. This was illustrated by the 2019 government shutdown under President Trump, which lasted from December 22, 2018, to January 25, 2019. The shutdown was triggered by a budget standoff between the president and Congress over his demand for $5.7 billion in funding to construct a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border.

Spanning 35 days, this shutdown became the longest in U.S. history, affecting approximately 800,000 federal workers who were either temporarily laid off or forced to work without pay. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated the shutdown's total cost at around $11 billion, with $3 billion of that amount considered a permanent loss to the economy.

Most critically, the shutdown disrupted numerous federal assistance programs, leaving agencies unable to distribute vital funds for housing and food assistance. The threat of disrupting government functions, potentially lasting even longer than the 2019 event, raises serious concerns. Such an extended shutdown would likely have far-reaching detrimental effects on communities and the economy, exacerbating hardships for those reliant on federal support and destabilizing various sectors across the nation.

Project 2025 represents a substantial threat not only to individual rights but also to the very foundation of American democracy. By seeking to centralize power in the executive branch, undermine civil rights, and erode essential social programs, this radical agenda prioritizes control over fairness, enforcement over welfare, and exclusion over inclusion. The incremental steps already being taken in states foreshadow a future where the rights of marginalized groups—be it women, immigrants, or low-income families—are further compromised.