Opinion | Opinions of today: Project 2025 is frightening

Opinion | Opinions of today: Project 2025 is frightening

You are reading the newsletter “Today’s Opinions”. Sign up to get it in your inbox.

What is Project 2025?

On Tuesday, President Biden tweeted three words: “Google Project 2025.” On Google Trends, search interest this week even surpassed that of Taylor Swift.

Unfortunately for the Biden campaign, searching for the term first leads to the project’s shiny homepage, complete with fireworks and flags and soaring words. So what is Project 2025 really?

In short, it is a playbook for a dramatic restructuring of the federal government should Republicans gain control. Technically, it comes from the Heritage Foundation, not the Republican presidential campaign, allowing Trump to claim he knows no more than the average confused Googler. “Don’t fall for it,” Catherine Rampell writes. Project 2025 and the MAGA machine are inextricably linked, with hundreds of Trump officials involved in its planning.

Planning what? Let’s take a look:

  • Project 2025 would drastically cut Medicaid funding and remove medication abortion drugs from the market.
  • It would close LGBTQ+ health programs and the government would declare that heterosexual couples are the superior family structure. The term “sexual orientation” would be banned from federal law.
  • This would end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which allows “dreamers” to stay in the United States. It would also lower legal immigration limits.
  • This would place the FBI directly under the President’s authority and abolish the Department of Education.
  • The expansion of power grids for wind and solar energy would be stopped.
  • Pornography would be illegal and the people who produce it would be put in prison.
  • It would officially recognize the Sabbath and embed Judeo-Christian values ​​throughout the government.
  • And it lays out how the president could fire bipartisan civil servants and replace them with loyalists who would accomplish all of this.

But don’t worry: Kevin Roberts, president of the Heritage Foundation, has promised that this revolution will be “bloodless” if the left gives in.

It is no wonder that editorial staff writes that Trump wants the official Republican platform to remain “as inoffensive and vague as possible.” But it is anything but that.

Catherine acknowledges that Trump may not know some of the details of Project 2025—”few would consider the man a policy nerd.” Even if he did, that’s just as dangerous; Trump delegated key decisions to his subordinates last time and would do so again.

The subordinates who write Project 2025.

Followers: President Biden says he will do “everything” to prevent something like this from happening. Alexandra Petri asks: Would we accept the same from a pilot landing our plane?

By political strategists Lake Celinda And Justin Zorn Commentary on the crisis of trust in government. The article is full of statistics on how Americans’ distrust is not only growing but also drifting apart, with Republicans pouring their few remaining resources into very different institutions than those favored by Democrats.

But this should be your most important realization: things can get better.

Lake and Zorn point out that “in an age of distrust, Republicans have a strategic advantage,” with individual skepticism at the core of the conservative message. But that doesn’t mean Democrats can’t adapt to the political culture.

The authors lay out a plan to do just that. For example, they could “work to redefine voting and political participation not just as civic duties, but as a means to challenge the power of lobbyists or change entrenched systems.”

Followers: Matt Bai gives some clues as to how Biden should run if he really wants to stay in the race: No more “bridge presidency”; he must be an off-ramp for the baby boomers.

More politics

Robert Hur deserves to have his reputation restored.

Hur, Chuck Lane reminded us in a column, the special counsel who wrote a report on Biden’s retention of classified documents after he left the office of vice president in 2017 was a report that took particular pains to comment on the current president’s age-related memory deficiencies.

Many observers questioned Hur’s work at the time, with Post Opinions writers calling it alternately “egregious abuse” and “a political assassination project.”

Or was it just an (if somewhat exaggerated) “honest report from an objective outsider”? That’s what Chuck says, adding: “If Democrats had not greeted Hur’s report with such a wave of rejection, but had taken it as a warning, they might not be in such a predicament today.”

The smartest and the fastest

  • Robert Wright coined the term “progressive realism,” which has now been adopted – and somewhat updated – by the new British Foreign Secretary. But what does progressive realism really mean?
  • Jason Rezaian continues its “Tastes Like Home” series with a visit to a restaurant that is ready to reintroduce its guests to Balkan cuisine, starting with burek.
  • Netflix lured us out of the mall and onto the couch. Marc Fisher takes a look at the streamer’s new stationary projects and asks: Can he lure us back?

It is a farewell. It is a haiku. It is… the bye-ku.

Do you have your own current haiku? Send it to me by emailalong with any questions/comments/ambiguities. See you tomorrow!