Snopes Fact Check: True [Source]

Is Donald Trump behind Project 2025?

“The story of Project 2025 starts with the Heritage Foundation. Since its founding in the 1970s, Heritage has styled itself as the main think tank of the conservative movement. Its goal is to push the Republican Party toward a further right agenda so that GOP officials listen more to ideologues and hardliners, not moderates and the traditional party establishment.

Heritage does this partly by crafting and advocating for policy proposals. They also try to be a sort of “administration-in-waiting” when the GOP is out of power, with experts on their payroll who can join a newly elected administration. In some ways, Project 2025 is not new: The Heritage Foundation has been releasing extremely long (and extreme) plans for what the next conservative president should do since 1980.

Yet, the dynamics this time around are different, in part due to Heritage’s close ties to Trump and in part due to the unusual situation where a former president is trying to regain office.

Ordinarily, there’d be a fair amount of ambiguity about who the next president would appoint to his administration if elected. But Trump has been president before, and when he was, he heavily relied on Heritage appointees. (After his unexpected 2016 win, he needed to quickly staff an administration and come up with policies, and Heritage was ready and waiting.)

About two-thirds of authors and editors involved in Project 2025’s plan served in the Trump administration.

HUD Secretary Ben Carson, acting Defense Secretary Chris Miller, deputy White House chief of staff Rick Dearborn, former OMB director Russ Vought, and top DHS official Ken Cuccinelli contribute chapters, just to name a few. And John McEntee, the White House personnel director who purged officials viewed as disloyal to Trump, has a key role in collecting staff recommendations for the project. (CNN reported that at least 140 former Trump administration officials were in some way involved in it.)

Trump also praised the Heritage Foundation at an April 2022 event, calling it a “great group” that would “lay the groundwork and detail plans for exactly what our movement will do” when “the American people give us a colossal mandate to save America.” (Obviously, that conflicts with his recent claim that he has “no idea who is behind” it and that he has “nothing to do with them.”) Much of the plan also seems crafted to appeal to Trump specifically, and there’s tons of stuff in it that he openly supports.”

By —Andrew Prokop, “Project 2025: The myths and the facts.” Vox

How Would it Effect Your Children?

“The Department of Education would be eliminated, student loans would be privatized and federal legislation on parental rights would be pushed under Project 2025.

The education portion of the sweeping platform, put together by a coalition of right-wing organizations that support former President Trump, would fundamentally change how K-12 and higher education funding and curriculum work.”

‘“It is not hyperbole to say that Project 2025 would be a wrecking ball to public education in this country, and it seeks to radically undermine and undercut the ability of people to get a quality education in this country, and then even goes further and seeks to transform our public education system and our public schools into ideological extremist spaces,” said Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward. 

The project, which was spearheaded by the Heritage Foundation, calls for demolishing the federal Education Department, long a goal of many conservatives, though observers say the plans don’t detail how the system is supposed to move forward.

“If the goal is to reduce the size of government, you’re not doing that, you’re just sort of playing games with where these programs. So, to me, it looked like a lot of what they’re doing is just that kind of that reshuffling in ways that don’t feel well-supported or grounded in any kind of rationale for why they should work,” said Jon Valant, director of the Brown Center on Education Policy at the Brookings Institution. 

The proposals also aim to reorganize programs including Title I, which supports low-income schools, and have states take over their funding aspects within 10 years. Before states take the reins, the federal government would give them block grants for Title I, but would not make requirements on how the money is spent. 

The plan “looks to me like the very dismantling of Title I,” Valant said, adding he does not believe states would use money for Title I if it was not specifically allocated for that purpose.”

“While Project 2025 largely wants education out of the hands of federal government, there are multiple proposals it wants to see implemented in Congress. The big goals would be a parental bill of rights, laws against using a student’s preferred pronouns without parental consent and school choice initiatives.  

“They also put forth some ideas which are a little bit odd because part there’s sort of a theme to the rhetoric that says that the federal government should be less involved in education. But they kind of, in passing, they propose what sounds like a massive tax and federal tax credit scholarship program,” Valant said. 

And higher education isn’t left out of the conservative agenda, with one of the biggest proposals changing how student loans are conducted. 

The group wants to phase out income-driven repayment programs and eventually make it impossible for loan forgiveness to happen under the federal government.  

Student loans would move to the Department of Treasury, with an ultimate goal of private companies running the show.  

“Although student loans and grants should ultimately be restored to the private sector (or, at the very least, the federal government should revisit its role as a guarantor, rather than direct lender) federal postsecondary education investments should bolster economic growth, and recipient institutions should nourish academic freedom and embrace intellectual diversity,” Project 2025 reads.  

But others argue this would put those seeking a college degree in a difficult position.  

“The proposal is incredibly concerning in that respect. It would seek to block certain student loan cancelations — that would be devastating, with respect to access. It would also bring back ballooning balances with respect to student loans, predatory practices that has really undermined the ability of people to both access education and also pursue economic opportunity,” Perryman said.  

“Millions of borrowers will be denied their own earned debt relief because it’s seeking to undermine the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program, which, of course, many people rely on,” Perryman added.”

By — by Lexi Lonas, “Project 2025 would fundamentally change public education, experts say“

What Would Project 2025 do to Taxes and Trade?

• If enacted, Project 2025 would be a major overhaul of the U.S. tax system

• The plan would reduce the number of income tax brackets from seven to two

• It also calls for more political control of the IRS

Fewer tax brackets under Project 2025

‘“What the plan calls for: Two income tax rates — 15% and 30% — and eliminating “most deductions, credits and exclusions.”

How it works now: Currently, there are seven federal income tax brackets: 10%, 12%, 22%, 24%, 32%, 35%, 37%. Those rates are based on income tiers: The more money you make, the higher rate you pay.

For example, a single taxpayer making $50,000 a year would pay 10% in federal income tax on the first $11,600, then 12% on their earnings from $11,601 to $47,150 and 22% between $47,151 and $50,000.

Today’s structure is an example of a progressive tax system — those who make more, pay more and those who make less pay less.

Project 2025 argues that the current system is too complicated and wants to replace it with a two-bracket model, 15% and 30%. The 30% bracket would begin “at or near the Social Security wage base” which is currently $168,600, according to the proposal. Those making under that amount would pay 15%.

The plan argues that simplifying the tax system would substantially cut tax compliance costs, which it says cost Americans more than $400 billion annually.

Project 2025 also calls for an end to “most deductions, credits and exclusions,” although it doesn’t go into specifics.

What it could mean:

• Replacing the 10% and 12% brackets with a 15% rate could raise the tax burden on those making less than $47,150 a year. Middle-class earners would also pay higher taxes on their first $47,150 but pay a lower rate on their income between $47,150 and the suggested $168,600 threshold.

• A middle-class family with two children and an annual income of $100,000 would pay $2,600 in additional federal income tax if they faced a 15% flat tax on their income, Brendan Duke, senior director for economic policy at the left-leaning Center for American Progress, recently told CBS News.

  • By comparison, a married couple with two children and earnings of $5 million a year would enjoy a $325,000 tax cut, he estimated. 

• The exact impact would depend on which deductions and tax credits get eliminated.

“Project 2025’s trade policies

During his first term, Trump levied tariffs on thousands of products, starting a trade war with China to force Beijing to change its practices. So far, the Biden administration has kept most of the Trump tariffs in place.

If re-elected, Trump has signaled he intends to tighten trade policy further, floating ideas like a universal 10% tariff on most foreign goods.

Project 2025 lays out multiple paths for trade policy. In one scenario, the president would have the authority to match the tariffs a foreign partner imposes on U.S. goods. That would be made possible if Congress enacted the U.S. Reciprocal Trade Act. As it currently stands, the president is limited in their ability to fight back high tariffs with trading partners, the report notes.

Another option proposed in Project 2025 is a border adjustment tax, which would eliminate the ability of corporations to deduct the cost of imports while eliminating the tax on income attributable to exports.

The Trump-Biden tariffs have come at a cost to Americans, amounting to an average annual tax increase of $625 per U.S. household, according to the Tax Foundation.

Other policy suggestions that could impact your wallet

• Universal Savings Accounts: Project 2025 suggests allowing taxpayers to contribute up to $15,000 in a tax-advantaged savings account similar to a Roth IRA. Investment gains would be non-taxable and the money could be withdrawn whenever for any reason.

• Consumption Tax: The proposal argues that a consumption tax like a national sales tax is “the least economically harmful way to raise federal tax revenues” because it minimizes the government’s involvement in private decisions.

• SNAP food benefits: The project suggests a number of reforms. One could result in more recipients facing work requirements in order to receive benefits. Another proposal suggests changing eligibility requirements for those who are on other federal programs.

• Student Loan Forgiveness: Project 2025 calls for major cuts to federal loan forgiveness programs for student loan borrowers. Specifically, it would eliminate the Public Service Loan Forgiveness initiative, which offers debt cancellation to nonprofit and government workers after a period of time.

• More political control of the IRS: The plan would expand the number of White House appointees and freeze the IRS budget at its current level.

• Eliminate Green Energy Tax Credits: Project 2025 calls for all tax increases that were passed as part of the Inflation Reduction Act to be repealed.

• Change Federal Reserve mandate: The proposal says “full employment” should be eliminated from the Federal Reserve’s mandate and instead the Fed should focus on “price stability alone.”’

  By — NewsNationNow.com, “What Project 2025 says about taxes, trade.”

(Steven Rattner is the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Willett Advisors LLC, the investment arm for former New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s personal and philanthropic assets.)

What about Veterans?

"By dismantling key agencies and slashing federal jobs, Project 2025 risks undermining not only government efficiency but also the livelihoods of tens of thousands of veterans."

“The proposal by Project 2025 to drastically reduce the federal workforce is alarming, not just for its potential effects on the efficiency and efficacy of government operations but for the impact it would have on one of the nation’s most revered groups: our veterans.

Project 2025, a comprehensive policy blueprint backed by influential conservative think tanks, aims to reshape the federal government radically. It proposes cutting one million federal jobs, with a significant focus on eliminating managerial bureaucracy and shutting down what it terms “toxic government agencies.” This initiative aligns closely with the policies of former President Trump, reflecting a broader agenda to reduce government size and influence drastically.

Veterans make up roughly 30% of the federal workforce, with approximately 300,000 veterans currently employed by the federal government. These individuals, having served their country in the military, have chosen to continue their service in a civilian capacity. They bring unparalleled dedication, discipline, and unique skill sets often not found in the private sector. Many of these veterans, including a substantial number who are disabled, find employment in agencies that Project 2025 targets for elimination, such as the FBI and the Justice Department.

The FBI and DOJ are veteran-heavy workplaces, offering opportunities for those who have served to continue contributing to national security and justice. These agencies are integral to maintaining law and order, and their employees include many veterans who have transitioned from military service to civilian roles. Drastically cutting jobs in these agencies would disproportionately affect veterans, many of whom rely on these positions not only for employment but also for a sense of purpose and community.

When we talk about cutting federal employees, we’re talking about cutting opportunities for veterans, reducing their livelihoods, and potentially leaving many without jobs. 

It's essential to recognize that a well-functioning government relies on the skills and expertise of its employees. By suggesting a 50% reduction in federal employees within a year and 75% within four years, Project 2025 is essentially advocating for a skeletal government, unable to perform its fundamental functions. All the while leaving civil service veterans holding the bag. 

Similar sentiments have been echoed by key figures in the GOP, including those closely aligned with former President Trump. But the question we must ask is, at what cost?

Cutting jobs, especially in the midst of ongoing economic recovery, is not a move that should be taken lightly. We have a responsibility to consider the broader societal implications, not just the short-term political gains. Our veterans, who have already given so much, should not have to pay the price for hasty political decisions.

Let’s prioritize real solutions, such as retraining and better allocation of resources, rather than drastic cuts that impact our heroes. For a country that prides itself on supporting its veterans, cutting their jobs should never be the answer.

The push for such extreme measures under Project 2025, and the alignment with Trump's policies, reflects a broader agenda that seems to prioritize political strategy over the welfare of those who have served our country. It is crucial to scrutinize these proposals and consider their real-world impact on the lives of veterans and the functionality of our government. Only through thoughtful and measured approaches can we ensure that we honor our commitments to veterans while maintaining a robust and effective federal workforce.

By dismantling key agencies and slashing federal jobs, Project 2025 risks undermining not only government efficiency but also the livelihoods of tens of thousands of veterans. These actions will have far-reaching consequences, weakening the very fabric of our nation’s administrative capabilities, betraying our veterans, and damaging the economy to prove a twisted point. We must ask ourselves what is more important: the livelihoods of our veterans and the health of our economy, or the whims of the few who want to dismantle the government.”

By — Michael Embrich, “Project 2025: The worst-case scenario for veterans”

What About People of Color?

DNC Senior Spokesperson Marcus W. Robinson released the following statement: 

“Donald Trump and his extreme, far-right Project 2025 allies have made it clear that in a second term, they will make America a dangerous and dystopian reality for Black Americans. The Black community suffered under Trump’s MAGA extremism, and now the looming threat of his Project 2025 plans include a draconian abortion ban that disproportionately affects women of color, ripping away lower prescription drug costs and health care access that has increased insurance rates for Black Americans to a record high, slashing funding for education, and gutting programs that help families make ends meet. Trump’s Project 2025 agenda is just more evidence that in this election, the stakes could not be higher for Black Americans.”

Trump’s Project 2025 allies are plotting to rip away Black women’s reproductive health care by banning abortion nationwide and restricting access to contraception and medication abortion.

Politico: “As president, Trump enacted several policies that made it more difficult for people, particularly the working class and the poor, to obtain contraception — from allowing more employers to opt out of birth control coverage in their workers’ health insurance to imposing restrictions on the Title X family planning program that triggered a mass exodus of clinics.

“Conservative allies want to reimpose those policies and go further if he wins in November. Their “Project 2025” blueprint includes proposals to require coverage of natural family planning methods and remove requirements that insurance cover certain emergency contraception.” 

“As part of their 2025 wish list, conservatives want to overhaul which forms of birth control insurance companies must cover for patients at no cost under the Affordable Care Act. For instance, they have drafted plans to allow insurers to drop coverage of the emergency contraceptive pill Ella, which some on the right believe is an abortifacient.”

Associated Press: “Women of color advocating for abortion access pointed out that restricting access to mifepristone could worsen racial health disparities. They argue that individuals of color and pregnant people from marginalized communities are more likely to face systemic barriers that limit their access to abortion and other reproductive health care. As a result, they rely on methods like medication abortion.”

CapitalB: “Black women are especially vulnerable in our hostile anti-abortion landscape. They receive about one-third of all abortions in the country, and are far more likely than white women to die from pregnancy-related issues. Some Republican-led states also are targeting in vitro fertilization as part of their wider struggle to limit reproductive rights, tearing open a ‘Pandora’s Box for Black women,’ who are plagued by infertility more than other groups.”

Rolling Stone: “Inside the MAGA Plan to Attack Birth Control, Surveil Women and Ban the Abortion Pill”

“GOP operatives have already crafted an expansive blueprint, 887 pages long, laying out in painstaking detail how they intend to govern, including plans to leverage virtually every arm, tool and agency of the federal government to attack abortion access.”

Project 2025 wants to take Trump’s disastrous tax cuts — which rigged the economy for the ultra-rich and left working Black families behind — even further.

BBC: “[Project 2025] calls for… sweeping tax cuts. … The economic advisers suggest that a second Trump administration should slash corporate and income taxes, abolish the Federal Reserve and even consider a return to gold-backed currency.”

Vox: “Trump said this tax break was for small businesses. It’s giving $17 billion to millionaires this year”

New York Times: “White Americans Gain the Most From Trump’s Tax Cuts, a Report Finds”

“White Americans earn about 77 percent of total income in the United States, but they are getting nearly 80 percent of the benefits of the individual and business tax cuts generated by the new law, the analysis found. African Americans received about 5 percent of the benefits, despite earning 6 percent of the nation’s income.

“As a result, the average tax cut going to a white American household is more than double one going to a black or Latino one.”

Project 2025 wants to end Medicare as we know it, and they and other MAGA Republicans want to gut Medicaid and restrict access to affordable health care. 

Rolling Stone: “Republicans Are Planning to Totally Privatize Medicare — And Fast”

“One item buried in the 887-page blueprint has attracted little attention thus far, but would have a monumental impact on the health of America’s seniors and the future of one of America’s most popular social programs: a call to ‘make Medicare Advantage the default enrollment option’ for people who are newly eligible for Medicare.”

Politico: “Red states hopeful for a 2nd Trump term prepare to curtail Medicaid”

“Republicans in half a dozen states have a request for a second Trump administration: Require low-income adults to work for free government health care.

“In places like Idaho, Missouri and South Dakota, GOP officials are laying the groundwork to substantially overhaul their health safety-net programs. Their plans, if approved by a Trump White House, could cut hundreds of thousands of people from a program that conservatives have long complained is bloated…”

CapitalB: “Project 2025 mentions that states should have the ability to impose work requirements on Medicaid, which helps to cover medical costs for low-income people. Several Republican-led states, including Idaho, Missouri, and South Dakota, are already making plans to restructure their Medicaid programs — just in case Trump wins in November. Research shows that mandating work requirements only fuels racial inequality, given the discrimination against Black Americans that exists in the low-wage market. Compared with white Americans, Black Americans are about half as likely to be called back for an entry-level job, meaning that they’d be disproportionately burdened by work requirements. Plus, reforms to Medicaid and other social safety net programs have long been tied to stereotypes that portray Black Americans as lazy or scheming — recall the ‘welfare queen’ trope of the 1970s.”

Project 2025 wants to roll back several Biden-Harris administration education policies that help Black Americans achieve equal opportunity, including student debt relief and the Title I Program.

CapitalB: “Project 2025 advocates for rolling back the Biden administration’s more recent student debt relief efforts, which are rooted in the power that the Higher Education Act of 1965 grants to the U.S. Department of Education to ‘compromise, waive, or release loans.’ The policy agenda claims that the administration is ‘acting outside of statutory authority.’ The administration has eliminated some $138 billion worth of student loan debt so far. This month, it announced new plans that would target the ‘disproportionate debt burden’ faced by Black borrowers, who also would bear the brunt of any large-scale debt regulation reversal.”

Bucks County Beacon: “Project 2025 Wants to End Public Education As We Know It”

“Title I funding, which provides support for low-income districts, should just be handed over as state grants that are ‘no-strings-attached,’ i.e. taxpayer-funded grants with no regulation or oversight. IDEA funding, created to help support students with special needs, should also be converted to unregulated block grants.

“Burke suggests that choice can be expanded nationally by making federal funds ‘portable.’ IDEA and Title I funding could become vouchers. Burke points out that parents of students with special needs sometimes run into trouble getting public schools to provide the free and appropriate education the law requires. What Burke does not explain is how those students would be better served in a system that has no such requirement at all and which, in fact, allows schools ‘to control their admissions’ and thereby reject any students they suspect would be too difficult or expensive to serve.”

By — Democrats.org, “Trump’s Project 2025 Agenda Would Hurt Black Americans”