Finishing our reading of Project 2025

How might a likely second Trump administration impact higher education?  How can academics plan for and anticipate that major event, should it occur?

This week we conclude our reading of Project 2025, a key document in understanding the near- and medium-term future of American politics.  This is an online, open, and distributed reading and anyone can participate. Here’s a post explaining how it works.  You can find all of our Project 2025 posts here.

In today’s post I’ll summarize this week’s reading, which includes “Independent Regulatory Agencies” and a conclusion entitled “Onward!” All of this occurs on pages 825-887.    I’ll draw out the bits which bear directly on higher education. Next I’ll add some reflections and then several discussion questions.  At the end I’ll share some more resources.  Please join in with comments below.

Summary overview

With this section the book continues addressing federal economic agencies and functions. The chapters are some of the briefest in the whole text.

To start, David R. Burton wants a new president to reform the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), with one aim being to “reduce unnecessary regulatory impediments to capital formation.” (830) That seems to mean cutting back a lot of regulations. He would also end progressive social justice policies:

Offices at financial regulators that promote racist policies (usually in the name of “diversity, equity, and inclusion”) should be abolished, and regulations that require appointments on the basis of race, ethnicity, sex, or sexual orientation should be eliminated. (830)

Next, Robert Bowes tackles the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), accusing it of being “a shakedown mechanism to provide unaccountable funding to leftist nonprofits politically aligned with those who spearheaded its creation” (837) and wanting its abolition (839).

Following that brief chapter, Brendan Carr analyzes the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).  Carr wants to rein in tech companies’ content moderation actions, notably by interpreting section 230 to block companies from censoring content. (849) He would also encourage age limits on social media access and having Silicon Valley firms contribute to the Universal Service Fund. Carr additionally wants to expand FCC actions against China, including banning Tiktok and adding more Chinese entities to the Covered List. (851-3)

Hans A. von Spakovsky assesses the Federal Election Commission (FEC) and I’m having a hard time summarizing this.  There’s a lot of language about FEC commissioners not going after people for not violating laws, which makes me think it’s throat-clearing or some careful maneuvering to protect either January 6 rioters and their ilk. More concretely, von Spakovsky would raise election campaign donation maxima. (866)

Next, Adam Candeub turns to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The author would reduce antitrust actions in many ways.(872-3) He thinks badly of DEI efforts conducted by the FTC, finding that they “serve… to launder corporate reputation and perhaps obtain favorable treatment from government actors.” (873) Candeub would use the FTC to after social media firms for contracted badly with minors. (875-6) Yet his conclusion waffles, pointing out a variety of opinions without settling on one:

Conservative approaches to antitrust and consumer protection continue to trust markets, not government, to give people what they want and provide the prosperity and material resources Americans need for flourishing, productive, and meaningful lives. At the same time, conservatives cannot be blind to certain developments in the American economy that appear to make government–private sector collusion more likely, threaten vital democratic institutions, such as free speech, and threaten the happiness and mental well-being of many Americans, particularly children. Many, but not all, conservatives believe that these developments may warrant the FTC’s making a careful recalibration of certain aspects of antitrust and consumer protection law and enforcement.

At last, Edwin J. Feulner concludes Project 2025 by hailing its predecessors, proudly proclaiming how presidents Reagan and Trump implemented majorities of their respective Heritage plans.

What do these final chapters mean for higher education?

None address academia directly this time.  They do offer some potential secondary effects. If my intuition about the FEC is right, then we might see more chaotic elections, which impact academics and everyone. Negative effects of various decisions on marginalized populations hit students, faculty, and staff.  Changing policies concerning technology giants might alter academic work with YouTube, Facebook, Tiktok, etc.

Reflections

I continue to be interested in a conservative document which calls for reducing government size, while also wanting to increase government power in certain areas.  For example, David Burton wants to absorb two nonprofit, non-federal organizations, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) and the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB), into the federal SEC. (830)

These final chapters continue the book’s generally pro-technology view.  One example is Brendan Carr’s call for the FCC to support a greater American space presence. (855)

Questions

1. How would the policy changes expressed in this week’s chapters impact your professional and personal lives?
2. Do you see Trump as likely to attempt what this week’s reading describes?
3. How might the world change if these global policies take effect?
4. If you oppose what these chapters call for, what opposition strategy and tactics would best resist it?

Resources

• Daniel Martinez HoSang, “Here is what will happen on day one of Trump’s presidency, according to Project 2025”
• “How Will Project 2025 Impact Libraries?”
• “The Project 2025 Song” (a la Schoolhouse Rock)
• Steven Rattner, “How Project 2025 Would Change the Country”

…and with that, congratulate yourselves on having read the full nearly 900 pages of Project 2025!  If I have time, and if there’s interest, I might follow up next week with reflections on our months of study.

Please do comment in the boxes below this post.  If you’d prefer to share your reactions on other platforms, tag me or otherwise let me know about those comments so I can include them in our next post.  If you want to respond but are worried about what people could make of your reactions, feel free to contact me here without the web knowing.

Comment away!  And thanks to everyone who read, responded, thought with, and otherwise contributed this week, including Owain and Elena.