The Lewiston Institute's Rebuttal to Project 2025: A Threat to Democracy and Constitutional Values
Consolidation of Presidential Power
Project 2025 advocates for the unitary executive theory, a radical idea proposing near-total presidential control over the executive branch. While proponents argue this centralization enhances efficiency, history serves as a cautionary tale. The U.S. Constitution intentionally establishes a system of checks and balances, designed to prevent any single branch from overpowering the others. A key Supreme Court ruling, Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952), upheld this system by rebuking President Truman's overreach during the Korean War. If implemented, Project 2025 would dismantle the separation of powers, subverting judicial and legislative oversight in favor of unchecked executive authority. This could potentially transform the presidency into a quasi-dictatorial role, stripping the nation of vital democratic accountability.
Legal Juxtaposition: Exploiting Constitutional Protections While Undermining Them
Donald Trump and his allies frequently invoke constitutional arguments to defend themselves in court while simultaneously attacking the same principles they claim to uphold. For example, Trump asserts that his First Amendment rights protect his rhetoric surrounding the January 6th Capitol riot. However, evidence suggests that his actions undermined constitutional processes, particularly those concerning the election's integrity. Similarly, legal challenges backed by Trump’s supporters often claim to safeguard constitutional liberties, yet simultaneously erode democratic safeguards, such as promoting false elector schemes. This reflects a profound hypocrisy—using the Constitution as a shield while actively seeking to dismantle its foundational protections.
Dismantling Federal Agencies
Among Project 2025’s most dangerous proposals is the abolition of critical federal agencies, including the Department of Education and the Department of Justice. These agencies are cornerstones in safeguarding civil rights, ensuring educational equity, and upholding the rule of law. Abolishing them would create a governance vacuum, leaving vulnerable populations unprotected and vital services unfulfilled.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) plays a crucial role in enforcing voting rights, combating systemic discrimination, and prosecuting federal crimes. Similarly, the Department of Education is integral in enforcing civil rights protections in schools and promoting equitable access to education. The removal of these institutions would destabilize the systems that preserve fairness and equality across the nation.
Mass Deportations and the Legal Basis of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) of 1996
Project 2025’s immigration policy relies heavily on the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) of 1996 as a foundation for mass deportations. This law expanded the grounds for deportation, narrowing judicial discretion and providing the federal government with broader powers to remove noncitizens. Advocates of Project 2025 claim the INA justifies a large-scale deportation strategy that could target millions of undocumented immigrants.
However, legal experts and human rights advocates caution against this approach. The Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause protects all individuals within U.S. borders, regardless of their immigration status, and mass deportations would likely face legal challenges for violating this core constitutional right. In addition, the logistical and ethical barriers to such a sweeping policy—including resource limitations and the potential violation of human rights—make it unfeasible.
Further complicating this proposal is the suggestion to invoke the Insurrection Act to militarize immigration enforcement. The Posse Comitatus Act, which restricts military involvement in domestic affairs, would create significant legal and constitutional hurdles. Using military force to target civilian populations for administrative purposes would risk turning immigrant communities into military zones and erode public trust in government institutions.
Reproductive Rights Under Siege
Project 2025’s stance on reproductive health exemplifies an aggressive rollback of personal autonomy and privacy. While the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (2022) decision overturned Roe v. Wade, leaving abortion regulation to the states, Project 2025 seeks to impose a federal ban on abortion, disregarding state rights under the Tenth Amendment. Such a federal mandate deepens the divide on reproductive rights and further centralizes authority in Washington, D.C.
Beyond the constitutional implications, these policies would disproportionately affect marginalized groups—particularly low-income women and people of color—who already face systemic healthcare barriers. The national impact of such measures could set the nation back decades on issues of gender equality and reproductive health.
Consequences of Abortion Restrictions: A National Crisis in Waiting
Restrictive abortion laws, particularly those enacted in states like Texas, have already demonstrated the dire consequences of such policies. Women who are denied life-saving care due to abortion bans face severe medical risks, including infections, organ failure, and in extreme cases, death. These laws disproportionately harm marginalized communities, restricting access to necessary healthcare services.
Federalizing these restrictions would exacerbate healthcare inequities, leading to a national public health crisis. Warnings from medical professionals and the personal stories of women who have suffered under such laws emphasize the dangers of Project 2025’s push to restrict reproductive rights.
Threats to Religious Freedom
Project 2025 envisions a government that incorporates conservative Christian values, potentially eroding the separation of church and state as enshrined in the First Amendment. The Establishment Clause of the Constitution prevents any religion from being formally integrated into government policies. Policies that mandate prayer in schools or seek to redefine laws based on biblical principles threaten this fundamental protection.
The case of Engel v. Vitale (1962), which struck down state-sponsored prayer in schools, highlights the dangers of state endorsement of religion. Project 2025’s vision risks alienating millions of Americans who adhere to different religious beliefs or none at all, undermining pluralism and the democratic principle of neutrality in governance.
Religious freedom protections extend beyond safeguarding the right to practice faith; they also ensure that individuals are not coerced into participating in religious activities. The manifesto’s push for policies rooted in conservative Christianity would threaten this balance and undermine the secular nature of American governance.
Threats to Civil Liberties
Project 2025’s agenda poses a broader threat to civil liberties. Policies that seek to restrict free expression, reproductive rights, and LGBTQ+ protections are framed as upholding moral values but, in practice, dismantle rights guaranteed by the Constitution. The proposed rollback of protections for same-sex marriage and gender-affirming care would disproportionately affect the LGBTQ+ community, infringing on the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection under the law.
Moreover, the expansion of government surveillance under the guise of moral enforcement raises significant concerns. Increased surveillance often leads to overreach, disproportionately affecting marginalized groups and dissenting voices. This threatens the privacy and freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, turning government institutions into tools of conformity rather than defenders of liberty.
Historically, efforts to legislate morality through state power have led to societal backlash and weakened trust in democratic institutions. Project 2025’s policies threaten to erode the freedoms that are the bedrock of the U.S. Constitution, making way for an authoritarian form of governance.
Economic Inequality and Favoritism Toward Elites
The economic policies proposed by Project 2025 prioritize the wealthy, advocating for substantial tax cuts for high-income earners while slashing funding for critical social programs. Such measures would exacerbate income inequality and undermine the social safety net that millions of Americans rely on.
These policies mirror the economic trends of the Gilded Age, where wealth concentration among the elite led to significant social unrest. By prioritizing the interests of the wealthy few, Project 2025 neglects the needs of working-class Americans, further eroding trust in government institutions.
Musk and Bezos vs. Labor Rights: A Strategic Challenge to Worker Protections
Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos have recently filed lawsuits challenging the Department of Labor’s authority, claiming its enforcement powers are unconstitutional. Both SpaceX and Amazon have been embroiled in controversies surrounding labor violations, including union-busting, unsafe working conditions, and retaliation against workers who speak out.
These legal challenges coincide with a judiciary increasingly influenced by Trump-appointed judges, raising concerns that corporate interests will erode labor protections. Undermining labor laws not only threatens workers’ rights to fair wages and safe working conditions but also retaliates against those advocating for better treatment.
Potential Sedition and Undermining Constitutional Order
The radical restructuring proposed by Project 2025, bypassing constitutional processes, raises concerns of potential sedition. Policies that dismantle key agencies, promote mass deportations, and erode checks and balances challenge the very foundation of democratic governance. These initiatives threaten the constitutional order and risk destabilizing the nation.
The authors of Project 2025 must be held accountable for proposing policies that undermine the rule of law and threaten democratic institutions. The stakes are too high to allow such initiatives to gain traction without rigorous scrutiny.
Conclusion
The Lewiston Institute views Project 2025 as more than just a conservative policy proposal—it is a dangerous manifesto that seeks to dismantle the pillars of American democracy. Its emphasis on consolidating executive power, dismantling federal agencies, and promoting exclusionary policies undermines constitutional integrity, civil rights, and social cohesion. We call on all Americans to critically examine these proposals, challenge their legality, and protect the core values of justice, equality, and democracy. The future of our democratic institutions depends on our collective resolve to uphold these principles.
______________________________________
Sources and Citations
______________________________________
Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952): Supreme Court ruling that limited executive power, stating that President Truman overstepped his constitutional authority during the Korean War.
Citation: Oyez, Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, https://www.oyez.org/cases/1951/748
Griswold v. Connecticut (1965): Landmark Supreme Court case recognizing the constitutional right to privacy, forming the basis for later rulings on reproductive rights.
Citation: Oyez, Griswold v. Connecticut, https://www.oyez.org/cases/1964/496
Engel v. Vitale (1962): Supreme Court ruling that prohibited state-sponsored prayer in public schools, affirming the separation of church and state.
Citation: Oyez, Engel v. Vitale, https://www.oyez.org/cases/1961/468
Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022): Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade and shifting control of abortion laws to state governments.
Citation: Oyez, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, https://www.oyez.org/cases/2021/19-1392
The Posse Comitatus Act: A law restricting the use of military personnel in domestic law enforcement, with implications for Project 2025's proposal to militarize immigration enforcement.
Citation: Legal Information Institute, Posse Comitatus Act, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/1385
Immigration and Nationality Act of 1996 (INA): Legislation that expanded grounds for deportation and limited judicial discretion in immigration cases.
Citation: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Immigration and Nationality Act, https://www.uscis.gov/working-in-the-united-states/permanent-workers/immigration-and-nationality-act
The Insurrection Act: The law enabling the president to deploy U.S. military forces to suppress insurrection, rebellion, and domestic violence, and its implications for militarized enforcement.
Citation: Legal Information Institute, Insurrection Act, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/251
Supreme Court Ruling on Same-Sex Marriage: Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), a ruling affirming same-sex marriage as a constitutional right under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Citation: Oyez, Obergefell v. Hodges, https://www.oyez.org/cases/2014/14-556
Project 2025: A proposal by conservative groups calling for sweeping changes to the federal government, including reforms to the executive branch, immigration, and civil rights.
Citation: Heritage Foundation, Project 2025, https://www.heritage.org/project-2025
Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos Lawsuits Against Department of Labor: Overview of legal actions filed by SpaceX and Amazon against labor regulations.
Citation: CNBC, Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos accused of union-busting, https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/17/elon-musk-and-jeff-bezos-accused-of-union-busting-legal-experts-say.html