It’s the last one! My side-eye at Project 2025 has definitely given me a lot of ideas to throw at my legislators. I hope it’s been useful for some of you, too. At 20 posts, it’s come to around 21,600 words and 51 pages, which is a lot, but a helluva lot less than 900 pages. You’re welcome.
Project 2025, Section 5: Independent Regulatory Agencies (p. 825). This section has a detailed introductory essay, so if you’re reading for yourself, you can get the gist of it here.
Chapter 27: Financial Regulatory Agencies (p. 829) – This is about the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), and related offices. P25 wants to substantially restructure the SEC and abolish the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority due to, in their opinion, poor management and organization. If truly useless as they stand, then by all means get rid of them – but the financial industry and public companies (that’s not companies the public owns, it’s companies whose stock is traded on public exchanges) will not regulate themselves, so regulatory bodies are absolutely necessary. Hate what we’ve got? Build better ones first, then zero out the old ones.
Here again P25 claims that DEI policies are racist. Because, in their opinion, trying to elevate historically oppressed populations is bad for white people (p. 830).
They also think that demanding any kind of corporate transparency about safety, environmental impact, and a number of reporting requirements is anti-competitive (p. 832). They want regulations drafted concerning digital assets and call for more robust oversight of self-regulatory organizations, which seems to contradict the business about canceling transparency (p. 835).
The CFPB official mission is “dedicated to making sure you are treated fairly by banks, lenders and other financial institutions.” P25 hates it and wants it dead (p. 839). CFPB has a 2023 budget allocation of $653 million and 1635 full-time equivalent employees (p. 837). While I believe in the mission, this is work that could be done more efficiently and effectively at state level, though with federal funds because banking and finance are interstate concerns. So: not an agency; instead, a fund for block grants.
Chapter 28: Federal Communications Commission starts off with this mission statement: “The FCC should promote freedom of speech, unleash economic opportunity, ensure that every American has a fair shot at next-generation connectivity, and enable the private sector to create good-paying jobs through pro-growth reforms that support a diversity of viewpoints, ensure secure and competitive communications networks, modernize outdated infrastructure rules, and represent good stewardship of taxpayer dollars (p. 845).”
Look at this through the lens of everything else P25 has said in the preceding 844 pages, and be reminded that for them, freedom of speech = hatemongering, threats, and disinformation shouldn’t be restricted, and diversity of viewpoints = straight white Christian people’s opinions matter most.
The FCC doesn’t exist to act on the economy or the labor market. It exists to “regulate interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite and cable in all 50 states, the District of Columbia and U.S. territories.” Its budget (P25 states $390 million, but this page states $10.6 billion) doesn’t seem excessive for keeping the lines of communication open, stable, secure, and safe. Even the bigger number isn’t excessive in view of this absolutely essential national-level concern, especially if FCC really does generate billions through spectrum auctions (p. 846).
Some proposals follow that seem rational (especially the bits about infrastructure improvements that have been funded but not accomplished, pp 855-856), but I’d want to see fact-checked by actual service providers and industry analysts.
As for the guff about advancing “America’s space leadership,” GTFO (p. 855); that’s nothing but a call to give more money to private space commerce companies, which certainly do not need more taxpayer dollars, and also has nothing to do with the nation’s communications infrastructure. Communications satellites yes; “space leadership” no.
Chapter 29: Federal Election Commission (beginning p. 861) is mostly about structure and operations, with a note that it’s basically all appointees. P25 wants to make sure only the party in power can start any investigations about election fraud, and also wants to prevent such investigations from being escalated to DOJ (p. 864). Well, if FEC investigations are not ever going to lead to prosecutions, why have an FEC at all?
Chapter 30: Federal Trade Commission The mandate: to interdict “unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce (p. 869).” P25 naively contends that capitalism will self-regulate, because P25 looks at history through a highly specific lens. They again contend that ESG requirements (environmental, social, and governance) on publicly traded corporations are anti-competitive (p. 871). The following discussion covers talking points from the ‘get rid of FTC’ camp to the ‘ESG and DEI are a cover for potentially criminal activity’ camp – yes, they want to launch a reputation laundering investigations task force – to whining about corporate managers who insert their own values into business agreements (p. 874). The ones they are whining about are, of course, the ESG and DEI-minded managers.
With a budget of only $506 million, the FTC is not guiding the entire economy and it’s not capable of making or breaking a balanced budget. Regardless, this is another group of functions I think could be handled more efficiently and effectively by the states. Federal laws and regulations, yes; national-level execution, no.
I’d seriously question whether a gang of political appointees, some of whom may have zero financial education, should be in charge of investigating and enforcing fair business practices. Even if they *could* do it, which I strongly doubt.
Political appointees are by definition leveraged. They owe somebody. They are not in a strong ethical position, and their motivations are suspect. Let the states enforce these laws.
Closing essay: Onward! The original Mandate for Leadership was published in 1981 and has been updated every four years. “Soon after President Donald Trump was sworn in, his Administration began to implement major parts of the 2016 Mandate. After his first year in office, the Administration had implemented 64 percent of its policy recommendations (p. 885).”
This masturbatory essay goes on for another couple of pages, but enough said.
Before I started reading Project 2025, I was prepared to give it the benefit of the doubt. Some of the contributors do seem to have a genuine concern for the proper functioning of the federal government. Unfortunately, the anti-woman, anti-diversity, anti-choice, war-mongering and profit-mongering agenda overrides any claim to credibility as a document of reform.
And given their congratulations to DJT, it’s crucial that progressives believe this is his policy playbook. He said he’d never heard of it, but he lied, and he’s busy appointing people who want to carry this out.
Reform the government? Sure. Make life worse for everyone in the USA who’s not straight, white, and Christian? NO.
Liberty and Justice for All.
Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
All People are Created Equal.
Those are the values of the USA, and it’s up to progressives – as it always has been – to uphold those values.