Tell us what you care about

Medicare

  • ...eliminate the Medicare Shared Savings Program. This program helps to lower the cost of Medicare, and getting rid of it will likely mean that Medicare will cost more. [p498]
  • ...repeal the Inflation Reduction Act. This law lowers the cost of prescription drugs for people on Medicare, and getting rid of it will likely mean that prescription drugs will cost more. [p498]
  • ...reduce the government share in the catastrophic tier of Medicare Part D. This means that people on Medicare will have to pay more for their prescription drugs. [p498]
  • ...repeal the drug price negotiation program in Medicare. This program lowers the cost of prescription drugs, and getting rid of it will likely mean that prescription drugs will cost more. [p498]
  • ...restructure 340B drug subsidies toward beneficiaries rather than hospitals. This program helps hospitals provide lower-cost drugs to low-income patients, and changing it could mean that those patients will have to pay more for their medications. [p498]
  • ...push more of the 33 million people enrolled in Original Medicare towards Medicare Advantage by making it the "default enrollment option". Medicare Advantage plans can require prior authorizations, making it harder for patients to access care, and they can restrict enrollees' choices of physicians and hospitals. [p498]

Overtime

  • ...raise the overtime pay threshold. This means that fewer people will qualify for overtime pay. [p625]
  • ...allow employers and workers to agree that overtime will be calculated over two weeks or four weeks instead of one week. This means that if you work a lot of extra hours one week, but then work fewer hours the next week, your boss might not have to pay you overtime if the total number of hours you worked over the two weeks or four weeks is less than 80. [p625]
  • ...change the rules about overtime pay for people who work from home. This means that if you work from home, your boss might not have to pay you overtime unless you work more than 10 hours in a day. [p622]
  • ...make it easier for businesses to classify workers as independent contractors. This means that if you are classified as an independent contractor, you will not be eligible for overtime pay. [p624]
  • ...allow businesses to not pay overtime for certain benefits they provide to workers. This means that if your boss gives you benefits like help paying for school or childcare, they might not have to pay you overtime for those benefits. [p625]
  • ...weaken unions, including potentially eliminating public sector unions altogether. Unions are often instrumental in negotiating and protecting overtime pay provisions in collective bargaining agreements. A decline in union power could lead to weaker overtime protections. [p632] [p115]

Food Assistance

  • ...apply cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). This means that many people who need help buying food would no longer get money from the government to buy food. [p331]
  • ...require states to implement work requirements for SNAP recipients. This means that people who are able to work would have to get a job or do some type of work in order to get food stamps. [p332]
  • ...eliminate broad-based categorical eligibility. This would make it harder for people to get food stamps because they would have to meet more requirements to be eligible. [p333]
  • ...eliminate the heat-and-eat loophole. This would make it harder for people to get the full amount of food stamps they are eligible for. [p334]
  • ...reform the Thrifty Food Plan. This could lead to people getting less money in food stamps because the government would change how it calculates the amount of money people need to buy food. [p333]
  • ...eliminate CEP. This would mean that some children who currently get free school meals would have to pay for them. [p336]

Medicaid

  • ...shrink the scope and scale of Medicaid. This could result in millions of Americans losing access to affordable healthcare, potentially leading to a decline in overall health outcomes. [p499]
  • ...make it easier for states to kick people off Medicaid. This means that people could lose their health care if they don't follow all the rules. [p500]
  • ...let states make people work to get Medicaid. This means that people who can't find a job could lose their health care. [p501]
  • ...let states charge people more for Medicaid. This means that people will have to pay more for their health care. [p501]
  • ...let states put time limits on how long people can be on Medicaid. This means that people could lose their health care after a certain amount of time, even if they still need it. [p501]
  • ...make it harder for people to get on Medicaid if they have some money saved up. This means that people who have saved some money might not be able to get health care from the government. [p500]
  • ...allow states to charge premiums and co-pays to people who receive Medicaid. This means that many people who are currently eligible for Medicaid would have to pay for some of their health care costs. [p501]
  • ...allow states to eliminate certain benefits from Medicaid. This means that many people who are currently eligible for Medicaid would no longer be able to receive certain health care services. [p501]
  • ...allow states to use Medicaid funds to provide private health insurance. This means that many people who are currently eligible for Medicaid would be enrolled in private health insurance plans instead of the traditional Medicaid program. [p501]
  • ...cap Medicaid payments to states without regard for their actual spending needs on health and long-term care. This could force states to outright deny coverage of particular benefits, especially costly services such as long-term care. [p499]

Education

  • ...promote "school choice" and erode public education. This has been shown to subsidize wealthy families who were already sending their children to private schools while blowing giant holes in the funding for public schools, leading to worse academic outcomes for both private and public school students. [p38] [p352] [p383] [p384] [analysis] [analysis] [analysis]
  • ...eliminate the Department of Education. This would mean that states would have to pay for all of their schools, which could result in less money for schools in poorer areas. [p352]
  • ...significantly restrict the free school lunch program. This would mean that many children may not have enough to eat at school. [p336]
  • ...eliminate the Head Start program. This would mean that many children from poor families would not have access to preschool. [p515]
  • ...make it harder for students to get financial aid for college. This would mean that fewer students from poor families would be able to go to college. [p360]
  • ...allow colleges to discriminate against students based on their race and sex. This would mean that some students would be treated unfairly when applying to college. [p385]
  • ...use public, taxpayer money for private religious schools. This would blur the line between government and religion, enable discrimination in admissions, hiring and curriculum based on religious beliefs, and reduce funding for and undermine public education. [p384]
  • ...prevent the CDC from advising that school children should be masked or vaccinated, saying such decisions should be left to parents and medical providers. This could lead to increased disease outbreaks and a resurgence of preventable diseases like measles and whooping cough. [p487]
  • ...phase out federal funding for Title I. This could lead to the loss of more than 180,000 teacher jobs and negatively affect the academic outcomes of 2.8 million vulnerable students across the country [p359] [analysis]

Drug Prices

  • ...repeal the Inflation Reduction Act’s drug price negotiation program in Medicare. This would allow drug companies to charge higher prices for drugs, which would make it more expensive for people to buy them. [p498]
  • ...reduce the government share in the catastrophic tier of Medicare Part D and require manufacturers to bear a larger share. This would make it more expensive for seniors to buy drugs when they reach the catastrophic coverage limit. [p498]

Veterans

  • ...eliminate the Department of Homeland Security and distribute its functions to other departments: This could negatively affect veterans by making it harder for the government to coordinate services for veterans, such as those related to immigration, naturalization, and border protection. Many veterans rely on DHS for support in these areas. [p166]
  • ...eliminate the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Office of Accountability and Whistleblower Protection (OAWP). This means it will be harder for veterans to report problems at the VA. [p686]
  • **...restrict eligibility for first-time homebuyers:** Project 2025 proposes to change the Federal Housing Administration's statutory restriction of single-family housing mortgage insurance to first-time homebuyers. This could negatively affect veterans by making it harder for them to buy homes. Many veterans rely on FHA loans to buy their first homes. [p543]
  • **...eliminate many of the health conditions that qualify veterans for disability benefits:** Project 2025 additionally criticizes the 1991 Agent Orange Act and the 2022 PACT Act, which aid veterans exposed to toxic substances. This will greatly restrict disabled veteran's access to life-sustaining benefits. [p676] [p682]
  • ...put at risk the jobs of the nearly 637,000 veterans working for the federal government by making it easier to fire federal employees, disbanding agencies like the Department of Education and Department of Homeland Security and privatizing the TSA: This will jeopardize the livelihoods of veterans and undermine the effectiveness of the government. [p113] [p166] [p352]

Farmers

  • ...attempt to eliminate farm subsidies like the Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC) program and the Price Loss Coverage (PLC) program. This means that farmers will no longer get money from the government to help them when prices for the crops they grow go down or when they do not harvest as much as they expected. [p329]
  • ...stop paying farmers twice for price and revenue losses during the same year. This means that farmers will get less money from the government to help them when prices for the crops they grow go down or when they do not harvest as much as they expected. [p330]
  • ...reduce how much the government pays to help farmers buy crop insurance. This means that farmers will have to pay more to buy crop insurance to protect themselves against bad weather or low prices. [p330]
  • ...eliminate the Conservation Reserve Program. This means that farmers will no longer get paid to not farm some of their land. [p337]
  • ...repeal the federal sugar program. This means that sugar farmers will no longer be protected from competition from foreign sugar growers. [p329]
  • **...oppose "climate-smart" agricultural practices.** This would mean that the U.S. would not support efforts to reduce agriculture's contribution to climate change, potentially leading to increased greenhouse gas emissions from the agricultural sector. [p326]
  • ...cap and then phase down the H-2A visa program: This could lead to higher labor costs for farmers, which would make it more difficult for some farmers to stay in business, especially those who operate on thin margins. This could also lead to labor shortages, reduced food production, and higher food prices for consumers. [p644]

Public Transportation

  • ...reduce the federal government's role in funding public transportation. This means that there will be less money to build and run buses, trains, and subways. [p669]
  • ...eliminate the Capital Investment Grants program. This program provides money for new public transportation projects, so eliminating it would mean that there would be less money for new projects. [p668]
  • ...allow transit agencies to reduce worker pay and benefits. This could make it harder for transit agencies to attract and keep good workers, which could lead to worse service. [p668]
  • ...stop using money from the Highway Trust Fund for public transportation. This would mean that there would be less money for public transportation. [p669]
  • ...require that new public transportation projects meet strict economic standards. This could make it harder to get funding for new projects, especially in areas that are not already well-served by public transportation. [p668]
  • ...allow states to use federal transportation money for any purpose they want. This means that states could choose to spend the money on things other than public transportation, such as roads or bridges. [p654]

LGBTQ+

  • ...gut protections for the LGBTQ+ community, including eliminating the Gender Policy Council. This means that the government will no longer try to protect people who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or queer. [p95]
  • ...restrict the application of the Supreme Court’s Bostock v. Clayton County decision. This will restrict workplace protections against sex discrimination that were extended to LGBTQ+ employees. [p617]
  • ...rescind regulations prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identity, transgender status, and sex characteristics. This means that the government will no longer try to protect citizens who do not conform to Project 2025's notion of "normal". [p617]
  • ...eliminate the terms sexual orientation and gender identity, diversity, equity, and inclusion, gender, gender equality, gender equity, gender awareness, gender-sensitive, abortion, reproductive health, and reproductive rights among others out of every federal rule, agency regulation, contract, grant, regulation, and piece of legislation that exists. This means that these identities, concepts and topics will be "erased" in education, healthcare and cultural institutions and no longer protected or supported by government. [p37]
  • ...reverse policies that allow transgender individuals to serve in the military. This means that people who are transgender will no longer be able to serve in the military. [p137]
  • ...restrict transgender health care in Medicare and Medicaid This means that senior and low-income transgender citizens will have to pay for their own healthcare. [p507]
  • ...oppose transgender health care or abortion access to service members using public funds. This means that transgender service members will need to pay for their own healthcare. [p137]
  • ...end anti-discrimination rules based on gender identity and sexual orientation. This will significantly weaken anti-discrimination protections for LGBTQ+ individuals in healthcare settings. [p528]
  • ...expand religious exemptions that will allow businesses and organizations to discriminate against LGBTQ+ individuals based on religious beliefs. This will limiting access to services and opportunities for LGBTQ+ individuals. [p619]
  • ...restrict adoption and foster care by supporting faith-based adoption agencies that may discriminate against LGBTQ+ couples. This will limit their ability to adopt or foster children. [p510]
  • ...embolden Anti-LGBTQ+ sentiment. The rollback of anti-discrimination protections and the promotion of traditional values could embolden anti-LGBTQ+ sentiment and create a more hostile environment for LGBTQ+ individuals. This could lead to increased harassment, violence, and discrimination in housing, employment, and public accommodations. [p484]

Reproductive Rights

  • ...eliminate the requirement that health insurance plans cover birth control. This means that women may have to pay more for birth control. [p516]
  • ...eliminate coverage for male contraceptives such as condoms. This means that men may have to pay more for birth control. [p518]
  • ...make it harder for women to get birth control through Title X family planning clinics. This means some women might have fewer choices for where to get birth control. [p524]
  • ...allow states to require Title X family planning clinics to provide information about the importance of marriage. This means that some women may feel pressured to get married in order to receive family planning services, including contraception. [p513]
  • ...allow religious employers to refuse to provide contraception coverage to their employees. This means that some women may have to pay for contraception if their employer objects to it on religious grounds. [p516]
  • ...eliminate the week-after-pill from the contraceptive mandate as a potential abortifacient. This would make it harder for women to get emergency contraception, which can help prevent pregnancy after unprotected sex. [p518]
  • ...reinstate earlier safety protocols for Mifeprex. This would make it harder for women to get abortion pills, even in states where abortion is legal. [p491]
  • ...stop promoting or approving mail-order abortions. This would make it harder for women to get abortion pills, even in states where abortion is legal. [p492]
  • ...reverse its approval of chemical abortion drugs. This would make it much harder for women to get abortions, especially in states where abortion is illegal. [p491]
  • ...prohibit abortion travel funding. This would make it harder for women to get abortions, especially those who live in states where abortion is illegal. [p504]
  • ...prohibit Planned Parenthood from receiving Medicaid funds. This would make it harder for women to get affordable health care, including cancer screenings and contraception. [p504]
  • ...withdraw Medicaid funds for states that require abortion insurance or that discriminate in violation of the Weldon Amendment. This would punish states that try to protect women's access to abortion care. [p505]
  • ...rewrite the ACA abortion separate payment regulation. This would make it harder for women to get insurance coverage for abortion care. [p506]
  • ...audit Hyde Amendment compliance. This could lead to cuts in funding for programs that provide health care to low-income women, including those that provide abortion care. [p506]
  • ...promote "fetal personhood" from the moment of conception. This would mean abortion would no long be considered healthcare, and could threaten procedures like IVF (In Vitro Fertilization). [p483]
  • ...reverse guidance that enables hospitals receiving Medicare funds to perform emergency abortions. This would enable hospitals in pro-life states to refuse to perform abortions, even when it is necessary to save a woman's life. [p506]
  • ...collect data on abortion, including requiring states to report detailed information about abortion procedures and patients. This could be used to stigmatize abortion and create a chilling effect on providers, further limiting access to care. [p488]

Unions

  • ...require worker centers to file financial disclosures with the government. This could make it harder for worker centers to organize and advocate for workers. [p634]
  • ...rescind the persuader rule. This means that employers will be able to hire consultants to discourage workers from forming a union without having to tell the government about it. [p635]
  • ...let bosses decide if workers are employees or contractors. This means that bosses could call workers contractors even if they are really employees, which would mean they don't have to give them benefits like health insurance and paid time off. [p624]
  • ...make it harder for workers to form unions. This means that it will be harder for workers to join together to form a union and fight for better pay and working conditions. [p635]
  • ...allow states to opt out of federal labor laws. This means that states could pass laws that make it harder for workers to form a union or make unions weaker. [p638]
  • ...get rid of unions for security workers in the government. This means that security workers in the government, like TSA agents, will no longer have a union to protect them. [p192]
  • ...strengthen "management rights" and narrow the scope of issues that are subject to collective bargaining for public sector unions. This could mean less union influence over working conditions, scheduling, and other workplace matters. [p114]
  • ...narrow the definition of activities that are protected from employer retaliation under the National Labor Relations Act. This could make it riskier for workers to engage in union organizing or other collective action. [p634]
  • ...eliminate the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program, which incentivizes a career in public service. This would reduce the incentive to go into public service, exacerbate student debt burden for public service workers, reduce diversity and representation in public service and lead to a "brain drain" from the public sector. [p365]

Climate

  • **...expand the use of coal, oil, and natural gas.** This would increase greenhouse gas emissions and exacerbate climate change, which could lead to more extreme weather like hurricanes and floods and other negative environmental impacts. [p398]
  • **...weaken the Endangered Species Act.** This could make it harder to protect species threatened by climate change and could lead to biodiversity loss. [p566]
  • **...prioritize economic growth over environmental protection.** This could lead to policies that favor short-term economic gains over long-term environmental sustainability and could undermine efforts to address climate change. [p451]
  • **...oppose "climate-smart" agricultural practices.** This would mean that the U.S. would not support efforts to reduce agriculture's contribution to climate change, potentially leading to increased greenhouse gas emissions from the agricultural sector. [p326]
  • **...reduce the role of the federal government in addressing climate change.** This could lead to a lack of coordinated federal action on climate change and could shift responsibility to states and the private sector, which may not have the resources or incentives to take effective action. [p94]
  • **...shift environmental policymaking to states and localities.** This could result in a patchwork of regulations, with some states taking stronger action than others, and could undermine efforts to address climate change on a national level. [p453]
  • **...restructure the U.S. Global Change Research Program.** This could lead to the downplaying of climate risks in policy decisions and weaken the scientific basis for climate action. [p92]
  • ...withdraw from international agreements like the Paris Agreement and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. This means the U.S. would no longer participate in global efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and could face international criticism and isolation. [p742]
  • **...end funding for "climate reparations."** This would mean that the U.S. would no longer provide financial assistance to developing countries to help them address the impacts of climate change, potentially exacerbating global inequalities and hindering international cooperation on climate action. [p422]
  • ...end the use of SCC (Social Cost of Carbon) analysis - a dollar estimate of the economic damage caused by emitting one additional ton of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. This means that the government will no longer consider the costs of climate change. [p94]
  • ...eliminate goverment organizations that work on climate related issues, such as the Clean Energy Corps, the Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations, ARPA-E, and more. These groups work on clean energy, pollution reduction, and other initiatives to combat climate change. [p402]
  • ...end the government's focus on climate change and green subsidies. This would lead to an acceleration in climate change and its associated risks like extreme weather events, sea-level rise, and ecosystem disruption. [p411]
  • ...eliminate energy efficiency standards for appliances. This would lead to increased energy consumption, higher energy bills for consumers, reduced innovation in appliance technology, and a negative impact on the climate. [p411]

Environment

  • ...reduce the size and scope of the EPA and eliminate or weaken various environmental regulations. This means that companies will be able to pollute more, which will make the air and water dirtier and could make people sick. [p453]
  • ...prioritize industry over environment by promoting economic growth and energy production over environmental protection.This could lead to a prioritization of short-term economic gains over long-term environmental sustainability. [p46] [p554]
  • ...allow more pollution from cars and trucks. This means that the air will be dirtier, which could make it harder for people to breathe and could cause more people to get sick. [p661]
  • ...make it easier to build roads and pipelines in places where animals live. This could hurt animals and destroy the places where they live. [p94] [p566]
  • ...make it easier to cut down trees in national forests. This could hurt animals that live in the forests and could make the air dirtier. [p341]
  • ...let companies drill for more oil and gas on public lands. This could hurt animals and plants that live in those areas and could make climate change worse. [p554]
  • ...weaken rules that protect endangered animals. This could cause some animals to disappear forever. [p567]
  • ...stop the government from studying climate change. This means that we will know less about how climate change is affecting our planet and what we can do to stop it. [p94]

Freedom of Speech

  • ...limit online platforms' ability to moderate content. This will lead to a proliferation of hate speech and misinformation. [p882]
  • ...remove protections for online platforms from being held legally responsible for user-generated content on their sites. This will cause these online platforms to either shut down or implement strict moderation and censorship. [p880]
  • ...eliminate the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency's (CISA) involvement in countering misinformation and disinformation. This means that the government will abandon it's role as "the arbiter of truth" and the American people will be more exposed to lies and manipulation. [p188]
  • ...prohibit the FBI from engaging in activities related to combating the spread of misinformation and disinformation by Americans. This means that the government will abandon it's role as "the arbiter of truth" and the American people will be more exposed to lies and manipulation. [p583]
  • ...ban pornography, imprison the people who produce and distribute it, shut down the telecom and tech firms that facilitate its spread, and register as sex offenders any educators and public librarians who purvey it. Given the vague definition of pornography, this would curtail freedom of speech, create a chilling effect on artists, writers and filmmakers, enact disproportionate punishment for non-violent offenses, stifle innovation, lead to job losses and economic disruption, and lead to censorship and moral policing. [p38]

Healthcare

  • ...reform U.S. healthcare into a free market mostly regulated by states. This means patients will need to develop more healthcare expertise, rural areas may be underserved, low-income and vulnerable populations may be underserved, sicker patients may pay more, the system may be ill-equipped to handle public health emergencies, and it could lead to an overall decline in quality and safety standards. [p483]
  • ...reform the Affordable Care Act. This could lead to loss of coverage, reduced consumer protections and an increased financial burden for Americans. [p502]
  • ...reduce funding for public health by splitting the CDC and reducing its funding. This could weaken the nation's ability to respond to public health emergencies and address critical health issues. [p485]
  • ...prevent the CDC from advising that school children should be masked or vaccinated, saying such decisions should be left to parents and medical providers. This could lead to increased disease outbreaks and a resurgence of preventable diseases like measles and whooping cough. [p487]
  • ...tax employers on workplace benefits that exceed $12,000 per worker annually. This would lead to employers cutting back on these benefits and workers paying more taxes, and would be damaging for millions of families who rely on one working adult's employer-provided health insurance to cover dependents, such as children. [p730]

    If this tax was enacted, we estimate that just based on health insurance benefits in 2022 alone: (1) More than 15 million workers would have seen their benefits taxed. (2) Their taxes would have risen by more than $12 billion if employers shifted away from benefits to other forms of taxable compensation. [link]
  • See Medicaid
  • See Medicare

Democracy

  • ...concentrate power in the executive branch by advocating for expanding presidential power over agencies, including independent agencies, and for making it easier to fire civil servants. This could concentrate power in the executive branch and make it harder for Congress and the courts to check presidential power. [p76] [p858]
  • ...weaken independent agencies like the Federal Reserve and the FCC and propose to bring them under greater political control. This could undermine the agencies' ability to act impartially and make decisions based on expertise rather than political pressure. [p764] [p878]
  • ...make it easier for the President to fire government workers who are not political appointees. This would give the President more power over the people who work for the government and make it harder for them to do their jobs without worrying about being fired for political reasons. [p113]
  • ...allow religious organizations to discriminate against people they don't agree with. This would violate the rights of people who are discriminated against. [p619]
  • ...allow the government to use taxpayer money to support religious organizations. This would violate the separation of church and state. [p294] [p514]
  • ...advance a conservative agenda, including by selectively enforcing laws and prioritizing funding for certain groups. This could undermine the principle of impartial government and create a two-tiered system of justice. [p578]
  • ...dismantle the administrative state, which, while often inefficient and bureaucratic, is also a key mechanism for implementing laws passed by Congress and protecting the public interest. Weakening these agencies could lead to less accountability and weaker enforcement of laws, particularly in areas like environmental protection, consumer safety, and worker rights. [p39]

Low-Income Families

  • ...eliminate food stamps for people who do not have a job or are not looking for a job. This means that people who are out of work and do not have enough money to buy food will not be able to get help from the government. [p332]
  • ...make it harder for people to get affordable housing. This means that people who are struggling to afford a place to live will have fewer options and may end up homeless. [p536]
  • ...make it harder for people to get affordable health care. This means that people who are struggling to afford health care will have fewer options and may not be able to get the care they need. See Healthcare, Medicaid, Medicare
  • ...make it harder for people to get a good education. This means that children from low-income families will have fewer opportunities to get a good education and may not be able to succeed in life. [p515] [p360]
  • See Taxes

Other Proposals

  • ...abolish the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Because the authors believe that it "has become one of the main drivers of the climate change alarm industry", even though the NOAA provides life-saving information about hurricanes, heat waves, and other extreme weather events, which are worsening. [p707]
  • ...privatize a number of government services. This subjects our services to companies whose whole goal is to make a profit off you. This has not worked out well in the past, and there is no reason to believe that it will in the future. [p116]
  • ...politicize science. This could hinder scientific progress and innovation. [p493] [p707]
  • ...re-evaluate regulation for baby formula. This could lead to unsafe baby formula. [p335]
  • ...repeal the USDA Dietary Guidelines which focus on human health as well as the health of the planet. This could lead to dietary choices that lead to disease for humans and climate change for the planet. [p342]
  • ...promote policies that favor Christian values and institutions. This will marginalize other religious groups and undermine the separation of church and state. [p37] [p593] [p614] [p622]
  • ...promote policies that reinforce traditional gender roles. This will limit opportunities for women and LGBTQ+ individuals. [p484] [p514]
  • ...emphasize "traditional family values" and the importance of marriage and nuclear families. This framing often underlies arguments against abortion and comprehensive sex education, suggesting a push to limit reproductive choices and control women's bodies. [p484] [p522]
  • ...oppose sex education and advocate for abstinence-only approaches. This would restrict access to accurate information about contraception, sexually transmitted infections, and healthy relationships, potentially leading to higher rates of unintended pregnancies and STIs. [p510]
  • ...defund the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which funds PBS and NPR. This would remove a vital source of educational and cultural programming, especially in rural and underserved communities where commercial options are limited. [p279]
  • ...subject military promotions to White House review. This would apply subjective, ill-defined criteria to promotions, erode meritocracy in the military, weaken military effectiveness, and politicize the U.S. military. [p85]
  • ...eliminate federal rules that protect children from working in mines, meatpacking plants and other dangerous workplaces. This could lead to exploitation, interference with education, normalization of child labor, and an increased risk of injury or death for children. [p628]
  • ...eliminate the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program, which incentivizes a career in public service. This would reduce the incentive to go into public service, exacerbate student debt burden for public service workers, reduce diversity and representation in public service and lead to a "brain drain" from the public sector. [p365]
  • ...reject the notion of universal day care in favor of incentivizing "home-based" childcare solutions. This would make affordable child care harder to get and disproportionately hurt low-income, working families. [p519]
  • ...raise the FEMA threshold for public assistance and end Small Business Administration (SBA) direct lending such as disaster loans, which help businesses and homeowners recover from declared disasters. This would leave communities with fewer resources to rebuild after disasters like catastrophic hurricanes and tornadoes. [p186] [p783] [p787]

Taxes

  • ...move from the current 7 income tax brackets ranging from 10%-37% to a two bracket system with flat rates of 15% and 30% (with 30% starting around the Social Security wage base of $168,100) and eliminate most deductions, credits and exclusions. Millions of low- and middle-class households would likely face significantly higher taxes. [p729]

    He estimated that 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 due to the loss of the 10% and 12% tax brackets. If the Child Tax Credit were also eliminated, they would pay an additional $6,600 compared with today's tax system, Duke said.

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

    "That 15% bracket is a very big deal in terms of raising taxes on middle-class families," Duke said.     [link]
  • ...reduce the corporate tax rate even further to 18%. Donald Trump's 2017 tax law cut the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21%, which meant companies paid $240 billion less in taxes from 2018 to 2021 than they would have paid. This further reduction would lead to even higher corporate profits and even lower government revenue to pay for services for the American people, while also increasing the deficit. [p729]
  • ...reduce the capital gains rate from 20% to 15%. This would disproportionately benefit the wealthy and lead to a loss of government revenue. [p729]
  • ...consider the introduction of a consumption tax, such as a national sales tax. This means that everything you buy will have an additional tax on it. [p731]
  • ...tax employers on workplace benefits that exceed $12,000 per worker annually. This would lead to employers cutting back on these benefits and workers paying more taxes, and would be damaging for millions of families who rely on one working adult's employer-provided health insurance to cover dependents, such as children. [p730]

    If this tax was enacted, we estimate that just based on health insurance benefits in 2022 alone: (1) More than 15 million workers would have seen their benefits taxed. (2) Their taxes would have risen by more than $12 billion if employers shifted away from benefits to other forms of taxable compensation. [link]

Civil Rights

  • ...erode public education. Project 2025 promotes "school choice" and suggests phasing out federal funding for public education. This could exacerbate existing inequalities in educational opportunities, potentially leading to a decline in the quality of public schools and limiting access to quality education for marginalized communities. [p38] [p352] [p384]
  • ...allow colleges to discriminate against students based on their race and sex. This would mean that some students would be treated unfairly when applying to college, limiting opportunities for marginalized groups. [p385]
  • ...use public, taxpayer money for private religious schools. This would blur the line between government and religion, enable discrimination in admissions, hiring and curriculum based on religious beliefs, potentially infringing on the religious freedom of students and families, and reduce funding for and undermine public education. [p384]
  • ...restrict the application of the Supreme Court’s Bostock v. Clayton County decision. This will restrict workplace protections against sex discrimination that were extended to LGBTQ+ employees, potentially enabling discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. [p617]
  • ...rescind regulations prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identity, transgender status, and sex characteristics. This means that the government will no longer try to protect citizens who do not conform to Project 2025's notion of "normal", potentially leading to discrimination in various sectors like healthcare, housing, and employment. [p617]
  • ...eliminate the terms sexual orientation and gender identity, diversity, equity, and inclusion, gender, gender equality, gender equity, gender awareness, gender-sensitive, abortion, reproductive health, and reproductive rights among others out of every federal rule, agency regulation, contract, grant, regulation, and piece of legislation that exists. This means that these identities, concepts and topics will be "erased" in education, healthcare and cultural institutions and no longer protected or supported by the government. This could severely limit the rights and representation of marginalized groups. [p37]
  • ...allow religious organizations to discriminate against people they don't agree with. This would violate the rights of people who are discriminated against, particularly those from marginalized communities. [p619]
  • ...allow the government to use taxpayer money to support religious organizations. This would violate the separation of church and state, potentially infringing on the religious freedom of individuals. [p294] [p514]
  • ...advance a conservative agenda, including by selectively enforcing laws and prioritizing funding for certain groups.: This could undermine the principle of impartial government and create a two-tiered system of justice, disproportionately affecting marginalized groups. [p578]
  • ...lead to an increase in racial profiling and discrimination. Project 2025's focus on border security and immigration enforcement could lead to increased racial profiling and discrimination against Latinos, immigrants and other people of color. [p168] [p173]
  • ...promote policies that favor Christian values and institutions. This will marginalize other religious groups and undermine the separation of church and state. [p37] [p593] [p614] [p622]
  • ...promote policies that reinforce traditional gender roles. This will limit opportunities for women and LGBTQ+ individuals. [p484] [p514]
  • ...emphasize "traditional family values" and the importance of marriage and nuclear families. This framing often underlies arguments against abortion and comprehensive sex education, suggesting a push to limit reproductive choices and control women's bodies. [p484] [p522]
  • See Freedom of Speech
  • See Voting Rights

Rural Issues

  • ...abolish the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). This would make it harder for people to get life-saving forecasts and information about hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, heat waves, and other extreme weather events [p707]
  • ...raise the FEMA threshold for public assistance and end Small Business Administration (SBA) direct lending such as disaster loans, which help businesses and homeowners recover from declared disasters. This would leave communities with fewer resources to rebuild after disasters like catastrophic hurricanes and tornadoes. [p186] [p783] [p787]
  • ...promote "school choice" and erode public education. This has been shown to subsidize wealthy families who were already sending their children to private schools while blowing giant holes in the funding for public schools, leading to worse academic outcomes for both private and public school students. [p38] [p352] [p383] [p384] [analysis] [analysis] [analysis]
  • ...significantly restrict the free school lunch program. This would mean that many children may not have enough to eat at school. Some children who currently get free school meals would have to pay for them. [p336]
  • ...eliminate the Head Start program. This would mean that many children from low-income families would not have access to preschool. [p515]
  • ...re-evaluate regulation for baby formula. This could lead to unsafe baby formula. [p335]
  • ...defund the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which funds PBS and NPR. This would remove a vital source of educational and cultural programming, especially in rural and underserved communities where commercial options are limited. [p279]
  • ...eliminate federal rules that protect children from working in mines, meatpacking plants and other dangerous workplaces. This could lead to exploitation, interference with education, normalization of child labor, and an increased risk of injury or death for children. [p628]
  • ...make it harder for students to get financial aid for college. This would mean that fewer students from low-income families would be able to go to college. [p360]
  • ...attempt to eliminate farm subsidies like the Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC) program and the Price Loss Coverage (PLC) program. This means that farmers will no longer get money from the government to help them when prices for the crops they grow go down or when they do not harvest as much as they expected. [p329]
  • ...reduce how much the government pays to help farmers buy crop insurance. This means that farmers will have to pay more to buy crop insurance to protect themselves against bad weather or low prices. [p330]
  • ...capping and then phasing down the H-2A visa program: This could lead to higher labor costs for farmers, which would make it more difficult for some farmers to stay in business, especially those who operate on thin margins. This could also lead to labor shortages, reduced food production, and higher food prices for consumers. [p644]
  • ...apply cuts and work requirements to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). This means that many people who need help buying food would no longer get money from the government to buy food. [p331] [p332]
  • ...shrink the scope and scale of Medicaid. This could result in millions of Americans losing access to affordable healthcare, potentially leading to a decline in overall health outcomes. [p499]
  • ...let states make people work to get Medicaid. This means that people who can't find a job could lose their health care. [p501]
  • ...allow states to charge premiums and co-pays to people who receive Medicaid. This means that many people who are currently eligible for Medicaid would have to pay for some of their health care costs. [p501]
  • ...repeal the drug price negotiation program in Medicare. This program lowers the cost of prescription drugs, and getting rid of it will likely mean that prescription drugs will cost more. [p498]
  • ...eliminate the Medicare Shared Savings Program. This program helps to lower the cost of Medicare, and getting rid of it will likely mean that Medicare will cost more. [p498]
  • ...push more of the 33 million people enrolled in Original Medicare towards Medicare Advantage by making it the "default enrollment option". Medicare Advantage plans can require prior authorizations, making it harder for patients to access care, and they can restrict enrollees' choices of physicians and hospitals. [p498]
  • ...reform U.S. healthcare into a free market mostly regulated by states. Healthcare services would then be provided by companies whose whole goal is to make a profit off you. This means patients will need to develop more healthcare expertise, rural areas may be underserved, low-income and vulnerable populations may be underserved, sicker patients may pay more, the system may be ill-equipped to handle public health emergencies, and it could lead to an overall decline in quality and safety standards. [p483]
  • ...eliminate the requirement that health insurance plans cover birth control and male contraceptives such as condoms. This means that women and men may have to pay more for birth control. [p516] [p518]
  • ...make it harder for women to get birth control through Title X family planning clinics. This means some women might have fewer choices for where to get birth control. [p524]
  • ...prohibit Planned Parenthood from receiving Medicaid funds. This would make it harder for women to get affordable health care, including cancer screenings and contraception. [p504]
  • ...promote "fetal personhood" from the moment of conception. This could threaten procedures like IVF (In Vitro Fertilization). [p483]
  • ...reverse guidance that enables hospitals receiving Medicare funds to perform emergency abortions. This would enable hospitals in pro-life states to refuse to perform abortions, even when it is necessary to save a woman's life. [p506]
  • ...tax employers on workplace benefits that exceed $12,000 per worker annually. This would lead to employers cutting back on these benefits and workers paying more taxes, and would be damaging for millions of families who rely on one working adult's employer-provided health insurance to cover dependents, such as children. [p730]

    If this tax was enacted, we estimate that just based on health insurance benefits in 2022 alone: (1) More than 15 million workers would have seen their benefits taxed. (2) Their taxes would have risen by more than $12 billion if employers shifted away from benefits to other forms of taxable compensation. [link]
  • ...move from the current 7 income tax brackets ranging from 10%-37% to a two bracket system with flat rates of 15% and 30% (with 30% starting around the Social Security wage base of $168,100) and eliminate most deductions, credits and exclusions. Millions of low- and middle-class households would likely face significantly higher taxes. [p729]

    He estimated that 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 due to the loss of the 10% and 12% tax brackets. If the Child Tax Credit were also eliminated, they would pay an additional $6,600 compared with today's tax system, Duke said.

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

    "That 15% bracket is a very big deal in terms of raising taxes on middle-class families," Duke said.     [link]
  • ...consider the introduction of a consumption tax, such as a national sales tax. This means that everything you buy will have an additional tax on it. [p731]
  • ...raise the overtime pay threshold. This means that fewer people will qualify for overtime pay. [p625]
  • ...let bosses decide if workers are employees or contractors. This means that bosses could call workers contractors even if they are really employees, which would mean they don't have to give them benefits like health insurance and paid time off. [p624]
  • ...make it harder for workers to form unions. This means that it will be harder for workers to join together to form a union and fight for better pay and working conditions. [p635]
  • ...allow states to opt out of federal labor laws. This means that states could pass laws that allow employers not to comply with federal laws that protect workers. [p638]
  • ...reduce the size and scope of the EPA and eliminate or weaken various environmental regulations. This means that companies will be able to pollute more, which will make the air and water dirtier and could make people sick. [p453]
  • ...allow more pollution from cars and trucks. This means that the air will be dirtier, which could make it harder for people to breathe and could cause more people to get sick. [p661]
  • ...make it easier to build roads, build pipelines, log national forests, and drill for oil and gas on public lands. This could destroy rural lands and wildlife habitats, and create more pollution [p94] [p341] [p554] [p566]
  • ...subject military promotions to White House review. This would apply subjective, ill-defined criteria to promotions, erode meritocracy in the military, weaken military effectiveness, and politicize the U.S. military. [p85]
  • ...eliminate the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Office of Accountability and Whistleblower Protection (OAWP). This means it will be harder for veterans to report problems at the VA. [p686]
  • **...eliminate many of the health conditions that qualify veterans for disability benefits:** Project 2025 additionally criticizes the 1991 Agent Orange Act and the 2022 PACT Act, which aid veterans exposed to toxic substances. This will greatly restrict disabled veteran's access to life-sustaining benefits. [p676] [p682]
  • ...make it easier for the President to fire government workers who are not political appointees. This would give the President more power over the people who work for the government and make it harder for them to do their jobs without worrying about being fired for political reasons. [p113]
  • ...privatize a number of government services. This subjects our services to companies whose whole goal is to make a profit off you. This has not worked out well in the past, and there is no reason to believe that it will in the future. [p116]

Immigration

  • ...lead to an increase in racial profiling and discrimination. Project 2025's focus on border security, immigration enforcement and demonizing immigrants could lead to increased racial profiling and discrimination against Latinos, immigrants and other people of color. [p168] [p174]
  • ...block federal financial aid for up to two-thirds of all American college students if their state permits certain immigrant groups, including Dreamers with legal status, to access in-state tuition. Undocumented students, including DACA recipients, are already ineligible for federal student aid. This policy would only harm U.S. citizens and green card holders who rely on federal student aid to pursue their education. [p200]
  • ...cap and then phase down the H-2A visa program. This could lead to higher labor costs in the agricultural, construction, hospitality, and forestry sectors. This could also lead to labor shortages, reduced food production, and higher food prices for consumers among other things. [p644]
  • ...restrict H-1B visas that enable graduate students who come to the U.S. to stay after they graduate, and only focus on the top foreign workers at the highest wages. Losing these students to competitor nations would harm U.S. competitiveness and economic prosperity. [p183] [p200]
  • ...repeal TPS designations. This would strip nearly 700,000 individuals, many of whom have been in the U.S. for decades, of their legal protections and work authorization. [p183]
  • ...terminate the legal status of 500,000 Dreamers and 176,000 Ukrainians by eliminating staff time for reviewing and processing renewal applications. Without staff to process applications and renewals, these individuals would be unable to obtain or renew their legal protection or work authorization, pushing them out of status or the country. [p178]
  • ...use backlog numbers to trigger the automatic suspension of application intake for large categories of legal immigration. Through a variety of proposals that manufacture inefficiencies in order to create application backlogs, this could pause legal immigration processing indefinitely. [p179]
  • ...eliminate T and U visas. The T visa is issued to victims of severe forms of human trafficking if the victim assists law enforcement officers with their efforts to investigate and prosecute traffickers. The U visa is for victims of certain crimes committed in the U.S. who have suffered mental and physical abuse and who have been helpful to law enforcement and government officials in the investigation and prosecution of criminal activity. Eliminating these visas will hamper law enforcement and make Americans less safe. [p174]
  • ...use the military in border protection operations. This uses the military for domestic law enforcement purposes, which is against the law. It also militarizes the border which could escalate tensions with Mexico. [p200] [p588]
  • ...authorize state and local law enforcement to participate in immigration and border security. This carries financial burdens, litigation risks, and damages community trust. [p183] [analysis]
  • ...remove prohibitions on ICE operating in "sensitive zones". This would allow raids on schools, hospitals and religious institutions. [p175]
  • ...decimate privacy protections for anyone other than U.S. citizens and green card holders. This allows for the weaponization of information-sharing that exposes names, birthdates, addresses, and photographs of individuals encountered at the border and nearly any other foreign national, including children and legally present visa holders, thereby exposing them to potential harm, harassment, or discrimination. [p172] [p198]
  • ...end the Flores Settlement Agreement which protects the rights of immigrant children. This would allow the government to detain children and families indefinitely. [p181]
  • ...create a show-me-your-papers style mandate and task ICE Deportation Officers with removing, arresting, and detaining immigration violators anywhere in the United States, without warrant where appropriate. This would lead to increased racial profiling and discrimination against Latinos, immigrants and other people of color. [p175]
  • ...eliminate family-based immigration. This would make it harder for families to be together. [p178]


Detailed Analysis:


Related but not covered in Project 2025: