WARNING: Project 2025: Mandate for Leadership Weaponizes the First Amendment

Radical document lays out a plan to subvert Americans’ freedoms.

Project 2025: Mandate for Leadership¹ is the collective effort of hundreds of right-wing advocates representing dozens of billionaire-funded policy organizations to prepare a radical agenda for a Republican administration. While the document has received substantial and deservedly harsh critiques, not enough attention has focused on its blueprint for terrifying assaults on Americans’ freedoms. Just as right-wing ideologues have built a policy agenda around perverting the Second Amendment, we have observed that Project 2025 is planning to similarly warp the meaning of the First Amendment.

At the Media and Democracy Project, we are particularly concerned with the First Amendment, and attacks on it, because this amendment ensures Free Speech and a Free Press which are essential for a functional democracy. We have examined each time the First Amendment was invoked in Project 2025: Mandate for Leadership, and have highlighted other sections where the First Amendment should have appeared but was missing. We found an alarming and overt distortion of the U.S. Constitution and concepts fundamental to our society such as “liberty,” “freedom,” and “rights.” We also find that Project 2025’s text disregards freedom of the press while invoking free speech and freedom of religion in ways that are antithetical to those concepts.

The implications are not merely abstract. If implemented, these would have dire real-world consequences. Discrimination against LGBTQ+ people, and probably others, would be permitted. Efforts by agencies such as the Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) to combat disinformation could be curtailed or stopped, Reporters who criticize the President would lose access and likely face worse consequences. Here are our findings in more depth.

Establishment of state-sanctioned religion, and creating a freedom to discriminate

Project 2025 co-opts both the “free speech” and the “freedom of religion” clauses of the First Amendment to justify subsidizing religious institutions, and to undermine protections against discrimination.

The document’s text states “Our Constitution grants each of us the liberty to do not what we want, but what we ought.” (page 13, emphasis added). The first troubling example of this is an assertion that pornography should be outlawed and those who distribute it should be jailed. Despite extensive Supreme Court precedent to the contrary, the authors state boldly, without justification, that “it has no claim to First Amendment protection.” (page 5) Further, it is likely that the organizations behind Project 2025 would define pornography broadly, to include mere discussion of sexual orientation or gender.

While not explicit about who determines what we “ought” do, the Project 2025 authors give clear indications. They assert that the building blocks of any healthy society are: “Marriage. Family. Work. Church. School. Volunteering.” (page 4)

Not only may the government subsidize religious institutions but it must. In line with recent SCOTUS decision Carson v Makin, Project 2025’s text proposes that any government program providing subsidies or funding to any service organization must give those subsidies to religious institutions which provide such services. (page 754).   

The Mandate for Leadership’s authors insist that the First Amendment protects the right of religiously-affiliated organizations to discriminate against people based on sexual orientation and asks the next administration to forbid the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Civil Rights (OCR) and the Department of Labor’s Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) from pursuing any actions against religious institutions on this basis. (pages 493-495 and 585-587).²

Constraining government speech and protecting the right to wield religion as a justification for discrimination. The authors not only insist that religious colleges be allowed to discriminate against LGBTQ+ people but also that the government cannot report which schools do so and that past information about discrimination be scrubbed from the internet. (page 357).³

When the constitutionality of existing laws are challenged, the Office of the Solicitor General defends them in court. Project 2025 suggests the government should not defend anti-discrimination laws in many cases (pages 560-561).

Orwellian redefining of free speech

Constraining government speech in the name of free speech

Project 2025 claims that the First Amendment forbids the government from monitoring disinformation and informing social media companies about it (pages 216 and 550). While the issue is raised regarding the intelligence agencies, there is no reason to think a ban would not be comprehensive. If such a ban were in place, it would prevent FEMA from posting information on false rumors about its hurricane relief and rebuttals to it. We see this worrisome potential because a court ruling already temporarily blocked much of the government, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), from reporting disinformation. While the Supreme Court reversed this ruling, it did so on technical grounds, so the threat remains.

In an all-out dystopian attack on reality and in the name of free speech, Project 2025 proposes that many words or terms, including “gender,” “abortion,” and “reproductive health” be removed from all government rules, regulations, contracts, and grants. (page 4)

Free Speech … if you can afford it

Project 2025 opposes efforts to reform the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to break the partisan gridlock and allow it to enforce laws. It is entirely supportive of the idea that money is free speech. (Pages 861-866)

Perversion of the First Amendment

After extensively singing the praises of free markets, the authors of Project 2025 felt it was necessary to assure us that “Economic freedom is not the only important freedom.” They add that “Freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and the freedom to assemble also represent key components of the American promise.” (page 16). These three freedoms are in the First Amendment but they are not the only ones. The Amendment also guarantees freedom of the press and the right to petition the government. The document is noticeably silent as to whether those are also important but, based on their proposals, it seems clear that the authors of Project 2025 do not value freedom of the press.

For example, there is a long tradition of press access to the White House through the communications office and the President directly. This access is administered by the independent White House Correspondents’ Association (WHCA). Project 2025 notes that “No legal entitlement exists for the provision of permanent space for media on the White House campus, and the next Administration should reexamine the balance between media demands and space constraints on the White House premises.” (page 29) and that [the next Administration] “consider whether an alternative coordinating body might be more suitable [than the WHCA].” (page 30). This is a more polite and procedural way of making the same threats regarding press access as Donald Trump did during his first term. While in office Trump often used press access as a way of rewarding his sycophants and removing it to punish those who he didn’t like.

Project 2025 includes other proposals, such as removing the firewall protecting Voice of America (VOA), that make it clear its intentions are more to promote propaganda than an independent press.

The document also proposes revoking security clearances from former government officials who criticize the government, another action Trump attempted while President, and substantially increasing the penalties on whistleblowers if the leaks are deemed political. (page 215). “Political” leaks, that is, leaks of information adverse to people in power, are precisely those most in need of protection.⁴

Distortion of Language

The authors of the Mandate for Leadership attempt to redefine essential terms such as “liberty” and “freedom.” It embraces the term “conservative” in order to conceal the radical nature of its proposals.

Freedom and Liberty

In the foreword, the document asserts “...an individual must be free to live as his Creator ordained—to flourish. Our Constitution grants each of us the liberty to do not what we want, but what we ought.” (Page 13) That is a version of freedom as Oliver Cromwell and the Puritans would have defined them. The freedom to act, as long as it is consistent with some notion of “the Creator’s” will.  Who will adjudicate what that is? And how is this consistent with the First Amendment prohibition on the establishment of religion? Project 2025’s authors do not divulge how they propose effectuating their vision.

Conservative?

Project 2025 ties itself tightly to the adjective “conservative” and excludes all others. All of the contributors to the Project are labeled as "conservatives."

The document is subtitled the Conservative Promise. The introductory note proclaims it to be “the conservative movement’s unified effort to be ready for the next conservative Administration”.  (page xiii)

The word “conservative” or “conservatives” is used more than 300 times, not counting the roughly 450 times it appears as a page heading. Presumably, this is because the authors believe that conservative is a comforting term. Even if you are not conservative, "conservatism" is a political moniker we have lived with for decades. This branding has been successful. The media and others routinely describe Project 2025 as a “conservative” proposal when referring to it.

But in what sense is Project 2025: Mandate for Leadership conservative? Merriam-Webster’s definitions stress meanings such as “moderation,” “stability,” and “preserving what is established.” Project 2025 itself says conservatives seek “to recover, to restore, to conserve”⁵ and “to keep together”, “keep intact” and “protect from harm.”

But the movement and organizations behind Project 2025 do not seek to conserve. The Mandate for Leadership proposes substantial, extreme, and radical changes. It proposes abolishing the Federal Reserve (page 661) and returning to the gold standard. It suggests the abolishment of several government departments or agencies, including the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) (page 872) Far from conserving, they would allow greatly expanded logging in National Forests (page 308)  and generally gut environmental regulations. (page 420)  The authors show no respect for legal precedent or, as described below, portions of the Constitution. Kevin Roberts of the Heritage Foundation, who coordinated the entire effort and wrote the foreword, says in other forums that ”we are in the process of the second American Revolution, which will remain bloodless if the Left allows it to be.”

These proposals are not "conservative." “Radical,” “extreme,” “fundamentalist,” and “revolutionary” are better ways to characterize the document. As a general rule, “conservative” has lost all coherency. Calling Project 2025 “conservative” is journalistic malpractice.

What else is in Project 2025?

We at the Media and Democracy Project, along with most other observers, have focused on the 992-page document titled Mandate for Leadership⁶. People might be surprised to learn that is just one pillar out of four. The document describes them as: (page xiv)
      Pillar I: Mandate for Leadership book
      Pillar II: a personnel database

      Pillar III: a Presidential training academy

      Pillar IV: "the playbook" transition plan.

Pillars 2-4 have gotten far too little attention.This movement will be of great importance regardless of the outcome of the coming election. Despite his disavowal of the report as a whole, many of Donald Trump’s proposals are similar to those in the Mandate for Leadership. In particular, he has said he would repeat his effort to turn 50,000 civil service positions into political jobs. It is hard to see how he would fill them without relying on those recruited by Pillar II and trained by Pillar III. Even if he does not win, the 117 organizations affiliated with Project 2025 will continue to be funded by right-wing billionaires and work to advance this agenda. Aside from Pro Publica’s posting of some videos from the training academy there has been woefully little investigation of these aspects.

As an all-volunteer grassroots organization, we have only been able to scrutinize the public Mandate for Leadership report and this essay has been limited to the sections that involve the First Amendment. There are many other alarming proposals in the report that would affect the press, such as altering the function of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and defunding NPR and PBS that are beyond the scope of this essay but of great concern to us.

Summary

We have found that Project 2025’s first pillar: the Mandate for Leadership report, conveniently ignores some aspects of the First Amendment and abuses the rest. It is solicitous of religious rights, ignoring the prohibition against establishing a state religion. It ominously ignores freedom of the press. It uses the free speech clause, as well as the free religious exercise clause, to constrain government speech and protect discrimination and disinformation.

The public needs to be aware of the scope of this movement. We urge everyone to learn more⁷ and to help spread the word. We call on the press, in particular, to report more thoroughly on the entire Project 2025 effort. We hope in particular that people publicize the threats to, and abuse of the First Amendment that we have outlined and that reporters delve more deeply into some of the issues

1. The Media and Democracy Project study, described here, examined the contents of the 992-page book published by Project 2025 and titled Mandate for Leadership. But we believe it is essential to point out, this is just Pillar I of four pillars. We discuss this further below. That is why we will variously refer to it as Mandate for Leadership or “Project 2025’s book” or similar.

2.  We strongly suspect this would be done throughout the government. We have highlighted the most explicit statements to that effect.

3.  This appears to be the episode they are concerned about:
https://www.christianpost.com/news/education-dept-releases-shame-list-faith-based-colleges-seeking-title-ix-exemption.html

4. There is a long history of intended leaks used by administrations to disseminate information they are not allowed or ready to formally make public. These are never deemed “political” or punished.

5. At 4:00 of the opening video available here:
https://www.propublica.org/article/video-project-2025-presidential-training-academy-trump-election

6. Its full title is Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise but we will not help advance the canard that it is conservative.

7. 25and.me is a valuable and accessible resource that does for many issues what we have done here for the First Amendment, citing specifics in the Mandate for Leadership.