Even if only partially implemented, how will the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 Presidential Transition Project impact the U.S. Department of Defense and America’s armed forces?
Regarding the U.S. Navy, Project 2025 thoughtfully recognizes the truism that there is a vital national interest in the maritime environment and that this national interest requires sustained planning and investment.
”Some of the “shoulds” and “musts” related to the Navy of the future are good and noteworthy: “The USN must transition technology into warfighting capability more rapidly,” and “Build a fleet of 355 ships,” and “harness innovation.” (p111)
Project 2025 also understandably calls for more financial and child care support for military families.
However, there is also a call for auditing and censoring DoD schools: “Audit all curricula and health policies in DOD schools for military families, remove all inappropriate materials, and reverse inappropriate policies.” (p104) It’s a veiled reference to banning books and combating DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion).
In fact, the project, also known as Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise, calls for eliminating DEI throughout the government, including the military and civil service. “DEI” is mentioned at least 35 times in the report and referred to as discriminatory, unlawful, and “invidious.” (p593) [The project report is available also on the Cloud here.]
Section Two: “The Common Defense”
Project 2025 notes accurately, “The good news is that most enlisted personnel, and most officers, especially below the rank of general or admiral, continue to be patriotic defenders of liberty.” (p87)
But then, the project calls for a purge of general/flag officers, because “…this is now Barack Obama’s general officer corps.” (p89) The project proclaims boldly, “The next conservative President has the opportunity to restructure the making and execution of U.S. defense and foreign policy and reset the nation’s role in the world.” (p90)
Former Trump administration acting Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller helms an essay about DoD, noting it is “the largest part of our federal government. The DOD is also a deeply troubled institution” due to “years of sustained misuse.” Miller says “a two-tiered culture of accountability…, wasteful spending, wildly shifting security policies, exceedingly poor discipline in program execution, and (most recently) the Biden Administration’s profoundly unserious equity agenda and vaccine mandates have taken a serious toll.” (p91)
Miller and fellow contributors rightfully express appreciation for the young people who volunteer to serve in the military, and he calls for four priorities, three of which are familiar and supportable: “Warfighting focus,” “Transform our armed forces for maximum effectiveness in an era of great-power competition,” and “Demand financial transparency and accountability.”
However, one of his priorities –– which aligns precisely with ex-President Trump’s plans and rhetoric –– calls for use of the military within the borders of the United States, contrary to the Posse Comitatus Act. “Border protection is a national security issue that requires sustained attention and effort by all elements of the executive branch.” (p91)
We are reminded that Trump wanted the military deployed against protesters in 2020, including shooting them, according to former SECDEF Mark T. Esper. The issue became contentious for both Esper and CJCS Gen. Mark Milley.
In another section about DHS, the project calls for the military to “aggressively” build border walls and police entry points such as ports of entry.
“Department of Defense: Assist in aggressively building the border wall system on America’s southern border. Additionally, explicitly acknowledge and adjust personnel and priorities to participate actively in the defense of America’s borders, including using military personnel and hardware to prevent illegal crossings between ports of entry…” (p166/7)
Global nuclear arms reduction was actively championed by former President Ronald Reagan; in fact, it was supported by all presidents from JFK through Obama. But not by Trump.
Instead of working to reduce nuclear weapons, Miller prioritizes nuclear arms expansion and military buildup as well as taking an aggressive stance against Communist China.
“U.S. defense strategy must identify China unequivocally as the top priority for U.S. defense planning while modernizing and expanding the U.S. nuclear arsenal and sustaining an efficient and effective counterterrorism enterprise.” He mentions Ukraine only in passing and without commitment, calls for NATO to “transform,” and demands burden-sharing and less defense aid to partner nations, with the exception of support for Israel, which we must “sustain.” (p93-95)
He has a number of requirements for optimizing DoD’s acquisition and the military industrial base as well as increasing military arms sales overseas. “The United States must regain its role as the ‘Arsenal of Democracy.’” (p100)
There are 90 “musts” and 191 “shoulds” in Project 2025, many related to the military. Among the “shoulds” are these three: “Exceptions for individuals who are already predisposed to require medical treatment…should be removed, and those with gender dysphoria should be expelled from military service. Physical fitness requirements should be based on the occupational field without consideration of gender, race, ethnicity, or orientation.” (p103)
The project calls for the Pentagon to “restore faith to the force.” “Strengthen protections for chaplains to carry out their ministry according to the tenets of their faith.” And, “Reinstate servicemembers to active duty who were discharged for not receiving the COVID vaccine, restore their appropriate rank, and provide back pay. And, Eliminate Marxist indoctrination and divisive critical race theory programs and abolish newly established diversity, equity, and inclusion offices and staff.” (p103)
The project says transgender people should not be allowed to serve in the military, and military medical departments should not use public funding to provide abortions, presumably including in cases of rape, incest, or emergencies, including when the life of the woman or family member (dependent) is threatened. (P104)
There are three pages of recommendations calling for revamping military intelligence (p105-107) and 15 pages about “rebuilding” each of the military services as well as defense programs. (P108-122) The project calls for the Army to “transform Army culture and training” “Stop using the Army as a test bed for social evolution.” It states, “The Army no longer reflects national demographics to the degree that it did before 1974 when the draft was eliminated.” In other words –– looking backward –– there were fewer women and people of color serving 50 years ago: in 1974.
Make Marines More Like the U.S. Army
The Mandate for Leadership calls for “needed reforms” in the United States Marine Corps, among them: “Eliminate all USMC law enforcement battalions,” and “Reduce the size of remaining infantry battalions.” And “Divest systems or equipment that are better suited to heavier U.S. Army units.”
Numerous other detailed “reforms” are outlined for equipment, weapons systems, strategies, tactics, and even personnel. For example: “Transform the USMC personnel paradigm. More than other services, the USMC relies heavily on junior noncommissioned officers (NCOs) to staff key positions across the force but especially in combat arms. For example, E-4s routinely hold squad leader billets when the Army normally has E-6s in those billets. ” The project says the Marines should “Align the USMC’s combat arms rank structure with the U.S. Army’s”… (p116)
The project decries a lack of readiness within the U.S. Air Force due to “underfunding”: “The result is an Air Force that is the oldest, smallest, and least ready in its history.” Citing a 2018 report by former SECDEF James Mattis, the project says “The U.S. Air Force today lacks a force structure with the lethality, survivability, and capacity to fight a major conflict with a great power like China, deter nuclear threats, and meet its other operational requirements under the National Defense Strategy.” (p112-113)
With regard to the U.S. Space Force, Project 2025 promises to “Reverse the Biden Administration’s defensive posture,” and “Reestablish offensive capabilities.” An offensive America First warfighting stance is seen as preferable to any attempts at collaboration with partners to guarantee peace in space: “Seek arms control and “rules of the road” understandings only when they are unambiguously in the interests of the U.S. and its allies, and prohibit their unilateral implementation.”
The project complains that “The Biden Administration has eliminated almost all offensive deterrence capabilities and instead will rely solely on defensive capabilities…” (p117) Among the “musts” and “shoulds” directed at the military: take a more offensive stance in the space and cyber arenas and task Special Operations Forces “with conceptualizing, resourcing, and executing regionally based operations to counter the BRI [China’s Belt and Road Initiative] with a focus on nations that are key to our energy policy, international supply chains, and our defense industrial base.” And, “Directly counter Chinese economic power with all elements of national power in North America, Central America, and the Caribbean…” (122)
At the end of a lengthy dissertation on expansion and refinement of nuclear armaments, there is only a passing reference to arms control, and only within a transactional context: Pursue arms control as a way to secure the national security interests of the U.S. and its allies rather than as an end in itself.” (p125)
Section One: “Taking the Reins of Government.”
Throughout Project 2025 authors routinely denigrate and ridicule federal civil service workers and the way they are governed. For example:
“Many of these laws and regulations governing a largely underworked, over compensated, and unaccountable federal civilian workforce are so irrational that they would be comical in a less important context. This is true whether it comes to evaluating employees’ performance or hiring new employees. Only in the federal government could an applicant in the hiring process be sent to the front of the line because of a ‘history of drug addiction’ or ‘alcoholism,’ or due to ‘morbid obesity,’ ‘irritable bowel syndrome,’ or a ‘psychiatric disorder.’ The next Administration should insist that the federal government’s hiring, evaluation, retention, and compensation practices benefit taxpayers, rather than benefiting the lowest rung of the federal workforce.” (p20) And, regarding the Office of Personnel Management, “…for the past 34 years, the U.S. civil service has been unable to distinguish consistently between strong and unqualified applicants for employment.” (p77)
To be clear, efforts to weed out bloated bureaucracy and to combat fraud, waste, and abuse are laudable –– if done without a political motive. So is a commitment to equity between public and private compensation. However, the solution proposed in Project 2025 –– privatization –– seems to be another appeal to conservative political supporters and corporations: “The obvious solution to these discrepancies is to move closer to a market model for federal pay and benefits.” (p77)
Transition plans for a possible Trump administration call for the president to;
- Conduct a “reduction in force” and a freeze of federal civil service workers (p78)
- Allow the executive to hire more positions based on loyalty as opposed to “careerists” who “generally lean heavily to the Left.” (P80)
- Lower federal pay and benefit, including leave and retirement plans, which Project 2025 call an “extravagance.” “Official data also claim that national government employees are paid less than private-sector employees are paid for similar work, but several more neutral sources demonstrate that public-sector workers make more on average than their private-sector counterparts. All of this extravagance deserves close scrutiny.” (p76)
The project wants to reinstate Trump administration executive orders that allow for the president to replace more SES career federal employees with loyal appointees and prevent union activities. (p78-82)
Naturally, the “shoulds” and “musts” in Project 2025 apply only to a presumptive “conservative administration,” not to progressive, democratic, or independent leaders.
“Assemble an Army” of Loyalists
According to Paul Dans, former Heritage Foundation’s director of the Presidential Transition Project and Director of Project 2025, “Our goal is to assemble an army of aligned, vetted, trained, and prepared conservatives to go to work on Day One to deconstruct the Administrative State.” And, “…we are forming agency teams and drafting transition plans to move out upon the President’s utterance of ‘so help me God.’” (p.xiv)
[According to nonprofit news organization ProPublica, “As Donald Trump tried to disavow the politically toxic project, its director, Paul Dans, stepped down. But the plans and massive staffing database that he prepared — to replace thousands of members of the “deep state” with MAGA loyalists — remain.” ProPublica concludes, “For Dans, it was a sudden end — or at least a pause — in a remarkable ascent from obscurity. But then again, his resignation was at least partly symbolic: The work of Project 2025 is largely done. Under Dans, the project has assembled a database of more than 10,000 names — job candidates vetted for loyalty to Trump’s cause — who will be ready to deploy into federal agencies should he win the 2024 election. Project 2025 has delivered a toolkit, ready for use, to create a second Trump administration that would be decidedly more MAGA than the first.”]
