Talk:Project 2025

Delete this

How is this even an official Wikipedia page? “Project 2025” doesn’t exist. There is no factual evidence proving anything said in this summary, and this Wikipedia page is the only online source besides the actual website that spouts this nonsense. 2600:1700:FFD0:57A0:6022:B893:1438:E1E3 (talk) 01:58, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

You might be interested in reading Project 2025#References, which contains 57 citations. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:05, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

This page is mainly speculation and innuendo. Citing second hand sources. I do not think it is worthy of being an page here. I have been looking for information on Project 2025 and could not find much except what people are speculating about what it is. The references you cite are not really references, but other posts and articles that are also speculating. 114.24.203.71 (talk) 16:46, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Can you provide details on the inaccuracies or unsubstantiated claims? For further reference you can read the information directly at project2025.org where you can read the book online. 2601:CD:C600:CC00:89E4:A98A:7AE2:A442 (talk) 23:42, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I looked at the section "Mass deportation of immigrants". Those claims I did not see substantiated by Project 2025. I looked at "Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise", I assume that is the book you referenced on their site.

That section talked about "deputizing National Guard" and deputizing DEA, ATF local police and sheriffs. There was only one footnote that even mentioned the "Drug Enforcement Administration" in the whole thing.

The section talked about deportation, yet deportation was only mentioned twice in the document. I looked for similar terms like 'removal' and saw nothing like what was described.

Claims about Project2025 should be taken from the book or from statements put out by the organization. What we have here is editors speculation on what could , possibly, maybe be happening in a project from some other people speculating on the internet. 114.24.203.71 (talk) 09:43, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I assure you fellow wikipedian that if you go to the site, read through the proposals, and simply read the documents as they are nothing in this article is a "claim". If you would like to propose specific edits or corrects to the article please quote the documents related to the relevant department and how it conflicts with the text of the article. Each Federal Department is a separate document on the project2025.org website and they are each pdfs that you need to click through and read. Yeastmobile (talk) 02:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

You can read it in full in one link: https://static.project2025.org/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf.

Taking IP user 114.24.203.71's words on the "Mass deportation" section as an example: When you search that document for key terms like "National Guard", "deport", "deputize", "homeless", "police", "sheriff", etc. (and grammatical variants), you do not find anything like the claims of this article's section. This section is apparently based on Axios's innuendo-filled article "this guy said this, and then he was talking to this guy, who's an advisor on project 2025" at so on. They don't even try to summarize Project as it defines itself. Then there's the Atlantic, which is paywalled, and looks like from the intro that it's about Trump having said something once, which is not the topic "Project 2025".

As I usually tend to say in these situations, what WP consistently calls GREL is really unbelievable sometimes. The section does state what Axios says, but Axios is full of shit. Nowhere does anything in that massive Project 2025 tome does it say anything close to the claims Axios makes. They is playing games, like mere association that one guy says something once casually, and the audience was an advisor on the project, then they go "coincidence???" It's really very silly.

When I scroll through the topics in that book, I see some pretty ho-hum conservative talking points and policy wants. What's different about the project itself, as compared to other conservative policy statements, is the explicit ambition to "conversatize" the government, in response to it having been "liberalized" over the previous decades. This is certainly a paradigm shift in conservative thinking, from belief in non-partisan bureaucratic operation to belief that it is not possible, therefore it should be conservative. It's really not all that surprising, and can be easily juxtaposed with the fact that numerous liberal politicians have been talking about and doing this for years when they were able to do it. WP leaves you with your hands tied, because none of your precious GREL sources are talking about that. So much of this article highlights WP's biggest issue: most of your GREL sources are in fact not GREL, and SYNTH, SECONDARY, and VERIFY work against you from just writing an article about reality.

But what you can do is have an honest conversation about this. WP is 90% discussion. Unfortunately, when it comes to this specific issue, you all plug your ears. I can understand it, since it looks pretty existential, but it's really not. There's still a massive number of articles that WP is actually good at. Modern politics ain't one of them. 76.178.169.118 (talk) 23:27, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Please provide us with specific instances where the claims conflict with the book/wesbite source, so we can review it. CVDX (talk) 17:46, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, he did ... But I've illustrated it further above, if you'd like to "review it". 76.178.169.118 (talk) 23:28, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I saw your reply on my deleted talk page on this article, i'm 100% sure its the same IP address. excuse me but "lets give change a chance?" Nothing about here are positive changes for democracy and America.

If you want to complain about the quality do it out of pure critiscm and not dishonest talking points, it clearly shows where you stand and why you want this article deleted.

I'm proposing this article to be mantained no matter what. Theres no other way to let people know what and from where are these vile plans came from. Benfor445 (talk) 16:39, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

I read through this entire article, and I'm astonished this is even allowed to be here. The "citations" are sketchy and based off mere opinion pieces and editorials. So now we can write something and use our own writings to back it up? What a joke. This entire article is garbage. 2600:1702:4FCF:1900:BDDA:DA69:3042:BBA7 (talk) 20:11, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Conspiracy? Or is it true?

I honestly think it's a conspiracy and I've never seen this, even when Trump left the presidency from,we haven't seen this in 2022 Kilrk0 (talk) 02:36, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

I would like to know why it's impossible to find any background information, or just general information, on the 3 people who comprise the "Project 2025 Team" (Paul Dans, Spencer Chretien, Troup Hemenway)

https://www.project2025.org/about/about-project-2025/

That seems pretty odd to me... Any thoughts? 2600:6C51:437F:F9E2:F88A:E1F9:6568:47A6 (talk) 08:24, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I added links to Heritage Foundation's bios of team members mentioned in the article. While cursory, they're better than nothing; I'm sure internet and, conceivably, LinkedIn searches provide further insight on those two. A quick google search located several references on Troup Hemenway (the third principal - whom the article doesn't mention), noting his work with the Trump administration, his recent graduation from college and an article that provides some background on his admiration for Viktor Orban: https://www.hungarianconservative.com/articles/interview/troup-hemenway-trump-would-give-back-to-the-americans-what-the-democrats-took-away/ Jetpower (talk) 01:06, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

This is not a forum to discuss the article topic, it's a place to discuss changes to or improving of the article. XeCyranium (talk) 00:59, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

If you would like to propose changing the article to attribute project 2025 as being a conspiracy theory, then please provide a credible source clarifying that it is so and the source will be reviewed. Yeastmobile (talk) 02:33, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Your reply to someone alleging that Project 2025 is a conspiracy theory is to tell the poster to prove it's a conspiracy, rather than telling the writer of the article to prove that it is NOT a conspiracy? How does that make sense? 2601:985:4A81:F060:3064:2D57:176B:878A (talk) 07:06, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

I only wrote here for you to debate if it's conspiracy or reality but I don't think you understood a bit. 190.167.249.170 (talk) 19:13, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I don’t think anything will happen. I don’t like this article; if you ask me, 2028 is going to come around and this will be a useless article about a plan that never happened. LuxembourgLover (talk) 01:40, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Policy proposals versus list of people

The intro sentence says, "Project 2025 (officially the Presidential Transition Project) is a collection of policy proposals to reshape the executive branch of the U.S. federal government in the event of a Republican victory in the 2024 U.S. presidential election." There are two different things: (a) a collection of policy proposals; (b) a list of conservatives around which an effort will occur to get them installed in the federal gov't in a new administration. Is Project 2025 both of those, or is it more the list of people, while Mandate for Leadership is the collection of policy proposals. Novellasyes (talk) 14:30, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Its the first only. If it does happen (which seems fanciful), the "list of conservatives" would be fluid, shrinking and depending on how far the individuals wish to go. Ceoil (talk) 01:38, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I hadn't previously looked at the Project 2025 website, but FWIW they claim that Project 2025 consists of four pillars. The four pillars are (a) a policy agenda, which is the "Mandate for Leadership", (b) a personnel database, (c) training, which they call their "Presidential Administration Academy" and (d) a 180-day playbook. The introductory sentence as it currently stands only refers to one of these four pillars, namely, the part that has to do with "a collection of policy proposals". Novellasyes (talk) 12:50, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

@Novellasyes: I'm fairly certain those four pillars are all examples of policy proposals, so the existing wording is accurate. ––FormalDude (talk) 02:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

{{|FormalDude}}. I'm not seeing how a personnel database, which is one of the four pillars, is an example of a policy proposal. Novellasyes (talk) 17:17, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

A "List of Proposals" would be beneficial to the reader.

The article for Agenda 47 has a section that is lifted directly from the primary source without any synth. Very straightforward and matter of fact. I wonder why we can't do that here? Numerous editors here have noted that the claims in the sources used on this article don't appear to be in the material put out by Project 2025 itself. Especially in light of that, a "list of proposals" would be a great move toward NPOV for this article. After that, it would be nice to have a source or two noting that these sources' claims don't appear to be in the Project's own documents. 76.178.169.118 (talk) 23:08, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:RSPRIMARY, Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources, i.e., a document that relates to or discusses information originally presented elsewhere. ––FormalDude (talk) 03:14, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Except none of them do that. They just clutch pearls. Maybe ... expand what "reliable" means here, and perhaps tighten it at the same time. 76.178.169.118 (talk) 01:32, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

what "reliable" means should be addressed at WP:RSN, not here soibangla (talk) 02:54, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Article contains inaccuracies/inconsistencies on Project objectives

The lead states that The plan proposes slashing U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) funding, dismantling the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security, gutting environmental and climate change regulations to favor fossil fuel production, and eliminating the cabinet Departments of Education and Commerce.

This is sourced to a Guardian article that states: Key components of Project 2025 include slashing funding for the Department of Justice, dismantling the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security, and killing the education and commerce departments

The problem is that these statements regarding the FBI and the departments are misleading, inconsistent, or downright inaccurate. We can see this within the Guardian article itself, which simultaneously claims that the project will be dismantling the FBI yet will try to install trusted loyalists in top posts at the DoJ and the FBI, permitting Trump more leeway to exact revenge on foes. This inconsistency is repeated within the rest of the Wiki article, which quotes Michael Bromwich stating that the supposedly dismantled FBI will somehow also be weaponized against political rivals, based on the same Guardian article. There is no mention of the FBI (or any of the departments mentioned as getting dismantled/eliminated) getting dismantled in the body, which goes against MOS:LEAD.

The reason for that may be because, looking at the Mandate for Leadership, there isn't much backing to support a dismantled FBI, nor an eliminated Department of Commerce. There is backing for a dismantled/eliminated Department of Homeland Security and Department of Education. The article should be reworded to only include Homeland and Commerce.

The Mandate states wrt the FBI: Align the FBI’s placement within the department and the federal government with its law enforcement and national security purposes, not "dismantling" it. In fact, it proposes moving offices to the FBI: Office of Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction be moved to the FBI.

For an actual dismantling, the Mandate states wrt Homeland: Our primary recommendation is that the President pursue legislation to dismantle the Department of Homeland Security, where a number of proposals to move offices to other areas are made.

The Mandate states wrt Commerce: The above policies, strategies, and tactics will set a new Administration on firm footing that allows the Department of Commerce to assist the President in implementing a bold agenda that delivers economic prosperity and strong national security to the American people. Again, we see proposals from Proj 2025 to move offices to the supposedly "eliminated" department: Move ED’s statistical office, the National Commission for Education Statistics (NCES), to the Department of Commerce’s Census Bureau.

For an actual elimination, the Mandate states wrt Education: the federal Department of Education should be eliminated, with proposals to move offices to other areas. KiharaNoukan (talk) 20:32, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

hot off the wire

What Trump’s war on the ‘Deep State’ could mean: ‘An army of suck-ups’ soibangla (talk) 21:28, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

This seems akin to citogenesis moment, given the near complete parallels in wording, with no exploration of policy proposals. This doesn't resolve the contradictory claims of "dismantled" agencies that are somehow also being used to pursue lawfare against political opponents. KiharaNoukan (talk) 22:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Article Exhibits Bias

The Wikipedia article on Project 2025 exhibits bias through its selective focus and tone. It emphasizes the project's political affiliations and controversial objectives, particularly its connection to Donald Trump. The language used can appear charged, potentially leading readers to question the neutrality of the information presented. Such elements can skew the portrayal of the subject, suggesting a bias in how the information is conveyed. 199.189.240.30 (talk) 15:31, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

That's because that's what reliable sources focus on. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:55, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Mandate for Leadership link

Why does External Links link to an archived version of Mandate for Leadership? The live version is still available and linked on the Project 2025 site. Trivialist (talk) 00:43, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

after various criticisms of the Project since its introduction, who has the resources to verify the original 920-page April 2023 document has not since been modified? the document is on their server and can be altered at any time at their discretion. soibangla (talk) 03:25, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Let’s be careful with words

This article is very important, as Donald Trump is a very likely winner in the upcoming election, and this document will be largely influential in his policy. The words we use in describing these policies matter, and they must be the words used by the people proposing the policy, and not the words of people reacting to the policy (unless we are citing such reactions). Let's not devolve into chaos and partisan bickering and take a look at specifics to make this page shine by its objectivity, as it is of existential importance for the future of this country that sources like Wikipedia maintain the trust of the public. This is the only way the policies will be coherently discussed and, if needed, amended and pushed back against. I plea with everyone taking care of this page to leave your personal opinions at the door, and to attempt to consider the policies in a neutral way, as they are proposed.

I thank you for reading that preamble. My specific suggestion is we change the wording used in the sentence "gutting environmental and climate change regulations in favor of fossil fuel production". Words are important, and we all know that while "gutting" is an accurate term, it is also a word that is clearly and unequivocally negative. While I understand the sentiment and I can see the downsides of attacking environmental regulations, I also can see that environmental policy is a political issue and as such alternative views must be portrayed objectively and neutrally in a purely informational document like a Wikipedia article. As such, I recommend the use of

"This policy entails the substantial rollback of environmental and climate change regulations to prioritize fossil fuel production."

In this revision, I replaced "gutting" with "rollback," which conveys the idea of reversing or reducing regulations without the negative connotation associated with "gutting."

I urge everyone else currently working on this page to take a step of good faith and attack other biased language in the article; to be precise, fair, and transparent.

Project 2025 is a very controversial issue that is already being discussed at length in the public square. If you are part of that discussion in your personal life and social media, I applaud your courage and activism. However, for that discussion to be fruitful, it is of vital importance to keep the discussion in the discussion forums and to keep Wikipedia neutral and apolitical. 2600:8804:2106:ED00:60F3:6320:CFD4:367D (talk) 12:10, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

"and they must be the words used by the people proposing the policy, and not the words of people reacting to the policy" Why would we quote a primary source, instead of something reliable? Wikipedia is based on third-party sources, not the words of propagandists. Dimadick (talk) 19:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

While I do agree that Wikipedia editors should strive to be neutral, this does not mean regurgitating what the people behind Project 2025 are saying. They are promoting this program, remember? Nerd271 (talk) 13:37, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

I totally understand, and agree. However you are not attacking the point I made. The question you are attempting to answer is "What is Project 2025 proposing?" The answer to this question should be provided using neutral language to address that question, not biased language to impose your reaction or the reaction you favor on the reader (That would actually be propaganda). The two answers provided to my comment are proof of why the comment is important. I am not advocating for the use of propagandistic language here, just the use of neutral language.

The word I pointed to, "gutting" is an example of non-neutral language used specifically to provoke a visceral reaction on the reader that this is a bad policy choice (This point is debatable, as most policy choices are). By using it you are unequivocally tarnishing the article with bias.

The term "substantial rollback" on the other hand maintains the intent of the policy while leaving the value judgement to the reader, which is why we should strive for here.

There are many examples like this sprinkled throughout the article, and it is vital to weed them out, because they do not belong there. I encourage anyone reading this and my previous reply to act in accordance with Wikipedia's mission to educate and explain rather than personal bias or opinions.

It's pretty much common sense that I am referring to specific policy descriptions (the "what is") and not policy objectives or inspirations of the individual authors of Project 2025 (the "why we need this"/ "what ought to be"). I lay out my reasoning and provide a specific example on my original comment, so attempting to say that I proposed this page to be regurgitating propaganda is disingenuous and a very weak straw man. 2600:8804:2106:ED00:FC85:6ADC:DB73:815C (talk) 22:26, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

The word "gutting" has been replaced by "sharply reducing" at the time of writing. Do you have any specific suggestions for edits or just vague complaints? Nerd271 (talk) 22:47, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

No need to be salty about it. I had not seen the edit was made, but I'm glad my critique may have been accurate in this case. This page is to talk about the article, and if you can't manage a little pushback, maybe it's time to get a new hobby. My sincere greetings to you, if/when I get time I'll be sure to bring more suggestions. In the meantime I believe my comment does have value and points to a specific issue and is not a vague complaint. 2600:8804:2106:ED00:934:B113:F988:588A (talk) 23:05, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

If you couldn't be bothered to check the page's history, then may I suggest you refrain from repeating outdated complains. (Somebody else made that change.) If you couldn't be specific, then perhaps it's time to get a new hobby. Nerd271 (talk) 23:13, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

contains "gut":

• The Left Is Right To Fear Our Plan To Gut the Federal Bureaucracy - Heritage[1]
• Heritage Foundation Makes Plans to Staff Next G.O.P. Administration - NYT[2]
• ‘Project 2025’: plan to dismantle US climate policy for next Republican president - Guardian[3]
• Conservative groups draw up plan to dismantle the US government and replace it with Trump’s vision - AP[4]
• Trump Allies Plan to Gut Climate Research if He Is Reelected - Scientific American[5]
• Conservatives have already written a climate plan for Trump’s second term - Politico[6]
• Trump’s radical second-term agenda would wield executive power in unprecedented ways - CNN[7]
• Inside the Republican Plot to Dismantle US Environmental Policy - Mother Jones[8]

soibangla (talk) 23:14, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Well, if the Heritage Foundation themselves use that word, I suppose the IP's complaint is moot. But to make sure, I checked with the Merriam-Webster Dictionary. They were right to use that verb. Still, I think replacing it with "sharply reducing" (or "reducing") is fine. Let's leave it in place. Nerd271 (talk) 23:23, 11 May 2024 (UTC)