Disclaimer: The following document is intended to address the tenants and aspects of

Project 2025. It will consist of debunking false statements and claims, registering the
complaints of the “silent majority,” and providing an alternative outlook that better suits
the needs of the people as well as tackling provisions that may be difficult to ascertain on
the most prominent of reasons.

The document addresses each insert from the Project 2025 document in numerical order
of each paragraph that is stated starting from page xviii in which a synapsis of the
project is provided until the final page of 887. A response is given to each insert that
follows it providing a debunking refutation if needed and a register of complaints if
deemed reasonable. The last provision is a counter in which the insertion is contended
with a better statement in serving in the effort of addressing the total American
population rather than a biased segment. If America is to stand the test of time, effort
must be made to address the entire population of this country unless reason stipulates
otherwise.
Insert #1

“We want you! The 2025 Presidential Transition Project is the conservative
movement’s unified effort to be ready for the next conservative Administration to
govern at 12:00 noon, January 20, 2025. Welcome to the mission. By opening this
book, you are now a part of it. Indeed, one set of eyes reading these passages will
be those of the 47th President of the United States, and we hope every other
reader will join in making the incoming Administration a success.”

Response

Conservative is stated redundantly and it is arguable that the people behind

Project 2025 are actual conservatives. They do seek to conserve what they believe
are hallmark American values, customs and traditions. However, their behavior
and political endeavors fit better as reactionary politics rather than conservative.
Therefore, demonstrating an intentional or ignorant effort of malcontent in
deceiving an audience. It proceeds further by seeking to indoctrinate the onlooker
into being a part of the project regardless if they have any say on the matter. It
would be better to let the audience determine their own conclusions or positions
as there is a greater likelihood of success. It also deceives the audience by stating
that the 47th President would also be reading the following document which is a
bold statement regarding who that might be.

Counter:

“We want you! The following Project is a unified effort to be ready for the next
Administration to govern effectively as needed at 12:00 noon, January 20, 2025.
Welcome to the mission. By opening this book, you now have the opportunity to
be a part of it. Indeed, it is highly likely that one set of eyes reading these passages
will be those of the 47th President of the United States, and we hope every other
reader is an American citizen that will join in making the incoming Administration
a success.”
Insert #2

“History teaches that a President’s power to implement an agenda is at its apex

during the Administration’s opening days. To execute requires a well-conceived,
coordinated, unified plan and a trained and committed cadre of personnel to
implement it. In recent election cycles, presidential candidates normally began
transition planning in the late spring of election year or even after the party’s
nomination was secured. That is too late. The federal government’s complexity
and growth advance at a seemingly logarithmic rate every four years. For
conservatives to have a fighting chance to take on the Administrative State and
reform our federal government, the work must start now. The entirety of this
effort is to support the next conservative President, whoever he or she may be.”

Response

There is no such thing as a conservative reform. Reforms are centrist while

revolutions are leftist and counter-revolutionists are rightist. This would be
regarded as a counter-revolution at best. Administrative planning should be done
by the intended candidate well in advance of running for the office. Therefore,
there is agreement that transition planning for a candidate should happen sooner.
However, dissent will be made that the planning should be formulated either
around with affirmative bias or directly ascertained by the candidate him or
herself. There is considerable concern that this transition planning is made chiefly
in absentia of the candidate it concerns. Lastly, the intention of administrative
planning should be to uphold the administration itself, not its central player.

Counter:

“Due to the complexity and growth of the federal government, it is highly

recommended to establish a transitional plan now to prepare for the next
administration. History teaches that a President’s power to implement an agenda
is at its apex during the Administration’s opening days. To function as the
executive requires a well-conceived, coordinated, unified plan and a trained and
committed cadre of personnel to implement it. In recent election cycles,
presidential candidates normally began transition planning in the late spring of
election year or even after the party’s nomination was secured. We seek to change
that by offering a favorable chance for the Administrative State to tackle the
critical issues concerning our beloved country. The entirety of this effort is to
support the United States government in its capacity to serve its Great People.”
Insert #3

“In the winter of 1980, the fledgling Heritage Foundation handed to President-elect
Ronald Reagan the inaugural Mandate for Leadership. This collective work by
conservative thought leaders and former government hands—most of whom were
not part of Heritage—set out policy prescriptions, agency by agency for the
incoming President. The book literally put the conservative movement and
Reagan on the same page, and the revolution that followed might never have been,
save for this band of committed and volunteer activists. With this volume, we have
gone back to the future—and then some.”

Response

Ronald Reagan already was a conservative individual before 1980. The Heritage
Foundation is arguably conservative, more rightwing than anything else and not
the same rightwing organization it was. The policies it is arguing for are not the
same that it did in 1980. It is also discerning that the Heritage Foundation would
provide an “inaugural Mandate for Leadership” as it sounds similar to the Pope
crowning a King or an Emperor. America was founded as a Republic meaning it
should be the people rather than an oligarchic group with the word oligarchy
meaning a group of people ruling instead of the people. If democracy is one of our
core values then it is definitely non-conservative to position oneself as the
kingmaker for a president. This again affirms that this “movement” is reactionary
rather than conservative.

Counter:

Omitted due to unnecessary attention grabbing for personal achievement

unwarranted within a democratic system of government and especially by a
self-proclaimed conservative organization that seeks to foster established
American values and norms.
Insert #4

“It’s not 1980. In 2023, the game has changed. The long march of cultural Marxism
through our institutions has come to pass. The federal government is a behemoth,
weaponized against American citizens and conservative values, with freedom and
liberty under siege as never before. The task at hand to reverse this tide and
restore our Republic to its original moorings is too great for any one conservative
policy shop to spearhead. It requires the collective action of our movement. With
the quickening approach of January 2025, we have two years and one chance to
get it right.”

Response

Vague concept of a game, this is real life not an interactive fantasy. Cultural
marxism is inadequate when marxists in Bulgaria and other Soviet-led countries
are forced to institutionalize heteronormativity. Inadequate word choice even if it
is popularly utilized by a significant population. The federal government is
arguably not a behemoth given a comparison to other governments around the
world. It is certainly more centralized and massive than Canada and Switzerland’s
governments, but that is an extreme minority to pull from. Beyond a personal
choice of words, the statement of weaponizing the government against American
citizens, conservative values such as freedom and liberty is an incriminating claim
that requires sufficient evidence and citation. There is none. However, an
argument can be made that the government has become as a result of executive,
legislative and judicial improper use of a destructive force concerning the liberties
and freedoms of various individuals, chiefly the right of a woman to choose, since
impregnation is beyond the absolute scope of ability of a woman’s control.
Therefore, it is indeed a weaponization against freedom and liberty.

Counter:

“The long march of cultural revisionism is at hand from proponents of the right
and left, disregarding the everyday person, the average Joe and Jane of these great
United States. Political discourse has become a two-headed behemoth,
weaponizing the American people against each other disregarding true American
values and beliefs such as freedom and liberty. The task at hand to reverse this
tide and restore our Republic to its original moorings is too great for any one
person to do alone. It requires the collective action of all Americans. With the
quickening approach of January 2025, we have one chance to get it right.”
Insert #5

“Project 2025 is more than 50 (and growing) of the nation’s leading conservative
organizations joining forces to prepare and seize the day. The axiom goes
“personnel is policy,” and we need a new generation of Americans to answer the
call and come to serve. This book is functionally an invitation for you the
reader—Mr. Smith, Mrs. Smith, and Ms. Smith—to come to Washington or support
those who can. 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.”

Response

Vague concept of a game, this is real life not an interactive fantasy. How can
anything from Democrats be cultural marxism when marxists in Bulgaria and
other Soviet-led countries forced institutionalize heteronormativity. Inadequate
word choice even if it is popularly utilized by a significant population. The federal
government is arguably not a behemoth given a comparison to other governments
around the world. It is certainly more centralized and massive than Canada and
Switzerland’s governments, but that is an extreme minority to pull from. Beyond a
personal choice of words, the statement of weaponizing the government against
American citizens, conservative values such as freedom and liberty is an
incriminating claim that requires sufficient evidence and citation. However, an
argument can be made that the government has become as a result of executive,
legislative and judicial mishandle and overreach a destructive force concerning
the liberties and freedoms of various individuals, chiefly the right of a woman to
abort an unborn human. Therefore it is indeed a weaponization of the government
against freedom and liberty.

Counter:

“The long march of cultural revisionism is at hand from proponents of the right
and left, disregarding the everyday person, the average Joe and Jane of these great
United States. Political discourse has become a two-headed behemoth,
weaponizing the American people against each other disregarding true American
values and beliefs such as freedom and liberty. The task at hand to reverse this
tide and restore our Republic to its original moorings is too great for any one
person to do alone. It requires the collective action of all Americans. With the
quickening approach of January 2025, we have one chance to get it right.”
Insert #6

“Pillar I—this volume—puts in one place a consensus view of how major federal
agencies must be governed and where disagreement exists brackets out these
differences for the next President to choose a path.”

Response

It would be wise to include all federal agencies, but I doubt this is really a
consensus view of all Americans even all Conservative Americans since
“Republicans-in-name-only” aren’t included as fellow Conservative even if their
demeanor, behavior, values, views, and opinions on an individual as well as
collective level demonstrates a better true disposition of actual conservatism over
the individuals who proclaim their conservatism with little to show for.

Counter:

“Pillar I—this volume—outlines the various major federal agencies and present
various problems and solutions to their operations and duties in performing
adequately on behalf of the American People. We will also present the various
disagreements that exist concerning these agencies whether they should exist or
should function as currently displayed. We would like to present our alternative to
each agency either in performance or in outright existence as we attempt to
branch together a more perfect union.”
Insert #7

“Pillar II is a personnel database that allows candidates to build their own

professional profiles and our coalition members to review and voice their
recommendations. These recommendations will then be collated and shared with
the President-elect’s team, greatly streamlining the appointment process.”

Response

Even though it is agreeable to have an active participatory democracy there will

not be much room for disagreement should one require a recommendation from a
non-existing part of the government to be part of said government. If the Heritage
Foundation wishes to “streamline” the bureaucracy, then it should regard a policy,
even a law that would make it a crucial part of said government rather than an
invasive intrusion in which oligarchic authority defines merit in place of a
democratic institution. In the effort to defend the constitution,
extra-constitutional measures are declared from an extra-constitutional
organization in place of the existing parties, especially the one that nominates
candidates on behalf that act beyond the intentions of the Constitution's founding
fathers. This is an unsuitable change that lacks sufficient reasoning, it is therefore
unreasonable under the conditions and intentions of its being.

Counter:

“Pillar II is to reform the formulation of the existing bureaucratic system with an

effort to identify a possible candidate-review organization that can work
effectively to generate the best impartial and functioning meritocratic system
within today’s age of technology and ever changing geopolitics not just to support
the Administration of the upcoming or reelected president as well as all future
administrations unless or until the will of the people says otherwise.”
Insert #8

“Pillar III is the Presidential Administration Academy, an online educational

system taught by experts from our coalition. For the newcomer, this will explain
how the government functions and how to function in government. For the
experienced, we will host in-person seminars with advanced training and set the
bar for what is expected of senior leadership”

Response

The state and education really do not cohabitate ideally unless indoctrination in
some form is the intention. Indoctrination is necessary to establish uniformity and
consensus that requires minimal argumentation. Nevertheless, it may be
necessary to establish an educational process to guarantee very civil
responsibility from voters and politicians. The necessity of education from
bureaucrats should be to complete a task to match necessary merit that supports
the job’s efficiency and efficacy in regards of skill rather than with belief or
ideology. Attempts to generate a culture of a work environment in the public
sector should be discouraged as it can lead to groupthink and government
inefficiency and ineffectiveness which will only delegitimize a country or proceed
with its removal in the not so distant future if the people are permitted.

Counter:

“Pillar III is the Citizen Administration Academy, an online educational system

taught by experts which are valued through a comprehensive and verifiable
structure that supports and enhances the necessary qualities for the duties of a
good citizen within the United States of America. It will perform this necessary
apparatus within respect of our established values and traditions as well as
providing flexibility to encourage participation in equity with as reasonably wide
of a pool of diverse and inclusive participants as possible.”
Insert #9

“In Pillar IV—the Playbook—we are forming agency teams and drafting transition
plans to move out upon the President’s utterance of “so help me God.””

Response

This is a constitutional republic. Changes to the executive branch should require

the signing of law by the United States Congress. Furthermore, religious tone
should never be utilized in a public sector of society as it would contaminate by
church and state.

Counter:

“In Pillar IV—the Playbook—we will provide and support the formation of agency
teams and drafting transition plans, recommendations and considerations made
by the general public as the process follows the existing laws and respects the
existing Constitution in respect to all branches of the government of the United
States of America.”
Insert #10

“As Americans living at the approach of our nation’s 250th birthday, we have been
given much. As conservatives, we are as much required to steward this precious
heritage for the next generation. On behalf of our coalition partners, we thank you
and invite you to come join with us at project2025.org.”

Response

The heritage of the United States from its beginning is a secular constitutional
republic, actually indirect democracy as a federation over an assortment of
republics called states and commonwealths. If the birthday of America is to be
respected so should its original intention as stated by its founding fathers. There
should not be a coalition in favor of governing the country in place over the total
population. There should be an effort to include the total population and provide
mutual understanding to guarantee as many people as possible to prevent possible
resentment for a lack of willingness to be heard. Exclusion outright should never
be made on any person no matter what beliefs or values they have rather an
understanding should be made to curve the mentality of the individual to fit the
precise areas of concern to avoid areas of contention that should be brought up
later when deemed suitable to resolve any misunderstandings or misinformation.

Counter:

“As Americans living at the approach of our nation’s 250th birthday, we must
honor our great country by staying true to its foundation and intention. As people
who share this nation, we are required to steward this precious heritage we were
founded by for the next generation. On behalf of all people of our great country,
we thank you and invite you to come and join us at reform2025.org.” (not yet
established organization or website on the internet).