For
the
better
part
of
this
year,
Project
2025
has
been
a
catchall
among
Democrats
for
the
threat
former
President
Donald
Trump
poses
to
American
society.
The
more
than
900-page
Mandate
for
Leadership,
crafted
by
conservative
think
tank
the
Heritage
Foundation,
is
a
sprawling
and
often
contradictory
mix
of
ideas
from
more
than
100
organizations.
It’s
tied
together
not
by
unified
policy
predictions
but
by
a
series
of
preoccupations:
China;
“wokeness”;
climate
denialism;
and
a
commitment
to
gutting
or
abolishing
federal
agencies.
It
includes
plans
that
would
remake
America’s
approach
to
technology,
but
like
many
things
in
the
document,
its
authors
can’t
exactly
agree
on
how.
Trump
has
attempted
to
distance
himself
from
the
policy
plan,
but
it’s
tied
to
him
by
numerous
threads.
His
running
mate,
JD
Vance,
is
friends
with
Kevin
Roberts,
the
president
of
the
Heritage
Foundation,
and
Vance
even
wrote
the
introduction
to
Roberts’
forthcoming
book,
Dawn’s
Early
Light.
(The
book’s
publication,
initially
slated
for
September,
was
postponed
until
after
the
election.)
And
some
of
Project
2025’s
chapters
were
written
by
Trump’s
own
former
administration
officials,
including
FCC
commissioner
Brendan
Carr
and
Department
of
Homeland
Security
official
Ken
Cuccinelli.
If
Trump
is
elected,
it’s
highly
likely
that
some
of
Project
2025’s
ideas
would
be
implemented
—
we
just
don’t
know
which
ones.
The
most
provocative
proposals,
like
banning
pornography,
are
prominently
highlighted
but
never
explained.
Authors,
in
turn,
recommend
fighting
and
embracing
tech
companies.
“I
don’t
think
I’ve
encountered
a
single
person
in
America
who
agrees
with
100
percent,”
Roberts
said
at
the
Reboot
Conference
in
San
Francisco
in
September.
“It’s
like
the
menu
at
the
Cheesecake
Factory.”
Much
of
what’s
on
the
menu
is
notably
less
delicious.
We’re
not
going
to
break
down
every
piece
of
Project
2025
here
— you
can
find
more
general
guides
at
CBS
News,
which
showed
how
many
of
Project
2025’s
policy
recommendations
match
Trump’s
own;
ProPublica,
which
obtained
secret
training
videos
created
for
Project
2025’s
Presidential
Administration
Academy;
and
The
New
York
Times,
which
interviewed
several
former
Trump
officials
involved
in
the
creation
of
Project
2025.
Instead,
we’re
taking
a
look
at
how
its
recommendations
would
affect
tech
at
every
level,
from
how
companies
can
hire
foreign
workers
to
the
social
media
platforms
we
use
every
day.
Though
there
are
some
contradictions
between
and
within
chapters
—
signs
of
fissures
or
points
of
contention
among
the
dozens
of
participating
organizations
—
Project
2025
does,
in
the
end,
amount
to
a
coherent
vision.
The
document
calls
for
a
radical
expansion
of
government
power
to
punish
conservatives’
enemies
in
tech,
oust
potential
dissenters
within
the
federal
bureaucracy,
and
enforce
right-wing
wish
list
items
like
mass
deportations
and
a
national
abortion
ban.
All
of
this
would
be
combined
with
mass
deregulation
and
the
defunding
of
social
services
and
federal
agencies
that
contribute
to
the
public
welfare.
Project
2025’s
authors
want
small
government
for
social
goods
—
but
big
government
for
retribution.
Federal
Trade
Commission
Authored
by:
Adam
Candeub,
a
professor
of
law
at
Michigan
State
University.
Candeub
served
as
the
acting
assistant
secretary
of
commerce
for
telecommunications
and
information
under
Trump.
From
2020
to
2021,
he
was
the
deputy
associate
attorney
general
in
Trump’s
Department
of
Justice.
Project
2025’s
FTC
guidelines
are
perhaps
the
clearest
example
of
conservative
ambivalence
toward
tech.
The
section
doesn’t
actually
offer
a
set
of
policy
proposals.
Instead,
it
outlines
two
diametrically
opposed
approaches:
one
where
the
Trump
administration
fiercely
enforces
antitrust
law
to
break
up
monopolies;
and
another
where
it
does
barely
anything
at
all.
In
the
enforcement
route,
Project
2025
suggests
using
the
FTC
to
rein
in
major
corporations,
especially
big
tech
companies.
It
puts
forward
the
European
Union’s
“less
friendly
regulatory
environment”
as
a
good
model,
possibly
referring
to
EU
laws
like
the
Digital
Markets
Act,
which
have
forced
tech
companies
to
make
major
hardware
and
software
changes
to
their
products.
It
encourages
the
FTC
to
partner
with
state
attorneys
general
to
scrutinize
or
block
hospital,
supermarket,
and
big
tech
mergers.
And
it
recommends
that
the
FTC
look
into
whether
social
media
platforms’
advertising
to
and
contract-making
with
children
constitute
unfair
trade
practices.
While
there’s
overlap
with
Democratic
antitrust
priorities
here,
there’s
also
a
focus
on
clearly
partisan
concerns.
The
chapter
suggests
investigating
whether
social
media
platforms
censored
political
speech
in
collusion
with
the
government,
following
up
on
probes
by
the
Republican-led
House
of
Representatives
and
Republican
state
attorneys
general.
(Hunter
Biden’s
laptop,
unsurprisingly,
gets
a
mention.)
You’ll
also
see
references
to
issues
like
the
“de-banking”
of
controversial
figures,
which
the
Trump
family
has
cited
as
an
inspiration
for
its
mysterious
crypto
platform.
“We
are
witnessing
in
today’s
markets
the
use
of
economic
power
—
often
market
and
perhaps
even
monopoly
power
—
to
undermine
democratic
institutions
and
civil
society,”
the
chapter
claims.
Each
of
these
points
is
contradicted
by
a
long-standing
conservative
counterpoint:
the
government
should
let
the
market
regulate
itself.
If
the
FTC
regulates
how
children
use
internet
platforms,
for
example,
it
could
undermine
conservatives’
calls
for
“parental
empowerment
on
education
or
vaccines.”
Expanding
cooperation
between
the
FTC
and
state
attorneys
general
could
“tie
middle
America
to
big
progressive
government.”
Ultimately,
though,
the
chapter
seems
to
favor
intervention.
Conservatives
“cannot
unilaterally
disarm
and
fail
to
use
the
power
of
government
to
further
a
conservative
agenda,”
it
warns,
even
if
their
goal
is
to
do
away
with
the
regulatory
state.
Federal
Communications
Commission
Authored
by:
Brendan
Carr,
a
member
of
the
Federal
Communications
Commission
who
was
appointed
by
Trump
in
2017.
Much
of
this
chapter
focuses
on
“reining
in”
major
tech
companies.
Carr
proposes
a
host
of
policies,
including
eliminating
certain
immunities
under
Section
230
of
the
Communications
Decency
Act
and
“clarifying”
that
Section
230’s
key
26
words
should
only
be
used
in
cases
about
platforms
failing
to
remove
illegal
material
posted
by
users,
not
as
a
broader
shield
for
moderation
decisions.
Carr’s
real
concern
is
with
social
media
platforms’
alleged
suppression
of
conservative
speech.
The
chapter
suggests
requiring
“Big
Tech”
to
follow
net
neutrality-like
rules
similar
to
those
for
broadband
providers,
like
disclosure
on
practices
such
as
blocking
and
prioritizing
content.
Platforms
should
also
be
required
to
“offer
a
transparent
appeals
process”
when
user
content
is
taken
down.
The
chapter
also
suggests
that
the
FCC
regulatory
power
should
be
expanded
with
“fundamental
Section
230
reforms”
that
let
it
regulate
how
online
platforms
moderate
content
— or,
in
Carr’s
words,
“no
longer
have
carte
blanche
to
censor
protected
speech.”
Carr
describes
Texas’
HB
20
—
the
law
that
forbids
platforms
from
removing,
demonetizing,
or
downlinking
posts
based
on
“viewpoint,”
which
set
the
stage
for
NetChoice
v.
Paxton
—
as
a
possible
model
for
federal
legislation.
As
companies
must
stop
“censoring”
conservative
speech,
they’re
supposed
to
restrict
children
from
accessing
certain
social
media
platforms.
Carr
quickly
notes
that
these
views
“are
not
shared
uniformly
by
all
conservatives,”
but
as
is
the
case
in
other
chapters,
the
notion
of
expanding
government
powers
to
punish
right-wing
opponents
ends
up
winning
out
over
a
more
laissez-faire
approach.
Congress
should
also
require
big
tech
to
pay
into
the
FCC’s
Universal
Service
Fund,
which
helps
fund
broadband
access
in
rural
communities
and
is
currently
funded
by
broadband
providers.
It’s
another
example
of
Project
2025’s
movement
away
from
Reagan-era
“small
government”
conservatives
in
favor
of
punishing
disfavored
targets
with
more
regulation.
The
chapter
also
recommends
that
the
FCC
and
White
House
work
together
to
free
additional
airwaves
for
commercial
wireless
services
and
generally
do
more
to
“move
spectrum
into
the
commercial
marketplace.”
Carr
also
recommends
that
the
government
build
out
internet
infrastructure
on
federally
owned
land.
The
latter,
however,
can’t
be
accomplished
by
the
FCC
alone,
and
Carr
notes
that
it
would
require
working
with
the
Bureau
of
Land
Management
and
the
Forest
Service,
among
other
agencies.
The
chapter
also
recommends
that
the
FCC
more
quickly
review
and
approve
applications
to
launch
new
satellites,
specifically
for
the
purposes
of
supporting
StarLink,
Kuiper,
and
similar
efforts.
And
then
there’s
China.
One
of
the
primary
recommendations
is
that
the
FCC
“address
TikTok’s
threat
to
national
security.”
(Congress
has,
since
the
time
the
Mandate
for
Leadership
was
published,
done
just
that
by
attempting
to
ban
the
app
unless
it
divests
from
its
parent
company,
ByteDance;
whether
the
courts
will
let
that
happen
remains
to
be
seen.)
Others
include
creating
a
more
regular
process
to
review
entities
“with
ties
to
the
CCP’s
surveillance
state”
and
stopping
US
entities
“from
indirectly
contributing
to
China’s
AI
goals.”
Financial
regulatory
agencies
Authored
by:
David
R.
Burton,
a
senior
research
fellow
in
economic
policy
at
the
Heritage
Foundation;
and
Robert
Bowes,
a
senior
adviser
to
the
assistant
secretary
of
the
Department
of
Housing
and
Urban
Development
under
Trump
and
former
adviser
to
Trump
aide
Stephen
Miller.
While
other
sections
are
often
ambivalent
about
government
regulation,
this
chapter
straightforwardly
suggests
giving
major
concessions
to
cryptocurrency
and
loosening
restrictions
on
who
can
invest
in
private
companies.
Anyone
who’s
been
following
Trump’s
attempts
to
court
the
crypto
community
should
know
what’s
coming
here.
There
are
a
host
of
recommendations
for
the
Securities
and
Exchange
Commission,
which
the
authors
say
has
“chosen
regulation
by
enforcement”
for
cryptocurrency.
The
biggest
change
would
be
redefining
digital
assets
as
commodities,
instead
of
securities,
so
they’re
no
longer
regulated
by
the
SEC.
The
chapter
also
recommends
making
private
capital
raising
less
restrictive
by
changing
a
rule
known
as
Regulation
D.
Under
Regulation
D,
companies
can
raise
unlimited
funds
for
securities
from
an
unlimited
number
of
“accredited
investors,”
with
no
disclosure
needed
to
the
SEC.
“Accredited
investors”
must
currently
have
a
salary
of
$200,000
(or
$300,000
combined
with
their
spouse)
or
a
net
worth
of
at
least
$1
million,
excluding
their
primary
residence.
As
of
2022,
more
than
24
million
American
households
met
these
requirements.
Project
2025
recommends
broadening
these
qualifications
or
eliminating
them
altogether.
In
practice,
this
would
let
anyone
invest
in
any
private
company,
not
just
— as
the
rule
stands
today
— companies
on
the
public
market.
To
go
public,
companies
have
to
meet
certain
requirements
and
file
a
registration
statement
with
the
SEC,
where
they’re
subject
to
reporting
requirements.
In
exchange,
they
currently
get
access
to
a
much
broader
pool
of
potential
investors.
Eliminating
the
accredited
investor
requirement
would
effectively
allow
companies
to
skirt
the
requirements
of
going
public
—
and
the
oversight
they’re
subject
to
afterward.
Department
of
Commerce
Authored
by:
Thomas
F.
Gilman,
the
director
of
ACLJ
Action,
a
conservative
organization
affiliated
with
the
American
Center
for
Law
and
Justice.
Gilman
was
the
chief
financial
officer
and
assistant
secretary
for
administration
of
the
US
Department
of
Commerce
under
Trump.
This
sprawling
chapter
touches
on
nearly
every
major
Project
2025
theme,
from
fears
of
China
to
the
“alarm
industry”
of
federal
climate
monitoring.
Like
practically
every
other
section,
it
recommends
expanding
the
federal
government’s
reach
if
it
will
advance
conservative
interests
and
doing
away
with
any
agencies
that
don’t.
In
keeping
with
the
goal
of
dismantling
federal
bureaucracies,
this
chapter
suggests
doing
away
with
the
National
Oceanic
and
Atmospheric
Administration
(NOAA),
which
it
says
should
be
privatized
or
placed
under
the
control
of
states
and
territories.
Other
agencies,
like
the
National
Weather
Service
(NWS)
and
Office
of
Oceanic
and
Atmospheric
Research,
would
be
severely
downsized.
(In
a
statement
provided
to
the
Los
Angeles
Times,
Steven
R.
Smith,
the
CEO
of
AccuWeather
—
which
Project
2025
suggested
could
replace
the
NWS
—
said
AccuWeather’s
forecast
engine
partly
relies
on
NOAA
data.)
These
agencies
provide
the
data
used
in
weather
forecasts
accessed
by
millions
of
Americans
each
day
and
also
give
the
public
crucial
information
about
impending
hurricanes,
heatwaves,
and
other
natural
disasters
and
extreme
weather
events.
The
Republican
libertarian
wing
may
get
its
goal
of
privatizing
federal
agencies,
but
most
of
this
chapter
argues
for
more
—
not
less
—
government
interference
in
the
market.
Noting
that
China
has
made
significant
advances
in
semiconductor
design,
aerospace
technologies,
and
other
crucial
industries,
it
recommends
new
rules
to
prevent
tech
transfer
to
foreign
adversaries.
It
also
suggests
an
executive
order
expanding
the
Export
Control
Reform
Act
of
2018
to
restrict
exports
of
Americans’
data.
And
it
opposes
intellectual
property
waivers
for
“cutting-edge
technologies”
like
covid-19
vaccines
—
which
an
earlier
chapter
says
the
Centers
for
Disease
Control
and
Prevention
shouldn’t
encourage
people
to
get
—
through
international
agreements.
These
waivers,
which
were
hotly
debated
for
years
following
the
onset
of
the
pandemic,
give
low-
and
middle-income
countries
access
to
life-saving
immunizations,
though
advocates
say
more
needs
to
be
done
to
achieve
global
vaccine
equity.
The
chapter
also
suggests
adding
certain
app
providers
—
including
WeChat,
TikTok,
and
TikTok’s
parent
company,
ByteDance
—
to
the
entity
list,
which
would
prevent
the
apps
from
issuing
program
updates
in
the
US,
effectively
making
them
nonoperational.
The
Heritage
Foundation
apparently
didn’t
get
the
memo
that
Trump
loves
TikTok
now.
Department
of
Transportation
Authored
by:
Diana
Furchtgott-Roth,
director
of
the
Heritage
Foundation’s
Center
for
Energy,
Climate,
and
Environment.
Unlike
other
chapters
that
are
openly
antagonistic
toward
tech
companies,
this
chapter
suggests
partnering
with
the
private
sector
to
“revolutionize
travel.”
There’s
an
emphasis
on
private
transportation
over
public
transportation
—
not
just
in
terms
of
opposing
government
funding
for
mass
transit
but
also
supporting
ridehailing
apps,
self-driving
vehicles,
and
micromobility,
which
only
gets
a
passing
mention
in
the
chapter
but
likely
refers
to
e-bikes
and
electric
scooters.
Current
policies,
the
document
says,
“strangle
the
development
of
new
technologies”
like
drones.
Instead,
the
DOT
should
encourage
the
use
of
small
aircraft
for
air
taxis
or
for
quiet
vertical
flights.
It
should
also
push
for
a
shift
to
digital
or
remote
control
towers
for
planes,
letting
flights
be
managed
“anywhere
from
anywhere.”
Department
of
the
Treasury
Authored
by:
William
L.
Walton,
a
trustee
of
the
Heritage
Foundation
and
the
founder
and
chair
of
the
private
equity
firm
Rappahannock
Ventures
LLC;
Stephen
Moore,
a
visiting
fellow
in
economics
at
the
Heritage
Foundation;
and
David
R.
Burton,
a
senior
research
fellow
in
economic
policy
at
the
Heritage
Foundation.
Under
Project
2025,
the
US
would
effectively
abandon
its
commitment
to
stopping
climate
change.
The
chapter
suggests
getting
rid
of
the
department’s
Climate
Hub
office
and
withdrawing
from
international
climate
change
agreements,
including
the
Paris
agreement
and
the
United
Nations
Framework
Convention
on
Climate
Change.
Instead
of
focusing
on
clean
energy
or
climate
change-resilient
infrastructure,
the
chapter
suggests
that
the
government
should
invest
in
domestic
energy,
especially
oil
and
gas.
Like
several
other
sections,
this
chapter
takes
aim
at
“wokeness”
and
diversity,
equity,
and
inclusion
(DEI)
programs.
As
part
of
Project
2025’s
plan
to
gut
the
federal
workforce,
it
suggests
identifying
all
Treasury
officials
who
have
participated
in
DEI
initiatives,
publishing
their
communications
about
DEI,
and
firing
anyone
who
participated
in
DEI
initiatives
“without
objecting
on
constitutional
or
moral
grounds.”
Department
of
Health
and
Human
Services
Authored
by:
Roger
Severino,
a
vice
president
at
the
Heritage
Foundation
and
former
director
of
its
DeVos
Center
for
Religion
and
Civil
Society,
who
served
as
the
director
of
the
HHS’s
Office
of
Civil
Rights
under
Trump.
The
bottom
line:
Project
2025
would
limit
the
government’s
ability
to
do
basic
health
governance
while
setting
up
a
surveillance
state
for
pet
conservative
issues
like
abortion
and
gender-affirming
care
for
trans
people.
Much
of
the
HHS
chapter
focuses
on
the
Centers
for
Disease
Control
and
Prevention’s
response
to
covid-19,
which
the
author
characterizes
as
near
totalitarian.
The
chapter
recommends
barring
the
CDC
from
saying
that
children
should
be
masked
or
vaccinated
against
any
illness
and
says
that
the
CDC
should
be
investigated
for
“colluding
with
Big
Tech
to
censor
dissenting
opinions
during
Covid.”
The
author
also
suggests
moving
several
CDC
programs
—
including
the
Clinical
Immunization
Safety
Assessment
project,
which
researches
vaccine
safety
—
to
the
Food
and
Drug
Administration.
Unsurprisingly,
abortion
would
be
severely
restricted.
Under
Project
2025,
the
FDA
would
reverse
the
approval
of
pills
that
facilitate
medication
abortions,
which
the
document
calls
the
“single
greatest
threat
to
unborn
children.”
The
FDA
would
also
eliminate
policies
allowing
people
to
order
abortion
pills
by
mail
or
online.
As
the
CDC
would
stop
encouraging
vaccinations
—
which
some
conservatives
believe
infringe
on
bodily
autonomy
—
the
agency
would
increase
its
surveillance
and
recordkeeping
of
abortions
and
maternal
mortality.
This
includes
a
recommendation
that
the
HHS
“use
every
available
tool,
including
the
cutting
of
funds”
to
force
states
to
report
“exactly
how
many
abortions
take
place
within
its
borders.”
A
separate
study,
through
the
National
Institutes
of
Health,
is
recommended
to
investigate
the
“short-term
and
long-term
negative
effects
of
cross-sex
interventions,”
i.e.,
gender-affirming
care.
The
report
also
recommends
using
AI
to
detect
Medicaid
fraud,
which
costs
the
US
an
estimated
$100
billion
a
year
and
is
typically
perpetrated
by
healthcare
providers,
not
individual
beneficiaries
of
public
healthcare.
Department
of
Homeland
Security
Authored
by:
Ken
Cuccinelli,
who
served
in
various
capacities
under
Trump,
including
as
the
director
of
US
Citizenship
and
Immigration
Services
and,
later,
the
“senior
official
performing
the
duties
of
the
Deputy
Secretary
of
Homeland
Security.”
Perhaps
counterintuitively
given
Republicans’
laser
focus
on
the
US
border,
Project
2025
recommends
abolishing
the
Department
of
Homeland
Security.
The
goal,
though,
is
to
replace
it
with
the
Border
Security
and
Immigration
Agency,
a
new,
more
draconian,
and
less
accountable
immigration
enforcement
apparatus.
The
Transportation
Security
Administration
(TSA)
would
be
privatized,
and
the
Coast
Guard
would
be
moved
to
either
the
Department
of
Defense
or
the
Department
of
Justice.
Dismantling
the
DHS
almost
certainly
won’t
happen
—
it
would
require
an
act
of
Congress,
and
lawmakers
haven’t
passed
an
immigration
bill
in
decades.
Project
2025
doesn’t
just
recommend
more
stringent
restrictions
on
unauthorized
immigration;
it
also
lays
out
a
vision
of
severely
restricted
legal
immigration.
It
recommends
scrapping
the
family-based
immigration
system
that
has
been
in
place
since
1965
and
replacing
it
with
a
“merit-based
system
that
rewards
high-skilled
aliens.”
Other
suggestions
include
eliminating
the
diversity
visa
lottery
and
altering
the
work
visa
system.
This,
too,
would
largely
require
congressional
action.
As
it
prioritizes
“merit-based”
immigration
to
the
US,
the
chapter
proposes
limiting
foreign
students’
ability
to
study
here.
In
a
move
that
(unlike
much
of
this
chapter)
could
be
accomplished
through
executive
action,
it
proposes
ending
what
it
calls
Immigration
and
Customs
Enforcement’s
(ICE)
“cozy
deference
to
educational
institutions,”
i.e.,
the
issuing
of
student
visas
to
most
foreign
students
admitted
to
US
universities.
It
also
calls
to
“eliminate
or
significantly
reduce
the
number
of
visas
issued
to
foreign
students
from
enemy
nations”
—
implicitly,
China.
Intelligence
community
Authored
by:
Dustin
J.
Carmack,
Meta’s
director
of
public
policy
for
the
Southern
and
Southeastern
US.
Carmack,
a
former
research
fellow
at
the
Heritage
Foundation,
was
the
chief
of
staff
for
the
Office
of
the
Director
of
National
Intelligence
under
Trump
from
2020
to
2021.
Concerns
about
China
are
far
more
explicit
in
this
chapter,
which
looks
at
the
“vast,
intricate
bureaucracy
of
intelligence
agencies
within
the
federal
government.”
The
chapter
raises
the
threat
of
Chinese
(and
to
a
lesser
extent,
Russian)
espionage,
online
influence
campaigns,
and
“legitimate
businesses
serving
as
collection
platforms,”
a
possible
allusion
to
TikTok.
The
Mandate
for
Leadership
recommends
amending
Executive
Order
12333
—
which
was
signed
by
President
Ronald
Reagan
in
1981
and,
among
other
things,
authorizes
mass
data
collection
for
intelligence
purposes
to
address
the
threats
the
US
and
its
allies
face
“in
cyberspace.”
But
the
chapter
also
claims
intelligence
agencies
have
dedicated
far
too
much
time
to
surveilling
the
former
president,
which
allegedly
proves
a
“shocking
extent
of
politicization”
among
the
agencies
and
the
officials
who
lead
them.
(Its
evidence
includes
the
letter
signed
by
51
former
intelligence
officials
ahead
of
the
2020
US
presidential
election
claiming
that
the
story
about
Hunter
Biden’s
laptop
was
likely
a
Russian
information
operation.)
The
author
calls
for
an
investigation
into
“past
politicization
and
abuses
of
intelligence
information.”
The
chapter
also
recommends
that
Section
702
of
the
Foreign
Intelligence
Surveillance
Act
(FISA)
—
the
controversial
law
allowing
warrantless
wiretapping
that
was
reauthorized
earlier
this
year
—
be
reformed
with
“strong
provisions
to
protect
against
partisanship,”
pointing
to
the
use
of
FISA
to
surveil
former
Trump
campaign
associate
Carter
Page
as
part
of
the
FBI’s
investigation
into
Trump’s
ties
to
Russia.
There
is
little
mention
of
how
these
vast
surveillance
powers
affect
regular
people.
In
fact,
the
chapter
notes
that
an
independent
review
found
that
Section
702
surveillance
powers
were
“not
abused,”
though
it
does
recommend
that
Congress
review
further
reports
to
determine
whether
any
FISA
reforms
are
needed.
Buried
amid
all
these
claims,
it
also
recommends
the
Department
of
Defense
examine
the
possibility
of
joint
satellite
and
space
programs
with
“potential
allied
nations”
to
counter
the
threat
posed
by
Russia
and
China.
Additionally,
it
suggests
agencies
spy
on
the
space
programs
of
foreign
adversaries
and
collect
more
data
on
adversaries’
potential
threats
to
US
space
programs.
Media
agencies
Authored
by:
Mora
Namdar,
a
former
State
Department
official
who
worked
as
a
senior
policy
adviser
and
acting
assistant
secretary
of
state
in
consular
affairs
under
Trump;
and
Mike
Gonzalez,
a
former
journalist
and
current
senior
fellow
at
the
Heritage
Foundation.
These
agencies
aren’t
as
consequential
as
juggernauts
like
the
FTC,
but
the
usual
slash-and-burn
recommendations
apply.
Project
2025
encourages
undercutting
the
Open
Technology
Fund,
a
subagency
within
the
US
Agency
for
Global
Media
dedicated
to
protecting
free
speech
around
the
world
that
has
funded
open-source
projects
like
Signal.
It
calls
the
OTF
a
“wasteful
and
redundant
boondoggle”
that
makes
“small,
insubstantial
donations
to
much
larger
messaging
applications
and
technology
to
bolster
its
unsubstantiated
claims”
and
— contra
its
name
and
stated
mission
— suggests
it
fund
closed-source
technology
instead.
The
chapter
also
notes
that
there
is
“vast
concern”
about
the
vulnerability
of
undersea
cable
trunks
that
power
the
internet
and
says
that
major
global
conflict
could
cause
widespread
damage
to
these
cables,
potentially
leading
to
long-lasting
power
outages.
There
is
no
mention
of
what
can
be
done
to
prevent
this,
though
the
chapter
does
say
that
the
US
Agency
for
Global
Media’s
shortwave
radio
capabilities
could
help
carry
broadcasts
and
maintain
communication
in
areas
where
online
traffic
is
limited
or
restricted.
Comments