Comparing Agenda 47 and Project 2025

Despite speaking at a Heritage Foundation event in 2022, Donald Trump continues to insist that he knows nothing about Project 2025 or the Heritage Foundation. Let's compare with Agenda 47

When I started searching Google for any detailed comparison between Agenda 47 and Project 2025, I couldn't find anything. So I decided to create one, taking a policy position from Agenda 47 and doing a search of Project 2025 for the same terminology. Most of us have had the feeling that they are basically the same. Here are a number of points of proof.

One of the most important policy positions contained in both Agenda 47 and Project 2025 is Trump's plan for reinstating Schedule F.

Here's what Trump said about it in Agenda 47: "Here's my plan to dismantle the deep state and reclaim our democracy from Washington corruption once and for all, and corruption it is.

"First, I will immediately re-issue my 2020 Executive Order restoring the President's authority to remove rogue bureaucrats. And I will wield that power very aggressively."

Schedule F is mentioned at least five times in Project 2025. The first is a bullet point on page 32: "Identifying programmatic political workforce needs early and developing plans (for example, Schedule F)."

Second is page 80: "...the Trump Administration issued Executive Order 13957 to make career professionals in positions that are not normally subject to change as a result of a presidential transition but who discharge significant duties and exercise significant discretion in formulating and implementing executive branch policy and programs an exception to the competitive hiring rules and examinations for career positions under a new Schedule F. It ordered the Director of OPM and agency heads to set procedures to prepare lists of such confidential, policy-determining, policymaking, or policy-advocating positions and prepare procedures to create exceptions from civil service rules when careerists hold such positions, from which they can relocate back to the regular civil service after such service. The order was subsequently reversed by President Biden at the demand of the civil service associations and unions. It should be reinstated, but SES responsibility should come first."

Third is page 271: "USAID should be one of the agencies to pilot-test a reinstated Executive Order 13957, which created a Schedule F within the Excepted Service, and should aggressively recruit and place candidates into term-limited positions..."

Fourth is page 524: "Personnel Changes. The new Administration should be able to draw on the enormous expertise of state agency personnel throughout the country who are capable and knowledgeable about land management and prove it daily. States are better resource managers than the federal government because they must live with the results. President Trump's Schedule F proposal regarding accountability in hiring must be reinstituted to bring success to these reforms."

Fifth is page 535: "Reissue Trump's Schedule F executive order to permit discharge of nonperforming employees."

Both Agenda 47 and Project 2025 advocate for school vouchers.

Here's what Agenda 47 says: "President Trump supports universal school choice so that parents can send their children to the public, private, or religious school that best suits their needs, their goals, and their values."

Project 2025, page 5: "Elementary and secondary education policy should follow the path outlined by Milton Friedman in 1955, wherein education is publicly funded but education decisions are made by families. Ultimately, every parent should have the option to direct his or her child's share of education funding through an education savings account (ESA), funded overwhelmingly by state and local taxpayers, which would empower parents to choose a set of education options that meet their child's unique needs."

Project 2025, pages 350-351: "Though actions by state lawmakers are essential and any federal policies should be strictly designed so they do not conflict with state activities, Congress could consider school choice legislation such as the Educational Choice for Children Act. This bill would create a federal scholarship tax credit that would incentivize donors to contribute to nonprofit scholarship granting organizations (SGOs). Eligible families could then use that funding from the SGOs for their children's education expenses including private school tuition, tutoring, and instructional materials."

Agenda 47 proposes eliminating the Department of Education. So does Project 2025.

From Agenda 47: "And one other thing I'll be doing very early in the administration is closing up the Department of Education in Washington D.C. and sending all education and education work and needs back to the States."

From Project 2025, page 285: "This department is an example of federal intrusion into a traditionally state local realm. For the sake of American children, Congress should shutter it. return control of education to the states."

Project 2025, pages 321-322: "The next Administration will need a plan to redistribute the various congressionally approved federal education programs across the government, eliminate those that are ineffective or duplicative, and then eliminate the unproductive red tape and rules by entrusting states and districts with flexible, formula-driven block grants."

Project 2025, page 325: "To improve educational opportunities for all Americans, the next Administration should work with Congress to pass a Department of Education Reorganization Act to reform, eliminate, or move the department's programs and offices to appropriate agencies."

Agenda 47 favors a universal baseline tariff: "President Trump's universal baseline tariffs will restore a level playing field for American businesses worldwide." (American consumers end up paying any and all tariffs on imports.)

Project 2025 actually has an internal debate occurring on this subject, with Peter Navarro seeming to side with the Trump proposal and Kent Lassman taking the traditional Republican free trade stance.

In Agenda 47, Donald Trump said: "If I were president, the Russia-Ukraine War would never have happened. Never in a million years. But even now, if I were president, I'd be able to negotiate an end to this horrible and rapidly escalating war in 24 hours."

In Project 2025, again there are competing viewpoints. From pages 181-182: "One issue today that starkly divides conservatives is the Russia-Ukraine con- flict. The common ground seems to be recognition that presidential leadership in 2025 must chart the course.

"One school of conservative thought holds that as Moscow's illegal war of aggression against Ukraine drags on, Russia presents major challenges to U.S. interests, as well as to peace, stability, and the post-Cold War security order in Europe. This viewpoint argues for continued US. involvement including military aid, economic aid, and the presence of NATO and U.S. troops if necessary. The end goal of the conflict must be the defeat of Russian President Vladimir Putin and a return to pre-invasion border lines.

"Another school of conservative thought denies that U.S. Ukrainian support is in the national security interest of America at all. Ukraine is not a member of the NATO alliance and is one of the most corrupt nations in the region. European nations directly affected by the conflict should aid in the defense of Ukraine, but the US. should not continue its involvement. This viewpoint desires a swift end to the conflict through a negotiated settlement between Ukraine and Russia,

"The tension between these competing positions has given rise to a third approach. This conservative viewpoint eschews both isolationism and interventionism. Rather, each foreign policy decision must first ask the question: What is in the interest of the American people? U.S. military engagement must clearly fall within U.S. interests; be fiscally responsible; and protect American freedom, liberty, and sovereignty, all while recognizing Communist China as the greatest threat to U.S. interests. Thus, with respect to Ukraine, continued U.S. involvement must be fully paid for; limited to military aid (while European allies address Ukraine's economic needs); and have a clearly defined national security strategy that does not risk American lives."

With these opposing viewpoints, the prevailing position would probably be the Donald Trump position.

Agenda 47 and Project 2025 both advocate increased drilling on federal lands. Both are skeptical of climate change. Their views on immigration are quite similar. Both are "anti-woke" and anti-DEI.

Although I found areas that I considered misinformation I refrained from editorializing about them. However, a bit of clarification needs to be made about the agenda being discussed here. The whole purpose of Schedule F is to enable Trump to fire whoever he chooses. The school voucher system, as it has been applied in various states, has turned into a welfare program for rich folks instead of middle and lower income families. The Department of Education administers the Title 1 program for low income students and the IDEA program for students with disabilities. The Department of Education also houses the Office of Civil Rights. Trying to eliminate it would be a mistake. Tariffs proposed by Agenda 47 are basically a sales tax. Isolationism has historically been seen as a weakness by a despotic aggressor. Ukraine is actually defending against future Russian aggression toward NATO countries. Drilling is at record highs. Climate change is real. And Donald Trump is a master of spinning tall tales.

Agenda 47 paints in broad brush strokes, where Project 2025 is detailed, and thus will contain more planning. But as can be seen from the previous examples, there is very little difference between the two. I'm sure there are areas that I've missed, but there was a need for a side by side comparison, thus disproving Donald Trump's position that his views are contrary to those of Project 2025. You probably can't use this to dissuade a loyal Trump supporter, as they won't believe it. This is for anyone who is still undecided, or is planning to stay home.

For those of us who are voting Blue to save democracy, it's a reinforcement, a knowledge that we knew that Project 2025 was created for Trump all along.