As the US Presidential election campaigns heat up, ‘Project 2025’ gets frequent mention. A 900-plus page document, its full title is, ‘Mandate for leadership: Project 2025’. Penned by senior officials of the first Trump Administration, it outlines a policy and personnel agenda for his second term (if elected).
The mandate declares that the US Congress has abdicated its decision-making responsibilities to unelected bureaucrats, who exercise unchecked policy-making power, even evading the control of the president.
Recognising that much of the chaos of Trump’s presidency—staff turnovers, policy flip-flops, dissents and leaks—was caused by ideologically incompatible personnel in his administration, the project’s coordinators launched a nation-wide search for suitable candidates. Short-listed applicants underwent training on structures and issues of governance. A database of a few thousand candidates will be presented to the presidential team in November for the selection of federal employees.
The mandate’s uncompromising stand against abortion has drawn criticism; its position against immigration is popular. It advocates incentivising preservation of the nuclear family, de-emphasising transgender and LGBTQ issues, and outlawing pornography in speech, print and digital products. DEI (diversity, equity, inclusion) policies (affirmative action without quotas) should be reversed; they suppress merit and dilute efficiencies.
The economic agenda comprises pro-growth policies that create jobs, spur investment and increase wages: expanding the manufacturing base through industrial policy, pursuing self-reliance in strategically important sectors, promoting fair and balanced trade, and replacing “environmental extremism” with energy dominance.
Energy dominance is a priority. Exploitation of US hydrocarbon reserves would power economic growth, drive billions of dollars of private investment to communities devastated by globalisation, providing millions of jobs (typically for non-college workers, who are solid Trump supporters). Reinvigoration of manufacturing would ease the pains of decoupling from China. Energy dominance can be leveraged to deal with the Gulf countries on a stronger footing and rebalance energy power away from Russia. Trump’s assertion that his first order as president would be “drill, drill, drill” is, therefore, an economic message, an election pitch and a geopolitical warning.
China is a leitmotif throughout the document. It is asserted to be a totalitarian enemy. The policy of competition and cooperation has failed; the US objective should be strategic decoupling and the use of all levers to thwart China’s thrust for global dominance.
The menu spans the remit of every department and agency. Expand tariffs on Chinese products. Provide incentives to American companies for onshoring cutting-edge capabilities. Put in place strict controls on technology-sharing. Prohibit Chinese investment in high-technology industries. Reduce and eventually eliminate US dependence on Chinese supply chains. Ban Chinese social media apps. Reduce or eliminate visas for Chinese students or researchers to curb espionage. Every year, over 3,00,000 Chinese students join US universities, laboratories and think tanks.
China should be the top priority for US conventional and nuclear defence planning. Chinese subordination of Taiwan should be made prohibitively difficult. Allies like Japan and Australia should be drawn into a broader coalition to confront China in a “collective defence model”. This approach accords with Trump’s frequently expressed view that allies and partners should contribute commensurate resources for common security objectives.
While China unifies the conservative movement, the Russia–Ukraine conflict divides it. Some Republicans see Russia as a major threat to US interests and European order. They support US aid and even troop deployment, if needed, to ensure Russia’s defeat. Others believe that Ukraine’s defence should be left to the Europeans, since it is not a principal US national security concern.
Trump has said nothing, beyond declaring he would end the conflict very quickly. This may not mean forcing Ukraine into a capitulatory settlement. He would not want to do to Ukraine what Biden did to Afghanistan. He may be more amenable to something like the ‘peace plan’, elaborated by former secretary of state Mike Pompeo, and a Republican colleague whose consultancy firm is reported to have links with an advisor of Ukraine’s president and some top US defence manufacturers. It involves ramping up sanctions against Russia to force compromise, a $500-billion “lend-lease” program, enabling Ukraine to buy US weapons (thus benefiting America’s defence industry), and fast-tracking Ukraine’s admission to the EU, to help modernise its economy. Trump has not commented on this plan, which may need tweaking to be practical.
In the longer term, the mandate’s recommendation reflects Trump’s inclinations: Europe and Russia should bear their fair share for a security architecture. NATO’s European members should field a conventional deterrent against Russia, while the US will provide a nuclear deterrent. This would enable the US to reduce its force posture in Europe to give China fuller attention.
As in Trump’s first term, trade is an important focus area. With adversaries, allies and partners alike, trade policy should be strictly guided by reciprocity: unfair advantages of partners will be countered, from tax policy to currency manipulation to domestic standards and subsidies. India has to brace itself for a repeat of 2016-20.
The mandate asserts the importance of India for countering the Chinese threat, securing a free and open Indo–Pacific, and as an emerging economic partner. It declares normal relations cannot be expected with the “perfidious Taliban regime” in Afghanistan and the “military–political rule” in Pakistan.
Project 2025 is a useful guide to the likely approach of a future Trump Administration. Its external agenda is neither isolationist nor globalist. The US is seriously challenged by China and is overstretched in its global operations. But it also has valuable assets and strong allies in every geography; it needs a greater contribution from them to advance its strategic interests. There may be calibrations, as China and Russia push back against US actions. European and Asian partners will need delicate handling.
If Trump wins and stays on message, if personnel appointments are sound, and if there is coherence of policy coordination—all big ifs—his agenda could have far-reaching global consequences.
P S Raghavan
Distinguished Fellow, Vivekananda International Foundation, and a former diplomat
(Views are personal)