Project 2025 reflects a powerful conservative vision that may shape the next Trump administration’s policies. It advocates for a comprehensive restructuring of federal law enforcement, which includes investigating top election officials for any possible misconduct. Such a move is a stringent check on the political machinery, predominantly in key swing states where the Democratic administration has voiced reticent allegations against Trump’s bid for victory.
The Keystone State, Pennsylvania, caught in the whirlwind of these political dramas, notoriously leans towards the Democratic side. It was this very state that witnessed an intense battle during the 2020 elections, accentuating its importance for Trump’s victorious return to the presidency in November.
The policy blueprint doesn’t explicitly point fingers, but it’s noteworthy that only Kathy Boockvar held the influential position of secretary of the commonwealth during the tumultuous 2020 election. Boockvar, however, has repeatedly denied the allegations, claiming her department to be pristine.
Interestingly, the key architects behind Project 2025 are either close associates of Trump or his former administration members. It’s evident that the project carries Trump-like tenacity advocating decisive measures like slashing federal civil rights enforcement and urging the Justice Department to probe potential frauds in state-level voter registrations.
Al Schmidt, Pennsylvania’s current election overseer, however, disregards these propositions, insisting that the audited, verified results of the 2020 election remain indisputable.
Regrettably, the Heritage Foundation, the brainchild behind Project 2025, has been conspicuously silent, evading requests for comments. However, their president, Kevin Roberts, emphasizes that the policy’s directives encapsulate the true essence of conservative ideology. He asserts that it represents the last chance for the next conservative president to rejuvenate our republic.
Democrats seemed to enjoy pulling Trump over the coals about Project 2025 while the former president artfully distanced himself from these allegations. This behavior led the project director to step down from his position in explicable vexation.
There was an attempt by the former commander-in-chief to reassign Attorney General Bill Barr closer to Election Day, a move that was met with resistance.
Trump and his allies have received flak from several quarters for voicing their theories on election fraud, with critics linking these allegations to instances of political discord and threats against election officials, predominantly from the Democrat camp.
Commentators have likened the idea of using the Department of Justice to prosecute political adversaries—an aspect of Project 2025—to a trope from autocratic governments. Levitt, however, fails to see that this tactic is intended to maintain balance and prevent abuse of power within the political system.
Project 2025 does raise pertinent questions about the validity of the state election guidelines, and whether the Department of Justice should have scrutinized those directives more closely.
In the lead up to the 2020 elections, Pennsylvania provided local election officials with guidance on the use of provisional ballots in certain situations. The voter ‘might not have successfully voted via an absentee or mail-in ballot’, or their ballot ‘was rejected by the county board of elections hence eligible to vote’.
Citing these guidelines as illicit, Project 2025 accused the Pennsylvania election chief of attempting to ‘sidestep state law’. The project further proposed that the only means to adequately enforce ‘the rule of law’ was by endowing the DOJ’s Criminal Division with prosecuting authority.
In response, Boockvar, the earlier election chief, iterated that the advice her office provided to county boards was well within the law’s parameters and voluntarily adhered to. However, the Pennsylvania Department of State disparaged Project 2025 as a blatant attempt to deprive the state’s citizens of their voting rights, a claim that could arguably reveal more about the department’s biases than any objective reality.