Project 2025 poses a threat to US global leadership in HE

Project 2025, officially titled “Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise”, is a comprehensive policy initiative crafted by the Heritage Foundation in collaboration with various conservative organisations.

This extensive document, spanning over 900 pages, outlines a bold plan to fundamentally transform the United States federal government. It is a vision that goes beyond mere administrative tweaks, aiming instead to reshape the very foundation of governance, higher education and international influence.

While not explicitly confirmed, it is widely regarded as an attempt to align the US federal government more closely with the political and ideological views associated with former president Donald Trump’s administration.

The initiative, supported by a significant budget of US$22 million, has drawn participation from over 200 former Trump administration officials, underscoring its deep connections to the previous administration’s policies and ideologies.

At its core, Project 2025 embodies a conservative vision for the future of the United States, one that prioritises deregulation, decentralisation and a reassertion of national sovereignty.

The project’s scope is broad, encompassing nearly every aspect of federal governance, with a particular emphasis on reshaping the federal bureaucracy, revising social and cultural policies and redefining the role of the United States on the global stage.

The document advocates a significant reduction in the size and scope of the federal government, proposing the elimination or restructuring of several key agencies, including the Department of Education and the Environmental Protection Agency.

One of the most controversial aspects of Project 2025 is its proposal to reinstate Schedule F, a policy that would reclassify up to 50,000 career employees in policy-shaping roles, making it easier for the administration to dismiss them.

This move is rooted in the Reagan-era belief that “personnel is policy”, suggesting that the individuals who occupy key positions within the federal government play a critical role in shaping and implementing policy.

By reinstating Schedule F, Project 2025 aims to ensure that these positions are filled by individuals who align with the administration’s political and ideological views, thereby increasing the administration’s control over the federal bureaucracy.

Alignment with conservative values

Beyond the federal bureaucracy, Project 2025 also aims to reshape the judiciary. It emphasises the appointment of judges who interpret the constitution through a conservative lens, with the intent of realigning the legal landscape with conservative values.

This aspect of the project has sparked significant controversy, as critics contend it could compromise judicial independence and politicise the courts.

They warn that such changes could have profound implications for civil rights, particularly in areas such as abortion, LGBTQ+ rights and religious freedom, reflecting a broader conservative effort to advance their policy agenda through the judicial system.

Project 2025 adopts firm stances on a wide range of social and cultural issues, with the explicit goal of reversing what it perceives as the excesses of liberal and progressive policies.

Central to its agenda are proposals to repeal protections for LGBTQ+ individuals, restrict access to abortion and eliminate educational policies that address gender identity and critical race theory.

These measures are intended to align the nation’s legal and educational frameworks more closely with conservative values.

However, these proposals have sparked fierce opposition from civil rights organisations and advocacy groups, who argue that they represent a significant regression in the ongoing struggle for equality and social justice.

Critics contend that such rollbacks could erode hard-won rights for marginalised communities and exacerbate existing social divides, setting back decades of progress in promoting inclusivity and fairness.

In the realm of environmental policy, Project 2025 advocates a dramatic reduction in government intervention, particularly concerning climate change.

The project critiques current environmental regulations as overly burdensome and detrimental to economic growth, promoting instead the concept of energy independence.

This vision centres on increasing domestic production of fossil fuels and reducing reliance on foreign energy sources. While proponents argue that this approach will bolster national security and economic resilience, environmentalists warn that it could have devastating consequences for the planet.

Higher education

The impact of Project 2025 on higher education is a particular area of concern. The project proposes a significant reduction in federal oversight and funding for higher education, with the goal of decentralising control and returning power to state governments and individual institutions.

While proponents argue that this would lead to greater innovation and responsiveness to local needs, critics warn that it could undermine the quality and accessibility of higher education, particularly for disadvantaged and marginalised communities.

The potential erosion of academic freedom under Project 2025 is a central concern for higher education, as the initiative’s alignment with specific political ideologies could lead to increased government interference in academic matters.

This interference might manifest in several ways, including the imposition of government-mandated curricula that prioritise certain narratives or viewpoints over others.

Such mandates could restrict the range of topics that educators are allowed to teach, particularly those that are politically sensitive or controversial, like climate change, social justice or critical race theory.

By narrowing the scope of what can be taught, these restrictions would undermine the foundational principle of academic freedom, which allows educators to explore and discuss a wide range of ideas without fear of censorship or retribution.

Furthermore, Project 2025’s emphasis on aligning higher education with conservative ideologies could lead to significant constraints on research activities. Government restrictions could be placed on certain areas of research that are deemed ideologically incompatible with the administration’s views.

This could include limitations on studies related to gender studies, environmental science or any other field that challenges the prevailing political narrative.

Such restrictions would not only stifle innovation and critical inquiry but also discourage scholars from pursuing independent lines of research that could advance knowledge in critical areas.

The result would be a less dynamic and intellectually vibrant academic environment, where the diversity of perspectives is curtailed, and the potential for groundbreaking discoveries is diminished.

The broader implications of this erosion of academic freedom are profound, as they threaten to compromise the overall quality and integrity of higher education in the United States.

Academic institutions have long been bastions of independent thought, where scholars and students are free to explore complex and controversial issues without undue external pressure.

However, with the government potentially dictating the direction of academic discourse, the autonomy of these institutions would be significantly weakened.

This could lead to a homogenisation of thought within academia, where only perspectives that align with the administration’s ideology are considered valid.

Such a shift would not only harm the intellectual richness of higher education, but also reduce its ability to contribute meaningfully to societal progress and global knowledge, ultimately undermining the role of US universities as leaders in innovation and critical thinking.

Shifts in teaching and research priorities

Project 2025 could bring significant changes to university curricula by emphasising traditional, conservative subjects while de-emphasising topics like climate change, social justice and diversity.

This shift, likely framed as a return to “core American values”, risks narrowing educational focus and sidelining contemporary issues that are crucial for addressing global challenges.

By prioritising traditional narratives, the project could reduce the diversity of perspectives within higher education, limiting students’ exposure to a broad range of ideas and cultures.

Additionally, the redirection of federal research funding under Project 2025 could hinder academic innovation and critical inquiry, particularly in areas viewed by conservatives as promoting ‘woke’ ideologies.

By funnelling resources into research that aligns with conservative policy goals, the project could marginalise or eliminate studies that challenge the status quo, leading to a homogenised academic discourse.

This could create an environment where scholars feel pressured to conform to the prevailing political ideology, undermining academic freedom and diminishing the quality and breadth of research.

The term ‘woke’ originally emerged from African American Vernacular English (AAVE) as a call to remain vigilant against racial prejudice. Today, it broadly signifies a commitment to social justice, encompassing issues like race, gender, sexuality and systemic inequality.

While supporters of ‘woke’ ideologies advocate equality, diversity and inclusion, critics argue that it overemphasises identity politics and stifles free expression.

This clash over ‘woke’ ideologies highlights deeper cultural and ideological battles, particularly in the context of initiatives like Project 2025, which could profoundly shape the future of US higher education.

Global competitiveness

In the long term, these curricular and funding shifts could harm the global standing and competitiveness of US higher education. As universities become more ideologically driven, they may lose their appeal to international students and scholars seeking open and diverse academic environments.

This could lead to a decline in the global influence of US institutions, as other countries with more inclusive academic policies attract top talent and lead in innovative research.

Ultimately, Project 2025 risks eroding the intellectual diversity and academic excellence that have long defined American higher education.

US higher education institutions have long been recognised as global leaders, attracting students and scholars from around the world because of their commitment to academic excellence, innovation and intellectual freedom.

These institutions thrive on the diversity of their academic communities, where a wide range of cultural backgrounds, viewpoints and research interests converge to create a vibrant and dynamic educational environment.

However, the proposed changes under Project 2025 could jeopardise this diversity, leading to a decline in international student enrolment and the departure of international scholars. As US universities become more ideologically driven and less open to diverse perspectives, they risk losing their appeal to the global academic community.

A decline in international student enrolment would have significant financial implications for many US universities, particularly those that rely heavily on tuition revenue from international students.

International students often pay higher tuition fees than their domestic counterparts, and their presence helps sustain a variety of academic programmes and services.

A reduction in their numbers could lead to budget shortfalls, forcing universities to cut programmes, reduce staff or increase tuition for domestic students, which in turn could make higher education less accessible.

Beyond the financial impact, the loss of international students would also diminish the cultural and intellectual diversity that they bring to campuses.

The loss of international scholars would also weaken the research capabilities of US institutions. International scholars often bring specialised expertise and fresh perspectives that are crucial for advancing knowledge and innovation across disciplines.

Their contributions to research not only drive scientific and technological progress but also enhance the global reputation of US universities as centres of cutting-edge inquiry.

The departure of these scholars, whether due to perceived ideological constraints or a less welcoming academic climate, would reduce the diversity of research approaches and ideas. This would stifle the kind of interdisciplinary and cross-cultural collaboration that is essential for addressing complex global issues, such as climate change, public health and social justice.

As a result, US universities would become less competitive on the world stage, diminishing their influence and leadership in the global academic community.

Cultural and intellectual effects

The potential long-term effects on the cultural and intellectual landscape of US higher education are profound and far-reaching.

As the politicisation of academic institutions intensifies, there is a significant risk that these institutions will increasingly be perceived not as bastions of independent learning and critical debate, but as extensions of prevailing political agendas.

This erosion of trust could trigger a cascading effect: reduced enrolment as students and faculty seek less politicised environments, decreased funding as public and private donors grow wary of supporting ideologically driven institutions, and ultimately, a decline in the overall quality of education as academic standards are compromised.

Moreover, the cultural shift towards a more ideologically driven approach to education could have lasting and detrimental impacts on the intellectual climate within US universities. Over time, this environment could lead to a homogenisation of thought within academia, where challenging the status quo becomes increasingly difficult and risky.

The diversity of ideas, which is essential for intellectual growth and the advancement of knowledge, could be severely diminished.

The long-term consequence of such trends could be a weakening of the United States’ position as a leader in global education and innovation, with profound implications for its ability to address complex global challenges in the future.

Examples from history

Historical examples demonstrate the potential consequences of reduced federal support for research and the impact of political interference on scientific progress and international collaboration. Here are a few relevant instances:

• The impact of McCarthyism on academic freedom and research: During the early 1950s, the US experienced a period of intense political repression known as McCarthyism. Senator Joseph McCarthy led a campaign against alleged communists in government,
academia and other sectors.

This era was marked by widespread fear and censorship, with significant repercussions for academic freedom and research in the United States. Many scholars, particularly those in the social sciences and humanities, were accused of harbouring communist sympathies, leading to investigations, dismissals and the self-censorship of academic work.

This environment stifled intellectual inquiry and research, as scholars feared repercussions for exploring topics deemed politically sensitive. The impact was not only felt domestically; the US also lost credibility on the international stage as a champion of free thought and academic integrity.

• The decline of US leadership in physics post-World War II: After World War II, the US was a global leader in physics, particularly in nuclear and particle physics, due to significant federal investment in research.

However, by the late 20th century, federal funding for physics research began to decline, and other countries, particularly in Europe, started to take the lead in certain areas of physics research.

For example, the construction of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN in Switzerland became the world’s most advanced particle physics laboratory, eclipsing US facilities. This shift in leadership was partly due to the reduction in US federal funding and the political decision to cancel the Superconducting Super Collider (SSC) project in Texas in 1993, which would have been the world’s largest particle accelerator.

The cancellation of the SSC meant that the US lost a major opportunity to remain at the forefront of particle physics research. This decision allowed Europe, through CERN, to assume a leadership position in this critical field of science.

• The 2003 ban on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research: In 2001, President George W Bush implemented a policy that severely limited federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. This decision was largely driven by political and ethical concerns, rather than scientific consensus.

As a result, US researchers were restricted in their ability to pursue potentially groundbreaking medical research, which had significant implications for the field of regenerative medicine. The restrictions led to a decline in US leadership in this area, as other countries, including the United Kingdom and Japan, capitalised on the opportunity to advance their own stem cell research initiatives.

These nations attracted top researchers and established themselves as global leaders in the field. The US eventually reversed this policy under the Obama administration in 2009, but the delay had already allowed other countries to gain ground in this critical area.

• Climate change research: In the early 2000s, the George W Bush administration was criticised for allegedly interfering with climate science research.

Reports surfaced that the administration had edited scientific reports to downplay the link between human activity and climate change. This political interference hindered the dissemination of accurate scientific information and contributed to delays in addressing climate change at both the national and global levels.

The US government’s approach to climate science during this period also impacted international collaborations. The perception of the US as a less reliable partner in climate research likely contributed to other nations taking more proactive roles in global climate initiatives, such as the European Union’s leadership in pushing for the Kyoto Protocol and later climate agreements.

A pivotal moment

The future of US higher education stands at a critical juncture. The global success of American universities has long been built on their ability to attract international students and scholars, fostering an environment of intellectual diversity, innovation and financial stability.

However, the proposed changes under Project 2025 threaten to undermine these foundational strengths. As history has shown, political and policy shifts that diminish academic freedom and inclusivity can lead to a decline in international enrolment, a loss of global competitiveness, and a weakened academic environment.

If Project 2025 is implemented, the resulting erosion of diversity in thought and research could stifle the innovation that has been the hallmark of US higher education, leaving institutions less capable of addressing the complex global challenges.

The financial repercussions of declining international enrolment would further strain universities, leading to cuts in programmes and opportunities that are vital to maintaining academic excellence.

This path not only risks isolating US universities from the global academic community but also diminishes their role as leaders in intellectual freedom and critical inquiry.

At this pivotal moment, it is essential for policymakers, educational leaders and stakeholders to recognise the profound long-term consequences of these proposed changes.

Protecting the principles of academic freedom, diversity and inclusion is not merely about preserving tradition; it is about ensuring that US higher education continues to be a beacon of knowledge, innovation and global leadership.

The choices made today will shape the future of American education and its ability to inspire, challenge and lead in an increasingly interconnected world. The stakes are high, and the need for thoughtful, forward-looking leadership has never been greater.

James Yoonil Auh is the dean of the School of IT and Design Convergence Education and the chair of computing and communications engineering at KyungHee Cyber University in South Korea.

This article is a commentary. Commentary articles are the opinion of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of University World News.