Street Wonk: Project 2025 Special Edition
Project 2025... Supremacy Clause... States' rights... Local Control... Resistance
Dear Readers,
I spent the first three days post-election with my son, who brings me more joy than anything and anyone in this world, which mercifully delayed my reaction to the results. But as soon as he left, I crashed and haven’t felt like myself since. My symptoms have been severe fatigue, oversleeping, aches, weakness, and feeling mentally and emotionally absent. Nothing seemed to help—spending time with dear friends, walking in the woods, eating good food, watching funny animal videos—I remained numb and detached. I share this to let you know if you’ve been feeling poorly, you’re not alone. We all need time to process this unbelievable turn of events.
Yesterday, I woke up and finally had a good cry and then I got to work. My deepest grief is for every person who feels as if the majority of voters in this country don’t care whether they live or die, especially people with disabilities and their families. Something that doesn’t get as much play as Trump’s racism, sexism, and corruption are the eugenicist beliefs that he espouses. From his random references to genes and genetics to more explicit statements he has made regarding people with disabilities, such as, “Those people, the costs. Why don’t they just die?” As the parent of an adult child with a significant disability and a disability advocate, these comments, combined with the expressed intent to slash assistance programs, are devastating.
I also mourn the decades of progress that may be lost in a mere four years if Trump and his gang of right-wing zealots have their way with our country. Everything from environmental protections and climate quality to reproductive rights and healthcare access to immigration and refugee protections to LGBTQ+ rights to our social safety net is at risk. And then there’s the issue of the diminishing willingness of the Supreme Court to serve as a constitutional check on executive and legislative actions, which is not so much grief-inducing as infuriating.
I’ve put this issue together for myself as much as for anyone else. Now that I’ve emerged from my state of shock, I needed to get my grounding and assess the threat as well as the weapons at our disposal. I hope this helps you as well. All is not lost, but we can admit that it’s a damn shame we’re going to spend the next four years defending what we have instead of building upon it for a better world.
Onward,
Chloe
P.S. I’ll follow up with an issue on self-care, community care, next steps, local resources, organizations, and events next week. In the meantime, take care.
The Hierarchy of Authority: The Supremacy Clause, States’ Rights, Home Rule, Local Control
Let’s start with the hierarchy of authority within which we’re operating. Democratic governors, state legislatures, county chairs, and mayors can resist Project 2025 by enacting strong local protections, enhancing access to services, supporting vulnerable populations, and using legal challenges. By focusing on these strategies, they can uphold progressive policies in their jurisdictions and counteract certain federal rollbacks or restrictions imposed by Project 2025.
Federal Law takes precedence but leaves a lot of room for state and local power.
The Supremacy Clause is a provision in Article VI, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution stating that federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority constitute the "supreme Law of the Land." This means that federal law takes precedence over conflicting state laws.The Supremacy Clause ends where states' rights begin.
States' rights refer to the political powers reserved for U.S. states under the 10th Amendment to the Constitution, which states that any powers not delegated to the federal government nor prohibited to the states are reserved to the states or the people. This principle supports state autonomy in areas not expressly governed by federal law.Oregon’s Home Rule Amendment was added to the state constitution in 1906 and grants cities and counties broad authority to govern local matters.
Home rule is the authority a state grants to a local government, allowing it to govern itself and make decisions on local matters without needing direct approval from the state legislature, as long as those decisions do not conflict with state or federal law.Home Rule and Local Control are closely related but describe different types of authority.
Local control is the general authority that local governments exercise over community-specific matters, such as zoning, education, and public safety, in areas where the state has not directly legislated or intervened. Unlike home rule, which is a formal delegation of power by the state, local control encompasses the decision-making autonomy that local governments may have by default, without explicit state-granted authority.
Now, the bad news:
I spent the morning familiarizing myself with Project 2025 and determining what is achievable in the short term vs. what they can’t impose upon us without a fight. Here’s what I found.
Executive orders, agency directives, personnel changes, and administrative adjustments to existing programs and regulations allow the Trump administration to achieve parts of its agenda without congressional approval.Executive Orders: Through executive orders, the Trump administration could roll back certain environmental protections, including regulations on emissions and protections for federal lands. The administration could reinstate policies like the domestic gag rule (restricting Title X funding for family planning and related preventive health services) and rescind Federal Drug Administration (FDA) approvals for certain medications through agency action. Health and Human Services (HHS) and the FDA have significant authority over these areas so that policy shifts can be implemented relatively quickly. Finally, changes to immigration policy can be enacted by executive order, such as reducing refugee admissions, increasing ICE enforcement, and limiting certain types of visas.
Personnel and Structural Changes: Filling positions within the executive branch with grossly underqualified right-wing extremists, including heads of agencies and departments, is already underway. Once in place, these appointees can steer agencies toward Project 2025’s goals and influence regulatory decisions. Through agency directives, departments can prioritize or deprioritize specific programs. For example, the Department of Education could focus more on supporting school choice initiatives, and HHS could shift resources away from reproductive health programs.
Rolling Back Federal Guidance and Interpretations: The administration could issue new interpretations and guidance on civil rights that affect LGBTQ+ rights, environmental justice, and healthcare protections. This includes redefining gender protections under Title IX and limiting non-discrimination protections for LGBTQ+ individuals.
Deregulation in Financial and Business Sectors: By appointing heads of agencies like the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) who favor deregulation, the administration could ease restrictions on industries and decrease regulatory oversight.
Scaling Back Social Safety Net Programs: Although Congressional approval is needed to eliminate these programs, scaling back Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Medicaid, and other assistance programs can happen administratively through stricter eligibility or work requirements, particularly with conservative leadership in agencies like HHS and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).
Next, the somewhat less bad news:
Structural changes to agencies, program eliminations, Congressional funding shifts, and policies generally require Congressional support and will likely encounter legal and public resistance.Major Overhauls or Eliminations of Federal Programs: Attempting to eliminate or drastically reduce programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid would face enormous resistance from Congress, including moderate Republicans. These programs have significant public support and will be challenging to dismantle without Congressional approval.
Completely dismantling the ACA would require Congress, and previous efforts have shown that even with a majority, this is politically difficult. Legal challenges may also arise, particularly if changes threaten protections for pre-existing conditions.
Constitutional & Legal Challenges: Many reproductive and LGBTQ+ rights have been upheld by court rulings, so restricting these areas may lead to protracted legal battles. For example, rescinding FDA approval of abortion medication could lead to lawsuits, as could changes to gender identity protections under civil rights law.
Though many immigration policies can be altered by executive order, they are often subject to immediate legal challenges. Courts may block discriminatory or unconstitutional actions, as with parts of Trump’s original travel bans.
Significant Education Policy Shifts: Expanding school choice through federal funding, like voucher programs, would require Congressional support to redirect substantial funding from public schools to private and charter schools. Additionally, state-level resistance is likely, particularly from states with strong public education systems. Proposals to curtail federal student loan programs or impose new restrictions on federal funding to colleges generally require Congressional approval. Given the popularity of student loan support, such changes would be politically contentious.
Privatizing and Restructuring Agencies: Drastic shifts, like restructuring or renaming departments (e.g., changing HHS to “Department of Life”), would face Congressional resistance. Significant restructurings require budget reallocations and legislative approval, making them difficult to accomplish unilaterally.
Elimination or Reduction of Regulatory Agencies: Attempting to dissolve agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), SEC, or Department of Education would require legislation and be met with strong public opposition, as these agencies have long-standing mandates and public support.
Environmental Policies That Affect States: Rollbacks on federal land protections or energy regulations affecting states will face opposition, especially in states where environmental conservation is economically or culturally important. Legal challenges could also slow these changes, especially if they contradict state laws or policies.
I Saved the Best News for Last:
Project 2025 faces several legal, structural, and practical barriers that limit what can be accomplished, even with strong executive and legislative support. Here are key areas where limitations could prevent or delay Project 2025 from being fully enacted.Eliminating Federal Agencies or Departments: Federal agencies and departments, like the Department of Education or the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), were established by acts of Congress. A president alone cannot eliminate them; it would require Congress to pass new legislation to dissolve these agencies or significantly alter their mandates.
Without a supportive supermajority in Congress, any attempt to dismantle entire departments or agencies would face strong opposition, likely making it unfeasible. Congress is constitutionally required to approve funding for agencies, meaning defunding an agency would also need legislative support.
Reversing Established Laws (e.g., IDEA, ADA, and ACA): Key federal laws like the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and Affordable Care Act (ACA) are firmly entrenched in federal law. Overturning or radically altering them would require an act of Congress, not just executive orders or agency action.
While an administration can influence how these laws are enforced or funded, it cannot legally eliminate or ignore them without risking extensive litigation and court challenges. For instance, cutting IDEA funding would directly conflict with the mandate that states provide free appropriate public education (FAPE) for students with disabilities, making it susceptible to legal challenges.
Judicial Oversight and Constitutional Checks: The federal judiciary, including the Supreme Court, serves as a constitutional check on executive and legislative actions. While the current conservative majority on the Supreme Court may influence certain rulings, lower federal and state courts have a more diverse ideological makeup. These courts often act as crucial safeguards, with the ability to block executive orders and policy changes that overstep legal boundaries. Legal challenges could delay or halt parts of the Project 2025 agenda if found unconstitutional or in violation of existing laws.
State Autonomy and Resistance: The U.S. operates under a federalist system, meaning states have significant autonomy, particularly in education, healthcare, and environmental protection. States can pass their own laws and regulations that counter or mitigate federal policy changes.
Oregon is among several blue states that have indicated they will continue progressive policies regardless of federal direction. For example, states can continue to enforce environmental standards, protect reproductive rights, and maintain Medicaid expansions, effectively blunting federal rollbacks.
Public and Institutional Backlash: Major policy changes that affect vulnerable populations, such as cuts to social services, healthcare, or environmental protections, can provoke public outcry and backlash from advocacy groups, the media, and professional organizations.
Public backlash can pressure Congress and the administration to soften or abandon certain policies. Additionally, federal employees within agencies may resist or delay implementing policies they see as harmful or unworkable, leading to slowdowns in policy rollout.
Funding Constraints and Congressional Control of the Purse: Even with the executive branch’s influence, funding for federal programs ultimately requires Congressional approval. Congress controls the budget, so any major funding cuts or reallocations (such as for Medicaid or education) would need legislative approval, which may not pass if moderate Republicans join Democrats in opposing the cuts.
This constraint limits the ability to entirely defund or eliminate programs without a cooperative Congress. For instance, while the Project 2025 playbook outlines a shift to Medicaid block grants, implementing this change would still require Congressional approval, especially for any restructuring that impacts eligibility or funding
International Agreements and Foreign Policy Constraints: Certain environmental and trade agreements, as well as defense and foreign policy initiatives, are bound by treaties or multilateral agreements. While the president has significant authority over foreign policy, withdrawing from agreements or cutting international funding often requires notifying and negotiating with other nations.
Pulling out of international agreements can be complex and time-consuming, and some treaties have legal obligations that limit the administration's unilateral ability to exit or renegotiate terms without Senate approval.
Legal Protections for Vulnerable Populations: Federal laws protecting civil rights and anti-discrimination—such as those within the Civil Rights Act, Fair Housing Act, and Equal Employment Opportunity laws—have legal standing that cannot simply be ignored or eliminated by executive action. Weakening enforcement is possible, but outright elimination would require legislative action and face substantial legal challenges.
Attempts to limit civil rights protections for LGBTQ+ individuals, people with disabilities, or racial minorities would likely face court challenges, and some agencies or states could continue enforcing protections, making it difficult to fully dismantle these laws.
State & Local Resistance
Here are some areas where Oregon, Metro, Multnomah County, and the City of Portland could start strengthening protections and programs, prioritizing our most vulnerable populations today. This is by no means a comprehensive or in-depth list. Because many of us feel hopeless and helpless, I wanted to offer a quick rundown of possible defense strategies.
Oregon
Reproductive Rights and Healthcare Access
Prioritize sustaining and possibly increasing state funding for reproductive health services to cover any gaps left by federal funding cuts. Oregon could also bolster its Reproductive Health Equity Act, ensuring free or low-cost reproductive health services, including contraception, abortion, and prenatal care. To protect access to FDA-approved medications, Oregon might explore direct import options for medications (if legally feasible) or establish emergency policies for providers to ensure continuity of care despite federal restrictions.
Environmental Protection and Climate Policy
Reinforce environmental standards to counter federal deregulation. Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) could establish stricter emissions and water quality standards and enforce them independently. Additionally, prioritizing investments in renewable energy through incentives and grants would sustain Oregon’s progress on climate goals.
LGBTQ+ Rights and Protections
Strengthen state-level anti-discrimination laws to ensure comprehensive protection for LGBTQ+ residents in all sectors, regardless of federal changes. State and local leaders can also invest in programs supporting LGBTQ+ youth and healthcare providers to offset potential federal limitations.
Immigration and Refugee Protections
Oregon is already a sanctuary state, but local governments could further reinforce non-cooperation policies with ICE and support immigrant legal defense funds. The state could also provide additional resources for language access, legal aid, and community services for immigrants and refugees, helping them navigate increased federal immigration enforcement.
Oregon Health Plan (Medicaid)
To protect OHP, Oregon can work to secure waivers from federal Medicaid requirements, preserving flexibility in eligibility and benefits. Additionally, the state could explore creating a state-backed insurance pool to fund healthcare access for those at risk of losing Medicaid coverage.
Public Education and School Choice Initiatives
Resist “school choice” and privatization by maintaining adequate funding for public schools and setting standards that limit charter school expansions to areas with demonstrable need. Local control over curriculum, especially concerning diversity, history, and health education, can be strengthened to resist federal pressures.
Labor and Worker Protections
Protect worker rights by raising the state minimum wage, ensuring overtime protections, and supporting unionization efforts. Additionally, the state can create or expand worker protection offices to offer support and resources for workers impacted by weakened federal standards.
Voting Rights Protections
Oregon’s vote-by-mail system is a national model. We should continue to invest in election security, expand voting accessibility, and resist federal interference. We could also bolster automatic voter registration and pre-registration for youth to maintain high voter participation. Also, increase youth engagement and lower the voting age to 16.
Housing and Homelessness Programs
Prioritize funding for affordable housing, support local housing vouchers, and invest more in homelessness prevention programs. Strengthen tenant protections, specifically, lower the rent increase cap to 5% or less. Put an income cap on the mortgage interest deduction* and eliminate it for second homes.
*It’s unjustifiable that the largest housing subsidy in the state (this is also true at the federal level) primarily benefits high-income households. As homeownership slips further and further out of reach for the average Oregonian, we should not continue to subsidize it for the wealthy.
Criminal Justice and Police Reform
Continue criminal justice reforms such as sentencing reform, decriminalization, and rehabilitation programs, aligning with state values on restorative justice. Investments in mental health, addiction services, community policing, or alternatives to policing initiatives would further distance state policies from federal directives.
Metro
Metro has authority over regional planning, land use, transportation, and environmental stewardship, and it also oversees our regional housing bond. While its powers are limited compared to Portland and Multnomah County, Metro can play a strategic role in resistance through environmental protection and climate action, affordable housing and regional housing initiatives, sustainable transportation infrastructure, and land use and growth management.
Multnomah County
Multnomah County has a major role in health and human services, which will be critical if federal programs are reduced under Project 2025.
Health and Human Services
Protect and expand county health clinics and services to ensure access to care, particularly for those relying on Medicaid.
Prioritize mental health services and substance use treatment, as Project 2025 may lead to decreased funding for behavioral health.
Support organizations addressing food insecurity.
Homelessness Services and Housing Stability
Strengthen partnerships with local nonprofits and increase county support for homeless services, including shelters, transitional housing, and rapid rehousing.
Enhance services for individuals with disabilities who are at risk of institutionalization due to reduced in-home support under Medicaid.
Public Safety and Criminal Justice Reform
Continue reforms aimed at equitable and community-focused public safety, including mental health crisis response units, alternatives to incarceration, and rehabilitation programs.
Preserve funding and support for reentry programs and legal assistance for vulnerable populations, including immigrants and individuals facing federal prosecution for nonviolent offenses.
Support for Vulnerable Populations
Enhance services for seniors, individuals with disabilities, and low-income families disproportionately impacted by cuts to federal assistance programs.
Protect resources for domestic violence support services and legal assistance programs, ensuring vulnerable populations have safety nets regardless of federal policy changes.
Civil Rights and Equity Initiatives
Reinforce anti-discrimination protections and equity initiatives across all county services.
Expand Multnomah County’s support for LGBTQ+ services, immigrant assistance, and other programs supporting marginalized groups.
Portland
As a municipality with home rule authority, Portland has flexibility in several areas, particularly those related to public services, local regulations, and protections for residents.
Housing and Homelessness
Maintain and expand local affordable housing programs, even if federal support is reduced.
Strengthen tenant protections, including anti-eviction measures, rent stabilization, and support for housing-first initiatives for the homeless.
Fund local shelters and transitional housing as Project 2025 may cut federal housing assistance grants.
Civil Rights and Anti-Discrimination
Protect LGBTQ+ rights, immigrant protections, and sanctuary policies to counter federal rollbacks.
Reinforce local anti-discrimination ordinances to maintain inclusive practices, particularly in housing, employment, and public services.
Continue supporting the Office of Equity and Human Rights to ensure city policies prioritize equality and accessibility.
Environmental Protections
Expand local environmental initiatives, including renewable energy programs and green building codes, to counter possible federal deregulation of environmental standards.
Enact stricter pollution and emissions controls for local industries and transport within city limits.
Support urban forestry, sustainable development, and climate resilience projects to mitigate environmental rollbacks at the federal level.
More glimmers of hope:
The Republicans now hold both chambers of Congress by a slim majority but lack the 60 votes necessary in the Senate to end a filibuster. As much as I dislike this tactic when logic and reason are out the window, I’m glad it’s still in our arsenal.
There are moderate Republicans in the House and Senate who may break ranks on some controversial or widely unpopular issues, especially with lots of public pressure from their constituencies.
In a series of surveys, U.S. voters were asked about eight major issues and associated policy solutions without mention of party or candidate. Respondents overwhelmingly supported the Democratic platform and Harris’ policies regardless of their personal political affiliation.
Project 2025 is widely unpopular among voters of all persuasions.
Six out of seven ballot initiatives to roll back abortion bans passed across the country.
Despite all the hateful rhetoric against the trans community coming from the right, Sarah McBride became the first openly transgender person to be elected to Congress.
The top post-election Google searches might give us a sense of how uninformed some voters were:
Tiktok failed to load.
Enable 3rd party cookies or use another browser
WONK OUT!
Project 2025 Would Destroy the U.S. System of Checks and Balances and Create an Imperial Presidency (Center for American Progress)
Harris vs. Trump on the issues: Whose policies do voters prefer? (YouGov)
Abortion rights: How states voted on ballot initiatives (NPR)
U.S. Elections in Search 2024 (Google)
Sarah McBride reflects on becoming first openly transgender person elected to Congress (PBS)
thank you for all of this information to help folx get some orientation and a sense of purpose in this madness