“The Common Defense” Between the Lines

Summary: Section Two of Project 2025, titled “The Common Defense,” addresses the national security and foreign policy challenges facing the United States. The section highlights concerns about the current state of the Department of Defense and the State Department, suggesting that these institutions are not living up to their historical standards. It discusses issues such as military readiness, the influence of leftist politics on defense policies, and the need for a stronger focus on countering China’s growing military power. The section also critiques the current administration’s approach to national security and foreign affairs, arguing for a return to a more traditional, assertive American foreign policy.

In-Depth Analysis and Constitutional Concerns:

1. Strengthening Military Readiness:
   • Policy Proposal: The document criticizes the current state of the U.S. military, claiming that it has been weakened by leftist politics and social engineering, such as equity agendas and vaccine mandates. It argues for a refocus on military readiness and the core responsibilities of the armed forces.
   • Concerning Implications: The emphasis on eliminating “leftist” policies from the military could lead to a rollback of important initiatives aimed at creating a more inclusive and equitable armed forces. There’s a risk that focusing solely on traditional military values might ignore the benefits of diversity and inclusion, which have been shown to strengthen military effectiveness.
   • Potential Consequences: If these proposed changes are implemented, it could result in a less diverse military that is potentially less equipped to handle the complexities of modern warfare. Additionally, such a shift might alienate current service members who value the inclusive policies and could deter potential recruits from joining the military.
2. Reevaluating U.S. Relations with China:
   • Policy Proposal: The section highlights China as the most significant threat to U.S. security and advocates for a more confrontational stance, including strengthening military capabilities to counter Chinese expansion, particularly in relation to Taiwan.
   • Concerning Implications: While addressing the threat posed by China is crucial, the proposed aggressive posture could escalate tensions and increase the likelihood of conflict. It is essential to balance military preparedness with diplomatic efforts to avoid unnecessary confrontations that could lead to war.
   • Potential Consequences: A more confrontational approach to China could strain international relations and potentially lead to an arms race or military conflict. The U.S. must carefully consider the costs and risks associated with such a strategy, including the potential impact on global stability and economic relations.
3. Restructuring the National Security Council (NSC):
   • Policy Proposal: The document suggests that the NSC should prioritize military roles over what it describes as non-defense-related matters, such as climate change and social issues. It advocates for a more rigorous review of military promotions to ensure that officers who align with the President’s agenda are advanced.
   • Concerning Implications: This focus on aligning military leadership with the President’s agenda could undermine the non-partisan nature of the military and the NSC. The military’s effectiveness relies on promoting leaders based on merit and expertise, not political alignment.
   • Potential Consequences: Politicizing military promotions could lead to a leadership corps that is more focused on advancing a political agenda than on maintaining military readiness and effectiveness. This could erode the trust and cohesion that are essential to military operations and could have long-term negative effects on U.S. national security.
4. Reforming the State Department:
   • Policy Proposal: The section criticizes the State Department for being resistant to conservative policies and suggests that the department should be restructured to ensure it follows the President’s directives more closely. It also advocates for a more aggressive stance in international relations, particularly regarding treaties and trade agreements.
   • Concerning Implications: Restructuring the State Department to align more closely with the President’s agenda could undermine its role as an independent institution that represents the long-term interests of the United States. Diplomatic efforts require a balance of perspectives and a focus on long-term stability rather than short-term political gains.
   • Potential Consequences: If the State Department becomes overly politicized, it could lead to less effective diplomacy and a diminished ability to negotiate with other nations. This could harm U.S. interests abroad and weaken global alliances, making it more difficult to address international challenges collectively.
5. Constitutional Adherence in War Powers:
   • Policy Proposal: The document calls for a return to the constitutional division of war powers, where Congress decides whether to go to war and the President carries out the war effort.
   • Concerning Implications: This proposal aligns with constitutional principles, ensuring that decisions to engage in war are made by the most representative branch of government. However, it requires careful implementation to ensure that the executive branch does not bypass Congress through unauthorized military actions.
   • Potential Consequences: Adhering to the constitutional division of war powers could strengthen the role of Congress in foreign policy decisions, promoting greater accountability and deliberation before engaging in military conflicts. This could help prevent the U.S. from becoming involved in unnecessary or poorly justified wars.

Conclusion Statement: Section Two of Project 2025 outlines an ambitious plan for reshaping the U.S. approach to national defense and foreign policy. While the proposals aim to strengthen military readiness and assert American power abroad, they also raise concerns about the potential for increased militarization, the politicization of military and diplomatic institutions, and the risks of escalating tensions with major global powers like China. As these proposals are considered, it is essential to ensure that they align with constitutional principles, promote long-term stability, and protect the interests of the American people both at home and abroad.

Potential Concerns: Section Two: The Common Defense

Politicization of National Security

The emphasis on aligning defense and foreign policy with a conservative agenda risks politicizing these critical areas, potentially undermining the impartiality and objectivity required for sound decision-making.

Reduction in Diversity and Inclusivity

The critique of progressive policies within the military and other agencies could lead to a rollback of diversity and inclusivity efforts, potentially marginalizing minority groups and reducing representation.

Overemphasis on Military Solutions

The focus on military strength and skepticism towards diplomatic efforts may lead to an overreliance on military solutions, increasing the risk of conflict and neglecting the potential benefits of diplomacy and international cooperation.

Potential Disregard for Constitutional and International Norms

The call for sweeping changes in the structure of national security agencies, including potential violations of treaty obligations and constitutional norms, could undermine the U.S.’s adherence to the rule of law and international agreements.

Undermining Civil Liberties and Human Rights

The criticism of efforts to address systemic racism, gender issues, and other social justice matters raises concerns about the potential for policies that could undermine civil liberties and human rights protections.

Breaking down the concerns: Section Two: The Common Defense

• Politicization: There’s a risk that aligning defense and foreign policy with a single political ideology could bias decisions and harm national security.

• Inclusivity and Diversity: Reducing support for progressive policies might marginalize minority groups within the military and government.

• Military Overemphasis: Focusing heavily on military power could increase conflict risks and downplay diplomacy’s role.

• Legal and Ethical Issues: Proposed changes might violate constitutional and international laws, impacting U.S. legal standing and relationships.

• Civil Liberties at Risk: Rolling back social justice initiatives could harm protections for civil rights and freedoms.

Red Flags in the Reforms: Analyzing Troubling Quotes

• Quote: “Ever since our Founding, Americans have understood that the surest way to avoid war is to be prepared for it in peace. Yet the Department of Defense ‘is a deeply troubled institution.’ It has emphasized leftist politics over military readiness” (Project 2025, 2024, p. 80).

  • Summarize Quote: The DoD is criticized for focusing on progressive politics instead of military preparedness.

  • Explanation: This critique suggests that the DoD’s emphasis on inclusivity and social justice initiatives detracts from its primary mission of military readiness. The underlying concern is that such policies may weaken the armed forces by prioritizing ideological agendas over practical military considerations. However, this viewpoint dismisses the importance of fostering a diverse and inclusive military, which can enhance cohesion and effectiveness.

• Quote: “The good news is that most enlisted personnel, and most officers, especially below the rank of general or admiral, continue to be patriotic defenders of liberty. But this is now Barack Obama’s general officer corps. That is why Russ Vought argues in Chapter 2 that the National Security Council ‘should rigorously review all general and flag officer promotions to prioritize the core roles and responsibilities of the military over social engineering and non-defense related matters, including climate change, critical race theory, manufactured extremism, and other polarizing policies that weaken our armed forces and discourage our nation’s finest men and women from enlisting’” (Project 2025, 2024, p. 80-81).

  • Summarize Quote: The quote suggests a review of military promotions to prioritize traditional military roles over issues like climate change, critical race theory, and other social issues.

  • Explanation: This quote expresses a strong bias against what it refers to as “social engineering” and “polarizing policies.” By categorizing issues like climate change and critical race theory as distractions from the military’s core roles, the statement potentially downplays the importance of addressing these significant and contemporary issues. The use of terms like “manufactured extremism” indicates a dismissive attitude toward certain social and political movements, which could lead to an internal culture that neglects the importance of diversity, inclusion, and environmental responsibility. This perspective risks alienating service members who support or are affected by these issues and may lead to a military less responsive to modern challenges and societal values.

• Quote: “Russ Vought argues in Chapter 2 that the National Security Council ‘should rigorously review all general and flag officer promotions to prioritize the core roles and responsibilities of the military over social engineering and non-defense related matters, including climate change, critical race theory, manufactured extremism, and other polarizing policies that weaken our armed forces and discourage our nation’s finest men and women from enlisting’” (Project 2025, 2024, p. 80-81).

  • Summarize Quote: The National Security Council should focus on military duties over social and non-defense issues.

  • Explanation: This quote suggests a shift away from addressing social issues within the military, viewing them as distractions from core military responsibilities. The dismissal of concerns such as climate change and extremism as “manufactured” or “polarizing” minimizes their relevance to national security. This perspective could lead to a narrowing of the military’s focus and a reduction in efforts to address important societal and environmental challenges.

• Quote: “By far the most significant danger” to America from abroad, Miller writes, “is China.” That communist regime “is undertaking a historic military buildup,” which “could result in a nuclear force that matches or exceeds America’s own nuclear arsenal.” Resisting Chinese expansionist aims “requires a denial defense” whereby we make “the subordination of Taiwan or other U.S. allies in Asia prohibitively difficult” (Project 2025, 2024, p. 80-81).

  • Summarize Quote: The quote identifies China as the primary foreign threat and suggests that the U.S. must prioritize defense strategies to counter China’s military expansion, particularly concerning Taiwan.

  • Explanation: The focus on China as the most significant foreign threat highlights a strong stance on U.S. military preparedness and strategy in the Asia-Pacific region. The emphasis on preventing China’s dominance, especially regarding Taiwan, underscores the potential for increased military tensions and competition. While recognizing the importance of addressing strategic threats, this approach could lead to heightened militarization and an adversarial posture that might exacerbate tensions and provoke conflict. The specific mention of “denial defense” indicates a commitment to deterrence, but it also suggests a willingness to engage in confrontational strategies that could have broader geopolitical implications.

• Quote: “Skinner writes that State should also stop skirting the Constitution’s treaty-making requirements and stop enforcing ‘agreements’ as treaties. It should encourage more trade with allies, particularly with Great Britain, and less with adversaries. And it should implement a ‘sovereign Mexico’ policy, as our neighbor ‘has functionally lost its sovereignty to muscular criminal cartels that effectively run the country’” (Project 2025, 2024, p. 82).

  • Summarize Quote: The U.S. should strictly follow constitutional treaty processes, favor allies in trade, and adopt a stricter stance on Mexico’s internal issues.

  • Explanation: This quote emphasizes a stricter adherence to constitutional procedures for treaties, possibly questioning the validity of executive agreements. The suggestion to favor allies in trade and adopt a “sovereign Mexico” policy reflects a more confrontational and unilateral approach to foreign policy. The characterization of Mexico’s sovereignty issues with criminal cartels could justify more aggressive U.S. interventions, potentially complicating diplomatic relations.

• Quote: “Former acting deputy administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development Max Primorac asserts that the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) must be reformed, writing, ‘The Biden Administration has deformed the agency by treating it as a global platform to pursue overseas a divisive political and cultural agenda that promotes abortion, climate extremism, gender radicalism, and interventions against perceived systematic racism’” (Project 2025, 2024, p. 82).

  • Summarize Quote: The current administration is accused of using USAID to promote controversial political and cultural issues globally.

  • Explanation: The criticism of USAID’s focus on social issues such as abortion, climate change, gender, and racism suggests a rejection of efforts to address these global challenges. By labeling these concerns as “divisive” and “radical,” the quote reflects a desire to shift USAID’s mission away from progressive social initiatives. This could lead to a reduction in support for global human rights and development programs, potentially undermining U.S. influence and credibility in promoting international humanitarian values.

• Quote: “The DOD is also a deeply troubled institution. Historically, the military has been one of America’s most trusted institutions, but years of sustained misuse, a two-tiered culture of accountability that shields senior officers and officials while exposing junior officers and soldiers in the field, wasteful spending, wildly shifting security policies, exceedingly poor discipline in program execution, and (most recently) the Biden Administration’s profoundly unserious equity agenda and vaccine mandates have taken a serious toll” (Project 2025, 2024, p. 84).

  • Summarize Quote: The statement criticizes the Department of Defense, highlighting issues like misuse, a lack of accountability, wasteful spending, poor policy execution, and criticism of recent equity and vaccine policies.

  • Explanation: This quote is concerning as it frames equity initiatives and vaccine mandates as detrimental, describing them as part of an “unserious agenda.” Such language could signal a rollback of policies aimed at promoting diversity and public health within the military. The critique of a “two-tiered culture of accountability” suggests internal issues that could undermine morale and effectiveness, while the negative portrayal of recent policies indicates a potential shift towards prioritizing traditional military norms over inclusive and progressive measures. The overall tone suggests a possible return to more rigid and less inclusive policies, which could affect both military personnel and broader societal values.

Conclusion

The quotes and their accompanying explanations highlight several troubling aspects of the proposals in the “The Common Defense” subsection of Project 2025. The section emphasizes a return to a more traditional, conservative military structure, prioritizing military readiness over what it terms “leftist politics.” This approach includes a rejection of diversity and inclusion initiatives, climate change considerations, and social issues like critical race theory, which are dismissed as distractions from the core military mission.

The narrative frames these progressive policies as weakening the military, suggesting that a conservative administration should overhaul the current leadership and policies to refocus on traditional defense priorities. The emphasis on China as the primary threat further underscores a hawkish and potentially confrontational foreign policy stance, prioritizing military preparedness and deterrence over diplomatic engagement.

The critique of USAID’s focus on social issues reflects a broader disdain for progressive agendas, suggesting a potential shift away from promoting human rights and development abroad. This, combined with the criticism of recent equity and public health measures within the Department of Defense (DoD), indicates a possible move towards a less inclusive and more rigid military culture.

The immunity ruling’s potential implications exacerbate these concerns. If leaders and officials are shielded from accountability, there could be less oversight and more unchecked power in implementing these policies. This could lead to the marginalization of minority voices within the military and government, a rollback of progressive initiatives, and an increased focus on aggressive defense posturing.

Overall, the proposed changes reflect a desire to revert to a more traditional military and defense stance, potentially at the expense of inclusivity, diversity, and a broader consideration of global challenges like climate change. This shift could have significant implications for military culture, U.S. foreign policy, and the nation’s role on the global stage.

“The Common Defense” in a Nutshell

The “Common Defense” section of Project 2025 outlines a plan to reshape U.S. national security and foreign policy, emphasizing a return to traditional, conservative values. It criticizes current approaches as being overly influenced by “leftist” politics, which it claims have weakened the military and the State Department. The document calls for a significant shift in focus, prioritizing military readiness, confronting China as the primary foreign threat, and restructuring key agencies to align more closely with the President’s agenda.

Key Concerns:

1. Politicization of Military and Diplomatic Institutions: The document argues that military and diplomatic institutions have been compromised by progressive policies, such as equity agendas and climate initiatives. It proposes that the National Security Council (NSC) and the State Department prioritize traditional military roles and conservative policies over social issues. This shift could lead to the politicization of these institutions, undermining their non-partisan nature and potentially reducing their effectiveness. Military promotions and diplomatic decisions may be influenced more by political loyalty than by merit or expertise, which could erode the integrity and independence of these critical institutions.

2. Aggressive Stance Towards China: China is identified as the most significant threat to U.S. security, with the document advocating for a more confrontational approach. This includes strengthening military capabilities to counter China’s expansion, particularly regarding Taiwan. While addressing the threat posed by China is crucial, the proposed aggressive posture risks escalating tensions and could lead to conflict. The document’s emphasis on military solutions over diplomatic engagement raises concerns about the potential for an arms race and a reduction in global stability.

3. Rollback of Progressive Initiatives: The section criticizes current policies that promote diversity, inclusion, and social justice within the military and diplomatic corps, viewing them as distractions from core defense responsibilities. It suggests rolling back these initiatives to refocus on traditional military values. This could result in a less inclusive and diverse military, potentially weakening its ability to address modern challenges. Additionally, it could alienate current service members who value these inclusive policies and deter potential recruits from diverse backgrounds.

4. Restructuring the State Department and Other Agencies: The document advocates for restructuring the State Department to ensure it aligns more closely with the President’s directives, arguing that the department currently acts too independently. This could undermine the State Department’s role as an independent institution that represents long-term U.S. interests. Similarly, other agencies like the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) are targeted for significant reforms to eliminate what the document describes as bureaucratic inefficiencies and the promotion of divisive agendas. These changes could reduce the effectiveness of U.S. diplomacy and development efforts, weakening America’s global influence.

5. Constitutional Adherence in War Powers: The document emphasizes the need to return to the constitutional division of war powers, where Congress decides whether to go to war, and the President carries out the war effort. This proposal aligns with constitutional principles but requires careful implementation to prevent the executive branch from bypassing Congress through unauthorized military actions.

Overall Summary: “The Common Defense” section presents a vision for a more assertive and traditionally conservative approach to national security and foreign policy. It prioritizes military strength and readiness, a hardline stance against China, and the rollback of progressive initiatives within the military and diplomatic corps. While these proposals aim to strengthen U.S. defenses and reassert American power, they raise significant concerns about the potential for increased militarization, the politicization of key institutions, and the rollback of efforts to create a more inclusive and responsive military and diplomatic framework. The proposals could lead to a less diverse and more ideologically driven military, a more aggressive foreign policy, and a weakened diplomatic presence on the global stage, all of which could have far-reaching implications for U.S. national security and international relations.