Part 11 of the deep dive into Project 2025’s Pillar #4 offers a vision of personal freedoms rooted in conservative values. On the one hand, this pillar emphasizes religious liberty, gun rights, and minimal government involvement in areas deemed moral or religious, which many see as a positive step toward protecting core freedoms. Supporters argue that it restores traditional values and strengthens the rights to self-defense and religious expression. However, critics contend that this interpretation narrows the scope of individual rights by prioritizing these issues over broader civil liberties, such as reproductive rights, LGBTQ+ protections, and the separation of church and state. As we explore the specific policy proposals, it becomes clear that “securing individual rights” in this context has both significant benefits and potential drawbacks, depending on one’s perspective on the balance between personal freedom and collective societal interests.

Estimated reading time: 10 minutes

Pillar 4: Securing Individual Rights

Project 2025’s fourth foundational pillar emphasizes a conservative interpretation of individual rights, focusing on personal freedoms…as defined by their view of traditional values. It reflects a vision where individual rights are aligned with conservative principles, often prioritizing religious and ideological freedoms over broader civil liberties.

Like we said in Pillar 3, it sounds good so far. Who doesn’t like personal freedom and religious liberty? Let’s see if that still looks attractive after we’ve reviewed what they’re proposing.

What it means: 

“Securing individual rights” – this pillar is framed as a commitment to “individual rights,” But it’s essential to see that Project 2025 interprets these rights in a very specific way. Since conservatives wrote Project 2025, they offer a conservative view of liberty that strongly focuses on religious freedom, gun rights, and limiting government intervention in what it sees as moral and religious issues.

When discussing “securing individual rights,” it’s important to recognize that different ideological perspectives interpret these rights in varying ways. As reflected in Project 2025, the conservative view emphasizes the prominence of religious freedom and gun rights and minimizes government intervention in areas deemed moral or religious. This contrasts with more liberal or progressive views with broader definitions of personal liberty, such as reproductive rights, LGBTQ+ rights, and the separation of church and state.

For conservatives, religious freedom often means protecting the rights of individuals and organizations to act according to their religious beliefs, even in public life. This can include allowing businesses to refuse services based on religious objections or permitting prayer in public schools. Gun rights are seen as essential to individual liberty and self-defense, closely tied to the Second Amendment as a moral imperative for protecting oneself and one’s family.

On the other hand, more progressive views might argue that individual rights include access to healthcare, freedom from discrimination, and the right to make personal decisions about one’s body without government interference. They may view gun control as necessary to ensure public safety and emphasize the importance of keeping religion separate from government policy.

Both conservative and progressive views on individual liberty can trace their origins back to “small-L liberalism.” Small-L liberalism, as a broad philosophical tradition, is centered on individual rights, liberty, and equality. John Locke, John Stuart Mill, Rousseau, Thomas Jefferson, and Immanuel Kant are all influential thinkers who have contributed to how we think of individual liberty today.

However, conservatives and progressives have interpreted these foundational principles of liberalism differently. The conservatives of Project 2025 and beyond emphasize individual liberty regarding religious freedom, gun rights, and minimal government intervention in moral issues, aligning with a more classical liberal focus on limiting government power. Progressives extend individual rights to include social justice issues, such as access to healthcare, protection against discrimination, and personal autonomy in reproductive matters, reflecting a more expansive view of the government’s role in ensuring equality and protecting individual freedoms.

Both perspectives are rooted in the liberal tradition but diverge in how they prioritize and implement these foundational principles.

But this whole ‘Mandate For Leadership’ thing, this is Project 2025’s game. It’s their ball. It is their view that they hope to influence the next Republican president to follow. And they have historical precedent on their side. We’ll talk more about this later, but the Heritage Foundation published previous versions of their Mandate for leadership in 1981, for Ronald Reagan, and in 2016, for Donald Trump’s first term. According to the Heritage Foundation’s internal assessments, Ronald Reagan adopted 60% of all the policy proposals in 1981. Donald Trump adopted 64% of their policy proposals from the 2016 version. Both points seem to oppose the speculation that Donald Trump simply isn’t going to carry out much of what the Project outlines.

Let’s get back to the views on small-l liberalism and personal freedom. The conservative authors of Project 2025 would argue that their view on individual liberty is correct because they believe the rights they promote are rooted in natural law or divine authority, which they claim should be the primary things that guide legislation and public policy. Throughout this Project, they assume that their moral and religious values should shape laws to uphold what they see as the traditional foundations of society.

If you paid attention during history class, you might recall that this view descends from the heavily influential views of Thomas Aquinas and John Locke. Aquinas helped develop the natural law theory, which states that moral values necessarily come out of natural law, which God created. And John Locke was heavily influential in American conservatism for promoting the foundational idea that the government’s job was to protect these natural rights. The Project 2025 authors would argue that their views on individual rights and freedom come directly from those foundational thinkers.

Let’s see how these interpretations of individual freedoms translate into specific policy proposals in Pillar #4 while revealing the broader impact these policy change ideas could have on American life.

Concrete Examples: What Does Securing Individual Rights Look Like For Project 2025?

Here’s what “securing individual rights” might look like if a new presidential administration adopts the idea proposed by Project 2025.

POLICY: Ending Planned Parenthood’s participation in the Medicaid program

It should shock virtually nobody alive in the past three decades that a conservative transformation of government policy would include something attacking the Planned Parenthood organization. The proposal to end Planned Parenthood’s participation in Medicaid fits right in with the Project’s 4th pillar, which emphasizes conservative interpretations of individual rights with a strong focus on pro-life policies. Ending Planned Parenthood’s involvement in Medicaid aligns with Project 2025’s broader goal of curtailing federal support for organizations that provide or promote abortion services, as Planned Parenthood is one of the largest providers of reproductive health services, including abortions.

Having mentioned Planned Parenthood and abortions in the same sentence, many readers will say that “we can stop right there because anything to reduce the number of abortions in our country is something good we should aim for.” And since Planned Parenthood is quite possibly responsible for more abortions than any other organization, it’s a no-brainer that reducing their reach is something we should do. Even before the people in the objecting-to-my-tax dollars-being-used-for-abortions-and-other-things-I-don’t-like cohort also start chiming in.

By eliminating Planned Parenthood from Medicaid, Project 2025 seeks to reduce access to abortion and related reproductive services, which ties into its aim to both promote pro-life policies and limit federal intervention in moral issues. They and other conservatives see abortion as a significant moral concern (on that, I cannot disagree). Stripping funding from Planned Parenthood fits into the broader conservative platform of reducing federal expenditures on services they believe conflict with traditional values.

Having made the obligatory mention of abortion, let’s take a step back and try to look at things from a slightly higher altitude.

Planned Parenthood is the largest provider of women’s healthcare in the country. Though it’s perhaps best known and reviled for providing abortions, Planned Parenthood also provides for many other women’s healthcare needs, including mammograms and pap smears. It is the primary provider of these types of services in small communities and rural communities.

The Project proposes to end the group’s involvement with the federal Medicaid program. Planned Parenthood is involved in Medicaid primarily due to providing reproductive health services to low-income Medicaid recipients, and this is where it helps to know the details. The big concern over the link between Planned Parenthood and Medicaid is abortion. But according to federal law, Medicaid can not fund abortions except in cases of rape, incest, or where the mother’s life is at risk. So cutting Planned Parenthood off from Medicaid isn’t going to reduce other abortions because they’re not providing any to that group. The majority of Planned Parenthood’s Medicaid services focus on general reproductive healthcare such as contraceptive care, cancer screenings, STD testing and treatment, and other essential health services. The only real effect of cutting Planned Parenthood access for low-income women (and men)  would be further limiting access to the many affordable healthcare options on which they rely, and that is something worth considering.

Medicaid recipients who use Planned Parenthood receive access to these services at reduced or no cost. If a low-income woman can’t go to Planned Parenthood to get a cancer screening, where exactly is she supposed to go? If a low-income man requires STD testing, where could he go?

Ending Planned Parenthood’s participation in the Medicaid program would make it harder for many people in these smaller and rural communities to access the healthcare that they need.

POLICY: Expanding Religious Exemptions To Promote Religious Freedom Over Other Rights

Project 2025 supports expanding religious exemptions to allow businesses and individuals to refuse services based on religious beliefs, even in cases where this may conflict with anti-discrimination laws. Such discrimination could adversely affect LGBTQ individuals, women seeking reproductive healthcare, and others.

Unlike some other policy ideas from earlier (like the privatization of VA healthcare), Project 2025 explicitly supports expanding religious exemptions, particularly in ways that could affect areas such as anti-discrimination laws. The ‘Mandate for Leadership’ document outlines goals for increasing religious liberty protections, likely allowing businesses and individuals to refuse services based on religious beliefs.

Full disclosure: The idea that religious freedom could override anti-discrimination laws is contentious. Legally, the U.S. Supreme Court has addressed this in several cases, balancing religious rights against other civil liberties. Some, like Employment Division v. Smith (1990), ruled that the government could enforce laws that incidentally burden religious practices without violating the First Amendment. Other cases, like Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (2014) and 2018’s Masterpiece Cakeshop ruling, fell more on the other side.

These cases show that religious freedom is highly protected but does not always override anti-discrimination laws. However, we also have to recognize that the current legal landscape suggests that expanding religious exemptions is possible, particularly under a more conservative judiciary, as seen with the recent composition of the Supreme Court.

Project 2025 suggests expanding religious exemptions by challenging current legal precedents through the courts. The aim would be to bring these cases before the Supreme Court, where a more conservative majority could potentially reinterpret or overturn existing rulings that limit the scope of religious exemptions.

If the courts implemented these proposals, it would likely lead to broader religious exemptions that might allow businesses and individuals to refuse services based on religious beliefs.

POLICY: Expanding Gun Rights

The conservatives behind Project 2025 link gun rights to an interpretation of individual liberty based on the belief that the Second Amendment is a fundamental safeguard for personal freedom. They argue that the right to bear arms is essential for self-defense and as a check against government tyranny – both essential to individual liberty. Gun ownership becomes viewed as a critical component of maintaining personal autonomy and protecting oneself from both criminal threats and potential governmental overreach. 

Project 2025 includes proposals to protect and expand Second Amendment rights by rolling back existing gun control measures while opposing any further restrictions, such as background checks, restrictions on high-capacity magazines, and limitations on the sale of certain types of firearms.

The Project’s authors frame this expansion of rights as necessary to protect individual liberties and for self-defense. Americans largely favor red flag laws aimed at getting guns out of the hands of the mentally unstable. The cost of adhering to this conservative view of liberty would potentially lead to widespread access to firearms with fewer regulatory barriers and a reduced ability to implement the types of gun laws the majority of Americans favor.

The next installment, Part 12, of the Project 2025 deep dive will cover personal liberty, parent’s rights, and educational freedom. To continue to it, click here: Educational Freedom and Parental Rights: The shift Project 2025 proposes

To jump to the first post in the series, click here: What is Project 2025? And why should you care?

Image: Pamela Reynoso

About Post Author