Project 2025 suggests that a new Republican president take steps to reduce the level of international engagement to which the United States is currently committed. It envisions this happening through two moves:

• “Transforming” NATO by reducing U.S. support
•   Ending U.S. support for Ukraine

Both of these would have huge implications for the ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict and the global balance of power. This is another theory versus reality situation.

Estimated reading time: 7 minutes

Let’s discuss what this “reducing international engagement” concept might look like. 

BEFORE:

We love to talk about how we are the “world leader” – the president is “the leader of the free world.”  Historically, the U.S. has been deeply engaged in global alliances, multilateral organizations, and foreign aid programs because we view our role in the free world as a stabilizer and a leader in international affairs. Leading international affairs necessarily means we participate in global trade agreements, lead peacekeeping missions, and provide substantial foreign aid to developing countries and our allies.

AFTER:

Project 2025 proposes significantly reducing many of these engagements. A new Republican president who buys into Project 2025’s ideas would have the U.S. pull back from many of our international commitments, reduce our participation in global organizations like the United Nations, and significantly cut foreign aid (with the idea of focusing instead on domestic priorities).

POLICY: Transforming NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization)

In this context, the idea of “transforming NATO” needs to be explained. Project 2025 hints at the need for a “transformation” of the relationship between NATO and the United States. Given that Donald Trump has alluded to doing such a thing in the past, it wouldn’t be hard to see him commit to it in the future.

What would that look like? For one, it would likely involve reducing our financial contributions and military commitments to the alliance. We would scale back our leadership in NATO to push European NATO members to take on more leadership and defense burdens.

Something else that could result from Project 2025’s approach is that the U.S. might prioritize bilateral agreements with select allies over broader multilateral commitments. A bilateral agreement involves two parties—such as the U.S. agreeing on certain terms with Great Britain. In contrast, NATO is a multilateral alliance where all members agree to collective defense commitments. In fact, NATO is the most important modern multilateral alliance. Formed in 1949, NATO has been central to maintaining collective security in Europe and North America, particularly during the Cold War and the following decades. NATO has always operated on a principle of collective defense, where an attack on one member is considered an attack on all.  It has been a cornerstone of international stability and deterrence against aggression, especially from powers like the former Soviet Union and, more recently, Russia.

Project 2025’s goal of reducing U.S. international engagement would weaken NATO’s collective defense posture and lead to a less cohesive alliance. It would most definitely weaken the deterrent value against aggression that NATO has brought to the table.

And you know what country would welcome such a dramatic shift? Russia.

POLICY: Cutting Off Ukraine

The argument for supporting Ukraine militarily has been:

• It is in our best interests to oppose what our traditional enemy, Russia, aims to do.
• Supporting Ukraine with part of our defense budget is one of the most cost-effective things we can do
• Not supporting Ukraine substantially multiplies the chance of a third World War starting that we would get pulled into anyway. We support Ukraine’s sovereignty and help them so we don’t get pulled into a larger conflict.

As we mentioned before, Project 2025 advocates ending U.S. support for Ukraine in its war against Russia. On the one hand, such a push aligns with the Project’s “Reducing International Engagement” goal. A new Republican president who agrees with Project 2025 on this would most certainly take whatever steps they felt appropriate to end our tangible support for Ukraine. This would essentially end Ukraine and ensure a Russian victory in the conflict.

We must ask ourselves, what would the practical consequences be of doing that?

Experts widely agree that if Russia succeeds in Ukraine, Putin could pursue further territorial expansion, particularly targeting NATO member states that were once part of the Soviet Union or Russian Empire, like the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. He likely would set his eyes on Poland as well.  Putin stated that his long-term goal is to reconstitute the old Soviet or Russian Empire. He would likely use the same tactics as he is using in Ukraine to subsume them, which would be much easier if we stopped supporting them.

Some might offer a counterargument to this and say that Putin would not seek such expansion because he wants to avoid direct conflict with NATO, understanding that attacking a NATO member would invoke Article 5 (an attack on one is an attack on all), leading to a full-scale war with the alliance. But remember, the Project calls for a reduction in our NATO involvement, yet the United States’ support for NATO has been critical in deterring Russian aggression, particularly in Europe. If we are “scaling back our international commitments” by not supporting NATO to the extent we have before, it will provide Vladimir Putin a reason to believe attacking a NATO country would not have the negative consequences it might have had in the past.

POLICY: Privatizing Military Functions Like The VA Healthcare System

Another possible proposal from Project 2025 is to privatize Veterans Affairs (VA) healthcare services, moving the VA healthcare system away from a government-provided system to one dependent on private companies.

Now that we have your attention….

Okay, full transparency. The “Mandate for Leadership” document from Project 2025 does not explicitly call for the wholesale privatization of VA healthcare. It does advocate for “modernizing” the VA, and there’s a high likelihood that, to do anything on the transformative scale they advocate for in many of these other areas, it would have to include expanding private sector involvement in veterans’ healthcare.

Why They Say It Needs to Be Privatized

The idea behind privatizing VA healthcare, as suggested by Project 2025, is framed around the belief that private sector competition and efficiency could lead to better healthcare outcomes for veterans despite potentially higher costs. The proponents argue that private healthcare systems can be more innovative, responsive, and patient-centered than large government bureaucracies like the VA. They also suggest that giving veterans more choice in where they receive care could lead to greater satisfaction and overall quality.

What Would Privatizing VA Healthcare Look Like?

This kind of thing – privatizing a rather large chunk of the health care system – seems kind of hard to conceptualize for many of us, so it’s useful to ask what this kind of change would look like. It might involve outsourcing certain services or creating a new system where veterans receive vouchers to seek care from private healthcare providers rather than VA facilities. The government might contract out entire regions to private companies, who would manage the veterans’ healthcare within that area. Certain specialized surgeries or mental health care could conceivably be outsourced to private providers.

What Are The Potential Downsides?

Higher Costs—Critics point out that private healthcare is generally more expensive and could introduce inefficiencies related to profit motives, undermining the quality and accessibility of care for veterans. In fact, Project 2025 does not explicitly detail how costs would be contained under a privatized VA model, nor does it directly address the potential for increased expenses.

Private healthcare is generally more expensive than the VA’s current model, which delivers care through a network of VA hospitals and clinics. Privatization could lead to higher costs for the government and veterans, especially if veterans must pay out-of-pocket expenses not fully covered by vouchers or insurance.

So, they wouldn’t argue that privatizing VA healthcare is necessary because it would bring down costs. They would argue that it’s a net benefit because it would increase quality, as they believe the private sector is superior to government-run services.

Access to Care -Veterans might face challenges accessing care, especially in rural areas with limited private healthcare providers. The VA’s current network is robust, more so than a privatized model would be expected to be. Additionally, many rural hospitals are being shut down due to lack of funding.

Administrative Challenges—Any time one proposes such a dramatic change, it will be a painful transition. Switching to a privatized system would involve significant logistical and administrative challenges. Private companies might prioritize profit over patient care, leading to potential conflicts of interest and a shift from the VA’s congressional mandate to serve veterans.

If a new Republican president proposes this kind of privatization, you can bet it will be complex and controversial. Given its significant implications for the millions of veterans who rely on the VA for their healthcare needs, it would be essential for them to get it right.

---

Image: Pamela Reynoso

About Post Author