Part 7 of the Project 2025 Pillar 2 continues below. It touches on the many areas of regulation the U.S. government oversees and how changes in these regulations could impact the lives of everyday citizens, from protecting children’s educational opportunities to the environment, health and safety, worker and financial protections, and data privacy.

Estimated reading time: 9 minutes

POLICY: Eliminating NOAA

This is a perfect example of something the government does that people often take for granted but will likely miss when it’s gone. 

NOAA stands for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the National Weather Service falls under it. These federal entities are crucial for weather forecasting, climate monitoring, and disaster preparedness. They were critical for warning and preparedness measures, saving lives during Hurricanes Helene and Milton.

Project 2025 proposes eliminating both and shifting those responsibilities to the private sector or to state governments, claiming this will make the federal government leaner and more efficient.

Editorially speaking (hopefully I haven’t done this too much), can I just opine what a bad idea this is? We take for granted having accurate weather data. The private sector doesn’t generate this weather data – it’s taxpayer-funded and protects the public. 

Well, what about AccuWeather and The Weather Channel? Why not just let them do it? Because contrary to popular belief, private entities like The Weather Channel and AccuWeather largely rely on data generated by taxpayer-funded agencies like NOAA. NOAA generates all the raw meteorological data, including weather observations, satellite imagery, and climate data. This information is made freely available to the public and private companies because it aligns with NOAA’s mandate to protect life and property by disseminating reliable and accessible weather information.

Private weather companies base their business on using publicly funded data. They may enhance it and add bells and whistles, but providing weather information free of charge is considered a public good. 

Some might say, “Yeah, but it’s still not a big deal. Everyone’s entitled to their opinions.” And you might not care much about whether today’s high will be 92 or 87. But it’s really about things beyond that, like public safety.  For example, if you live in Oklahoma, weather warning systems like tornado sirens depend heavily on NOAA. Those systems have saved thousands of lives over the years. The National Weather Service provides the critical data and warnings that activate these systems. It issues tornado warnings based on radar and other meteorological data collected by NOAA. Local emergency management authorities use these warnings to trigger public alert systems, including tornado sirens, and they are all paid for with taxpayer funds.  

If they want to fundamentally change NOAA, the devil will be in the details. But just think how you would really feel about someone telling you, “Yeah, we’ll tell you if a tornado is coming, but only if you pay us extra for it.” Having to pay additional for a previously free service can become a burden.

POLICY: Reducing the Regulatory Power of The State By Pruning Regulations

The sheer size and number of regulations in our country is an annual conservative talking point. Unsurprisingly, Project 2025 is filled with proposals to cut back on federal regulations, particularly those related to environmental protections and labor rights. These cuts are rooted in the conservative view that federal regulations impose unnecessary burdens on businesses and are thought to stifle economic growth. 

Within the ‘Mandate For Leadership’ manual, hundreds of proposed regulatory changes result from the push to satisfy the goals and principles for which conservatives aim. To be clear, the Mandate doesn’t list out, line by line, these hundreds of changes individually. Remember what we said earlier – there are some things that Project 2025 specifically calls out, while other things are pretty easy to infer, even if they aren’t specifically listed within the 900 pages of the Mandate. It is fair to say that the more thoroughly we understand that one of the Project’s foundational pillars is dismantling the administrative state, the easier it is to see the possibilities. 

To help us visualize this future, here’s a top 20 list of likely regulatory changes that would result. We will list some of these briefly while explaining others in more detail. While we’re doing this, try to think what these changes would look like and whether most people would really favor someone telling them that the government will stop doing some of these things.

1. Eliminating Head Start: Head Start, a federal program launched in 1965, has been one of the most successful government initiatives to promote school readiness for children from low-income families. Providing early childhood education, health, nutrition, and parent involvement services, Head Start is critical in helping underprivileged children develop the cognitive and social skills needed to succeed in school and later life. 

It’s well known to those paying attention that kids from low-income families enter elementary school with a “school readiness gap” that is hard to make up once they are in there. Head Start is crucial in closing that gap, and the research shows it works. Head Start participants tend to improve in early math, language, and literacy skills compared to children who do not attend. They are less likely to repeat a grade and more likely to graduate from high school and attend college. Since Head Start also provides health screenings and meals for low-income children, they have better overall health outcomes and improved dental and physical health. They’re even more likely to receive essential immunizations and regular health check-ups.

About 1 million children participate in Head Start each year, at an average cost of about $10,000 to $12,000 per child. While this may seem significant, it’s comparable to or slightly less than the national average per-pupil spending in K-12 public schools, which is around $13,500 annually. The crucial difference is that Head Start provides comprehensive support during the critical early years of development, addressing educational, nutritional, and emotional needs at a time when intervention is vital for long-term success.

Why does Project 2025 propose eliminating something that seems to be providing such a crucial benefit to children while providing good economic returns? Because it aligns with their broader goal of shrinking the federal government’s role in social services. They argue that education is a state and local issue, and the private sector or local initiatives could better address early childhood education needs. 

2. Weakening the Clean Air Act: Limiting the EPA’s authority to enforce the Clean Air Act would reduce regulations on industrial emissions and potentially lead to higher levels of air pollution. They might also propose narrowing the definition of “waters of the United States,” which could reduce federal protection for many wetlands and smaller water bodies, allowing for more industrial and agricultural development and industrial byproducts. Remember, rivers polluted with industrial waste routinely caught fire before the Clean Water Act was passed in 1972.

3. Reducing OSHA Oversight: Scaling back the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA) regulations, potentially lowering workplace safety standards, especially in hazardous industries.

4. Easing Financial Regulations: Repealing or rolling back parts of the Dodd-Frank Act, which was implemented to regulate the financial industry after the 2008 financial crisis, could potentially increase the risk of financial instability.

5. Scaling Back Consumer Protections: Weakening the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), reducing oversight, and allowing less regulation for financial institutions, which could harm consumer rights.

6. Rolling Back Fuel Efficiency Standards: Reducing or eliminating federal fuel efficiency standards for vehicles would lead to higher emissions, increasing smog from air pollution, and less incentive for automakers to develop cleaner technologies.

7. Deregulating the Pharmaceutical Industry: Easing FDA approval processes for new drugs could potentially lower safety standards and increase risks to public health. 

8. Eliminating Net Neutrality Protections: Permanently removing net neutrality rules, allowing internet service providers to prioritize certain types of content and potentially creating a less open internet.

9. Limiting the Definition of “Protected Concerted Activity”: This would involve changing the definition of “protected concerted activity” under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), which would directly affect workers’ rights to strike or engage in collective action without facing employer retaliation. This kind of proposal fits within the Project’s broader goals of deregulation. Reducing the power of federal labor protections could lead to proposals that would weaken labor rights, including protected concerted activity. For instance, there are mentions of curbing the power of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), making it easier for employers to challenge unionization efforts or even decertify unions. This would impact workers’ ability to strike, organize, and bargain for better wages and benefits without facing employer repercussions.

10. Loosening Banking Regulations: Reducing restrictions on small and regional banks could potentially increase the likelihood of risky lending practices similar to those that contributed to the 2008 financial crisis.

11. Reducing Workplace Anti-Discrimination Protections: Loosening Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) regulations would make challenging workplace discrimination more difficult.

12. Weakening Climate Change Regulations: Rolling back limits on carbon emissions from power plants will make it easier for companies to operate without regard to environmental impact in their area and neighboring areas and states.

13. Loosening Agricultural Regulations: Reducing USDA regulations on pesticide use can increase exposure to harmful chemicals in food production.

14. Relaxing Anti-Money Laundering Rules: Easing regulations on financial institutions can increase the risk of money laundering and financial crimes.

15. Scaling Back Data Privacy Protections: Reducing the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) ability to enforce data privacy laws will leave consumers more vulnerable to data breaches, exposing their sensitive information.

16. Reducing Food Safety Standards: Lowering FDA inspection standards could potentially increase the risk of foodborne illnesses.

17. Weakening Workplace Safety for Minors: Easing restrictions on the types of work minors can perform increases the risk of serious injuries for young workers.

18. Deregulating the Airline Industry: Reducing the Department of Transportation’s airline safety oversight, potentially compromising passenger safety standards.

19. Eliminating Public Land Protections: Allowing more drilling and mining on federally protected lands by reducing the authority of the Bureau of Land Management.

20. Weakening School Nutrition Standards: Rolling back USDA regulations on school meal programs could potentially lead to fewer healthy food options for children and increased chronic health issues.

Many things might be on the horizon. Conservatives have traditionally favored these types of changes because they reflect a broader goal of minimizing federal oversight in favor of increased economic freedom for businesses. Progressives will counter that this comes at the expense of environmental and worker protections. Which one is preferable will be up to you to decide.

---

Image: Pamela Reynoso

About Post Author