Project 2025 & The SAVE Act: Are We Quietly Letting Democracy Slip Away?
A deep dive into recent power moves by the White House—from blaming a plane crash on DEI to freezing federal funds—and how new proposals like Project 2025 and the SAVE Act could reshape American democracy.
For a brief, disorienting moment, a huge swath of the United States government decided to hit the “Pause” button on distributing critical federal funds. You could almost hear millions of Americans asking: “Wait, you can just…do that?” Evidently, yes—if you have a certain perspective on presidential power. And that perspective is becoming harder to ignore, cropping up everywhere from White House briefings to ominous new proposals designed to rewrite the rules of voting.
At the same time, an inexcusable tragedy—a major commercial plane crash—was met with a head-scratching (and downright offensive) explanation from the president: It was DEI’s fault. No details, no investigation results—just a curt “I have common sense.” Somehow, this questionable “common sense” singled out people of color and women as the culprits. If you’re pondering how an administration unironically leaps from a catastrophic event to blaming “diversity hires,” buckle up. That’s only part of the story.
Step One: Blame “Diversity” for a Plane Crash
If you’ve been wondering whether rhetoric can sink any lower, well, here we are. In the immediate aftermath of a high-profile, devastating plane crash, the president confidently declared that “DEI”—an acronym for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion—was the reason the flight ended in tragedy. The logic? “I have common sense,” he said, apparently concluding that increased representation for marginalized groups must have caused the pilots or air traffic controllers to fail.
The reality is, no evidence backs up such a claim. Investigations into airplane disasters typically revolve around mechanical issues, air-traffic control oversight, human error (which can be anyone’s error), or a confluence of those factors. But the idea that broadening who gets hired translates directly to negligence or incompetence is, to use a technical term, utter nonsense.
Snark aside, these remarks underscore a deeper worldview—one that says the chief problem in America is not outdated technology or underfunded infrastructure, but people “who don’t belong.” This worldview paves the way for a draconian, one-man rule. Or, in simpler terms, it’s part of a bigger push to say: “We’re not here to govern alongside you. We’re here to lord over you.”
Step Two: “Pause” Federal Funds…Just Because
Days after the plane crash controversy, something else suddenly gripped headlines: the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) halted nearly all federal grants and loans. Yes, all. Whether it was Meals on Wheels, research funding for universities, or hotlines for veterans, the spigot was shut off—until further notice.
“White House counsel’s office believes that this is within the president’s power to do it, and therefore he’s doing it.”
— Trump Administration Press Secretary (via Rolling Stone)
That’s a jarring departure from the standard, “We will do what Congress has already approved.” Usually, legislative bodies authorize how taxpayer money is spent, and the executive branch implements that. But apparently, “check and balance” is so 20th century. If you’re among the millions depending on key programs—like Head Start for early childhood education or specialized grants for critical medical research—this is more than a partisan spat. It’s life-changing.
Legal experts swiftly pounced, labeling the freeze almost certainly illegal. A federal judge issued an injunction halting the freeze, at least temporarily. But the underlying message remains: If the executive branch decides it doesn’t like certain expenditures—especially if it links them to policies on diversity, equity, or even clean energy—funding can vanish with a snap of the fingers. The White House counsel apparently sees no problem in that. For the rest of us, that’s a pretty big problem.
Step Three: The Bigger Plan—Project 2025
Puzzled about how we got here? Look no further than Project 2025, a multi-organization strategy that’s been circulating in various think-tank circles. The broad objective is to unleash the executive branch: drastically reduce (or outright ignore) bureaucratic “roadblocks,” sideline experts, and make the presidency more like a CEO position. Some might call that “streamlining,” but it’s fair to wonder if such “streamlining” means leaving democracy on life support.
Project 2025 anticipates radically reshaping the government’s structure:
- Neutering independent agencies (FDA, EPA, you name it) by stacking them with loyalists.
- Undermining any form of oversight from Congress or the courts by treating their rulings as optional.
- Slashing entire departments in a way that would make the 19th century look modern.
In essence, it’s the political sequel to “I have common sense,” ignoring data, expertise, or standard operating procedures. Proponents call it a necessary “revolution”; critics see it as a blueprint for a dictatorship-lite. Or maybe not so lite.
Step Four: The SAVE Act—When You Really Don’t Want People Voting
As if dismantling environmental or aviation safety protections wasn’t enough, there’s another legislative gem creeping into the spotlight: the SAVE Act. According to analysts like Andy Craig (who focuses on election law) and organizations such as the Center for American Progress, this bill could become a monstrous voter-suppression tool if it ever became law.
Under the SAVE Act, registering to vote—or even re-registering—would require rigorous proof of citizenship, like a passport or birth certificate. Sounds innocent, right? Except a huge portion of Americans—particularly older voters, low-income communities, and younger people—don’t keep passports or have trouble accessing official birth records in time. Even a lost birth certificate or changed name (marriage, adoption, you name it) could become a fresh barrier. Think about it: how many times have you rummaged through drawers looking for some random document you needed 15 years ago?
This move would effectively disenfranchise millions. If you’re a fan of democracy, that’s a problem. And if you’re a fan of more centralized power with less “messy input” from average folks, well, it’s quite the dream scenario.
So…What Now?
All these developments—the DEI blame, the freeze on funds, the relentless push to expand executive power, and the looming SAVE Act—aren’t just random occurrences. They fit neatly into a worldview where a self-proclaimed “ruler” has no real interest in the day-to-day work of actual governance.
Governance means forging policy through deliberation, compromise, and accountability. It’s easier to just say, “I know best. Done.” That might be appealing if you want immediate changes with zero oversight. But as many Americans are discovering, those “immediate changes” can come at your expense—your health care, your livelihood, your research, your roads, your kids’ future.
On the bright side, we’ve seen pushback work. Courts froze the shocking defunding blitz, and local municipalities are defying or resisting top-down executive orders. Activists are banding together. And states, cities, and nonprofits are suing, stalling, and occasionally stopping some of the more outlandish power grabs. That’s how checks and balances are meant to function—if we keep them alive.
The tough truth is that none of these are fleeting headline buzzwords. “Rollback on federal funds,” “dismantling agencies,” “Project 2025,” “SAVE Act”—they’re signals of a deeper shift. And if people don’t stay alert, that shift could end up rewriting how the country is governed…or ruled.
Staying informed is the first step. The second is actually doing something with that information—whether that’s volunteering with a grassroots organization, supporting litigation to block unconstitutional overreach, or (ironically enough) voting in whatever capacity you still can.
Because even if those in power don’t care that your neighbor’s Meals on Wheels got defunded, or that your local Head Start program was frozen, you can care—and push back. Turns out, democracy might be messy. But it beats the alternative of letting “I have common sense” be the start—and end—of every discussion.