Fact Check: Project 2025 is not good for the USA.

Fact Check: Project 2025 is not good for the USA.

June 12, 2025by TruthOrFake AI
±
VERDICT
Partially True

# Fact Check: "Project 2025 is not good for the USA" ## What We Know Project 2025 is a comprehensive policy proposal developed by the Heritage Founda...

Fact Check: "Project 2025 is not good for the USA"

What We Know

Project 2025 is a comprehensive policy proposal developed by the Heritage Foundation, a prominent conservative think tank, and over 140 former Trump administration officials. This 900-page document outlines an agenda that seeks to reshape the federal government according to ultra-conservative principles, including expanding presidential powers and implementing significant changes to social policies (BBC).

The document proposes several controversial measures, such as dismantling the Department of Education, eliminating job protections for federal employees, and enforcing stricter immigration policies. It also emphasizes a "unitary executive theory," which would place the entire federal bureaucracy under direct presidential control (American Civil Liberties Union). Critics argue that these proposals threaten civil rights and democratic norms, with the ACLU stating that Project 2025 could erode civil liberties and undermine the rule of law (American Civil Liberties Union).

Analysis

The claim that "Project 2025 is not good for the USA" is supported by various analyses highlighting the potential negative impacts of its proposals. For instance, a report by Energy Innovation suggests that the energy and climate provisions outlined in Project 2025 could lead to the loss of 1.7 million jobs and a $320 billion reduction in GDP by 2030 (Energy Innovation). Furthermore, the American Progress report emphasizes that the radical policies proposed could disrupt essential services like healthcare and education, affecting millions of Americans (American Progress).

However, it is important to note that proponents of Project 2025 argue that these changes are necessary to streamline government operations and promote conservative values. They assert that the proposals reflect the will of a significant portion of the electorate who support a more limited government and traditional social structures (BBC).

The reliability of sources criticizing Project 2025, such as the ACLU and American Progress, is generally high, as they are well-established organizations with a history of advocacy for civil rights and social justice. However, their perspectives may be influenced by their political leanings, which could introduce bias in their assessments of the project's implications.

Conclusion

The verdict on the claim that "Project 2025 is not good for the USA" is Partially True. While there are valid concerns regarding the potential negative impacts of the proposals outlined in Project 2025, including threats to civil liberties and economic stability, there are also arguments in favor of the changes that reflect a segment of the American populace's desire for a conservative governance approach. Thus, the claim captures the essence of the debate surrounding Project 2025, but it does not encompass the full spectrum of opinions on its implications.

Sources

  1. Project 2025: The right-wing wish list for Trump's second term
  2. Fact Sheets: The Harmful Effects of Project 2025, by State
  3. Project 2025, Explained | American Civil Liberties Union
  4. How Project 2025 Could Economically Affect Your State
  5. The People’s Guide to Project 2025
  6. PDF P2025 Threats to Public Education in Our States & Communities - IDRA
  7. Project 2025 Would Destroy the U.S. System of Checks and Balances
  8. Americans Describe Impacts to Rights and Freedoms As The Most Concerning Outcomes for Project 2025 Implementation

Have a claim you want to verify? It's 100% Free!

Our AI-powered fact-checker analyzes claims against thousands of reliable sources and provides evidence-based verdicts in seconds. Completely free with no registration required.

💡 Try:
"Coffee helps you live longer"
100% Free
No Registration
Instant Results

Comments

Comments

Leave a comment

Loading comments...

More Fact Checks to Explore

Discover similar claims and stay informed with these related fact-checks

Fact Check: Trump is not affliated with Project 2025
Partially True
🎯 Similar

Fact Check: Trump is not affliated with Project 2025

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Trump is not affliated with Project 2025

Jun 12, 2025
Read more →
🔍
Partially True
🎯 Similar

Fact Check: There is no question Mark Carney is a brilliant business man and has a very impressive resume. But does he give a shit about you, and for that matter other Canadians? I didn't know anything about Mark Carney a couple of weeks ago and yesterday, I decided to do a little research project. This is what I discovered with about 1 hour of research. Lets take a bit of a dive in… Mark Carney is the UN special envoy on climate change pushing governments around the world to adopt “clean energy”. A great position, no? Interestingly, right up until he entered the Liberal leadership race, he also conveniently sat on the board of Brookfield Asset Management at the same time as he sat in this position with the UN. Brookfield owns $1 trillion in assets under management and many of their portfolios are across renewable power & infrastructure. Hmm, sounds a little conflicty? He has directly profited off of the shutting down and blocking of fossil fuel projects in Canada which he advised Canada to do (and other nations) while making sure so called “green energy” options are pushed and approved, which line his own pockets with green. One of Mark's acts as Chair of the board was to move the head office of Brookfield from Toronto to New York, because of the impending tariff war. Sounds like he has a lot of faith in his ability to put Canada first...and then he lied about the whole situation claiming that he was not chair when Brookfield moved. Maybe true, but he approved the move and voted for it at the first hint of tariffs from Trump, while he was still chair… Let’s look further at Mark’s role with Brookfield though. While he was doing all this “good work”, or rather making western governments do all this good work while he profits off of them, he was also directing Brookfield to act completely contrary environmentally when it suits the firm and their shareholders. While Brookfield manages green companies, they also acquire and invest in “dirty” fossil fuel projects and “carbon releasing” in other parts of the world. “One of Brookfield's collection of assets was 267,000 hectares in Brazil. producing soybeans, sugar, corn and cattle. between 2012 and 2021 Brookfield's subsidiaries deforested around 9,000 hectares on eight large farms in the Cerrado region of Brazil, a vast area bordering the Amazon rainforest. The report estimates that 600,000 tonnes of CO2 was emitted by deforesting these areas, the equivalent of 1.2 million flights from London to New York. A spokesperson for Brookfield said: "Brookfield made limited investments in Brazil's agriculture sector during the last decade. The decision to sell these businesses was taken several years ago because the fund they were held in was reaching the end of its life, and we therefore had an obligation to return capital to investors." Global Witness claims that this decision to sell clashes with public statements subsequently made by Mr. Carney as a global leader on climate policy, which call upon companies not to sell off climate-damaging assets, but to hold onto them and either clean them up or close them down”. - Ben King, BBC 15, Dec, 2022 They cut 9000 hectares of prime forest on the border of the Amazon to expand their GMO farming operations. Wow! How about the $16 billion acquisition of Inter Pipeline by Brookfield”? An oil pipeline, yes. Just two of the many "CO2 emitting" actions that Mark Carney has directed Brookfield on as Chair to the Board while he pushes green energy where it benefits his own books… A 2023 report on Brookfield by “Private Equity Climate Risks” paint a pretty bleak picture. "The combined current fossil fuel investments of Brookfield and Oaktree emit an estimated 159 million metric tons (mt) of CO2 equivalent (CO2e) annually. This is an order of magnitude more than the 11.8 million mt CO2e disclosed in Brookfield’s sustainability reports". So… will Carney be good for Canada? Well all of the above makes me think he is a wolf in sheep's clothing and let’s keep in mind he has been a close financial advisor to Trudeau since 2020. All of the great results of Trudeau’s tenure are the direct result of Carney. Doubling of house prices Record inflation Doubling of Canadians in the line of the food bank Our now crippling national debt and $60 billion deficit One of the biggest red flags for me is that Mark refuses to disclose his own personal financial situation. A guy who just a couple of months ago sat on 20 different corporate boards, including many American companies, promises he has a lot to gain by becoming PM. He is an ultra elite globalist who is 100% a part of the decisions that have led to Canada’s downfall and left us so vulnerable and if he remains as PM for any length of time, I feel Canada may end up bankrupt. The media will tell you that Mark is the guy to take on Trump, but the truth is not hard to uncover if you just do a little digging. Centrum

Detailed fact-check analysis of: There is no question Mark Carney is a brilliant business man and has a very impressive resume. But does he give a shit about you, and for that matter other Canadians? I didn't know anything about Mark Carney a couple of weeks ago and yesterday, I decided to do a little research project. This is what I discovered with about 1 hour of research. Lets take a bit of a dive in… Mark Carney is the UN special envoy on climate change pushing governments around the world to adopt “clean energy”. A great position, no? Interestingly, right up until he entered the Liberal leadership race, he also conveniently sat on the board of Brookfield Asset Management at the same time as he sat in this position with the UN. Brookfield owns $1 trillion in assets under management and many of their portfolios are across renewable power & infrastructure. Hmm, sounds a little conflicty? He has directly profited off of the shutting down and blocking of fossil fuel projects in Canada which he advised Canada to do (and other nations) while making sure so called “green energy” options are pushed and approved, which line his own pockets with green. One of Mark's acts as Chair of the board was to move the head office of Brookfield from Toronto to New York, because of the impending tariff war. Sounds like he has a lot of faith in his ability to put Canada first...and then he lied about the whole situation claiming that he was not chair when Brookfield moved. Maybe true, but he approved the move and voted for it at the first hint of tariffs from Trump, while he was still chair… Let’s look further at Mark’s role with Brookfield though. While he was doing all this “good work”, or rather making western governments do all this good work while he profits off of them, he was also directing Brookfield to act completely contrary environmentally when it suits the firm and their shareholders. While Brookfield manages green companies, they also acquire and invest in “dirty” fossil fuel projects and “carbon releasing” in other parts of the world. “One of Brookfield's collection of assets was 267,000 hectares in Brazil. producing soybeans, sugar, corn and cattle. between 2012 and 2021 Brookfield's subsidiaries deforested around 9,000 hectares on eight large farms in the Cerrado region of Brazil, a vast area bordering the Amazon rainforest. The report estimates that 600,000 tonnes of CO2 was emitted by deforesting these areas, the equivalent of 1.2 million flights from London to New York. A spokesperson for Brookfield said: "Brookfield made limited investments in Brazil's agriculture sector during the last decade. The decision to sell these businesses was taken several years ago because the fund they were held in was reaching the end of its life, and we therefore had an obligation to return capital to investors." Global Witness claims that this decision to sell clashes with public statements subsequently made by Mr. Carney as a global leader on climate policy, which call upon companies not to sell off climate-damaging assets, but to hold onto them and either clean them up or close them down”. - Ben King, BBC 15, Dec, 2022 They cut 9000 hectares of prime forest on the border of the Amazon to expand their GMO farming operations. Wow! How about the $16 billion acquisition of Inter Pipeline by Brookfield”? An oil pipeline, yes. Just two of the many "CO2 emitting" actions that Mark Carney has directed Brookfield on as Chair to the Board while he pushes green energy where it benefits his own books… A 2023 report on Brookfield by “Private Equity Climate Risks” paint a pretty bleak picture. "The combined current fossil fuel investments of Brookfield and Oaktree emit an estimated 159 million metric tons (mt) of CO2 equivalent (CO2e) annually. This is an order of magnitude more than the 11.8 million mt CO2e disclosed in Brookfield’s sustainability reports". So… will Carney be good for Canada? Well all of the above makes me think he is a wolf in sheep's clothing and let’s keep in mind he has been a close financial advisor to Trudeau since 2020. All of the great results of Trudeau’s tenure are the direct result of Carney. Doubling of house prices Record inflation Doubling of Canadians in the line of the food bank Our now crippling national debt and $60 billion deficit One of the biggest red flags for me is that Mark refuses to disclose his own personal financial situation. A guy who just a couple of months ago sat on 20 different corporate boards, including many American companies, promises he has a lot to gain by becoming PM. He is an ultra elite globalist who is 100% a part of the decisions that have led to Canada’s downfall and left us so vulnerable and if he remains as PM for any length of time, I feel Canada may end up bankrupt. The media will tell you that Mark is the guy to take on Trump, but the truth is not hard to uncover if you just do a little digging. Centrum

Mar 24, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: Columbia University Apartheid Divest, it’s member organizations, and its allies(such as Within Our Lifetime, Students For Justice in Palestine, Jewish Voices for Peace, Neutering Karta, ANSWER coalition and Party for Socialism and Liberation) have promoted terrorist organizations (such as Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis), totalitarian regimes (such as Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, and Baathist Syria) and stated that they are “fighting for the total eradication of Western civilization”. All of these are reasonable grounds to label them as extremists.
Sources
China
https://liberationnews.org/psl-editorial-china-is-not-our-enemy/

North Korea
https://nypost.com/2024/05/06/us-news/nyu-student-at-anti-israel-protest-praises-north-korea-for-supporting-palestinians/

Russia
https://www.algemeiner.com/2025/03/04/western-backed-project-founder-radical-anti-israel-group-comes-out-strongly-against-ukraine/

Iran
https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2006/3/12/anti-israel-rabbis-support-iran

Baathist Syria
https://www.answercoalition.org/half_a_million_syrians_return_home_as_syrian_gov_t_allies_liberate_more_areas

Hamas
https://combatantisemitism.org/studies-reports/students-for-justice-in-palestine-chapters-celebrate-10-7-anniversary-on-campuses-across-us-with-terror-glorifying-posts/

Hezbollah
https://www.campusreform.org/article/death-israel-student-groups-outraged-death-hezbollah-terrorist-leader-say-israel-burn-ground/26463

Houthis
https://www.timesofisrael.com/hundreds-call-for-intifada-hail-houthis-at-columbia-university-anti-israel-protest/

Destruction of Western Civilization 
https://abc3340.com/news/nation-world/anti-israel-columbia-students-call-for-total-eradication-of-western-civilization-divest-palestine-hamas-bangladesh-protests-demonstrations
Mostly True
🎯 Similar

Fact Check: Columbia University Apartheid Divest, it’s member organizations, and its allies(such as Within Our Lifetime, Students For Justice in Palestine, Jewish Voices for Peace, Neutering Karta, ANSWER coalition and Party for Socialism and Liberation) have promoted terrorist organizations (such as Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis), totalitarian regimes (such as Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, and Baathist Syria) and stated that they are “fighting for the total eradication of Western civilization”. All of these are reasonable grounds to label them as extremists. Sources China https://liberationnews.org/psl-editorial-china-is-not-our-enemy/ North Korea https://nypost.com/2024/05/06/us-news/nyu-student-at-anti-israel-protest-praises-north-korea-for-supporting-palestinians/ Russia https://www.algemeiner.com/2025/03/04/western-backed-project-founder-radical-anti-israel-group-comes-out-strongly-against-ukraine/ Iran https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2006/3/12/anti-israel-rabbis-support-iran Baathist Syria https://www.answercoalition.org/half_a_million_syrians_return_home_as_syrian_gov_t_allies_liberate_more_areas Hamas https://combatantisemitism.org/studies-reports/students-for-justice-in-palestine-chapters-celebrate-10-7-anniversary-on-campuses-across-us-with-terror-glorifying-posts/ Hezbollah https://www.campusreform.org/article/death-israel-student-groups-outraged-death-hezbollah-terrorist-leader-say-israel-burn-ground/26463 Houthis https://www.timesofisrael.com/hundreds-call-for-intifada-hail-houthis-at-columbia-university-anti-israel-protest/ Destruction of Western Civilization https://abc3340.com/news/nation-world/anti-israel-columbia-students-call-for-total-eradication-of-western-civilization-divest-palestine-hamas-bangladesh-protests-demonstrations

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Columbia University Apartheid Divest, it’s member organizations, and its allies(such as Within Our Lifetime, Students For Justice in Palestine, Jewish Voices for Peace, Neutering Karta, ANSWER coalition and Party for Socialism and Liberation) have promoted terrorist organizations (such as Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis), totalitarian regimes (such as Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, and Baathist Syria) and stated that they are “fighting for the total eradication of Western civilization”. All of these are reasonable grounds to label them as extremists. Sources China https://liberationnews.org/psl-editorial-china-is-not-our-enemy/ North Korea https://nypost.com/2024/05/06/us-news/nyu-student-at-anti-israel-protest-praises-north-korea-for-supporting-palestinians/ Russia https://www.algemeiner.com/2025/03/04/western-backed-project-founder-radical-anti-israel-group-comes-out-strongly-against-ukraine/ Iran https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2006/3/12/anti-israel-rabbis-support-iran Baathist Syria https://www.answercoalition.org/half_a_million_syrians_return_home_as_syrian_gov_t_allies_liberate_more_areas Hamas https://combatantisemitism.org/studies-reports/students-for-justice-in-palestine-chapters-celebrate-10-7-anniversary-on-campuses-across-us-with-terror-glorifying-posts/ Hezbollah https://www.campusreform.org/article/death-israel-student-groups-outraged-death-hezbollah-terrorist-leader-say-israel-burn-ground/26463 Houthis https://www.timesofisrael.com/hundreds-call-for-intifada-hail-houthis-at-columbia-university-anti-israel-protest/ Destruction of Western Civilization https://abc3340.com/news/nation-world/anti-israel-columbia-students-call-for-total-eradication-of-western-civilization-divest-palestine-hamas-bangladesh-protests-demonstrations

Apr 12, 2025
Read more →
🔍
Unverified

Fact Check: THIS IS STRAIGHT OUT OF THE MAGA PROJECT 2025 : PLEASE READ THIS ARTICLE AND SHARE FAR AND WIDE ❤ THANK YOU FOLKS ❤ LIKE THE MAGA, THE PP HAS A 100 DAY AGENDA : The first rule of Fight Club is you do not talk about Fight Club. Over the past year, if you asked around Ottawa about the transition team that was planning Pierre Poilievre’s first days in government, you were likely to be met with shrugs. The members of the team were not named, and those in the know were not talking. Even The Hill Times, the Ottawa parliamentary affairs outlet that excels at digging up gossipy news, had come up empty-handed. At the outset of 2025, they approached a dozen Conservatives close to Poilievre, all of whom stayed tight-lipped. His campaign manager Jenni Byrne ran a very tight organization, and slip-ups might incur her wrath. Besides, any operative whose party is on the verge of power knows it’s best to maintain utmost organizational secrecy. Such discipline, however, sometimes falters under the influence of a few drinks. That’s what Bryan Evans, a political science professor at Toronto Metropolitan University, found out in late 2024. Around the winter holidays, he ducked into his neighbourhood bar and ran into an old acquaintance. The man wasn’t himself on the transition team, but it turned out he was deeply informed. They slid onto stools for a conversation. While they didn’t run in the same circles, and certainly didn’t share political opinions, his acquaintance knew that Evans had an understanding and appreciation for the machinery of government. For ten years he was employed by the Ontario government, including a stint in the Ministry of Labour after Progressive Conservative Mike Harris had come to power in the mid 1990s. Relying on insights from that experience, he wrote his doctoral dissertation on that government and its radical agenda. In December 2024, Poilievre was riding high in the polls, as he had been for nearly two years. So maybe it was the overconfidence talking. Over beers, Evans’s drinking companion laid out more about the transition planning than anything yet discovered by well-connected reporters in the establishment media. The group was preparing for a Poilievre government to hit the ground running. It was going to be a blitzkrieg. “You were there at the start of the Mike Harris government.” “Yeah,” Evans said. “That’s going to be the playbook.” It was an ominous sign. Mike Harris’s government had moved quickly to make dramatic reforms. They had a hundred-day agenda, and they got a lot done: laying off public sector employees, cutting funding to education, slashing social assistance rates, deregulating industries, repealing equity laws, selling off Crown corporations, and empowering the government to impose user fees on public services. “It’s going to come hard and fast from every direction again,” Evan’s acquaintance said. The groups and communities impacted, as well as the political opposition, both inside Parliament and outside, would have to fight on dozens of fronts at once. One of Harris’s key first steps was to balance the budget as a way of supercharging their plans, according to Guy Giorno, the premier’s top strategist. He described this as their “agenda within the agenda,” the “factor which meant that absolutely everybody rolled in the same direction.” It began the process of shrinking public spending, and was followed up by deregulation, rolling back labour protections, freezing the minimum wage, and encouraging the subcontracting of public services. Back in the 1990s, Harris had been convinced by Alberta Premier Ralph Klein’s advisors that he would have to move speedily to implement his agenda, lest he get tripped up by protests or a stubborn public service. Those advisors had once encouraged Klein to read the work of economist Milton Friedman (Pierre Poilievre’s own ideological guru). In the 1980’s, Friedman had written that “a new administration has some six to nine months in which to achieve major changes; if it does not seize the opportunity to act decisively during that period, it will not have another such opportunity.” It’s the lesson Friedman had drawn from his first laboratory, Chile. After the U.S. backed overthrow of democratic socialist Salvador Allende, the military dictator Augusto Pinochet had instituted a violent, rapid-fire makeover of the economy, following Friedman’s radical free market rulebook: privatization, deregulation, cutbacks to the public sector, and attacks on labour unions. Purging the public service As for the composition of Poilievre’s transition group, Bryan Evans’ acquaintance belatedly recalled his Fight Club rules. He wouldn’t divulge names, but offered some ideas. There were Poilievre’s policy advisors, as well as some former senior public servants, lawyers, and an ex-Cabinet minister. He admitted that some people who had been around for the Mike Harris days were in there too. Even before they were sworn in as the government in 1995, Harris’s team had laid groundwork within the public service to ensure they could take swift control of the levers of power. Members of his transition team had shown up to their first meeting with outgoing NDP government officials with a list of six high-ranking deputy ministers they wanted to meet quickly. Those civil servants were the A-list, empowered to advise and serve Harris’s agenda; several others, considered unfriendly, received their pink slips as part of a careful purge. As one NDP official remarked, his own party had “assumed office, but never took power. These guys are taking power even before they have assumed office.” Poilievre’s transition team also was thinking very strategically about how they would wield the machinery of the state. Who did they want to bring into the higher ranks of public service to help advance their plans? Who should be removed? And who might they want for the most important position of all, the top ranking civil servant, the Clerk of the Privy Council? These were some of the questions they were asking while plotting their first moves. When it came to policy plans, one crucial difference between the two eras was that Mike Harris’ Conservatives publicly had rolled out their agenda years in advance. Harris’s young ideologues put out detailed papers, organized policy conferences, eventually published a manifesto, the Common Sense Revolution, of which they printed 2.5 million copies. Everyone knew what was coming, even if it would still shock people when it arrived and extend far beyond what Harris had promised. Would Poilievre’s team, for instance, follow Mike Harris’s “playbook” on healthcare? Harris had lulled Ontario into complacency by assuaging voters’ fears about protecting health services. Their manifesto was crystal clear: “We will not cut healthcare spending.” But the result turned out to look very different: forty hospital closures, 25,000 staff laid off, and declining per capita real funding at a time of growing need. Poilievre’s team, by contrast, hadn’t laid out many policy details. And yet, over the years and in the run-up to the spring of 2025, Poilievre had telegraphed a lot in past election platforms, online videos, and podcast interviews with Jordan Peterson. It hinted at what his sweeping agenda would entail if he was able to secure a majority government—an assault on the country’s collective assets and already tattered social programs, a renewed attack on unions, activist and Indigenous defenders, and a bonanza of deregulation and privatization that would make his billionaire backers cheer. This is an excerpt from Martin Lukacs’s THE POILIEVRE PROJECT : A RADICAL BLUEPRINT FOR CORPORATE RULE published by Breach Books and available for order.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: THIS IS STRAIGHT OUT OF THE MAGA PROJECT 2025 : PLEASE READ THIS ARTICLE AND SHARE FAR AND WIDE ❤ THANK YOU FOLKS ❤ LIKE THE MAGA, THE PP HAS A 100 DAY AGENDA : The first rule of Fight Club is you do not talk about Fight Club. Over the past year, if you asked around Ottawa about the transition team that was planning Pierre Poilievre’s first days in government, you were likely to be met with shrugs. The members of the team were not named, and those in the know were not talking. Even The Hill Times, the Ottawa parliamentary affairs outlet that excels at digging up gossipy news, had come up empty-handed. At the outset of 2025, they approached a dozen Conservatives close to Poilievre, all of whom stayed tight-lipped. His campaign manager Jenni Byrne ran a very tight organization, and slip-ups might incur her wrath. Besides, any operative whose party is on the verge of power knows it’s best to maintain utmost organizational secrecy. Such discipline, however, sometimes falters under the influence of a few drinks. That’s what Bryan Evans, a political science professor at Toronto Metropolitan University, found out in late 2024. Around the winter holidays, he ducked into his neighbourhood bar and ran into an old acquaintance. The man wasn’t himself on the transition team, but it turned out he was deeply informed. They slid onto stools for a conversation. While they didn’t run in the same circles, and certainly didn’t share political opinions, his acquaintance knew that Evans had an understanding and appreciation for the machinery of government. For ten years he was employed by the Ontario government, including a stint in the Ministry of Labour after Progressive Conservative Mike Harris had come to power in the mid 1990s. Relying on insights from that experience, he wrote his doctoral dissertation on that government and its radical agenda. In December 2024, Poilievre was riding high in the polls, as he had been for nearly two years. So maybe it was the overconfidence talking. Over beers, Evans’s drinking companion laid out more about the transition planning than anything yet discovered by well-connected reporters in the establishment media. The group was preparing for a Poilievre government to hit the ground running. It was going to be a blitzkrieg. “You were there at the start of the Mike Harris government.” “Yeah,” Evans said. “That’s going to be the playbook.” It was an ominous sign. Mike Harris’s government had moved quickly to make dramatic reforms. They had a hundred-day agenda, and they got a lot done: laying off public sector employees, cutting funding to education, slashing social assistance rates, deregulating industries, repealing equity laws, selling off Crown corporations, and empowering the government to impose user fees on public services. “It’s going to come hard and fast from every direction again,” Evan’s acquaintance said. The groups and communities impacted, as well as the political opposition, both inside Parliament and outside, would have to fight on dozens of fronts at once. One of Harris’s key first steps was to balance the budget as a way of supercharging their plans, according to Guy Giorno, the premier’s top strategist. He described this as their “agenda within the agenda,” the “factor which meant that absolutely everybody rolled in the same direction.” It began the process of shrinking public spending, and was followed up by deregulation, rolling back labour protections, freezing the minimum wage, and encouraging the subcontracting of public services. Back in the 1990s, Harris had been convinced by Alberta Premier Ralph Klein’s advisors that he would have to move speedily to implement his agenda, lest he get tripped up by protests or a stubborn public service. Those advisors had once encouraged Klein to read the work of economist Milton Friedman (Pierre Poilievre’s own ideological guru). In the 1980’s, Friedman had written that “a new administration has some six to nine months in which to achieve major changes; if it does not seize the opportunity to act decisively during that period, it will not have another such opportunity.” It’s the lesson Friedman had drawn from his first laboratory, Chile. After the U.S. backed overthrow of democratic socialist Salvador Allende, the military dictator Augusto Pinochet had instituted a violent, rapid-fire makeover of the economy, following Friedman’s radical free market rulebook: privatization, deregulation, cutbacks to the public sector, and attacks on labour unions. Purging the public service As for the composition of Poilievre’s transition group, Bryan Evans’ acquaintance belatedly recalled his Fight Club rules. He wouldn’t divulge names, but offered some ideas. There were Poilievre’s policy advisors, as well as some former senior public servants, lawyers, and an ex-Cabinet minister. He admitted that some people who had been around for the Mike Harris days were in there too. Even before they were sworn in as the government in 1995, Harris’s team had laid groundwork within the public service to ensure they could take swift control of the levers of power. Members of his transition team had shown up to their first meeting with outgoing NDP government officials with a list of six high-ranking deputy ministers they wanted to meet quickly. Those civil servants were the A-list, empowered to advise and serve Harris’s agenda; several others, considered unfriendly, received their pink slips as part of a careful purge. As one NDP official remarked, his own party had “assumed office, but never took power. These guys are taking power even before they have assumed office.” Poilievre’s transition team also was thinking very strategically about how they would wield the machinery of the state. Who did they want to bring into the higher ranks of public service to help advance their plans? Who should be removed? And who might they want for the most important position of all, the top ranking civil servant, the Clerk of the Privy Council? These were some of the questions they were asking while plotting their first moves. When it came to policy plans, one crucial difference between the two eras was that Mike Harris’ Conservatives publicly had rolled out their agenda years in advance. Harris’s young ideologues put out detailed papers, organized policy conferences, eventually published a manifesto, the Common Sense Revolution, of which they printed 2.5 million copies. Everyone knew what was coming, even if it would still shock people when it arrived and extend far beyond what Harris had promised. Would Poilievre’s team, for instance, follow Mike Harris’s “playbook” on healthcare? Harris had lulled Ontario into complacency by assuaging voters’ fears about protecting health services. Their manifesto was crystal clear: “We will not cut healthcare spending.” But the result turned out to look very different: forty hospital closures, 25,000 staff laid off, and declining per capita real funding at a time of growing need. Poilievre’s team, by contrast, hadn’t laid out many policy details. And yet, over the years and in the run-up to the spring of 2025, Poilievre had telegraphed a lot in past election platforms, online videos, and podcast interviews with Jordan Peterson. It hinted at what his sweeping agenda would entail if he was able to secure a majority government—an assault on the country’s collective assets and already tattered social programs, a renewed attack on unions, activist and Indigenous defenders, and a bonanza of deregulation and privatization that would make his billionaire backers cheer. This is an excerpt from Martin Lukacs’s THE POILIEVRE PROJECT : A RADICAL BLUEPRINT FOR CORPORATE RULE published by Breach Books and available for order.

Apr 6, 2025
Read more →
🔍
Unverified

Fact Check: THIS IS STRAIGHT OUT OF THE MAGA PROJECT 2025 : PLEASE READ THIS ARTICLE AND SHARE FAR AND WIDE ❤ THANK YOU FOLKS ❤ LIKE THE MAGA, THE PP HAS A 100 DAY AGENDA : The first rule of Fight Club is you do not talk about Fight Club. Over the past year, if you asked around Ottawa about the transition team that was planning Pierre Poilievre’s first days in government, you were likely to be met with shrugs. The members of the team were not named, and those in the know were not talking. Even The Hill Times, the Ottawa parliamentary affairs outlet that excels at digging up gossipy news, had come up empty-handed. At the outset of 2025, they approached a dozen Conservatives close to Poilievre, all of whom stayed tight-lipped. His campaign manager Jenni Byrne ran a very tight organization, and slip-ups might incur her wrath. Besides, any operative whose party is on the verge of power knows it’s best to maintain utmost organizational secrecy. Such discipline, however, sometimes falters under the influence of a few drinks. That’s what Bryan Evans, a political science professor at Toronto Metropolitan University, found out in late 2024. Around the winter holidays, he ducked into his neighbourhood bar and ran into an old acquaintance. The man wasn’t himself on the transition team, but it turned out he was deeply informed. They slid onto stools for a conversation. While they didn’t run in the same circles, and certainly didn’t share political opinions, his acquaintance knew that Evans had an understanding and appreciation for the machinery of government. For ten years he was employed by the Ontario government, including a stint in the Ministry of Labour after Progressive Conservative Mike Harris had come to power in the mid 1990s. Relying on insights from that experience, he wrote his doctoral dissertation on that government and its radical agenda. In December 2024, Poilievre was riding high in the polls, as he had been for nearly two years. So maybe it was the overconfidence talking. Over beers, Evans’s drinking companion laid out more about the transition planning than anything yet discovered by well-connected reporters in the establishment media. The group was preparing for a Poilievre government to hit the ground running. It was going to be a blitzkrieg. “You were there at the start of the Mike Harris government.” “Yeah,” Evans said. “That’s going to be the playbook.” It was an ominous sign. Mike Harris’s government had moved quickly to make dramatic reforms. They had a hundred-day agenda, and they got a lot done: laying off public sector employees, cutting funding to education, slashing social assistance rates, deregulating industries, repealing equity laws, selling off Crown corporations, and empowering the government to impose user fees on public services. “It’s going to come hard and fast from every direction again,” Evan’s acquaintance said. The groups and communities impacted, as well as the political opposition, both inside Parliament and outside, would have to fight on dozens of fronts at once. One of Harris’s key first steps was to balance the budget as a way of supercharging their plans, according to Guy Giorno, the premier’s top strategist. He described this as their “agenda within the agenda,” the “factor which meant that absolutely everybody rolled in the same direction.” It began the process of shrinking public spending, and was followed up by deregulation, rolling back labour protections, freezing the minimum wage, and encouraging the subcontracting of public services. Back in the 1990s, Harris had been convinced by Alberta Premier Ralph Klein’s advisors that he would have to move speedily to implement his agenda, lest he get tripped up by protests or a stubborn public service. Those advisors had once encouraged Klein to read the work of economist Milton Friedman (Pierre Poilievre’s own ideological guru). In the 1980’s, Friedman had written that “a new administration has some six to nine months in which to achieve major changes; if it does not seize the opportunity to act decisively during that period, it will not have another such opportunity.” It’s the lesson Friedman had drawn from his first laboratory, Chile. After the U.S. backed overthrow of democratic socialist Salvador Allende, the military dictator Augusto Pinochet had instituted a violent, rapid-fire makeover of the economy, following Friedman’s radical free market rulebook: privatization, deregulation, cutbacks to the public sector, and attacks on labour unions. Purging the public service As for the composition of Poilievre’s transition group, Bryan Evans’ acquaintance belatedly recalled his Fight Club rules. He wouldn’t divulge names, but offered some ideas. There were Poilievre’s policy advisors, as well as some former senior public servants, lawyers, and an ex-Cabinet minister. He admitted that some people who had been around for the Mike Harris days were in there too. Even before they were sworn in as the government in 1995, Harris’s team had laid groundwork within the public service to ensure they could take swift control of the levers of power. Members of his transition team had shown up to their first meeting with outgoing NDP government officials with a list of six high-ranking deputy ministers they wanted to meet quickly. Those civil servants were the A-list, empowered to advise and serve Harris’s agenda; several others, considered unfriendly, received their pink slips as part of a careful purge. As one NDP official remarked, his own party had “assumed office, but never took power. These guys are taking power even before they have assumed office.” Poilievre’s transition team also was thinking very strategically about how they would wield the machinery of the state. Who did they want to bring into the higher ranks of public service to help advance their plans? Who should be removed? And who might they want for the most important position of all, the top ranking civil servant, the Clerk of the Privy Council? These were some of the questions they were asking while plotting their first moves. When it came to policy plans, one crucial difference between the two eras was that Mike Harris’ Conservatives publicly had rolled out their agenda years in advance. Harris’s young ideologues put out detailed papers, organized policy conferences, eventually published a manifesto, the Common Sense Revolution, of which they printed 2.5 million copies. Everyone knew what was coming, even if it would still shock people when it arrived and extend far beyond what Harris had promised. Would Poilievre’s team, for instance, follow Mike Harris’s “playbook” on healthcare? Harris had lulled Ontario into complacency by assuaging voters’ fears about protecting health services. Their manifesto was crystal clear: “We will not cut healthcare spending.” But the result turned out to look very different: forty hospital closures, 25,000 staff laid off, and declining per capita real funding at a time of growing need. Poilievre’s team, by contrast, hadn’t laid out many policy details. And yet, over the years and in the run-up to the spring of 2025, Poilievre had telegraphed a lot in past election platforms, online videos, and podcast interviews with Jordan Peterson. It hinted at what his sweeping agenda would entail if he was able to secure a majority government—an assault on the country’s collective assets and already tattered social programs, a renewed attack on unions, activist and Indigenous defenders, and a bonanza of deregulation and privatization that would make his billionaire backers cheer. This is an excerpt from Martin Lukacs’s THE POILIEVRE PROJECT : A RADICAL BLUEPRINT FOR CORPORATE RULE published by Breach Books and available for order.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: THIS IS STRAIGHT OUT OF THE MAGA PROJECT 2025 : PLEASE READ THIS ARTICLE AND SHARE FAR AND WIDE ❤ THANK YOU FOLKS ❤ LIKE THE MAGA, THE PP HAS A 100 DAY AGENDA : The first rule of Fight Club is you do not talk about Fight Club. Over the past year, if you asked around Ottawa about the transition team that was planning Pierre Poilievre’s first days in government, you were likely to be met with shrugs. The members of the team were not named, and those in the know were not talking. Even The Hill Times, the Ottawa parliamentary affairs outlet that excels at digging up gossipy news, had come up empty-handed. At the outset of 2025, they approached a dozen Conservatives close to Poilievre, all of whom stayed tight-lipped. His campaign manager Jenni Byrne ran a very tight organization, and slip-ups might incur her wrath. Besides, any operative whose party is on the verge of power knows it’s best to maintain utmost organizational secrecy. Such discipline, however, sometimes falters under the influence of a few drinks. That’s what Bryan Evans, a political science professor at Toronto Metropolitan University, found out in late 2024. Around the winter holidays, he ducked into his neighbourhood bar and ran into an old acquaintance. The man wasn’t himself on the transition team, but it turned out he was deeply informed. They slid onto stools for a conversation. While they didn’t run in the same circles, and certainly didn’t share political opinions, his acquaintance knew that Evans had an understanding and appreciation for the machinery of government. For ten years he was employed by the Ontario government, including a stint in the Ministry of Labour after Progressive Conservative Mike Harris had come to power in the mid 1990s. Relying on insights from that experience, he wrote his doctoral dissertation on that government and its radical agenda. In December 2024, Poilievre was riding high in the polls, as he had been for nearly two years. So maybe it was the overconfidence talking. Over beers, Evans’s drinking companion laid out more about the transition planning than anything yet discovered by well-connected reporters in the establishment media. The group was preparing for a Poilievre government to hit the ground running. It was going to be a blitzkrieg. “You were there at the start of the Mike Harris government.” “Yeah,” Evans said. “That’s going to be the playbook.” It was an ominous sign. Mike Harris’s government had moved quickly to make dramatic reforms. They had a hundred-day agenda, and they got a lot done: laying off public sector employees, cutting funding to education, slashing social assistance rates, deregulating industries, repealing equity laws, selling off Crown corporations, and empowering the government to impose user fees on public services. “It’s going to come hard and fast from every direction again,” Evan’s acquaintance said. The groups and communities impacted, as well as the political opposition, both inside Parliament and outside, would have to fight on dozens of fronts at once. One of Harris’s key first steps was to balance the budget as a way of supercharging their plans, according to Guy Giorno, the premier’s top strategist. He described this as their “agenda within the agenda,” the “factor which meant that absolutely everybody rolled in the same direction.” It began the process of shrinking public spending, and was followed up by deregulation, rolling back labour protections, freezing the minimum wage, and encouraging the subcontracting of public services. Back in the 1990s, Harris had been convinced by Alberta Premier Ralph Klein’s advisors that he would have to move speedily to implement his agenda, lest he get tripped up by protests or a stubborn public service. Those advisors had once encouraged Klein to read the work of economist Milton Friedman (Pierre Poilievre’s own ideological guru). In the 1980’s, Friedman had written that “a new administration has some six to nine months in which to achieve major changes; if it does not seize the opportunity to act decisively during that period, it will not have another such opportunity.” It’s the lesson Friedman had drawn from his first laboratory, Chile. After the U.S. backed overthrow of democratic socialist Salvador Allende, the military dictator Augusto Pinochet had instituted a violent, rapid-fire makeover of the economy, following Friedman’s radical free market rulebook: privatization, deregulation, cutbacks to the public sector, and attacks on labour unions. Purging the public service As for the composition of Poilievre’s transition group, Bryan Evans’ acquaintance belatedly recalled his Fight Club rules. He wouldn’t divulge names, but offered some ideas. There were Poilievre’s policy advisors, as well as some former senior public servants, lawyers, and an ex-Cabinet minister. He admitted that some people who had been around for the Mike Harris days were in there too. Even before they were sworn in as the government in 1995, Harris’s team had laid groundwork within the public service to ensure they could take swift control of the levers of power. Members of his transition team had shown up to their first meeting with outgoing NDP government officials with a list of six high-ranking deputy ministers they wanted to meet quickly. Those civil servants were the A-list, empowered to advise and serve Harris’s agenda; several others, considered unfriendly, received their pink slips as part of a careful purge. As one NDP official remarked, his own party had “assumed office, but never took power. These guys are taking power even before they have assumed office.” Poilievre’s transition team also was thinking very strategically about how they would wield the machinery of the state. Who did they want to bring into the higher ranks of public service to help advance their plans? Who should be removed? And who might they want for the most important position of all, the top ranking civil servant, the Clerk of the Privy Council? These were some of the questions they were asking while plotting their first moves. When it came to policy plans, one crucial difference between the two eras was that Mike Harris’ Conservatives publicly had rolled out their agenda years in advance. Harris’s young ideologues put out detailed papers, organized policy conferences, eventually published a manifesto, the Common Sense Revolution, of which they printed 2.5 million copies. Everyone knew what was coming, even if it would still shock people when it arrived and extend far beyond what Harris had promised. Would Poilievre’s team, for instance, follow Mike Harris’s “playbook” on healthcare? Harris had lulled Ontario into complacency by assuaging voters’ fears about protecting health services. Their manifesto was crystal clear: “We will not cut healthcare spending.” But the result turned out to look very different: forty hospital closures, 25,000 staff laid off, and declining per capita real funding at a time of growing need. Poilievre’s team, by contrast, hadn’t laid out many policy details. And yet, over the years and in the run-up to the spring of 2025, Poilievre had telegraphed a lot in past election platforms, online videos, and podcast interviews with Jordan Peterson. It hinted at what his sweeping agenda would entail if he was able to secure a majority government—an assault on the country’s collective assets and already tattered social programs, a renewed attack on unions, activist and Indigenous defenders, and a bonanza of deregulation and privatization that would make his billionaire backers cheer. This is an excerpt from Martin Lukacs’s THE POILIEVRE PROJECT : A RADICAL BLUEPRINT FOR CORPORATE RULE published by Breach Books and available for order.

Apr 6, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: is trump following project 2025?
Partially True

Fact Check: is trump following project 2025?

Detailed fact-check analysis of: is trump following project 2025?

May 8, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: Project 2025 is not good for the USA. | TruthOrFake Blog