By: Steve Barasch
As Donald Trump eyes a potential return to the White House, a seismic shift is brewing in American governance, one that involves leveraging the think tank the America First Policy Institute (AFPI). We know about Project 2025 and its comprehensive, ultra-conservative blueprint but not the vehicle of its implementation. These plans, which could fundamentally reshape the federal government and entrench a populist, authoritarian style of governance, are unfolding largely out of the spotlight.
Yet, despite their profound implications, you won’t hear much about this from prominent political figures like Vice President Kamala Harris or Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, or see in-depth discussions across the mainstream media. This silence raises an urgent question: Why isn’t the media, especially moderate or liberal leaders, sounding the alarm on this potential reshaping of American democracy?
The Overlooked Implications of AFPI
America First Policy Institute like Project 2025 represent a coordinated effort to reshape the federal government in a way that consolidates power around the executive branch, reduces regulatory oversight, and aligns government agencies with a singular ideological vision. If Trump were to return to office and use AFPI as his transition team, which is alignment with the radical restructuring outlined in Project 2025, it would signify a dramatic pivot from traditional governance norms. This isn’t just an extension of Trumpism; it’s a potential re-engineering of American democracy itself.
Why the Silence?
- Complexity and Lack of Immediate Impact: The plans outlined by AFPI a mirror of Project 2025 involve dense policy proposals and structural changes that can be difficult to convey in soundbites or headlines. Unlike issues that have immediate, visceral impact, such as inflation, climate disasters, or Supreme Court rulings, these plans operate on a more abstract level, outlining potential scenarios that might seem distant or theoretical to the average voter. Media outlets often prioritize stories with immediate and clear consequences, leaving nuanced policy discussions underexplored.
- Focus on Daily Controversies and Headlines: In today’s 24-hour news cycle, there’s a constant push for stories that drive ratings and clicks, often, these are stories centered around scandals, gaffes, or moment-by-moment political drama. The potential use of AFPI and Project 2025 is not a story that unfolds in real time; it’s a strategic blueprint that requires in-depth analysis and context. Newsrooms that focus on breaking news and daily controversies may not have the bandwidth, or see the immediate payoff, in dedicating resources to unpacking these complicated, long-term plans.
- Fear of Alienating Viewers and Readers: Discussing Trump’s potential return and his plans for radical restructuring could alienate certain audiences. Media organizations are aware of their viewer demographics and may avoid delving into topics that could be perceived as overtly partisan or alarmist. Similarly, some Democratic leaders may fear that bringing attention to these plans could energize Trump’s base or inadvertently lend legitimacy to his agenda.
- The Challenge of Counter-Narratives: Discussing AFPI and Project 2025 involves confronting a well-oiled narrative machine that frames these plans as necessary corrections to government overreach, not as authoritarian maneuvers. Trump and his allies have mastered the art of spinning critiques as partisan attacks or “witch hunts.” By giving airtime to these plans, media outlets and politicians risk falling into Trump’s narrative trap, where any criticism is dismissed as an attempt to undermine a legitimate policy agenda.
- A Political Strategy of Avoidance: Key political figures like Harris and Walz might see little upside in focusing on Trump’s potential second-term strategies. For Democrats, especially in the run-up to elections, the focus is often on uniting the party and drawing contrasts with Republican policies on issues like healthcare, climate, and the economy. Highlighting Trump’s long-term strategy might not fit neatly into this approach, especially if it involves discussing plans that have not yet come to fruition.
- Underestimating the Risk: There may be a level of complacency or underestimation among political leaders and media outlets about the seriousness of Trump’s plans. The unprecedented nature of Trump’s first term led many to assume that his style of governance was an anomaly, not the beginning of a new norm. Some moderates and even some media might believe that the American system, with its checks and balances, will ultimately prevent any radical shift, making in-depth discussion on AFPI and Project 2025 seem unnecessary.
Why This Needs to Change
For moderates and anyone concerned about the future of American democracy, the stakes could not be higher. Trump’s potential use of AFPI and the implementation of Project 2025 represents more than a return to his first term’s policies—it could be a methodical effort to entrench a governance model that challenges the very principles of democratic accountability, transparency, and checks and balances.
Moderate Republicans and Democrats should recognize that this is not just a “Trump issue”, it’s an issue of governance and the future direction of the country. Project 2025 and AFPI’s influence would likely lead to a government less constrained by oversight, more driven by executive power, and less reflective of America’s diverse political landscape.
This isn’t a call to panic; it’s a call to awareness. If the media, political figures, and citizens do not engage with these plans critically now, they may find themselves grappling with the consequences of a radically altered federal government in the not-too-distant future.
A Call to Action for Leaders and the Media
The mainstream media and key political figures need to break their silence and delve into the details of AFPI, as they have with Project 2025, and the real implications of a second Trump term. This means more investigative journalism, more policy-focused discussions, and more engagement with the public about what these plans truly entail. It means moving beyond the noise of daily controversies to address the quieter, but potentially more transformative, undercurrents shaping the future of American politics.
The time for deep, critical examination is now. This is not just about opposing Trump or his policies; it’s about preserving a democratic system that works for everyone, not just those with the loudest voices or the deepest pockets. The media and political leaders owe it to the American people to shine a light on these potential shifts and help voters understand the real stakes of the next election cycle.
