A manifesto was instrumental in the formation of the constitutional democracy that was the United States of America, and we are currently witnessing its (re)inception as an undemocracy through the work of another manifesto. 

The Declaration of Independence – akin to the war manifestos of 18^th century international law – called for a radical break from the imperial rule of Great Britain. At the time, such a demand must have felt nigh-on impossible to achieve. Indeed, manifestos are often utopian calls for radical change. It is this utopian – some might say, unfeasible, impossible, unimaginable – quality that means that manifestos are often overlooked within constitutional scholarship. These often-ephemeral texts used as part of broader political protests and social movements are discarded as quickly as they are produced. 

Yet, as we have argued elsewhere, manifestos need to be taken seriously within constitutional scholarship. In particular, we have demonstrated the necessity of searching out feminist manifestos that work both to problematise stale constructions of a homogenous conceptualisation of “the people” and to expose the violence (quotidian or otherwise) and exclusions of current legal and constitutional orders.  Feminist manifestos are claims to constituent power, because that are a claim to be in the public sphere, to be recognised as fundamental to that space, to have been active parts of the dismantling of the previous regime and offer plans for the alternative possibilities in the future.

Manifestos – not just as political texts, but as performances, songs, arts, crafts and poems – are a key part of a thicker conception of democracy too. Here we don’t just mean those manifestos that are written by political parties; of course, party manifestos play a key role in elections and election campaigns, but we highlight a much broader role of the manifestos of social movements and marginalised groups. A multitude of manifestos is testament to a lively and vibrant public sphere. The noise of the radical demands within manifestos breaks the silence within a tyranny. Their place within democracy is reason enough to engage with the work manifestos do. 

Of course, manifestos can be written by anyone and by any political grouping, with any ideological commitment. Not all feminists welcomed Mina Loy’s manifesto, nor do they all share the sentiments in the SCUM manifesto, for example. And there are far-right manifestos, and authoritarian utopian projections (as seen in the inter-war period). In their illiberal form the many fascist manifestos of the 1920s and 1930s, presaged a turn to homicidal authoritarian horror. But if there is something we can learn from Project 2025, it is that constitutional scholars needed to take these manifestos seriously too. 

Project 2025 is a manifesto, and it was dismissed by some because it was wrongly considered to be unfeasible. Yet, already, there are many Executive Orders putting the suggestions from Project 2025 into practice. Now, Project 2025 is a long document and other blogs have discussed several of the Executive Orders, in this blog post we want to focus on how this manifesto is dismantling democracy. 

As noted already, by democracy, we have a thicker idea of what that means, one that goes beyond what a liberal constitutional order, including what the US’s requires as a minimum. We chose this partly because what is being undertaken in some of the Executive Orders (not all) is not necessarily unconstitutional but is harmful to democracy. 

This blog post focuses on the ways in which manifestos can be used as insidious tools which through a variety of measures slowly dismantle the public sphere creating a silence where even if there is performative voting there is no democracy. It might have been ignored before, but Project 2025, despite its very obvious standpoint, political claims and vision of the future, is given standing. It’s aims are not hidden, nor are its backers.

A Manifesto in Action 

While the Trump campaign denied they were connected to Project 2025, as we discuss elsewhere there are many overlaps in personnel and as it proudly now states on its website

‘Most recently, the Trump administration relied heavily on Heritage’s “Mandate” for policy guidance, embracing nearly two-thirds of Heritage’s proposals within just one year in office.’ 

Indeed, they are claiming it is beyond their wildest dreams. But that is to fall into the trap of treating the Trump administration as absent an ideology or a plan. There is a very clear plan, it is written down and is being followed. There is a clear anti-democratic ideology. 

Democratic Education 

There are many examples of how the plan is being followed, but we can start with Education. The Trump Administration has commenced the process of dismantling the Department of Education. An absence of education, of access to quality education, of equal access to education is fundamental to dismantling democracy. Now there is no such thing as a politically neutral education. But there is also an education system which systematically omits, fragments or censors education. Much education policy and funding are at state level in the US, and there are issues there too. But what the Department of Education does do is critical, because much of its work centres on those on the margins. It ensures anti-discrimination laws are complied with; it administers student aid programmes and oversees special education and access to education for disadvantaged students, safeguarding equal access. It also collects data on education and disseminates research. 

One of Project 2025’s chosen headlines is to ‘[i]mprove education by moving control and funding of education from DC bureaucrats directly to parents and state and local governments’. It specifically invokes Milton Friedman’s ideas that education be publicly funded but decided by parents, ideally in private schools. It specifically calls for the Department of Education to be defunded. It sets out core principles for how the dismantling and defunding should be undertaken including, advancing education freedom, restoring state and local control over funding, treating taxpayers like investors in student aid and safeguarding civil rights, including that ‘civil rights should be based on a proper understanding of those laws, rejecting gender ideology and critical race theory.’ It then includes data on reading ages and returns to definitions of sex and gender and ‘restoring the rights of women and girls.’ There are many different things going on here, but from a democracy perspective, it should be clear, that very little or any of this is about improving educational standards or returning power to state level. Indeed, much of it is about mandating aspects of education be changed, including around gender, race and civil rights. It would see the loss of education  about the absences from democracy of women, of Black people, of Native Americans and others and the role of civil rights in attempting to ameliorate those absent voices. These measures make it much less likely that people understand how very delicate democracy actually is. 

Third level education is also under threat. We had already seen the response on some US campuses to protests about Gaza. Recent further actions by Columbia University as well as the attempted deportations of pro-Palestinian students Badar Khan Suri and Mahmoud Khalil show that while the Biden administration was not active in protecting academic freedom, and were enabling in many ways in shutting down protest, there is a new intensity to attempts to shut down debate on campus, to create silence. Georgetown Law School has also been the subject of specific attempts to interfere with curricula. As well as this, the PhD Project, which provides support, mentorship and guidance to students from underrepresented groups doing business based research has been specifically targeted for its DEI based programme.  

Project 2025 also specifically targets third level education through its approach to DEI policies and moving to privatise student loans. The outcome of curtailing attempts to diversify students, and from here, who has the possibility of becoming an academic, will be to create the forms of research which historically have justified undemocratic practices based on gender stereotypes and eugenics. Project 2024 talks about ‘competency-based’ education which immediately suggests that many currently working in academia are not there based on their merit but rather their identity alone, which in the longer term makes them much more disposable. Project 2025 demands cuts to DEI, critical race theory and ‘gender ideology’, and as this is played out by the administration, this has meant everything as regards to race or gender, feminism or the civil rights movement, both fundamental to changing democracy in the US ought to not be part of the University. 

Erasure and Silence 

The Trump administrations attacks on Trans people is already well documented. It is a process of erasure that exists across the Project 2025 document. ‘Gender ideology’ (a straw person to rail against) is targeted alongside a whole set of active erasures of women, of Black individuals, LGBTQ+ people, disabled people, Native Americans, immigrants and more who are literally disappearing from websites and texts. The assumption being that only white heterosexual men accomplish things because of merit, while everyone else is because they were given a hand up. An upshot of this inherent racism, homophobia, transphobia and misogyny is that everyone who is not the white heterosexual man is the less ideal citizen; they are not considered to be contributing to the state and so they are less worthy of having a say. This is to wind the clock back to the original position, where a very narrow portion of society was deemed worthy to contribute to democracy. When JD Vance made comments about “cat ladies” it was not just misogynistic, it was also creating categories between those women who are more worthy citizens (i.e. those who reproduce), and those who are not. 

The New York Times listed words to be erased by the Trump Administration that include: advocacy, biologically female, Black, disability, discrimination, diversity, equal opportunity, equity, female, females, feminism, gender, hate speech, Hispanic minority, inclusion, Latinx, LGBTQ, mental health, minority, multicultural, Native American, pregnant person, race, sex, social justice, transgender, tribal, under represented, victims and women. It is difficult to think how a serious conversation about democracy can take place in the US in the absence of these words. 

Project 2025 and elections

There are also very specific actions regarding elections. Project 2025 is clear that ‘independent’ federal agencies, including those that oversee elections and the media, need to come under the direct control of the White House. Given the narratives around stolen elections and untrue claims around voter fraud, the extension of White House control over federal agencies that oversee elections as well as over the media, suggests a real undermining of future elections. The removal of certain news organisations from White House briefings or the capitulations on the renaming of the Gulf of Mexico all suggest a present crisis. This is important as some legal scholars, some supporters of Trump and elected officials talk about a third term for Trump. Changing the constitution to allow someone to stay in power for longer is a very old playbook. If election systems and the media who cover elections are no longer independent, then maintaining democracy becomes much more difficult. The Preserving and Protecting The Integrity Of American Elections Executive Order is likely the start not the endpoint. 

Counter-Manifestos in Response 

The fear and silence that is being created in the US is very real. Even amongst very comfortable academic circles in the Global North, amongst those of us with ‘safe passports’ and ‘friendly’ names there are fears of going to the US to participate in events. Exacerbating the silence. 

But there is resistance. And we have to look to the many different actions being taken by people within the US already. For instance, the actions of those turning up to empty Town Hall meetings. Across the US there are Republican politicians who are refusing to appear before those they represent because they do not want to hear what people think about the actions of the administration or have been told not to. But as people turn up to these ‘Empty Chairs’ events, they are making visible the attempts to dismantle democracy.  They are acts of protest and claiming of voice where the ‘empty chairs’ are trying to make silence. 

Some US Law Schools leaders have come out directly to ‘speak as legal educators, responsible for training the next generation of lawyers, in condemning any government efforts to punish lawyers or their firms based on the identity of their clients or for their zealous lawful and ethical advocacy.’ Taking this act – and it’s important to note the powerful Law Schools that have chosen not to sign this document – is pushing against silencing, it’s a collective push against attempts to silence educators and litigants and lawyers. There are many other acts of resistance going on including marches, and litigation.

And we should also be looking for the counter-manifestos. Some have already started publishing ‘Anti-Trump’ manifestos. There are sources of inspiration for active resistance, through the forms of handbooks, similar to Project 2025’s Handbook for operationalising its content. 

Manifestos envision a different future and (often loudly, rudely, and sometimes aggressively) call into being that future. As a practical act of future planning, they are also a political act of resistance. Now that the fragility of democracy and the constitution in the US is being exposed, it is not enough to simple “go back” to some halcyon moment of democracy and constitutionalism, it is avowedly not about making anything great again. There is no arcadian moment of perfection. To borrow a phrase from the Covid era it should be about building back better. Amidst the calls protect the rights of those being attacked by the current regime in the US, and alongside the calls to dismantle what is currently happening, we must seek out the claims to the constituent power to build back better. To envision a different future state, to offer an alternative plan. As the utopian dreams of Project 2025 have shown us all too viscerally, nothing is unfeasible, and as legal scholars we should be looking for the variety of manifestos that offer alternative utopian visions, for they offer hope in their act of planning for the future.