PROJECT 2025, UNITARY EXECUTIVE THEORY, AND PARTY RESPONSIBILITY

Project 2025 is the conservative blueprint for restructuring the federal government.

POSSIBLE EFFECT OF PROJECT 2025 ON FEDERAL LGBTQ+ PROTECTIONS

In recent years, conservatives have wrongly conflated queer identity with sexual perversion. Under Project 2025, there are 12 references to “LGBT,” which are presented as part of the broader “culture war” that conservatives expect to win by instituting policies designed to reverse gains made by marginalized communities.

In a section titled “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Agenda,” Project 2025 plans to dismantle DEI initiatives completely, especially policies that advance the “bullying LGBTQ+ agenda” (p. 258). In addition, Project 2025 promulgates the plan for the Secretary of Health and Human Services to “reverse the Biden administration’s focus on LGBTQ equity” (p. 284). Another goal of Project 2025 is to define “marriage” as between a biological male and female and “family” as a married mother, father, and their children” (p. 451) Arguably, Project 2025 will accelerate the rollback of LGBTQ+ protections begun under Trump’s previous administration—and occurring at the state level in certain states (i.e., Florida, Texas, and South Carolina). The “rollback” may include the following actions:

1. (1) Directing the Supreme Court to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges, which has been alluded to by conservative justices in the wake of the Dobbs decision (Elliott Reference Elliott2024).

2. (2) Exclusion of transgender Americans from all protections against discrimination, including repeal of anti-discrimination laws.

3. (3) No acknowledgment of LGBTQ+ in connection with HIV/AIDS and loss of healthcare protections, including transition healthcare.

4. (4) Rejection of “Pride” and attendant celebrations, notifications, and advertisements.

5. (5) Amplification of anti-LGBTQ+ voices, especially those of Evangelical Christians.

Project 2025 and Targeting the LGBTQ+ Community in Higher Education

Project 2025 is an extension of the conservative impetus to remove “all things woke” from government and society as a whole (although the term “woke” has a completely different original meaning, conservatives have co-opted and redefined it). Collectively, the policy plans addressed under Project 2025 reverse the protections afforded to the community and threaten both the livelihoods and lives of its members, including those in higher education.

In recent decades, gains made by members of the LGBTQ+ community in higher education have resulted in significant increases in the number of students enrolled in college who identify as part of the community. A 2020 Gallup Poll shows that approximately 17% of college students identified as “gay, lesbian, bisexual, asexual, queer, or questioning” and 1.7% identified as “transgender, nonbinary, or questioning” (Gallagher Reference Gallagher2023). In terms of faculty, approximately 16% also identify as LGBTQ+.Footnote ¹¹ As such, thousands of LGBTQ+ faculty and staff in higher education are threatened in terms of employment and college experience by the conservative plan for the 2025 Republican president.

With Project 2025’s implementation, it is surmised that all LGBTQ+ faculty and staff in higher education in conservative states will be under immediate threat of the discriminatory changes. We expect to see the greatest threats in states with the highest electoral support for Trump. Table 1 lists the states where Trump won at least 55% of the popular vote in 2024.

Table 1 2024 POTUS Election Results (in States with Trump Winning 55+% of the Popular Vote)

Source: The American Presidency Project. www.presidency.ucsb.edu/statistics/elections/2024.

Many of the discriminatory actions we may see that affect LGBTQ+ faculty, staff, and administration include (but are not limited to) the following:

• • Restructuring of work contracts, including rescinding tenure and removing tenure “lines” in favor of shorter, terminable contracts.

• • Shift in teaching and/or research interests that exclude addressing LGBTQ+ people and issues. Bond (Reference Bond2017) addressed a teacher’s experience in teaching street harassment; under Project 2025, faculty may be restricted from teaching this type of material. In fact, all protections against harassment on behalf of people of color and LGBTQ+ individuals may be eliminated and redirected toward protecting harassment against cisgendered white males—the very group most likely to engage in harassment in the first place.

• • Demote or remove “out” instructors and disallow course content that may be construed as representative of the LGBTQ+ community, even if the instructor is heterosexual and cisgendered (Kearns, Mitton-Kükner, and Tompkins Reference Kearns, Mitton-Kükner and Tompkins2014, Reference Kearns, Mitton-Kükner and Tompkins2017).

• • More classroom observations to ensure that a faculty member is not teaching LGBTQ+ material.

• • Elimination of queer studies courses and programs.

• • Rescission of benefits to spouses and partners—that is, no longer being able to claim them for insurance purposes or utilize Family and Medical Leave Act provisions.

• • Termination of on-campus groups and events addressing LGBTQ+ people and issues.

• • Less likelihood of being considered for open faculty, staff, and administrative positions by hiring committees, using “fit” as an excuse to exclude LGBTQ+ candidates (King Reference King2023). In addition, questions regarding sexuality or sexual orientation in job interviews—currently illegal under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act—will be acceptable under Project 2025 and will be used to exclude queer candidates from positions.

• • Faculty training (e.g., harassment, DEI, and sensitivity) that excludes LGBTQ+ people and concerns.

• • Restrictions from collecting and posting data on LGBTQ+ youth and federal funding for research projects related to LGBTQ+ people and issues.

• • Overall reduction in faculty diversity, which in turn may create greater disparity between the demographic representation of faculty and the student body. According to Funk (Reference Funk2018, 184), “The most notable demand requested by students was the need to diversify faculty members. This should come as no surprise as faculty members are significantly less represented than underrepresented student populations on college campuses.”

LGBTQ+ students will experience their own set of restrictions because they may be unable to (1) take courses or major in queer studies; (2) begin or maintain a campus group dedicated to LGBTQ+ issues; (3) participate in sports; (4) access “safe spaces” and faculty and staff “safe-space allies,” which may contribute to mental and/or physical health issues or compromise their ability to complete their studies; and (5) take advantage of student health services that have evolved (somewhat) in the twenty-first century regarding treatment and care for LGBTQ+ patients (Herek Reference Herek2010; Hsieh and Shuster Reference Hsieh and Shuster2021; Wyatt-Nichol Reference Wyatt-Nichol2014). Even the social interactions of LGBTQ+ students and faculty—in particular, dating and intimate relationships—may be forbidden under Project 2025 unless the individuals replicate heteronormative behavior when navigating campus relationships (Lamont, Roach, and Kahn Reference Lamont, Roach and Kahn2018).

WILL “HETERONORMATIVITY” BLUNT PROJECT 2025’S IMPACT?

Conservative implementation of Project 2025 is designed to emphasize heteronormativity and traditional gender and sexuality roles. Heteronormativity assumes that everyone is “straight,” intimate relationships are between one man and one woman, and gender is an immutable change established at birth. However, the literature is replete with studies regarding its impact on the LGBTQ+ community (Asencio Reference Asencio2011; Berlant Reference Berlant1995; Cronin Reference Cronin2015; Eeden-Moorefield et al. Reference Eeden-Moorefield, Martell, Williams and Preston2011; Gupta Reference Gupta2015; Kearns, Mitton-Kükner, and Tompkins Reference Kearns, Mitton-Kükner and Tompkins2014, Reference Kearns, Mitton-Kükner and Tompkins2017; Lamont, Roach, and Kahn Reference Lamont, Roach and Kahn2018; Martin Reference Martin2009; Pennell Reference Pennell2017; Ripley et al. Reference Ripley, Anderson, McCormack and Rockett2012; Roseneil et al. Reference Roseneil, Crowhurst, Hellesund, Santos and Stoilova2020; Stryer, Reference Stryern.d.) To conservatives, the assimilative nature of heteronormativity expects people to (1) appear “straight,” (2) identify as the gender to which they are born, and (3) possess an outward appearance that does not suggest gender fluidity. Members of the queer community that possess these characteristics may be able to avoid (or escape altogether) the threats promised under Project 2025. With regard to (3), Schilt (Reference Schilt2006) argued that female to male transgenders (FTMs)—especially tall, white FTMs who are assumed by the public to be cisgender—receive more authority, respect, and reward than they received as women and as compared to short or of color FTMs, and they might be able to avoid the potential punishments that Project 2025 will inflict on the LGBTQ+ community as a whole.

Members of the community who retain their biological identity at birth (i.e., cisgenders) but are in same-sex relationships may be able to avoid the most stringent ramifications of Project 2025 by remaining “closeted”—that is, choosing not to divulge their sexual orientation (Asencio Reference Asencio2011).

In higher education, faculty and administration suspected of being gay may be forced to address queerness vis-à-vis interrogation from other faculty members, administrative staff, and government officials. In addition, faculty members and administrative staff who are parents of queer children may be expected to “normalize heterosexuality and heteronormativity” in them as part of a “tradeoff” for remaining employed (Martin Reference Martin2009). Conservatives anticipate that adults will eschew homonormativity and that parents will enforce heterosexuality and heteronormativity in their queer children; those who fail to do so will be subject to punishment construed under Project 2025’s implementation.

Arguably, conservatives know that gays will continue to exist (albeit hopefully back “in the closet”). However, the language of Project 2025 implies that even cisgender gays and lesbians eventually will be subject to its policies. We could argue potential parallels with the “Lavender Scare” of the 1950s—in which heteronormative gays were “outed” as gay or lesbian via congressional investigation—will come to fruition again in the wake of Project 2025’s promulgation.

PROJECT 2025’S PLAN: ERADICATE TRANSGENDER PEOPLE

At its core, cisgenderism implies heteronormativity to conservatives; anyone who presents outside of this established norm (i.e., transgendered and queer individuals) is to be regarded with great skepticism. Unlike people who are “straight presenting,” those with a more “fluid” appearance tends to stand out more in the mind of a “heteronormative” (e.g., a person who appears to be a biological woman but has facial hair). As such, transgendered people have become a readily identifiable group easily targeted by conservatives.

The transgendered community has been explicitly targeted by conservatives since Trump was in office. The introduction of “bathroom bills” (i.e., requiring transgender students in K–12 schools to use the restroom of their birth gender) was the opening salvo against the rights of the community (Schilt and Westbrook Reference Schilt and Westbrook2015). Several conservative states were more than willing to entertain legislation restricting “bathroom choice” for transgendered students in K–12 schools and have since passed those bills into law (figure 1).

Figure 1 Bans on Transgender People Using Public Bathrooms and Facilities According to Their Gender Identity

Source: Movement Advancement Project. www.lgbtmap.org/equality-maps/nondiscrimination/bathroom_bans.

Marginalization of transgendered persons and their rights as citizens stems primarily from the inability of conservatives to accept that gender identity, like sexuality, exists on a spectrum. Some people feel that they were “born in the wrong body” and are desperate to change into the body and gender that suits them best (Redfield et al. Reference Redfield, Conron, Tentindo and Browning2023). Conservative beliefs are entrenched in dichotomous thinking about these concepts. As such, anyone who presents, for example, as being outside of their birth gender (or gives it up later) suggests to conservatives that something is “wrong” with those who do not adhere to their standards and perception.

Under Project 2025, conservatives conflate notions of gender, gender expression, and gender identity with cisgenderism and heteronormativity; thus, they seek to punish those who fall outside of the male/female dichotomy assigned at birth. Conservatives, for the most part, are confused, then angered by the homonormative identity that embraces queerness. By rejecting the spectrum of gender identity and expression, conservatives are eschewing ideas about the human form (and its appearance) that run counter to their idea that men are “masculine” and should “look like men,” women are “feminine” and should “look like women,” and there should be no blurring of the lines between them. Thus, the idea of any gender identity outside of “male” and “female” is seen by conservatives as a foreign concept and therefore should be shunned. Denial of gender-affirming care for transgendered people—especially young people—will not only deny individuals to be able to obtain their “rightful bodies” but also may exacerbate health disparities experienced by the group (Hsieh and Shuster Reference Hsieh and Shuster2021; Lewin and Meyer Reference Lewin and Meyer2002; McWayne et al. Reference McWayne, Green, Miller, Porter, Poston, Sanchez, Turner and Rivers2010; Redfield et al. Reference Redfield, Conron, Tentindo and Browning2023). More important, Project 2025 threatens to reverse the advancements in healthcare and patient–doctor relationships experienced by LGBTQ+ patients because of policy changes enacted during the Obama administration (McWayne et al. Reference McWayne, Green, Miller, Porter, Poston, Sanchez, Turner and Rivers2010).

Katyal (Reference Katyal2017, 468) contended that transgenderism is an extension of the argument that “anxieties about the body remain a central theme in opposition to civil rights reforms.” For Project 2025, the notion of “gender pluralism” will be eliminated, and the binary standard of gender will be considered. This will affect transgender faculty and students more directly, although it can include gays, lesbians, and bisexuals because government (and, by extension, higher education) will expect them to “choose the right side” or face any consequences that are implemented from not doing so.

In conservative communities, transgenderism is viewed as a state of being that violates religious tenets—despite the fact that the Bible is silent on this issue. Christians default to the story of Adam and Eve in Genesis as justification for two genders only, which are separate from one another. In addition, transgenderism confounds Christian expectations of cisgenderism and heteronormativity, which in turn creates additional challenges for LGBTQ+ people (especially young people) seeking to reconcile their faith and their queer identity (Berlant Reference Berlant1995; Cragun, Sumerau, and Williams Reference Cragun, Sumerau and Williams2015; Deeb-Sossa and Kane Reference Deeb-Sossa and Kane2007; Ericksen Reference Ericksen2019; Gushee Reference Gushee2015; Harris Reference Harris2018; Lauricella, Phillips, and Dubow Reference Lauricella, Phillips and Dubow2017; Lenning Reference Lenning2017; Lewis et al. Reference Lewis, Flores, Haider-Markel, Miller, Tadlock and Taylor2017). Finally, conservatives are convinced that transgenderism is a mental disease or defect—not unlike “homosexuality” before it was removed from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders in the 1970s (Barounis Reference Barounis2017; Herek Reference Herek2010; Hsieh and Shuster Reference Hsieh and Shuster2021; Lewin and Meyer Reference Lewin and Meyer2002; McWayne et al. Reference McWayne, Green, Miller, Porter, Poston, Sanchez, Turner and Rivers2010). By viewing those whose gender identity moves beyond the putative dichotomy (established at birth) as “sinful” and “disturbed” yet “influential,” conservatives fear that others may be coerced into questioning their own gender identity, especially children. By banning art, literature, and entertainment that has LGBTQ+ influence, conservatives are demonstrating an outsized fear of the queer community—in particular, transgendered people—and the supposed deleterious effects it has on children. The fear of “grooming” children to become LGBTQ+ is at the core of much of the language of Project 2025 aimed toward the LGBTQ+ community (and explicitly toward transgenders) because of the perceived “criminality” of transgender existence in the minds of conservatives (Woods Reference Woods2017). To reiterate, it can be surmised that the architects of the Project 2025 “Mandate for Leadership” (and the conservative organizations they represent) chose the transgender community as a relatively “easy” and immediate target for marginalization. In their minds, it is the easiest group to force out of existence if their policy preferences materialize at the federal level.

Transgendered students in higher education arguably have exceptionally more difficult experiences than other queer students. Survey results indicate that approximately 24% of transgendered students (or students thought to be transgendered) experienced some form of verbal, physical, or sexual harassment in college, and 16% left higher education because of harassment (James et al. Reference James, Herman, Rankin, Keisling, Mottet and Anaf2016). Recently, state-level conservative government officials have targeted transgender youth through a series of denials: to gender-affirming care, access to bathrooms that correspond with their gender identity, and the opportunity to engage in activities such as sports that align with their identity (Paris Reference Paris2023). According to Redfield, Conron, and Mallory (Reference Redfield, Conron and Mallory2024, 2), approximately 93% of all transgender youth between the ages of 13 and 17 live in states that have “passed or proposed one or more laws banning access to gender-affirming care, participation in sports, use of bathrooms and other sex-separated facilities, or affirmation of gender through pronoun use.” Corbat (Reference Corbat2017) discussed how protections of transgendered individuals (students, in this case) have been sabotaged by legal and moral battles by conservatives against these protections. This undoubtedly will continue under Project 2025; however, this also may extend to faculty (e.g., transgender faculty members denied the right to use the bathroom of their choice going forward—if they remain employed). Since the “bathroom bills,” attacks against transgendered young people extended to prohibitions against participating in sports with the gender they specify or denial of gender-affirming healthcare (i.e., medication and/or surgery) for young people and possible criminal charges for medical providers (Redfield, Conron, and Mallory Reference Redfield, Conron and Mallory2024; Redfield et al. Reference Redfield, Conron, Tentindo and Browning2023; Reisner et al. Reference Reisner, Hughto, Dunham, Heflin, Begenyi, Coffey-Esquivel and Cahill2015; Schilt and Westbrook Reference Schilt and Westbrook2015).

In higher education, students, faculty, staff, and administrators who are in the process of transitioning may be denied necessary healthcare; in extreme cases, these individuals may be forced to resume their birth identity to avoid expulsion or termination. Overall, it is reasonable to speculate that through Project 2025, the federal government will enshrine into law policies that are designed to remove employees who identify as transgender, deny funding to public colleges and universities that employ transgender faculty and staff, and deny transgendered students the opportunity to have an overall positive college experience. Most important, transgenderism is decried by conservatives as not only “immoral” but also that it should be deemed “illegal.” Under Project 2025, conservatives anticipate that virtually all vestiges of the transgender community’s existence will be removed from society.

TITLE IX: WILL PROTECTIONS FOR LGBTQ+ IN HIGHER EDUCATION BE RESCINDED?

Under Project 2025, it is a certainty that the “college experience” for LGBTQ+ students will change significantly for the worse, especially those attending public institutions in heavily conservative states. Kimmel (Reference Kimmel2016) argued that it is necessary for schools to understand that LGBTQ+ students are expected to use Title IX to protect them and that these students are entitled to equal education. Title IX protections were expanded during the Obama administration to include protections for transgendered students (Arenas, Gunckel, and Smith Reference Arenas, Gunckel and Smith2016). Under Project 2025, Title IX (in its entirety) is one of five programs likely to be eliminated under the new administration. This elimination will result in a greater percentage of LGBTQ+ students (especially transgendered students) experiencing some form of harassment.

According to the mandate (Project 2025, pp. 333–34), the Trump administration is expected to:

• • Work with Congress to use the earliest available legislative vehicle to prohibit the department [of Education] from using any appropriations or from otherwise enforcing any final regulations under Title IX promulgated by the department during the prior administration.

• • Commence a new agency rulemaking process to rescind the current administration’s Title IX regulations; restore the Title IX regulations promulgated by then–Secretary Betsy DeVos on May 19, 2020; and define “sex” under Title IX to mean only biological sex recognized at birth (emphasis added). This idea runs counter to the proposals set by the American Association of University Professors. In particular, proposal #6 states that “Colleges and universities must address all forms of inequality on campus, including inequalities of race, gender identity, class, and sexual orientation” (American Association of University Professors 2016, 97).

• • Work with Congress to amend Title IX to include due-process requirements; define “sex” under Title IX to mean only biological sex recognized at birth (emphasis added); and strengthen protections for faith-based educational institutions, programs, and activities.

• • The next administration should abandon this change redefining “sex” to mean “sexual orientation and gender identity” in Title IX immediately across all departments.

• • On its first day in office, the next administration should signal its intent to enter the rulemaking process to restore the Trump administration’s Title IX regulation, with the additional insistence that “sex” is properly understood as a fixed biological fact (emphasis added). Official notice-and-comment should be posted immediately.

• • At the same time, the political appointees in the Office for Civil Rights should begin a full review of all Title IX investigations that were conducted on the understanding that “sex” referred to gender identity and/or sexual orientation. All ongoing investigations should be dropped, and all school districts affected should be given notice that they are free to drop any policy changes pursued under pressure from the Biden administration (emphasis added).

To answer the question posed in this section’s heading, Title IX will not protect LGBTQ+ students (or faculty/staff/administration, for that matter) from problems in higher education because the conservative plan is to eliminate it altogether. If it were retained, Project 2025 will enshrine the notion of “gender exclusion,” which is present in recent state-level legislation (Sharrow Reference Sharrow2021), at the federal level. Thus, Title IX protections will no longer exist for transgendered people in higher education and in a limited capacity to others in the queer community.