Dec. - At this point in the year, it is logical to ask what can be expected from the empire by 2026, particularly in terms of foreign policy.
Certainly, undertaking such an exercise is quite risky, especially considering the histrionic and unpredictable manner of acting of Chief Trump; also because, as has been repeatedly expressed, the president often uses external events, many of his own making, as a media cover for the internal problems he faces.
Despite the above, there is the so-called Project 2025, to clear up doubts and to reveal the fundamental objectives and the mandate that the current occupant of the White House must fulfill in the remainder of his term.
Published in April 2022, Project 2025 was prepared by the Heritage Foundation, a think tank renowned for its ultra-conservatism on steroids; to do this, it brought together about 400 thinkers of that persuasion, and also included contributions from around 100 organizations, as or even more conservative than the aforementioned Foundation.
Project 2025 is presented as a government platform, with ambitions to cover a wide range of issues in a "concise" 900 pages.
It presents policy proposals on defense, economy, social security, intelligence, education, and others. It also dedicates vital space to outlining the best foreign policy to, in short, save the empire in its quality as such.
In this sense, the Project clearly establishes a roadmap of what a Republican president, that is, Trump, should do, called upon to implement the suggestions expediently, setting a deadline of the first 180 days of government for this implementation.
Since it was prepared three years before its actualization, the Project talks about a "presidential transition," that is, what must be done to win the elections, including identifying the most suitable candidates to apply it and integrating the future collaborators of the eventual Republican president.
From an ideological standpoint, the Project proposes among other things restricting reproductive rights, limiting environmental regulations, strengthening immigration policies, and reducing the size of the State.
It also addresses the so-called theory of the "unitary executive," according to which all executive power must be under the direct control of the president, which obviously conflicts with some of the founding principles of this country.
Therefore, it should not be surprising the casual manner in which Trump usually expresses himself or makes decisions, overlooking possible provisions regarding the role of other branches of government, such as the legislative or judicial. There is even already a popular protest movement against this, under the slogan "no King," which has demonstrated on numerous occasions in many cities across the country.
Regarding the foreign agenda, the Project is clear about the objectives to be achieved and includes guidelines on how to implement them. In this latter aspect, the document takes into account an electoral need; that is, any action abroad must consider the demands of the electoral base.
This issue is very interesting because the fundamental recommendation of the document is directed at the U.S. abandoning any form of multilateralism, returning to the old doctrine that gained much strength during World War I: the so-called isolationism.
This means that for "America to be great again," it must focus on its internal problems and break or modify international ties that hinder that "noble" purpose.
Thus, at the extreme end of this approach, it is emphasized that the U.S. has no business being in NATO or any other international conflict; and of course, it is openly anti-globalist—a process of international integration that the U.S. far right blames for the decline of the national industry and other ills.
But the Project exposes, unintentionally, a host of structural contradictions.
Much has been said about how it is practically impossible to evade globalization. For example, on the occasion of the Summit of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), held in Havana, Cuba, in September 1998, Commander in Chief Fidel Castro compared that process to the force of gravity; Lenin also addressed the topic by describing the expansion of imperialism across the entire globe in his iconic book, "Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism," published back in June 1917.
This kind of border closure doctrine aligns perfectly with another priority: the virtual war against migration coming from the Third World or low-income countries (the majority), treated as internal enemies; this includes violence, blatant human rights violations, and the diatribe that, because of migrants, chemically pure Americans have lost their jobs.
From this perspective, it is impractical for all U.S. investments—not just industrial ones—to return en masse to the country, nor is it viable to expel the migrants who generally take on many of the jobs that those chemically pure Americans do not want to do.
These two phenomena acting in unison could cause very serious consequences for the national economy, both due to the abrupt shortage of particularly exploited labor and the impact on stock market indicators of the major multinationals, which, as their name suggests, operate “successfully” (for their owners), especially abroad.
As outlined above, there is another contradiction with the imperial ambitions of global hegemony, with growing weight being the probably majority position of the American people against involving the country in an international war.
Thus, the 2025 Project had to navigate these conflicts, concluding that the empire in any case must focus on what they have historically and derogatorily called their backyard, via the Monroe Doctrine.
In this context, the national security strategy issued by the current Republican administration is faithful to the Project, essentially serving as a critical pathway to recover in some cases and in others to strengthen U.S. control in the region, in the words of José Martí, to fall with even greater force upon our peoples of America.
With this doctrine, the empire flagrantly disregards the legacy of the independence heroes, the struggle of the peoples for their emancipation, including socioeconomic struggles, and counting on Trump, who is notoriously and habitually deceitful, any pretext is used to flood the Caribbean with ships in a state of combat readiness, posing an imminent attack, with Venezuela—the homeland of the father of the liberators, Simón Bolívar—being the primary target. Beyond what is already known, there is also a great deal of symbolism in this dark story.
The scribes of the Foundation, in their intention to enforce their insane foreign policy ideas, can also count on the occasional firebrand, Mr. Rubio, possessing a hawkish pedigree from the very beginning.
Moreover, by virtue of the principle of total power vested in the president, the Project allows him to bypass the bureaucratic procedures established by U.S. law to involve the country in a war. Hence the ongoing and unresolved debate in Congress on this matter.
When the first year of Trump's administration is about to conclude, Project 2025 already has a percentage of implementation. Let's take a summarized look in the following table, in relation to Trump's foreign policy.
The Project does not specifically refer to any particular hostility toward Venezuela; however, this case falls under the general rules. The emphasis on rejecting multilateralism, the excessive power in the hands of the president—who is supposedly enabled to make debatable decisions—and the special focus on Our America, are fully aligned with the policy that Trump is implementing against Venezuelans.
Finally, some of the prominent participants involved in the drafting of Project 2025 are present in key positions within the administration, acting as sort of guardians of the faith.
They include Brendan Carr, Secretary of Communications; Thomas Homan, Secretary of Homeland Security; Pete Hoekstra, Director of National Intelligence; and Russ Vought, Director of the Office of Management and Budget. There are more, but with less public presence.
In summary, Project 2025 stands out for its ideological coherence, supporting the worst causes and, in itself, represents the vision of an American elite that aspires to move against the dialectics of history and return to a United States that once was.
(Taken from CubaSí)
