Project 2025 co-opts both the “free speech” and the “freedom of religion” clauses of the First Amendment
to justify subsidizing religious institutions,
and to undermine protections against discrimination.

The document’s text states
“Our Constitution grants each of us the liberty to do not what we want, but what we ought.” (page 13).

The first troubling example of this is an assertion that pornography should be outlawed and those who distribute it should be jailed.

Despite extensive Supreme Court precedent to the contrary, the authors state boldly,
without justification,
that “it has no claim to First Amendment protection.” (page 5)

Further, it is likely that the organizations behind Project 2025 would define pornography broadly,
to include mere discussion of sexual orientation or gender.

While not explicit about who determines what we “ought” do,
the Project 2025 authors give clear indications.

They assert that the building blocks of any healthy society are: “Marriage. Family. Work. Church. School. Volunteering.” (page 4)

Not only may the government subsidize religious institutions but it must.

In line with recent SCOTUS decision #Carson v #Makin,
Project 2025’s text proposes that any government program providing subsidies or funding to any service organization must give those subsidies to religious institutions which provide such services. (page 754).

The "Mandate for Leadership"’s authors insist that the First Amendment protects the right of religiously-affiliated organizations to discriminate against people based on sexual orientation
and asks the next administration to forbid the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Civil Rights (OCR) and the Department of Labor’s Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) from pursuing any actions against religious institutions on this basis. (pages 493-495 and 585-587).

Constraining government speech and protecting the right to wield religion as a justification for discrimination:

The authors not only insist that religious colleges be allowed to discriminate against LGBTQ+ people
but also that the government cannot report which schools do so and that past information about discrimination be scrubbed from the internet. (page 357).

When the constitutionality of existing laws are challenged, the Office of the Solicitor General defends them in court.

Project 2025 suggests the government should not defend anti-discrimination laws in many cases (pages 560-561).

Project 2025 claims that the First Amendment forbids the government from monitoring disinformation and informing social media companies about it (pages 216 and 550).

While the issue is raised regarding the intelligence agencies, there is no reason to think a ban would not be comprehensive.

If such a ban were in place, it would prevent FEMA from posting information on false rumors about its hurricane relief and rebuttals to it.

We see this worrisome potential because a court ruling already temporarily blocked much of the government,
including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS),
from reporting disinformation.

While the Supreme Court reversed this ruling, it did so on technical grounds,
so the threat remains.

In an all-out dystopian attack on reality and in the name of free speech, Project 2025 proposes that many words or terms, including “gender,” “abortion,” and “reproductive health” be removed from all government rules, regulations, contracts, and grants. (page 4)

Project 2025 opposes efforts to reform the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to break the partisan gridlock and allow it to enforce laws.

It is entirely supportive of the idea that money is free speech. (Pages 861-866)

After extensively singing the praises of free markets, the authors of Project 2025 felt it was necessary to assure us that
“Economic freedom is not the only important freedom.”

They add that “Freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and the freedom to assemble also represent key components of the American promise.” (page 16).

These three freedoms are in the First Amendment but they are not the only ones.

The Amendment also guarantees freedom of the press and the right to petition the government.

The document is noticeably silent as to whether those are also important but,
based on their proposals,
it seems clear that the authors of Project 2025 do not value freedom of the press.
https://mediaanddemocracyproject.substack.com/p/warning-project-2025-mandate-for