The Spark
This week, outrage erupted after law enforcement used force against protesters opposing ICE raids in Los Angeles and other cities. We shouldnât be surprised by any of it. For anyone paying attention, thereâs already a blueprint. The administration intends to restore their version of order.
Then came the political theater. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez condemned the violence. Governor Gavin Newsom echoed her. Senator Alex Padilla got thrown out of a meeting. Senator Bernie Sanders warned that violent protest, no matter how passionate, wonât achieve its goals.
Letâs be clear. The right to PEACEFUL protest is a core feature of American identity. Most of these protests were exactly that: peaceful. But not all. Alongside them, we saw looting and destruction of public and private property. We donât argue whether Americans have the right to protest. We argue over what kind of protest is justified, and when.
Just as we have a right to liberty and free expression, we have a right to domestic tranquility and order.
On one hand, government exists, in part, to protect our property. Thatâs one of its most basic roles. Itâs part of why we consent to be governed in the first place. When government fails to protect whatâs ours, weâre left with two choices. We can choose to surrender that property to someone else, or defend it ourselves, with the right to bear arms secured by the Second Amendment.
And on the other hand, Americans also have the right to protest their government. Even undocumented immigrants are guaranteed due process under the Fifth Amendment. When Americans believe that right is being denied, they protest. That impulse isnât lawless. Itâs constitutional.
Now hereâs the harder truth. Whether we admit it or not, and even if it didnât turn out the way we thought, the American people voted for this. The plan wasnât hidden. It was published, promoted, and ultimately activated by the ballot box.
The Tinder
The protests and response to them were the spark. But the fuel for the fire was already stacked.
Project 2025, also called Mandate for Leadership, The Conservative Promise, wasnât just a 900-page policy recommendation. It was a blueprint. A deliberate, detailed plan to realign American policy with parts of the Constitution that some favor over others.
In order to achieve its goals, Project 2025 recommended concentrating power in the executive branch, dismantling major federal agencies, and purging the civil service of those labeled âdisloyal.â Gaining consensus and working through Congress was too slow a process. It relies too much on compromise. Because of this approach, some say Project 2025 was a plan to bring a king to America.
As a couple of examples from the document, page 142 recommended US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, specifically Enforcement and Removal Operations, be designated the lead agency for civil immigration enforcement. Not just at the border, but anywhere in the country. On the same page, Project 2025 further recommended that ICE officers act both with and without a warrant to arrest immigrants.
Whatâs more, page 137 called on the Federal Emergency Management Agency to withhold funding from any state, city, or private organization that isnât fully aligned with federal immigration enforcement. In other words, access to disaster aid depends on loyalty.
Project 2025 isnât law, but itâs not fiction either. It attempted to derive some legitimacy by using constitutional language as an outline. Unfortunately, it cherry-picks pieces of the language. Specifically, the plan aligns itself with only two of our six national goals: to provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare.
The others, including union, justice, order (or domestic tranquility), and liberty, are notably missing from the plan.
Perhaps the authors of Project 2025 donât believe conservatives have a constitutional duty to pursue justice and liberty. But they do. That duty isnât partisan. Itâs foundational to America.
Even if we find the goals of Project 2025 too narrow, we shouldnât all waste all of our precious time and effort shouting at a fire thatâs already burning. Our effort is too limited, too valuable.
Project 2025 recognized that there are small windows, only fleeting moments, when we have both the political consensus and the public will to achieve progress. Moments of consensus donât last. And when they come, we have to be ready.
Instead of only raging against the machine, we should be working to build something better.
SoâŚif we are dissatisfied with Project 2025, is political theater going to fix it? While cars and dumpsters are burning in protests in Los Angeles and other cities across America, whoâs writing Project 2029?
The Logs
Every fire needs more than a spark and tinder. If we want it to last, we need logs that hold the heat and maintain the flame.
Project 2025 wonât last. Not because itâs poorly organized, but because itâs incomplete. Itâs shallow and empty. It aligns itself with only two of the six national goals. We will not achieve defense or general welfare without liberty. And there can be no lasting order without justice.
We donât need a plan that burns fast and fades. We need purpose with endurance. It doesnât matter whether we call it Project 2029 or something else entirely. What matters is our decisive effort and a focus, or framework, to guide it.
Every part of that framework must tie back to the Constitutionâs six national goals. Union. Justice. Domestic tranquility, or order. Liberty. The common defense. The general welfare.
Every government action, to include every law, every dollar spent, every policy, should be traceable to at least one of those six. If we canât do that, the action doesnât belong.
Letâs take two examples: climate change spending and first-time homebuyer housing, and ask what it looks like to govern with that kind of clarity.
Climate Change Spending
We can debate the causes and consequences of climate change, but we canât debate the fact that itâs happening. Some argue that human activity, especially the burning of fossil fuels, is the primary driver. They point to rising greenhouse gas concentrations. Others believe that natural forces, like volcanic eruptions and wildfires, play a larger role.
The 2022 National Security Strategy claimed that of all our challenges, âclimate change is the greatest and potentially existential for all nations.â As of that year, three laws obligated the American people to spend more than $500 billion on climate technology and clean energy. An issue of that magnitude should pass our constitutional check with ease. Letâs give it a test.
âŚ
First, does climate change spending directly tie to union?
We could argue that it brings Americans together around shared infrastructure, energy resilience, or the protection of common resources. But even if we fail to stop climate change, no state is going to secede from the union because of rising temperatures. So while the effort may involve shared concerns, it doesnât directly tie to the preservation of union in the constitutional sense.
âŚ
Second, does climate change spending directly affect justice?
Justice is both equal protection under law and access to opportunity, especially for the needy, for rural families, for children growing up in communities with no escape from hardship. If climate policy helps kids who grow up in trailers or in the projects, it can serve justice.
But climate spending doesnât do that. It funds industry, infrastructure, and research, much of which is concentrated in business interests, urban centers, or corporate contracts. If justice is the goal, the spending should begin with those who have the least power to adapt, the fewest resources to rebuild, and the most to lose. So while the effort may possibly benefit the needy in the long run, it doesnât directly tie to justice for Americans.
âŚ
Third, does climate change spending directly affect domestic tranquility, or what we might call order?
Climate change drives rising utility costs, unpredictable harvests, and the slow loss of reliable seasons. These all create strain beneath the surface. But does that reach the level of threatening national order?
Most Americans arenât protesting in the streets over the weather. Theyâre protesting over wages, housing, policing, and rights. Climate instability may be a stress multiplier, but it isnât the source of disorder. And climate spending, as it exists today, doesnât restore trust in the system or bring peace to our communities.
So while climate change may contribute to unrest in subtle ways, the spending itself does not directly preserve domestic tranquility.
âŚ
Fourth, does climate change spending directly support liberty?
Liberty is the freedom to make choices about how we live and work. It also means limiting the reach of government into the private lives of citizens. When climate spending leads to regulation, such as banning gas appliances, restricting travel, or mandating energy sources, it can start to feel less like liberty and more like control.
Even when well-intentioned, we must scrutinize any policy that narrows individual freedom in the name of collective benefit. If liberty is the goal, climate policy should expand options, not limit them. It should make clean energy cheaper, not mandate it. It should protect the individual, not penalize the outlier.
So while some climate investments might indirectly support liberty through innovation or energy independence, the broader trend moves toward restriction. And restriction is not liberty.
âŚ
Fifth, does climate change spending directly support the common defense?
Climate change has been framed as a national security threat, and in a sense, that is true. Rising sea levels can threaten naval bases. Drought and food shortages can destabilize foreign regions, creating migration pressures and conflict. Natural disasters can strain military logistics at home.
But does climate change spending actually strengthen our ability to defend the nation?
The funds could tie to defense if they go toward hardening bases, securing supply chains, or preparing for climate-driven conflict. But if the money is directed primarily toward consumer incentives, carbon markets, or long-term emissions modeling, then the connection is indirect at best.
And even if our efforts to stop climate change fail, we will still have the capability to defend the American people and our interests worldwide. Thatâs what the defense budget ensures. Thatâs what the military trains for. Climate instability may change the terrain, but it doesnât erase our strength.
So while some elements of climate policy may touch national defense, the spending itself does not directly serve that goal.
âŚ
Last, does climate change spending directly support the general welfare?
This is where the connection is strongest, at least on paper. A stable climate benefits everyone. Cleaner air, more predictable weather, and fewer disasters serve the general good. But again, the question isnât whether climate stability is good. The question is whether the spending directly applies to the American people, not just business interests.
Climate change funding goes toward subsidies, research grants, and corporate incentives. That may advance long-term goals, but it bypasses the people who need it most today. If general welfare means improving the daily well-being of Americans through health, housing, food, and mobility, then climate spending should be measured by whether it helps people live better lives now, not just maybe someday.
While the goal of climate action may align with general welfare in principle, we judge the spending by its outcomes. If it lifts the many, it belongs. If it benefits the few, it doesnât. The Constitution does not support spending money to benefit only a subset of America.
âŚ
SoâŚweâve considered our six national goals. Itâs difficult to argue that climate change spending strongly supports any of them. And spending half a trillion dollars on any item should never be loosely tied to the Constitution.
Letâs move on to our next example: first-time homebuyer housing.
First-Time Homebuyer Housing
Letâs apply the same constitutional test to another issue: first-time homebuyer housing. Unlike squishy climate change spending, this oneâs easier to track.
Does it promote union? Yes. A nation of homeowners is a nation of stakeholders. Homeownership strengthens the social contract by giving people something to lose and protect.
Does it serve justice? Absolutely. This one is rock solid. Justice is access to opportunity. If a child grows up in a trailer or a crowded apartment and has no path to owning a home, then weâve failed to deliver the kind of justice our Constitution demands.
Does it contribute to domestic tranquility? Yes. When people can afford stable housing, theyâre less likely to fall into desperation. That means lower crime rates and stronger communities.
Liberty and defenseâŚmaybe. But the connection isnât as strong as justice and order.
Does it promote the general welfare? Without question. Affordable housing improves health, education, employment, and civic participation. Itâs one of the most direct, measurable investments in national well-being we can make.
Compared with climate change spending, obligating funds for first-time homebuyer housing has a strong connection to Constitutional goals.
SoâŚwhatâs the path?
We need to apply the SBIR model, Small Business Innovation Research, to the housing market.
Right now, the USDA has an SBIR program under Rural and Community Development. Itâs already authorized to fund technologies that improve life in rural America. But their scope is too narrow. They fund maybe someday research programs instead of spending funds that benefit Americans today.
Instead of this narrow scope, USDA needs to earmark part of that funding every year, in every state, specifically for innovation in small, affordable homes across rural America.
At the same time, we need legislative action to create a parallel SBIR program under Housing and Urban Development. Urban America has empty lots, abandoned warehouses, and entire blocks that need purpose. HUD should drive innovation in cities, spearheading ways to build affordable homes, not just funding old methods with higher price tags.
The SBIR model works. It rewards innovation. It scales good ideas. Phase I grants can fund design concepts, including modular homes, prefabricated units, and even reclaimed shipping containers. Phase II can fund prototype builds. And the best designs should win support, not just by cost or materials, but by outcome.
Aligning first-time homebuyer housing with Constitutional goals would be a sure win for the American people.
Whoâs Writing Project 2029?
These were just two examples; climate change spending and first-time homebuyer housing.
But every policy deserves the same scrutiny. Tariffs. Criminal justice. Corporate subsidies. Food assistance. Each one must answer clearly: Which constitutional goal does it serve?
If a policy doesnât support union, justice, domestic tranquility, liberty, common defense, or general welfare, it doesnât belong.
This isnât only about constitutional fidelity. Itâs about purpose. Without a clear purpose, America drifts. Project 2025 provided a clear, but dangerously incomplete, blueprint. If we reject its narrow vision, itâs our responsibility to create something better.
So, we have a willful choice.
We can continue reacting to chaos rather than shaping order. We can continue engaging in political theater. Or we can commit our precious time and effort to building a lasting, purposeful framework. A framework that serves all Americans, not just the powerful.
SoâŚwhoâs writing Project 2029?
May God bless the United States of America.
Music from #Uppbeat https://uppbeat.io/t/sky-toes/the-summitLicense code: OWDO3P7AUQRZFRQB
Get full access to I Believe at joelkdouglas.substack.com/subscribe
