Rebuttal of Department of Commerce
by: Thomas F. Gilman

Rebuttal to Project 2025: Department of Commerce by Thomas F. Gilman

Thomas F. Gilman’s vision for the Department of Commerce, as outlined in Project 2025, emphasizes deregulation and a corporate-friendly approach that favors large businesses while neglecting small businesses, workers, consumers, and the environment. While Gilman promotes these changes as beneficial for economic growth, his proposals primarily serve the interests of powerful corporations at the expense of broader societal well-being. His approach risks stifling competition, undermining labor rights, harming the environment, and exacerbating inequality. By prioritizing short-term profits over long-term sustainability, Gilman’s vision threatens to erode the foundations of a fair and inclusive economy.

Gilman’s emphasis on reducing government oversight and regulation is framed as a way to stimulate business innovation and economic growth. However, this approach overlooks the critical role that regulations play in ensuring fair competition, protecting consumers, and safeguarding environmental sustainability. The Department of Commerce should prioritize policies that foster equitable economic growth, promote innovation, and protect public interests—values that are sidelined in Gilman’s Project 2025 proposals.

Deregulation: A Windfall for Corporations, a Setback for Small Businesses and Consumers

At the heart of Gilman’s vision for the Department of Commerce is a drive toward widespread deregulation, which he claims will reduce bureaucratic red tape and free businesses from restrictive government oversight. While reducing unnecessary regulations can, in some cases, encourage innovation and growth, Gilman’s sweeping deregulatory agenda prioritizes large corporations over small businesses and consumers.

Deregulation often disproportionately benefits large corporations with the resources to navigate a less regulated environment. These businesses can afford to cut corners, absorb potential fines, or sidestep the regulatory hurdles that smaller enterprises might rely on to ensure a level playing field. For example, relaxing antitrust enforcement—an area Gilman’s vision touches on—could enable corporate monopolies and oligopolies to consolidate power, drive out competition, and limit consumer choice. Small businesses, which are already competing against large corporations with far greater financial and market power, would be further disadvantaged by such moves.

Additionally, deregulating sectors like telecommunications, finance, and manufacturing could lead to reduced consumer protections. Without strong regulatory oversight, companies would be able to engage in practices that harm consumers, such as price gouging, deceptive advertising, or reduced product safety standards. Consumers, particularly those in vulnerable or low-income communities, would bear the brunt of such practices, as corporations prioritize profits over public welfare. In the absence of fair competition and strong protections, consumers may face higher prices, lower-quality goods and services, and fewer choices.

The Department of Commerce has historically played a role in promoting fair competition and ensuring that consumers are protected from unfair business practices. Gilman’s vision, which seeks to reduce the Department’s role in this area, risks leaving consumers and small businesses without the protections they need to thrive in the marketplace.

Neglecting Small Businesses: A Blow to Innovation and Job Creation

While Gilman’s proposals are geared toward boosting corporate profits, they ignore the essential role that small businesses play in driving innovation, job creation, and economic growth. Small businesses are the backbone of the U.S. economy, employing millions of Americans and contributing to vibrant local economies. However, Gilman’s vision neglects the unique challenges that small businesses face, such as access to affordable credit, fair competition, and protection from predatory practices by larger corporations.

Small businesses often rely on a regulatory environment that promotes transparency and fairness in the marketplace. For example, regulations that prevent monopolistic behavior and ensure that large corporations do not engage in unfair competition are essential for protecting small businesses from being driven out of the market. Gilman’s deregulatory agenda, which weakens antitrust enforcement and reduces oversight of corporate behavior, would further concentrate economic power in the hands of a few large companies, making it even harder for small businesses to compete and grow.

Moreover, Gilman’s vision does not address the need for federal support programs that help small businesses innovate and expand. Programs like the Economic Development Administration (EDA) and the Minority Business Development Agency (MBDA), which provide funding, resources, and technical assistance to small businesses, are critical for fostering innovation and ensuring that entrepreneurs from diverse backgrounds have the opportunity to succeed. Under Gilman’s vision, these programs could face cuts or reduced prioritization, leaving small businesses without the support they need to thrive in a competitive economy.

By focusing almost exclusively on corporate interests, Gilman’s vision overlooks the essential role that small businesses play in creating jobs, driving economic innovation, and supporting local communities. A strong economy requires policies that uplift small businesses, foster entrepreneurship, and promote competition—not just those that benefit large corporations.

Weakening Environmental Protections: A Step Backward for Sustainability

Gilman’s push for deregulation extends to environmental protections, where his vision calls for loosening restrictions on industries such as energy, manufacturing, and transportation. This approach prioritizes short-term economic gains for corporations over the long-term health of the planet and its people. By reducing environmental regulations, Gilman’s proposals risk exacerbating climate change, increasing pollution, and undermining the nation’s transition to a more sustainable economy.

Environmental regulations are critical for protecting public health, preserving natural resources, and mitigating the effects of climate change. Industries like manufacturing and energy are major sources of pollution, and without strong regulatory oversight, they would be free to increase emissions, exploit natural resources, and degrade ecosystems with little accountability. Gilman’s deregulatory agenda would likely result in more pollution, higher greenhouse gas emissions, and increased environmental degradation, with devastating consequences for future generations.

In particular, reducing regulations on energy production and transportation would allow companies to continue prioritizing fossil fuels over renewable energy sources. This would slow the transition to clean energy, hamper efforts to combat climate change, and leave the U.S. lagging behind other nations that are investing heavily in sustainable technologies. The Department of Commerce should be working to promote innovation in clean energy, support the development of green technologies, and help U.S. businesses transition to a more sustainable future. Instead, Gilman’s vision would entrench reliance on outdated, polluting industries, putting both the environment and the economy at risk.

Moreover, weakening environmental protections would disproportionately harm low-income communities and communities of color, which are often more vulnerable to the impacts of pollution and climate change. These communities are more likely to live near industrial facilities, highways, and other sources of pollution, and they would bear the brunt of the negative health and environmental effects of deregulation. By prioritizing corporate profits over public health and environmental justice, Gilman’s vision fails to address the pressing need for a fair and sustainable economy.

Prioritizing Corporate Interests Over Public Good

Gilman’s Project 2025 vision is fundamentally rooted in a philosophy that prioritizes corporate interests over the public good. While he argues that reducing government oversight will lead to greater economic growth and innovation, his proposals are designed to benefit large corporations at the expense of workers, consumers, small businesses, and the environment.

For instance, weakening regulations that protect workers’ rights, such as labor standards, workplace safety rules, and protections against discrimination, would allow corporations to cut labor costs while potentially exploiting workers. This would disproportionately harm low-wage workers, women, people of color, and other marginalized groups, who are already vulnerable to exploitation in the workplace. The Department of Commerce should be focused on creating an economy where all workers are treated fairly and have access to decent wages, benefits, and working conditions—not on helping corporations maximize profits at workers’ expense.

Similarly, Gilman’s emphasis on deregulating industries such as telecommunications, finance, and healthcare would benefit large corporations while exposing consumers to higher costs, reduced services, and fewer protections. Without strong regulations, companies in these sectors would be free to raise prices, limit access to essential services, and engage in predatory practices that harm consumers. The Department of Commerce has a responsibility to ensure that businesses operate in the public interest, protecting consumers from corporate abuses and promoting fair competition.

Conclusion: A Vision That Sacrifices Long-Term Stability for Short-Term Gains

Thomas F. Gilman’s Project 2025 vision for the Department of Commerce represents a short-sighted approach to economic policy that prioritizes corporate profits over the public good. His focus on deregulation and reducing government oversight would benefit large corporations while harming small businesses, consumers, workers, and the environment. By weakening regulations that promote fair competition, protect public health, and ensure environmental sustainability, Gilman’s vision threatens to erode the foundations of a fair and inclusive economy.

Rather than pursuing policies that favor powerful corporations, the Department of Commerce should be focused on fostering innovation, promoting competition, and ensuring that economic growth benefits all Americans. This means supporting small businesses, protecting consumers, upholding workers’ rights, and addressing the urgent challenges of climate change and environmental sustainability. Gilman’s proposals, which prioritize short-term economic gains for corporations, are out of step with these broader goals and should be rejected in favor of a more balanced and inclusive economic strategy.