Rebuttal to Onward
by: Edwin J. Feulner

Rebuttal to Onward! by Edwin J. Feulner

Edwin J. Feulner’s Onward! in Project 2025 promotes a vision for the future of the United States that centers around widespread deregulation and the dismantling of key federal institutions. While Feulner argues that this approach will lead to greater economic freedom, efficiency, and a more streamlined government, his vision overlooks the critical protections these institutions provide for consumers, workers, and the environment. Feulner’s call for deregulation risks weakening democratic safeguards, increasing inequality, and destabilizing key aspects of American life that have been carefully built over decades.

The Risks of Deregulation

Feulner's central argument for deregulation is that it will free businesses from burdensome government oversight, which he claims stifles innovation, growth, and competitiveness. However, history has shown that deregulation often leads to corporate abuses, economic instability, and harm to the public. The financial crisis of 2008 is a prime example of the dangers of deregulation. In the years leading up to the crisis, the financial industry was subject to weakened oversight, allowing banks and financial institutions to engage in risky practices that eventually led to the collapse of the housing market and the global economy.

Feulner’s vision to reduce regulatory oversight across industries could similarly open the door to unchecked corporate power, with potentially disastrous consequences. In the absence of strong regulations, corporations may prioritize short-term profits over long-term sustainability and public welfare, leading to environmental degradation, consumer exploitation, and unsafe working conditions. Key agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) exist to ensure that companies operate within fair, safe, and sustainable boundaries. Weakening these agencies would leave the public vulnerable to corporate misconduct and unchecked environmental harm.

Impact on Consumers and Workers

One of the most significant risks of Feulner’s deregulatory agenda is the potential harm to consumers and workers. Federal agencies like the FTC and CFPB play a vital role in protecting consumers from fraud, deceptive business practices, and predatory lending. By advocating for the dismantling of these protections, Feulner’s vision would make it easier for corporations to exploit consumers, particularly those who are most vulnerable, such as low-income individuals, seniors, and marginalized communities.

For workers, Feulner’s approach risks rolling back decades of progress in labor protections. Agencies like OSHA ensure that workplaces are safe and that workers are protected from dangerous conditions. The Department of Labor enforces laws that guarantee fair wages, overtime pay, and protections against workplace discrimination. Weakening these institutions would likely result in higher workplace injury rates, wage theft, and increased exploitation of workers, particularly in industries that already operate on thin margins.

Feulner’s focus on deregulation underestimates the importance of these safeguards in maintaining a balanced and fair economic system. Without these protections, power would shift even further toward corporations and away from individuals, exacerbating inequality and reducing the ability of everyday Americans to assert their rights in the workplace and marketplace.

Threats to Environmental Protections

A significant portion of Project 2025 calls for reducing the power of the EPA and other agencies that regulate environmental protections. Feulner frames these efforts as a way to reduce government overreach and remove barriers to business development. However, this vision ignores the crucial role that environmental regulations play in safeguarding public health and addressing climate change.

The EPA enforces regulations that limit pollution, protect air and water quality, and ensure that industrial activities do not harm ecosystems or public health. Without these regulations, businesses could pollute with impunity, leading to increased health risks such as respiratory diseases, contaminated drinking water, and toxic waste exposure. Moreover, the rollback of climate-related regulations would hinder efforts to reduce carbon emissions and mitigate the effects of climate change.

Feulner’s agenda prioritizes short-term economic gains over the long-term well-being of the planet and future generations. Climate change is an existential threat, and weakening the institutions that are tasked with addressing it will only make the crisis worse. Strong environmental protections are not a burden on businesses—they are necessary for ensuring that economic development is sustainable and that the planet remains livable for future generations.

Erosion of Democratic Institutions

Feulner’s call to streamline and reduce the federal government risks undermining the very democratic institutions that ensure accountability and transparency in governance. Many of the regulatory agencies Feulner seeks to weaken exist to enforce laws passed by Congress and to protect the public from corporate or governmental overreach. Dismantling these institutions would reduce oversight and allow powerful interests to operate with fewer checks on their influence.

For example, Feulner’s push to weaken the Federal Election Commission (FEC) would reduce oversight of campaign finance laws, opening the door to increased political corruption and the unchecked influence of dark money in elections. Similarly, reducing the power of the Department of Justice could undermine the enforcement of civil rights laws and other critical protections that ensure equality under the law.

A robust federal government that includes regulatory agencies is essential to maintaining a healthy democracy. These institutions serve as watchdogs that ensure laws are enforced fairly and that the public’s interests are protected. Feulner’s proposal to reduce their power would concentrate influence in the hands of corporations and political elites, reducing transparency and weakening the voice of ordinary citizens in the democratic process.

Economic Inequality and Instability

Feulner’s argument that deregulation will lead to economic growth ignores the broader consequences of unregulated markets, which often result in greater inequality and instability. Deregulation tends to benefit large corporations and wealthy individuals, while leaving working-class Americans with fewer protections and opportunities. Without strong labor laws, consumer protections, and environmental regulations, the economic divide between the wealthy and the poor would widen, exacerbating social tensions and undermining the social contract.

Moreover, history has shown that deregulation often leads to economic crises. The Great Recession, as mentioned earlier, was driven by a lack of regulatory oversight in the financial industry. Similarly, the savings and loan crisis of the 1980s and early 1990s was caused in part by deregulation in the banking sector. These crises resulted in significant economic hardship for millions of Americans, with job losses, home foreclosures, and long-term economic stagnation.

Rather than promoting sustainable growth, Feulner’s deregulatory agenda would likely lead to greater economic instability, with the most vulnerable Americans bearing the brunt of the consequences.

Conclusion: A Flawed Vision for America’s Future

Edwin J. Feulner’s Onward! presents a deeply flawed vision for the future of the United States. While his call for deregulation and smaller government may resonate with those who prioritize corporate interests, it overlooks the vital role that federal institutions play in protecting consumers, workers, the environment, and democratic principles.

Dismantling these institutions would lead to greater inequality, environmental degradation, and economic instability. The protections provided by regulatory agencies are not burdens—they are essential safeguards that ensure the American economy is fair, competitive, and sustainable. Rather than moving toward deregulation, policymakers should focus on strengthening these institutions to address the complex challenges of the 21st century, including climate change, economic inequality, and the erosion of democratic norms.

Feulner’s vision of a smaller government that prioritizes deregulation may create short-term economic gains for corporations, but it would come at a steep cost to the public, democracy, and the planet. A balanced, thoughtful approach to governance that protects public interests while encouraging innovation and growth is the best path forward for a stronger, more equitable America.