Rebuttal to Section 4: The Economy

Thomas F. Gilman’s Project 2025 vision for the Department of Commerce promotes deregulation and corporate favoritism at the expense of small businesses and consumers. His approach undermines fair competition, neglects environmental concerns, and prioritizes short-term profits over sustainable economic growth.

The Project 2025 vision for the Department of the Treasury by William L. Walton, Stephen Moore, and David R. Burton advocates tax cuts for the wealthy and deregulation of financial markets, which risks widening income inequality, increasing national debt, and prioritizing corporate interests over economic stability.

The Project 2025 proposal to reduce or eliminate the Export-Import Bank undermines U.S. competitiveness in global markets. The Ex-Im Bank supports small businesses, creates jobs, and counters foreign subsidies. Cutting it would hurt U.S. exports and weaken America’s strategic economic interests.

Abolishing the Export-Import Bank, as suggested by Veronique de Rugy, would harm U.S. businesses, especially small- and medium-sized enterprises. The Ex-Im Bank supports American jobs, levels the playing field against foreign competitors, and fills critical gaps in private financing for global trade.

Jennifer Hazelton’s case for the Export-Import Bank overlooks its downsides, such as fostering corporate dependence on government subsidies and distorting free markets. While it aids some exports, it disproportionately benefits large corporations and taxpayers bear the risk if loans default.

Paul Winfree’s Project 2025 vision for the Federal Reserve focuses on reducing its role in economic stabilization, risking financial instability. His push for deregulation and limited intervention could lead to unchecked market failures, harming middle- and lower-income Americans the most.

Karen Kerrigan’s vision for the Small Business Administration (SBA) overlooks how deregulating and downsizing the agency would harm small businesses. The SBA provides essential loans, counseling, and resources that foster innovation and job creation. Weakening it would limit opportunities for entrepreneurs to thrive.

Peter Navarro’s The Case for Fair Trade advocates for protectionist policies like tariffs, but this approach raises consumer costs, harms U.S. businesses reliant on exports, and risks trade wars. Free trade fosters growth, innovation, and competitiveness, benefiting the U.S. economy far more than protectionism.

Kent Lassman’s The Case for Free Trade overlooks the need for fair trade practices that protect workers and industries from unfair foreign competition. While free trade promotes growth, it must be balanced with safeguards against exploitation, environmental harm, and unfair trade practices.