WHERE IS PROJECT 2025?

The Manufactured Panic of Project 2025 That Women Fell For: A Critical Examination

By TSR

Brooklyn, NY - On both November 6th and January 20th, I woke up gripped by an overwhelming sense of panic. After the 2024 presidential election, I was convinced that chaos was imminent. I imagined arriving at work only to discover my bank cards had been deactivated and that a new regime had declared women unfit to control their own finances. I pictured federal agents pounding on my door, dragging me and my girlfriend away to concentration camps where we would meet our own Aunt Lydia. I even wondered how the fitting for our robes and blinders would go—being short, I worried my robe would drag along the ground as I was forced to shuffle through the market, whispering “blessed be the fruit” to other captive women.

For months leading up to Election Day, this was all women talked about in online spaces dominated by so-called liberal feminists. Social media was flooded with warnings that women would be stripped of their autonomy, ushered into submission, and forced to live the nightmare depicted in Hulu’s adaptation of Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale.

Then, January 20th arrived. As I peered out my window in Brooklyn, NY, I saw women walking freely to the train station—no kidnappings, no federal agents in sight. I cautiously stepped outside to grab coffee before heading to work, expecting the worst, but my bank card worked without issue. Inside the bodega, the news played on the television. Trump and Vance were attending church, and later that day, he would be inaugurated as the 47th president of the United States. The city carried on as if nothing had changed.

For months, women who had refused to vote for Kamala Harris were warned that Trump’s first executive order would be to bring The Handmaid’s Tale to life. But nothing happened. As I cautiously emerged from the train station and made my way to my office, the streets remained calm, and life continued as it always had.

I had so many questions and felt utterly confused. How could everything appear so normal when I had spent months bracing for a dystopian reality? I had prepared myself for chaos, for drastic changes that never came. I wondered why the dire warnings from social media and so-called liberal feminists hadn’t materialized. Had I been misled? Was all the fear and anxiety for nothing? As I walked to work, watching people go about their day as if nothing had changed, I couldn’t help but feel a sense of bewilderment. Had I allowed myself to be consumed by hysteria?

Also, could opposition to Trump drive women to make electoral decisions that may ultimately be detrimental to their own interests by electing leaders based on sex rather than policy? Are figures like Kamala Harris and Ketanji Brown Jackson—who, when asked, hesitated to define what a woman is, possibly out of concern for the transgender community—truly capable of safeguarding women’s spaces from potential threats posed by predatory men?

Let's think rational here. 

When he was in office, President Barack Obama faced criticism from some reproductive rights advocates for not codifying abortion rights into federal law during his presidency, despite encouragement from figures like Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (RBG). Many advocates believed that with a Democratic majority in Congress during his first two years in office, Obama had a rare and critical opportunity to enshrine abortion rights into federal law, ensuring long-term protection against potential legal challenges and state-level restrictions. However, his administration opted not to pursue such legislation, a decision that has since been scrutinized in light of the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision to overturn Roe v. Wade in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.

Also, it appeared to me that, Democrats leveraged the issue of abortion to galvanize young women into voting them back into office, making it a central focus of their campaigns. Many young women, driven by the widespread messaging, took drastic measures such as seeking tubal ligation procedures and stockpiling birth control under the belief that the dystopian reality based on Margaret Atwood’s novel, was imminent. However, when former President Trump instead introduced an executive order aimed at defining the concept of womanhood and safeguarding women’s spaces, the same online liberal feminists who once voiced their concerns so vocally have remained conspicuously silent.

The current silence is striking, especially considering that for the past year, online feminists were relentlessly warning that a dystopian future was near. They claimed that women would be forced to leave their jobs, have their bank accounts frozen, and be sent to camps in preparation for forced impregnation in designated households. These dire predictions fueled widespread panic, with women across the United States fervently discussing and speculating about Trump’s supposed future plans, spreading fear through every social platform and community.

Additionally, in the days leading up to the election, women compiled extensive lists of clinics where they could obtain tubal ligations without scrutiny, stockpiled birth control, and even formed underground networks dedicated to ensuring safe access to abortion. It was striking that the primary focus for many women revolved around sex with men and securing abortion access. This stands in stark contrast to the widely popular “Pick the Bear” trend of 2024, in which women across America boldly declared they would rather live in the wilderness among grizzly bears than share intimate spaces with men. Yet, despite these proclamations of independence, they struggled to exercise the self-discipline necessary to abstain from relationships that might necessitate an abortion—an ironic paradox that underscores the disconnect between rhetoric and reality.

The prevailing justification for unrestricted access to abortion often centers on the critical issue of rape, with advocates asserting that it is imperative for women to have reproductive autonomy in such circumstances. While this argument holds undeniable merit, the discourse surrounding it has been accompanied by an underlying narrative—one that suggested that, should Trump be elected, a societal collapse akin to a purge would ensue, wherein women across the nation would be subjected to rampant sexual violence without legal recourse. It is undeniable that crimes against women frequently go unpunished within the legal system; however, these realities have not deterred women from continuing to engage with men. Even the most vocal radical feminists who denounce men as oppressive often maintain relationships with them, revealing a contradiction that does not go unnoticed by the legal system. These perceived inconsistencies contribute to the way judicial outcomes unfold, as they reinforce prevailing societal perceptions regarding women’s agency and the complexities of their interactions with men.

What if the so-called camps that liberal feminists warned us about were not physical locations but rather symbolic constraints imposed on women by the erosion of their spaces and the absence of legal protections? What if, under the guise of progressiveness, the Democratic Party’s true objective in winning was to gradually strip away women’s rights, redefining them in ways that ultimately diminish their autonomy and security while simultaneously deceiving them about biological reality, reinforcing the notion that their own perceptions and the tangible experiences of women should be dismissed, and instead promoting the false narrative that the presence of men in women’s spaces is not only acceptable but essential. 

What if women were misled by someone who did not truly have their best interests in mind? Throughout history, women have often been undermined by other women acting in alignment with external influences, and some argue that Kamala Harris is no exception. Project 2025 was not among the executive orders that many women feared Trump would sign. Instead, he issued an executive order addressing the harms of gender ideology and emphasizing the critical importance of protecting women’s spaces. Contrary to the widespread panic fueled by speculative narratives, his administration’s focus was on reinforcing biological definitions and ensuring that policies safeguard the rights and privacy of women.

While many are still bracing for the arrival of Project 2025, the reality suggests otherwise. With the significant number of women that Trump has appointed to key positions within his administration, it appears increasingly unlikely that the feared initiative will materialize anytime soon. The composition of his team signals a strategic shift, one that challenges alarmist predictions and raises questions about the credibility of the hysteria surrounding his policy agenda.