logo
Have you heard of Project Esther, Project 2025's lesser-known relative?

Have you heard of Project Esther, Project 2025's lesser-known relative?

Yahoo30-04-2025

Last October, before Donald Trump was reelected president, a little-known conservative plan positioning itself as a blueprint for combating antisemitism encouraged the next administration to deport pro-Palestine protestors and withhold public funds from institutions that support the cause.
If it sounds familiar, it's because Trump appears to have followed its recommendations in his first 100 days back in the White House, especially in his blitz against Harvard University and higher education as a whole.
Playing out in the shadow of Project 2025 is Project Esther, a 33-page conservative roadmap purportedly to fight antisemitism, released one year after the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas attacks on Israel.
Read more: How Trump vs. Harvard is a page out of the Project 2025 playbook
It was published by the same conservative policy nonprofit, the Heritage Foundation, that created Project 2025, a 900-plus page document that reenvisions a federal government with expanded presidential power. Trump distanced himself from Project 2025 on the campaign trail, but in his return to the presidency, it appears to be a policy document he's following.
Though Project Esther, named after the biblical Jewish queen, hasn't received nearly as much attention in the public sphere, its impacts are tangible.
Project Esther positions the U.S. pro-Palestinian movement as a 'Hamas support network' that is eroding American colleges and universities by disrupting the education system.
The right-wing initiative seeks to 'dismantle the infrastructure' that sustains pro-Palestinian outcry and organizing.
One of Project Esther's action items suggests that 'foreign Hamas support organization leaders and members,' or Palestine supporters, should voluntarily depart the U.S. or be deported, mirroring what has ultimately transpired with Columbia University student Mahmoud Khali and Tufts University student Rumeysa Ozturk.
While antisemitism did fester on campuses during the height of the Gaza war protests, many higher education leaders believe the administration is using it as a smokescreen to execute on a larger master plan against progressive ideals that has roots long before the Hamas attack on Israel.
Project Esther, they say, put in writing how to do so.
Read more: Harvard task force reports reveal discrimination, hate on campus, president apologizes
'It lays out a blueprint for exactly what's happening around the weaponization of antisemitism, which is what has happened to Harvard,' Jennifer Lundquist, a University of Massachusetts Amherst sociology professor and higher education organizer, said. 'Everything they are being subjected to is under this guise of antisemitism. It's a cudgel and a weapon to curtail civil liberties.'
Harvard University sued the Trump administration on April 21 after it threatened to pull billions in federal funding unless the university agreed to a series of demands ordered in the name of addressing antisemitism. Harvard said it would not comply, accusing the administration of violating its constitutional rights and federal laws and regulations.
Trump has targeted other colleges and universities in Massachusetts for purported antisemitism. Boston University, Tufts University, Emerson College and Wellesley College were all included on a national list of 60 universities the Department of Education released in March, announcing investigations into whether the schools have failed to meet their obligations to Jewish students under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
In November 2023, about eight months after the publication of Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation formed the National Task Force to Combat Antisemitism, a group that ultimately became the author of Project Esther, which was released a year later.
'There is no place for antisemitism in our society, and this task force is committed to doing its part to root out this evil,' James Carafano, senior counselor to the president and E.W. Richardson fellow at the Heritage Foundation, said at the time. 'Following the savage attack by Hamas against Israel, the world has witnessed an increasing number of acts of hatred against Jews. We are coming together as a coalition to take action and combat antisemitism.'
The convening of the task force came after Oct. 7, 2023, when militant group Hamas executed an assault on Israel that would ultimately become the worst terrorist attack in Israeli history. What followed was a massive military offensive launched by Israel in Gaza that, to date, has killed more than 50,000 people, according to Palestinian officials.
Initial members of the Heritage Foundation's antisemitism task force included America First Policy Institute, Coalition for Jewish Values, Concerned Women of America, Family Research Council, In Defense of Christians, Independent Women's Forum, Latino Coalition for Israel, National Association of Scholars, Philos Project, Regent University and the Steamboat Institute.
Project Esther was published on Oct. 7, 2024, on the first anniversary of the Hamas attack.
Politico recently reported that people involved with Project Esther are close allies of Trump, and some now have roles in his administration.
'As we were watching our campuses burn, as we were watching Jewish students that were locking themselves inside of their rooms because they were afraid to leave, (Trump) made promises to our community,' Bryan Leib, a member of the task force behind Project Esther, told Politico earlier this month. 'Here we are in April — and promises made and promises kept.'
The authors of Project Esther wrote that the pro-Palestinian movement in the U.S. has motives to 'sow internal dissension and generate enough political pressure' to compel the U.S. government to change its long-standing policy of support for Israel, calling the Middle Eastern country 'one of the most important allies in the world.'
They cite data from the Harvard Kennedy School's Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation showing, as of May 2024, pro-Palestine protest activity had occurred at 525 different colleges, universities, K-12 schools and school district offices since the Oct. 7, 2023, attack.
Read more: Trump admin demands Harvard provide records of international student 'illegal activities'
The plan calls out colleges and universities that allegedly have 'double-digit' numbers of professors who've 'openly advocated or supported' Palestine, including Harvard University.
A strategy of the pro-Palestine movement, Project Esther argues, is to corrupt the U.S. education system.
'(Hamas support organizations) have infiltrated their ideology into the U.S. education system across all levels,' Project Esther reads. 'It is pervasive. The U.S. education system fosters antisemitism under the guise of 'pro-Palestinian,' anti-Israel, anti-Zionist narratives across universities, high schools and elementary schools, often under the umbrella or within the rubric of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) and similar Marxist ideology."
A section of the document titled 'Necessary Conditions' suggests that foreign-born Palestine supporters should voluntarily depart the U.S. or be deported. It also says that supporting faculty or staff at higher education institutions should lose their credentials, and students should be held in violation of their visa requirements.
Read more: Harvard changes admissions policy, offering foreign students a 'backup plan'
The Trump administration had revoked thousands of student visas before reversing course earlier this month after more than 100 lawsuits were filed in response.
Actions taken in the name of Project Esther, the document advises, should also:
Gather evidence of criminal activity
Position pro-Palestine views shared on social media as a 'liability,' and make platforms 'unwilling' to host them.
Make municipalities unwilling to grant permits for related protests or demonstrations.
Convey overall messaging that Pro-Palestine supporters present a threat to American livelihoods, 'Jewish or otherwise.'
Some of the actions closely mirror the demands the Trump administration made of Harvard. Notably, 'Hamas support organizations' should not be eligible for public funds, Project Esther attests.
The Boston Globe recently interviewed Jewish students and recent graduates at Harvard about how they see antisemitism manifesting on campus. The response was nuanced: While they're concerned about antisemitism, many said they're far more worried about the Trump administration's actions against higher education.
On Tuesday, Harvard released two long-awaited reports on antisemitism and Islamophobia, vowing to take the recommendations seriously and nurture 'viewpoint diversity.' President Alan Garber apologized to the campus community for the institution's shortcomings during the 2023-2024 school year, when it was a hotspot for protests spurred by the war in Gaza.
Trump at 100 Days: In Mass., protests, pushback and all the lawsuits | John L. Micek
This is the word most commonly associated with Trump in his 2nd term
Boston prepares for fight after Trump signs order threatening sanctuary cities
Mass. GOP slams House's rejection of plan to let local cops partner with ICE
Filing in R.I. case reveals EPA set to cancel nearly 800 environmental justice grants
Read the original article on MassLive.
Read the original article on MassLive.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

What will happen to food assistance under Trump's tax cut plan? A look at the numbers
What will happen to food assistance under Trump's tax cut plan? A look at the numbers

Los Angeles Times

time20 minutes ago

  • Los Angeles Times

What will happen to food assistance under Trump's tax cut plan? A look at the numbers

President Trump's plan to cut taxes by trillions of dollars could also trim billions in spending from social safety net programs, including food assistance for lower-income people. The proposed changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program would make states pick up more of the costs, require several million more recipients to work or lose their benefits, and potentially reduce the amount of food aid people receive in the future. The legislation, which narrowly passed the U.S. House, could undergo further changes in the Senate, where it's currently being debated. Trump wants lawmakers to send the 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act' to his desk by July 4, when the nation marks the 249th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. Here's a look at the food assistance program, by the numbers: The federal aid program formerly known as food stamps was renamed the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, on Oct. 1, 2008. The program provides monthly payments for food purchases to low-income residents generally earning less than $1,632 monthly for individuals, or $3,380 monthly for a household of four. The nation's first experiment with food stamps began in 1939. But the modern version of the program dates to 1979, when a change in federal law eliminated a requirement that participants purchase food stamps. There currently is no cost to people participating in the program. A little over 42 million people nationwide received SNAP benefits in February, the latest month for which figures are available. That's roughly one out of every eight people in the country. Participation is down from a peak average of 47.6 million people during the 2013 federal fiscal year. Often, more than one person in a household is eligible for food aid. As of February, nearly 22.5 million households were enrolled in SNAP, receiving an average monthly household benefit of $353. The money can be spent on most groceries, but the Trump administration recently approved requests by six states — Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Nebraska and Utah — to exclude certain items, such as soda or candy. Legislation passed by the House is projected to cut about $295 billion in federal spending from SNAP over the next 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office. A little more than half of those federal savings would come from shifting costs to states, which administer SNAP. Nearly one-third of those savings would come from expanding a work requirement for some SNAP participants, which the CBO assumes would force some people off the rolls. Additional money would be saved by eliminating SNAP benefits for between 120,000 and 250,000 immigrants legally in the U.S. who are not citizens or lawful permanent residents. Another provision in the legislation would cap the annual inflationary growth in food benefits. As a result, the CBO estimates that the average monthly food benefit would be about $15 lower than it otherwise would have been by 2034. To receive SNAP benefits, current law says adults ages 18 through 54 who are physically and mentally able and don't have dependents need to work, volunteer or participate in training programs for at least 80 hours a month. Those who don't do so are limited to just three months of benefits in a three-year period. The legislation that passed the House would expand work requirements to those ages 55 through 64. It also would extend work requirements to some parents without children younger than age 7. And it would limit the ability of states to waive work requirements in areas that lack sufficient jobs. The combined effect of those changes is projected by the CBO to reduce SNAP participation by a monthly average of 3.2 million people. The federal government currently splits the administrative costs of SNAP with states but covers the full cost of food benefits. Under the legislation, states would have to cover three-fourths of the administrative costs. States also would have to pay a portion of the food benefits starting with the 2028 fiscal year. All states would be required to pay at least 5% of the food aid benefits, and could pay more depending on how often they make mistakes with people's payments. States that had payment error rates between 6-8% in the most recent federal fiscal year for which data is available would have to cover 15% of the food costs. States with error rates between 8-10% would have to cover 20% of the food benefits, and those with error rates greater than 10% would have to cover 25% of the food costs. Many states could get hit with higher costs. The national error rate stood at 11.7% in the 2023 fiscal year, and just three states — Idaho, South Dakota and Vermont — had error rates below 5%. But the 2023 figures are unlikely to serve as the base year, so the exact costs to states remains unclear. As a result of the cost shift, the CBO assumes that some states would reduce or eliminate benefits for people. The House resolution containing the SNAP changes and tax cuts passed last month by a margin of just one vote — 215-214. A vote also could be close in the Senate, where Republicans hold 53 of the 100 seats. Democrats did not support the bill in the House and are unlikely to do so in the Senate. Some Republican senators have expressed reservations about proposed cuts to food assistance and Medicaid and the potential impact of the bill on the federal deficit. GOP Senate leaders may have to make some changes to the bill to ensure enough support to pass it. Lieb writes for the Associated Press.

More Americans support than oppose Trump's Army celebration parade: Poll
More Americans support than oppose Trump's Army celebration parade: Poll

Yahoo

time29 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

More Americans support than oppose Trump's Army celebration parade: Poll

As President Donald Trump hosts events on Saturday to celebrate the U.S. Army's 250th anniversary, a new national poll indicates more Americans are likely to approve than disapprove of the president's decision to hold a military parade. But six in 10 Americans are concerned about the cost of the parade, saying it's "not a good use" of government money, according to an Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research survey. Trump, who is marking his 79th birthday on Saturday, is scheduled to give a speech during the parade, which will take place Saturday evening along the National Mall in Washington D.C. Defense officials say roughly 6,600 soldiers will march in the parade, with some 50 military aircraft and 150 vehicles, including tanks, rocket launchers, and missiles. The Army says it's spending $25-$45 million to pay for the parade, which includes fixing D.C. streets damaged by the tanks. Trump Warns Any Protesters At His Military Parade Will Be 'Met With Very Big Force' Trump has defended the cost of the parade, saying last month in an interview on NBC's "Meet the Press" that it would be "peanuts compared to the value of doing it." Read On The Fox News App "We have the greatest missiles in the world. We have the greatest submarines in the world. We have the greatest army tanks in the world. We have the greatest weapons in the world. And we're going to celebrate it," the president said. Trump To Host Military Parade To Celebrate Army's 250Th Birthday But some in Congress are criticizing the parade, saying the money could be better spent. "If it was really about celebrating military families, we could put $30 million toward helping them offset the cost of their child care, food assistance and tuition," Sen. Tammy Duckworth, a military veteran who lost both of her legs in combat while piloting an Army Black Hawk helicopter during the Iraq War, said in a social media post. "But it isn't. Trump is throwing himself a $30 million birthday parade just to stroke his own ego," Duckworth argued. According to the poll, 40% of adults nationwide approved of the military parade, with 29% disapproving, and three in 10 neither approving nor disapproving. There was an expected partisan divide, with two-thirds of Republicans approving of the president's move to hold the parade, and half of Democrats disapproving. But in a separate question, 60% of those surveyed said holding the parade was not a good use of government funds, with 38% disagreeing. Nearly two-thirds of Republicans said holding the parade was a good use of government funds, while eight in 10 Democrats disagreed. The White House, in a statement, said that the parade "will be a unifying celebration for not only the thousands in attendance, but Americans across the country who can participate in honoring our active-duty servicemembers, Veterans, and fallen heroes." Pro-democracy, progressive, and labor activists are planning protests in all 50 states on Saturday that will coincide with Trump's military parade. Many are part of a series of "No Kings" protests across the country, with more than 1,500 rallies scheduled for this weekend. But organizers decided against holding a major protest in the nation's capital and instead will hold their main event in Philadelphia. The poll, which was conducted June 5-9, also indicates that 39% of those questioned approve of the job Trump's doing in the White House, with six in ten giving the president a thumbs down. The survey had an overall margin of error of plus or minus four percentage article source: More Americans support than oppose Trump's Army celebration parade: Poll

The Grim Reality of the Conflict in Iran
The Grim Reality of the Conflict in Iran

Yahoo

time29 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

The Grim Reality of the Conflict in Iran

A damaged residential building in Tehran, Iran, on June 13, 2025. Credit - Middle East Images—AFP/Getty In the early hours of Friday morning, Israel launched a sweeping military campaign against Iran. The ongoing operation, which was reportedly planned to unfold over several days, is targeting a list of nuclear and military facilities, as well as senior regime officials, that grows longer by the hour. Iran has thus far retaliated with drones and a substantial missile barrage that could see Israel expand its targeting further still. In a region that has seen endless bloodshed since Hamas's October 2023 attacks, the grim reality is that things may get much worse before they get even worse. Under the Islamic Republic that took power in 1979, enmity toward Israel has been a core ideological tenet of Iranian foreign policy and a key driver in its regional policy. Over decades, their rivalry played out mainly through indirect actions by Iran and by covert operations from Israel. That dynamic changed last year. In April and again in October, the two sides engaged in direct hostilities, with Iran twice launching massive missile salvoes largely repelled by Israeli and allied air defenses. After the second strike, which came shortly after Israel severely degraded the upper ranks of Hizbollah in Lebanon—the most powerful of Iran's proxies—Israel targeted Iranian air defences and missile production facilities, facing little resistance or response. But while Iran's regional power projection was diminishing and its arsenal of missiles and drones twice proved largely ineffective, a third concern—a nuclear threat which Israel considered existential—was still growing. Tehran had been steadily expanding the scale and scope of its nuclear activity ever since President Donald Trump withdrew from the Iran Nuclear Deal during his first term; President Joe Biden's Administration sought and failed to revive it. In March, Trump announced that he had reached out to Iran's leadership to negotiate a new deal, and his administration conducted five rounds of talks in Muscat and Rome in attempts to reach one. For Iran, which sought sanctions relief for its embattled economy, the success of negotiations with the U.S. hinged on concessions it has long opposed: Dismantling its nuclear program altogether or even ceasing the domestic enrichment of uranium. For Israel, eliminating, rather than merely restricting, the production of fissile material that could be used to fuel a weapon has been paramount. For President Trump, the prospect of a military strike by Israel seems a means of strengthening Washington's hand in a diplomatic agreement in which he still remains interested. But at the moment, the question may be less a matter of whether diplomacy can succeed than how grievously the situation could escalate. The worst-case scenarios are dire: A cycle of Israeli and Iranian counterstrikes that draw in the U.S., Iran's non-state allies, and regional states, cause grievous harm to civilians on all sides, and inject profound uncertainty into global markets. Over time, Iran's regime could attempt to reconstitute its nuclear activity from the rubble, only with an explicit aim of fashioning a weapon in the shortest possible time as a means of deterrence in the future. Another disastrous scenario is that the regime in Tehran falls and there is a protracted war for power and chaos or an even harder line regime armed with nuclear weapons. Is there a path out of this deepening crisis? Perhaps, though not a particularly promising one. Trump's stated objective—even as the fire is exchanged in two directions—remains a deal with Iran, and Tehran could offer concessions on the stipulation that it also involve an immediate cessation of hostilities with Israel. Were Iran to concede on its red lines in an effort to stave off greater destruction, perhaps Trump would be keen enough to avert a widening conflagration to also press Israel into ending the escalation cycle as well. Iran's government has previously demonstrated that when facing particularly inauspicious circumstances, especially those that might threaten the very foundations of the regime itself, it can make concessions necessary for its survival. But facing perhaps the gravest crisis it has faced since the eight-year-long war with Iraq in the 1980s, it may end up doubling down to the detriment of its people and the region. Contact us at letters@

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store