Why some US policies appear to be designed to undo progress in the fields of medicine and politics?
Executive summary
Some observers say recent U.S. policy moves — from rolling back regulations to executive orders and budget fights — actively reverse prior progress in health, climate and governance; critics point to Project 2025 and administration actions as a blueprint for wide rollbacks and claim 47% of that agenda was under way by Oct. 2025 [1] [2]. Supporters of the changes frame them as deregulation, fiscal restraint, and a reorientation of national strategy rather than deliberate undoing of progress [3] [4].
1. What critics see as an organized undoing
Progressive groups and think tanks portray many 2025 policy changes as coordinated rollback efforts that directly undermine recent gains. The Center for Progressive Reform reports that more than 47% of the Project 2025 domestic regulatory agenda had been initiated or fulfilled by October 2025, and that the administration used a government shutdown to advance goals like slashing programs that benefit millions [1]. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities documents executive actions that eliminate protections — such as special health insurance enrollment periods and data collections used to measure family hardship — which it says will harm low‑income and vulnerable communities [5]. Wikipedia’s Project 2025 entry summarizes Heritage Foundation recommendations that, if implemented, would roll back major climate and energy investments and reorganize agencies — a program critics say amounts to a deliberate reversal of policy directions set in recent years [2].
2. The administration’s stated rationale: reorientation, deregulation, fiscal priorities
Supporters frame these moves as intentional reorientation, not nihilistic reversal. Brookings’ analysis of the 2025 National Security Strategy describes a clear repudiation of past global approaches and an explicit redefinition of U.S. interests — a strategic shift rather than mere chaos [3]. Policy proposals summarized in industry and consulting commentary emphasize tax cuts, tariff leverage and deregulation to spur growth, including calls to permanently extend 2017 tax cuts and lower corporate rates as economic priorities [4]. Those advancing these policies argue they restore economic competitiveness and prioritize national sovereignty and fiscal discipline [3] [4].
3. Where policy design intersects with practical effects on medicine and science
Federal research and healthcare policies have been affected by administrative directives. Harvard’s research office tracked federal agency updates tied to executive orders, noting concrete changes like NIH’s 15% indirect cost rate cap applied to grants beginning February 2025 — a change that affects university budgets and research capacity [6]. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities documents executive actions that reduce enrollment windows and restrict eligibility, which critics say raise costs and shrink access for people with marketplace coverage [5]. Whether those outcomes are framed as unintended budgetary discipline or as active dismantling is disputed among observers [6] [5].
4. The legislative and budgetary battlefield: cuts, reconciliation, and program impacts
Major changes are also pursued through budgeting choices. CBPP highlights Republican strategies to use budget reconciliation to extend tax cuts and cut mandatory programs like SNAP and Medicaid, warning these decisions could leave millions worse off [7]. Peak Re and other analysts flag that proposed tax and deregulation packages aim to offset cuts with tariffs or spending reductions, and that credit‑rating agencies have already downgraded U.S. sovereign debt amid shifting fiscal dynamics — indicating real fiscal risks to these policy choices [4].
5. Competing narratives and the role of think‑tank blueprints
Project 2025 illustrates how policy blueprints can accelerate change. Wikipedia’s coverage shows the Heritage Foundation’s Mandate aims to install personnel and policy changes across government and has been used as a playbook for administration priorities, which supporters would call necessary overhaul and opponents call a consolidation of partisan power [2]. The Center for Progressive Reform interprets activity tracked against Project 2025 as proof the blueprint is in effect [1]. The juxtaposition of these sources shows a clear disagreement about intent: architects see reform; critics see coordinated rollback.
6. What’s missing from current reporting and where uncertainty remains
Available sources document actions and agendas but do not fully settle whether policymakers intended to “undo progress” as a primary goal versus pursuing alternate priorities framed as reforms; explicit intent is not detailed in these documents (not found in current reporting). Long‑term impacts on medical outcomes, research ecosystems, and political norms remain uncertain and depend on litigation, future budget fights, and implementation details not yet fully reported [6] [7].
7. Bottom line for readers
The record shows a pattern of policy choices in 2025 that critics view as systematic rollbacks — with Project 2025 cited as a coordinating blueprint and trackers reporting substantial implementation [2] [1]. Administrations and advocates argue these are strategic shifts toward deregulation, fiscal realignment, and national‑interest foreign policy rather than simple backsliding [3] [4]. Assessing whether these moves “undo progress” requires watching litigation, budget outcomes, and the measurable effects on health, climate, and research capacity as agencies implement changes [6] [5].