Thinking about the future can feel overwhelming these days, especially as an openly transgender woman preparing to teach high school students. Project 2025—a policy plan from conservative think tanks, including the Heritage Foundation—aims to reshape the federal government in ways that could drastically impact education, public policies, and protections for LGBTQ+ individuals. As someone who plans to teach in public schools and who cares deeply about creating safe, inclusive spaces, I can’t help but reflect on what this project might mean for me and for others like me.
At its core, Project 2025 is a conservative “wish list” designed to realign the federal government with what its authors call “traditional” values. Its goals include reducing regulations, diminishing protections for LGBTQ+ individuals, and limiting certain topics in education. By targeting social policies that they see as overly progressive, the project seeks to roll back recent advancements in LGBTQ+ rights, particularly in areas like healthcare, workplace protections, and public education. The impact of these changes, however, wouldn’t stop at the federal level—they would likely encourage similar initiatives at state and local levels, leading to an even more divided and polarized society. If Project 2025 were to come to fruition, it could make life harder and less safe for transgender individuals, impacting not only my personal life but my professional future as an educator.
One of my greatest concerns is how this project could affect transgender people’s access to healthcare. Under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), protections were established to ensure that transgender individuals could not be discriminated against in accessing healthcare. However, Project 2025 proposes a major reduction of federal involvement in healthcare, which could make it easier to limit or outright remove these protections. During the Trump administration, attempts were made to roll back these same ACA protections for transgender people, and it’s likely that Project 2025 would pursue similar changes. For transgender people like me, these protections are more than just legal victories—they are crucial for accessing gender-affirming care and basic healthcare without fear of discrimination or refusal of service. Removing them would deepen an already significant barrier, complicating and threatening our ability to receive compassionate care.
Job protections are another concern. In 2020, the Supreme Court ruled that employment discrimination based on gender identity was prohibited under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. This decision was a hard-won victory for LGBTQ+ rights, but Project 2025’s agenda could challenge its enforcement. The plan could weaken the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) stance on these protections, creating a situation where LGBTQ+ employees face higher risks of discrimination with fewer resources to turn to. As a transgender woman who is preparing to work in a public high school, the idea that I might lose protections from workplace discrimination or harassment is deeply concerning. Working without a sense of job security or safety because of who I am isn’t just intimidating—it’s destabilizing.
Public visibility and safety for transgender people could also be under threat if Project 2025 becomes reality. Already, certain states are pushing policies that restrict transgender rights, such as banning gender-affirming healthcare for minors, limiting restroom access, and curtailing the use of preferred names and pronouns in schools. Project 2025 could make such state-level restrictions more widespread, creating an increasingly hostile environment for transgender people across the country. The everyday hostility transgender people navigate could become an even greater burden under a government that actively endorses policies to restrict our rights and visibility in public spaces.
In my role as a future teacher, I’m particularly worried about how Project 2025’s education policies could impact schools. In its emphasis on restoring “traditional” values, the project targets what it sees as overly progressive curricula. For many educators, especially LGBTQ+ teachers, this could mean a dramatic shift in what we’re able to say, teach, or discuss with our students. Conservative educational policies have already placed restrictions on discussing topics of gender identity and sexual orientation, and Project 2025 could take this further, curbing the very conversations that help foster empathy and understanding in diverse classrooms. For an openly transgender teacher, this kind of restrictive environment could mean walking a tightrope, avoiding essential discussions on identity and inclusion to avoid professional risk or penalties.
Beyond content restrictions, Project 2025 could also impact teachers’ freedom to express support for LGBTQ+ rights openly. Some recent state-level policies prevent teachers from using a student’s chosen name or pronouns, even if doing so would support a student’s mental health and identity. If a Project 2025-influenced administration encourages such restrictions at the federal level, it would push teachers into a troubling situation. We could face the choice of following rigid policies or being there for our students in ways we know are vital to their well-being. I can imagine the conflict that might arise from trying to be an inclusive, compassionate teacher while navigating policies that could treat such support as unprofessional or even punishable.
A government agenda like Project 2025 could also leave transgender teachers professionally vulnerable. If this project’s policies limit support for LGBTQ+ rights in public education, teachers who openly identify as transgender or who vocally support LGBTQ+ students may find themselves targeted, scrutinized, or penalized. This kind of professional risk could discourage talented, caring teachers from entering or remaining in the field, ultimately harming students who benefit from seeing themselves represented among the adults who guide them.
Despite all the anxieties and uncertainties, Project 2025’s rise has also reminded me of the power of community and resilience. People from all walks of life support diversity and inclusion, and we’re not alone in standing up for an education system that welcomes everyone. There are many of us who are ready to push back against policies that seek to diminish our visibility and rights, and we’re prepared to continue advocating for inclusive schools. The possibility of Project 2025 becoming reality doesn’t just challenge us—it motivates us to strengthen our support networks, raise our voices, and remind others that the values of inclusion and respect are worth fighting for.
While Project 2025 looms as a potentially drastic shift in the government’s approach to transgender rights and public education, I still find hope. Across the country, students, parents, allies, and educators believe in the importance of diversity and inclusion, and together, we can push back against policies that fail to protect our rights. As a future teacher, I am committed to fostering a classroom where all my students feel seen, heard, and valued. Despite the challenges that may come, I am confident that with resilience and community, we can hold on to the progress we’ve made—and keep pushing forward for even more.
A lot of shit has been happening since the last time I posted on here. First off, happy Mothers’ Day to all the mothers out there. I sent my mother a gift card to Amazon. It was done digitally, but she hasn’t picked it up yet. They have limited access to the internet. She’ll get it sooner or later.
Hunger by Choice: The SNAP Crisis No One Needed
By Katherine Walter
On October 31, 2025
In United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
Volunteers prepare food packages at a local distribution center as millions face uncertainty over SNAP benefits amid the ongoing government shutdown. (Image generated by ChatGPT using DALL·E, 2025.)
I write this as someone who served for twelve years as a Senior Program Specialist for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) at the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). During my time with the agency, I witnessed firsthand how critical the program is to millions of American families. The system depends on a consistent flow of federal funds, and when that flow is interrupted—as it will be tomorrow—the consequences are devastating.
Beginning November 1, SNAP benefits are set to lapse due to the ongoing federal government shutdown. The USDA announced that it will not issue new benefits because regular appropriations have not been passed for fiscal year 2026 (Associated Press, 2025). The department has stated that it cannot legally draw from the contingency fund to cover regular benefits, even though those funds exist for emergencies (Reuters, 2025).
The USDA maintains an emergency or contingency fund of approximately $5 to $6 billion. That money was created to ensure that families would not go hungry during funding lapses or disasters. Experts argue that the USDA has both the legal authority and the moral obligation to tap this fund (Center for American Progress, 2019). From my years working within the program, I know that withholding this funding is not a technical necessity—it is a political decision.
More than 42 million Americans depend on SNAP each month (Center for American Progress, 2019). If those benefits stop, food insecurity will spike immediately. Local food banks will be overwhelmed, and low-income families will struggle to put meals on the table. The refusal to release the contingency funds ensures that millions will suffer unnecessarily.
In an October 24 memo, the USDA stated that “SNAP contingency funds are only available to supplement regular monthly benefits when amounts have been appropriated for, but are insufficient to cover, benefits” and that “the contingency fund is not available to support FY 2026 regular benefits, because the appropriation for regular benefits no longer exists” (Reuters, 2025, para. 4). However, this interpretation contradicts previous USDA practices. In past shutdowns, the department used available reserves to issue benefits, recognizing the essential nature of the program (Center for American Progress, 2019).
Republican lawmakers have claimed that the shutdown—and the resulting SNAP lapse—is the fault of Democrats for refusing to pass appropriations or a continuing resolution. They argue that accessing contingency funds would be “legally unavailable” or would create administrative chaos (Politico, 2025). These talking points are misleading. The contingency fund is legally available under the Food and Nutrition Act, and the infrastructure for benefit issuance remains intact (Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 2025). The administration’s decision not to use the funds is political, not procedural.
From my professional experience, I can say that the USDA’s current position is indefensible. SNAP’s contingency fund exists precisely to prevent hunger during political gridlock. To deny families access to food because of an interpretation of funding language is a dereliction of duty. Past administrations, regardless of party, have prioritized feeding Americans even during shutdowns. That precedent should not end now.
By this weekend, millions of Americans will begin to feel the impact. Food banks will face long lines. States will scramble for stopgap solutions. Children, seniors, and people with disabilities will suddenly find themselves without the support they have come to rely on. The suffering that will follow is not inevitable—it is a choice. The federal government must either pass funding immediately or authorize the release of contingency funds to keep SNAP operational.
SNAP benefits should not be held hostage to political posturing. This program is one of the most effective anti-poverty tools the nation has ever created. The machinery to deliver aid is ready—the only missing element is political will. The American people deserve better.
References
Associated Press. (2025, October 30). USDA says SNAP benefits to lapse as shutdown drags on. AP News. https://apnews.com/article/8a52a63b26a707ea676962226b090bb1
Center for American Progress. (2019, January 18). The Trump administration has the power and legal obligation to pay SNAP benefits during the shutdown. https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-trump-administration-has-the-power-and-legal-obligation-to-pay-snap-benefits-during-the-shutdown
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. (2025, October 27). SNAP’s contingency reserve is available for regular SNAP benefits as USDA weighs options. https://www.cbpp.org/research/food-assistance/snaps-contingency-reserve-is-available-for-regular-snap-benefits-as-usda
Politico. (2025, October 30). Trump administration faces lawsuit over decision to halt food aid during shutdown. https://www.politico.com/news/2025/10/30/trump-administration-snap-food-aid-lawsuit-shutdown-00630133
Reuters. (2025, October 24). USDA memo says it will not use emergency funds for November food benefits. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/usda-memo-says-it-will-not-use-emergency-funds-november-food-benefits-2025-10-24