The Philippines Offers a Glimpse Into What Project 2025 Could Mean for America

There’s a political pattern unfolding in the Philippines that deserves closer attention here in the United States. It’s not an exact replica of our politics, but it offers a useful case study in how democratic institutions can be reshaped—gradually and legally—into something far more centralized, less accountable, and harder to reverse.

The Philippines has a long and complicated relationship with strongman leadership. In the 1970s, Ferdinand Marcos Sr. declared martial law, consolidating power and curbing civil liberties in the name of order and progress. After years of corruption and abuse, he was eventually ousted through a popular democratic movement.

But decades later, the Marcos name is back. His son, Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr., is now president. He followed Rodrigo Duterte, a populist who built his presidency around a controversial war on drugs, open hostility toward the press, and sweeping powers consolidated in the executive. Today, their children—Marcos Jr. and Vice President Sara Duterte—govern the country together. It’s a modern-day political dynasty shaped by nostalgia, savvy media use, and a consistent theme of strength over process.

What’s happening there may sound far removed from American politics, but in many ways, it mirrors the ambitions laid out in Project 2025—a sweeping policy framework prepared by allies of Donald Trump for a potential second term. The plan proposes major structural changes to the federal government, including giving the president far more direct control over agencies that are currently designed to operate independently. It also calls for the dismantling of key regulatory bodies and replacing career civil servants with political loyalists.

None of this is hidden. The authors of Project 2025 have made their goals explicit. And the framework follows a familiar logic: reduce the friction of democratic governance in order to move faster, push harder, and consolidate authority. It’s presented as a solution to bureaucracy—but in practice, it means fewer safeguards, fewer independent voices, and more power concentrated in one place.

The Duterte and Marcos administrations have shown how this playbook works in real time. From the outside, elections still happen. Institutions still exist. But the balance of power slowly shifts. Media narratives are managed. Opposition voices are weakened. And over time, it becomes harder for voters to hold leadership accountable.

This isn’t about dramatics or doomsday scenarios—it’s about patterns. About understanding how governments change, not overnight, but through accumulation. The blueprint exists. We've seen it work elsewhere. The question is whether we’re paying enough attention to recognize the signs here.