Project 2025 has emerged as a significant focal point in discussions surrounding Donald Trump’s potential second term as US President. This comprehensive policy document, a “wish list” of sorts, stretches over 900 pages and outlines proposals aimed at significantly expanding presidential power and implementing a deeply conservative social vision across the United States. While Donald Trump himself has publicly distanced himself from Project 2025 amidst criticism of its more radical elements, his administration’s actions and appointments suggest a closer alignment with its principles than his public statements might indicate. Understanding Project 2025 is crucial for anyone seeking to grasp the potential direction of a second Trump presidency and its implications for American governance and society.
The Genesis of Project 2025: Who is Behind It?
Project 2025 is the brainchild of the Heritage Foundation, a prominent and influential right-wing think tank based in Washington D.C. The Heritage Foundation has a history of producing policy blueprints for incoming Republican administrations, a practice dating back to 1981 with Ronald Reagan’s presidency. These documents serve as comprehensive recommendations, shaping the policy landscape and offering a ready-made agenda for conservative leadership. Similar initiatives were undertaken by the Heritage Foundation prior to Trump’s first presidential victory in 2016, highlighting their consistent role in influencing Republican policy.
This type of policy proposal is not unique to the Heritage Foundation; think tanks across the political spectrum routinely generate policy recommendations for future administrations. However, the Heritage Foundation’s influence within Republican circles is undeniable. During Trump’s first term, the think tank proudly announced that the White House had adopted nearly two-thirds of their proposed policies, demonstrating their significant impact on the administration’s direction.
Project 2025, officially unveiled in April 2023, initially flew under the radar outside of policy wonks and political insiders. It wasn’t until the 2024 presidential campaign intensified that the document gained wider public attention, largely fueled by Democratic opposition. The Democratic Party launched initiatives like the “Stop Project 2025 Task Force,” even establishing tip lines to gather information on the Heritage Foundation’s activities, underscoring the perceived threat and scope of Project 2025. The Harris campaign, along with its surrogates, consistently brought up Project 2025 in public speeches and interviews, further amplifying its visibility and sparking public debate.
In response to the growing scrutiny, Donald Trump publicly distanced himself from Project 2025 in July 2024. “I know nothing about Project 2025,” he stated on his social media platform, Truth Social. He further added, “I disagree with some of the things they’re saying and some of the things they’re saying are absolutely ridiculous and abysmal,” attempting to downplay any direct connection or endorsement.
Despite Trump’s public disavowal, the team behind Project 2025 includes numerous former Trump administration officials. Paul Dans, the project’s director, previously served as chief of staff at the Office of Personnel Management during Trump’s presidency. While Dans later departed from the project, the presence of such figures underscores the interconnectedness between Project 2025 and Trump’s political network.
Furthermore, several key authors of Project 2025 have been appointed to significant government positions in Trump’s administration. Russell Vought, a prominent figure who identifies as a Christian nationalist and authored a crucial chapter in the document, was confirmed by the Senate to lead the Office of Budget Management, overseeing the massive $6.75 trillion federal budget. Senator Chuck Schumer, a Democrat, labeled Vought “the chief architect of Project 2025, its intellectual inspiration,” highlighting the deep concern over the project’s influence. Vought was also placed in charge of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, an agency the Trump administration has publicly expressed a desire to dismantle.
Other Project 2025 contributors nominated for key government roles include CIA director John Ratcliffe, Brendan Carr for the Federal Communications Commission, Tom Homan as “border czar,” Paul Atkins to head the Securities and Exchange Commission, and trade advisor Peter Navarro. The Heritage Foundation states that over 100 conservative organizations contributed to Project 2025, many of which are poised to become highly influential in Washington.
The core tenets of Project 2025 are outlined in the document itself, which articulates four primary policy objectives: to restore the traditional family as the cornerstone of American society, to dismantle the existing administrative state, to vigorously defend national sovereignty and borders, and to safeguard what it defines as God-given individual rights to live freely. Notably, some proposals from Project 2025 have already found their way into Trump’s executive orders, although these ideas are also reflected in other conservative policy platforms, including the Republican Party platform and Trump’s own “Agenda47” campaign manifesto.
Donald Trump speaking at a rally. Project 2025 outlines a potential policy direction for a second Trump administration.
Reforming the Government: Centralizing Power in the Presidency
A cornerstone of Project 2025 is a radical restructuring of the federal government, advocating for the placement of the entire federal bureaucracy, including ostensibly independent agencies like the Department of Justice, under direct presidential control. This controversial concept is rooted in the “unitary executive theory,” which posits that the president should have supreme authority over the executive branch.
Implementing this theory would drastically streamline decision-making processes, granting the president unprecedented power to directly enact policies across a wide range of areas. Furthermore, Project 2025 calls for the elimination of job protections for thousands of career government employees, paving the way for their replacement with political appointees loyal to the president’s agenda. This would fundamentally alter the nature of the civil service, potentially politicizing traditionally non-partisan roles.
The document explicitly targets the FBI, labeling it a “bloated, arrogant, increasingly lawless organization.” It proposes sweeping overhauls of the FBI and numerous other agencies, even advocating for the complete abolition of the Department of Education. These proposals reflect a deep distrust of the existing federal bureaucracy and a desire to dismantle what conservatives often refer to as the “administrative state.”
Echoing these sentiments, Trump took swift action early in his first term to erode job protections for career civil servants and impose freezes on federal spending, signaling his intent to reshape the government. The establishment of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), advised by Elon Musk, further illustrates this drive. While DOGE is not an official government department, it operates as an external advisory team with broad presidential authority, aiming to cut billions in federal spending. The precise details and legal standing of these cuts remain unclear, but the overall direction aligns with Project 2025’s goal of dramatically downsizing and restructuring the federal government. It is evident that Trump aims to fundamentally reshape the federal government, a goal that resonates strongly with the recommendations outlined in Project 2025.
Social Policy: Abortion, Family, and “Biblical” Values
Project 2025’s stance on social issues, particularly abortion, has ignited significant controversy and public debate. The document mentions abortion approximately 200 times, underscoring its central role in their proposed social agenda. While Project 2025 does not explicitly call for a nationwide abortion ban, and Trump has stated he would not sign such legislation, its proposals aim to severely restrict abortion access through other means.
One key proposal is the withdrawal of mifepristone, a widely used abortion pill, from the market. Project 2025 also suggests leveraging existing but rarely enforced laws to prevent the drug’s distribution through the mail, effectively limiting access to medication abortion. Beyond restricting abortion access, the document advocates for new data collection initiatives related to abortion and proposes that the Department of Health and Human Services should adhere to a “biblically based, social science-reinforced definition of marriage and family.” This language signals an intent to promote a specific, conservative Christian view of family structures within government policy.
In contrast to Project 2025’s more prescriptive approach, Trump has generally stated that abortion laws should primarily be determined at the state level. However, his actions and appointments suggest a more nuanced position. Robert F Kennedy Jr., Trump’s nominee for health secretary, stated during confirmation hearings that the president had instructed him to examine the safety record of mifepristone, leaving open the possibility of increased federal regulation of the drug, which aligns with Project 2025’s objectives. Furthermore, Trump’s executive order aimed at preventing federal funds from being used for abortion directly mirrors proposals detailed in Project 2025, indicating a degree of alignment on this contentious issue.
Immigration: Hardening Borders and Enforcement
Immigration policy is another area where Project 2025 and Trump’s known stances converge, particularly concerning border security and enforcement. Increased funding for a wall on the US-Mexico border, a signature promise of Trump’s 2016 campaign, is reiterated within the document.
While Trump’s highly publicized pledge to deport millions of undocumented immigrants is not explicitly detailed in Project 2025, the document emphasizes “thoroughly enforcing immigration laws.” The main chapter on immigration within Project 2025 proposes a significant restructuring of immigration enforcement agencies. It suggests dismantling the Department of Homeland Security and merging its functions with immigration enforcement units from other agencies, creating a consolidated and considerably more powerful border policing apparatus.
Other immigration-related proposals in Project 2025 include eliminating visa categories for victims of crime and human trafficking, increasing fees for immigrants, and offering expedited application processing for migrants willing to pay a premium. However, it is important to note that mass deportations, a central theme of Trump’s rhetoric, are not explicitly detailed as a core policy proposal within Project 2025. While the document advocates for stricter immigration enforcement, Trump’s administration may pursue policies on deportation that go beyond the specific proposals outlined in Project 2025.
EPA Migrants at the US southern border wall in Juarez City, Mexico
Energy, Climate, and Trade: “Drill, Baby, Drill” and Economic Nationalism
Energy policy represents a substantial area of agreement between Trump and Project 2025, encapsulated by Trump’s campaign slogan “Drill, baby, drill.” Both advocate for policies aimed at significantly increasing fossil fuel production. Trump’s withdrawal of the US from the Paris Agreement on climate change aligns with Project 2025’s broader rejection of climate action.
Project 2025 proposes drastic cuts to federal funding for research and investment in renewable energy sources. It explicitly calls for the next president to “stop the war on oil and natural gas,” a sentiment enthusiastically embraced by the Trump campaign. This approach signals a decisive shift away from renewable energy and towards prioritizing fossil fuels.
In the realm of trade, Project 2025 presents somewhat conflicting viewpoints, with one section advocating for boosting free trade and another promoting protectionist, pro-tariff policies. Trump has clearly aligned himself with the latter approach, evidenced by his announcement of import tariffs targeting countries like Canada, Mexico, and China.
Economic advisors associated with Project 2025 suggest a range of policies for a second Trump administration, including significant cuts to corporate and income taxes, abolishing the Federal Reserve, and even exploring a return to a gold-backed currency. While Trump has commented on some of these economic proposals, his administration’s initial focus has heavily leaned towards tariffs and trade protectionism, suggesting this will be a dominant theme in his economic agenda.
Education, Tech, and DEI: Targeting “Woke Ideology”
Early actions in Trump’s first term, such as ending diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs and declaring that government departments would recognize only two genders, foreshadowed the broader cultural agenda outlined in Project 2025. These moves directly align with Project 2025’s critique of DEI initiatives and gender terminology as part of a larger effort to combat what it terms “woke ideology.”
Project 2025 advocates for expanding school choice, essentially using public funds to subsidize religious and private schools, a policy also pursued through early executive orders during Trump’s first term. The document further calls for abolishing the Department of Education, an idea Trump has also publicly supported, signaling a desire to significantly reduce the federal role in education policy.
Expanding beyond education, Project 2025 proposes measures like banning pornography and potentially shutting down tech and telecoms companies that facilitate access to adult content. While this has not yet been a primary focus of the Trump administration, which has garnered support from some tech industry leaders, it indicates a potential direction for future policy considerations. Trump’s views on the tech industry have been variable, and his concerns appear less focused on content moderation and more on issues of market dominance and alleged censorship of conservative voices.
The Uncertain Path Forward for Project 2025
Project 2025 represents a massive and well-funded undertaking, backed by a $22 million budget from the Heritage Foundation. It goes beyond policy recommendations, including detailed implementation strategies, such as creating a database of conservative individuals to fill government positions and establishing training programs for these new appointees.
Despite Trump’s public distancing, there are clear areas of policy alignment and personnel overlap between his administration and Project 2025. Many of the themes within Project 2025 were already circulating within Trump’s campaign and among his advisors independently.
At this early stage of a potential second Trump term, the extent to which Project 2025 will fully shape policy remains uncertain. Democrats have vowed to continue opposing these proposals and highlighting Project 2025’s influence. Furthermore, many of Trump’s executive orders and policy initiatives are likely to face ongoing political and legal challenges, which could constrain the full implementation of the Project 2025 agenda. Ultimately, the future impact of Project 2025 will depend on a complex interplay of political will, public opinion, and legal constraints.
Republican Party
Democratic Party
US election 2024
Donald Trump
US politics
United States
