Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Project 2025


Project 2025, formally known as the 2025 Presidential Transition Project, is a conservative initiative spearheaded by to equip a potential administration with policy recommendations, personnel resources, and operational strategies following the 2024 U.S. . Launched in 2022 under the leadership of Heritage Foundation president Kevin Roberts, it unites over 100 right-of-center organizations and hundreds of contributors, including former administration officials, to counter entrenched bureaucratic influences and advance a vision of , national sovereignty, and traditional American values. The project's core component is the 922-page Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise, a detailed policy guide proposing agency-by-agency reforms to dismantle aspects of , such as reclassifying federal employees for greater presidential control, eliminating certain regulatory agencies, and prioritizing border security and family-centric policies. Complementing this are three other pillars: a personnel database to identify and vet conservative appointees, a training academy to prepare them for effective governance, and a 180-day implementation playbook for swift executive actions. These elements aim to enable rapid policy execution, drawing from first-hand experiences of administrative resistance during prior conservative terms. While proponents view Project 2025 as essential for restoring constitutional executive authority and reversing progressive expansions of federal power, it has elicited significant controversy, with critics—often from left-leaning institutions prone to systemic bias—labeling its proposals as authoritarian despite their grounding in unitary executive theory and empirical observations of bureaucratic overreach. Post-2024, elements of the project have informed President Trump's transition efforts, underscoring its influence on contemporary conservative governance strategies.

Origins

Launch of the Initiative

Project 2025 was established in 2022 by the as a collaborative effort to develop policy recommendations and personnel strategies for a potential presidential administration entering office in 2025. The initiative was led by Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts, who assumed the role in late 2021 and directed the project's formation amid preparations for the 2024 election cycle. Drawing on the foundation's history of producing policy blueprints, such as prior editions of the series dating back to 1981, the project mobilized hundreds of conservative policy experts, former government officials, and affiliated organizations to address perceived expansions of federal bureaucracy under prior administrations. The public debut occurred with the release of the core document, , in April 2023. This nearly 900-page volume detailed agency-specific reforms, emphasizing the reduction of administrative state influence and the alignment of executive branch operations with constitutional principles. Contributors included over 100 partner organizations and approximately 140 individuals with prior experience in the administration, though positioned the project as an independent conservative endeavor rather than an official campaign affiliate. Initial activities focused on building a database of potential appointees and training programs to facilitate rapid implementation of proposed changes upon a transition to power, reflecting lessons from delays in the 2017 administration staffing. The launch underscored a $22 million budget commitment from to support these preparations, highlighting the scale of coordination among conservative groups.

Historical Precedents in Conservative Planning

, established on December 6, 1973, by and with initial funding from , aimed to counter the perceived dominance of liberal think tanks like the in shaping U.S. policy. This foundational effort marked an early organized conservative response to bureaucratic expansion and liberal policy influence, emphasizing research and advocacy for limited government, free enterprise, and traditional values. A direct precedent for Project 2025 emerged with the Heritage Foundation's inaugural , published in January 1981 shortly after Reagan's election victory on November 4, 1980. This 1,093-page document outlined over 2,000 specific policy recommendations across executive agencies, focusing on reducing federal spending, deregulating industries, strengthening national defense, and reforming programs to promote self-reliance. Conceived in fall 1979 during the presidential transition planning phase, it served as a comprehensive blueprint for incoming conservative administrations, contrasting with policy development. The 1981 Mandate demonstrated significant influence on the Reagan administration, with nearly two-thirds of its recommendations adopted or attempted, including major tax reductions via the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, which cut marginal rates by 25% over three years and spurred economic growth. assessments reported 60% implementation in Reagan's first year alone, covering areas like defense buildup and regulatory rollbacks, though the group expressed disappointment over incomplete adherence in some sectors, such as partial retention of certain federal programs. This success validated pre-election policy planning as a mechanism for rapid executive action, influencing subsequent conservative efforts without relying on legislative majorities. Subsequent iterations of the Mandate series built on this model, including editions for the and , but the 1981 version established the template for Project 2025 by integrating personnel recommendations, agency-specific reforms, and philosophical critiques of administrative state overreach. For instance, the 2016 saw 64% of its prescriptions adopted by the administration through budgets, regulations, or ongoing consideration, reinforcing the approach's efficacy in conservative transitions. These precedents highlight a consistent of detailed, proactive to align federal bureaucracy with constitutional principles and empirical outcomes, rather than reactive .

Organizational Framework

Leadership and Key Figures

Project 2025 is spearheaded by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank founded in 1973, with its president Kevin Roberts providing strategic oversight since the initiative's launch in April 2022. Roberts, who assumed the presidency of Heritage in October 2021, has emphasized the project's role in uniting over 100 conservative organizations to develop a comprehensive policy agenda and personnel pipeline for a potential Republican administration. The project's initial operational leadership was under Paul Dans, appointed director in 2022 and serving until his resignation on July 30, 2024. Dans, a former official in the administration's Department of Justice, coordinated the compilation of the 922-page : The Conservative Promise, drawing on contributions from approximately 350 individuals across policy domains. Following Dans' exit, Roberts directly assumed leadership of the core team, with interim support from figures like Spencer Chretien, a former White House aide who served as associate director. Key figures among the contributors include , former director of the Office of Management and Budget (2019–2021), who authored chapters on executive branch reorganization and fiscal policy, advocating for enhanced presidential control over federal agencies. Other prominent authors encompass former Trump officials such as Stephen Miller, influential in immigration policy formulation, and , contributing to homeland security sections, reflecting the project's heavy reliance on experienced conservative policymakers. The initiative's advisory board, comprising leaders from allied organizations like the and America First Legal, further shaped its direction without formal executive roles.

Contributor and Partner Network

Project 2025's contributor and partner network is anchored by , which coordinated an of over 100 conservative organizations to formulate proposals, personnel databases, and programs for a potential presidential transition. This coalition grew to 100 partners by February 20, 2024, with the explicit goal of countering perceived bureaucratic overreach and preparing implementation tools, including a 180-day action playbook, to enable swift governance changes starting January 20, 2025. The partners represent a range of think tanks, advocacy groups, and institutes emphasizing , traditional family structures, immigration enforcement, and economic . The ": The Conservative Promise," the project's core 900-page policy document released in July 2023, drew from hundreds of volunteer contributors, including former administration officials and subject-matter experts who authored chapters on executive authority, regulatory reform, and departmental overhauls. These individuals provided detailed blueprints for staffing federal agencies with aligned personnel and dismantling what the document describes as an unaccountable administrative state, reflecting a collective effort unbound by any specific campaign but oriented toward conservative priorities. Key partner organizations include:
  • American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC): Focused on model legislation promoting free markets and .
  • Family Research Council: Advocates for policies supporting traditional marriage and religious liberty.
  • Turning Point USA: Engages in youth outreach to promote conservative principles on campuses.
  • Center for Immigration Studies: Researches and proposes restrictions on and policies.
  • National Rifle Association (NRA): Supports Second Amendment rights and opposes measures.
  • Alliance Defending Freedom: Litigates on behalf of religious freedoms and pro-life positions.
This network's breadth underscores a decentralized yet unified conservative infrastructure, distinct from direct partisan apparatus, though critics from left-leaning outlets have highlighted overlaps with Trump-era figures without equivalent scrutiny of institutional biases in opposing analyses.

Funding and Resources

Project 2025 draws its primary funding from The Heritage Foundation, which serves as the central coordinating entity, supplemented by resources from over 100 partner conservative organizations on its advisory board. The Heritage Foundation does not publicly disclose a dedicated budget for the project, integrating its costs into broader operational expenses, but tax filings reveal substantial financial inflows supporting related activities. In fiscal year 2022, Heritage reported total contributions of $95 million, a 26% increase from 2021, with $1.67 million in grants overall, of which $965,000—58% of the total—went to Project 2025 advisory board organizations. Donor contributions to and its network have included support from conservative foundations and individuals, often channeled through donor-advised funds lacking itemized public transparency. Analysis of IRS disclosures shows that networks tied to six families directed more than $120 million to Project 2025 advisory groups between 2020 and 2023, with the Lynde and Harry providing $52.9 million across 29 entities, Barre Seid's Marble Freedom Trust allocating $22.4 million (including $11.9 million to ), and the Scaife family foundations contributing $21.5 million (including $4.1 million to ). Other notable inputs include $13 million from to groups like the Foundation for Government Accountability, $9.6 million linked to Charles G. Koch (such as $3.8 million to the ), and $2.7 million from the Foundation to 22 advisory organizations, including $300,000 to . Additional resources stem from dark-money vehicles like , which granted $16.5 million to Project 2025 members in 2022, up slightly from $15 million in 2021 and linked to networks associated with judicial activist . These funds facilitate the project's core components, including the 900-page policy blueprint, a database of over 20,000 potential personnel recruits, and training academies for administrative roles. While emphasizes voluntary contributions from aligned philanthropists advancing limited-government principles, critics from left-leaning outlets portray the funding as opaque billionaire influence, though the disclosures align with standard nonprofit reporting requirements for 501(c)(3) entities.

Philosophical Underpinnings

Critique of Bureaucratic Expansion

Project 2025 contends that represents an unconstitutional accretion of power, where unelected bureaucrats exercise legislative and judicial functions in violation of Article I of the U.S. Constitution, which vests lawmaking authority solely in . This expansion, according to the project's , has eroded by enabling agencies to impose policies without electoral , often advancing ideological agendas disconnected from public will. Proponents argue that doctrines like Chevron deference, which allowed agencies broad interpretive latitude until its overturn in 2024, exemplified this overreach by deferring to bureaucratic expertise over statutory text and democratic processes. Empirically, the critique highlights the proliferation of federal regulations as evidence of unchecked growth: the now spans 242 volumes exceeding 185,000 pages, with agencies issuing thousands of rules annually, far surpassing the Founders' vision of . This regulatory burden, estimated at over one million restrictions, imposes costs that stifle innovation and economic liberty without corresponding legislative oversight. While the federal civilian workforce has remained relatively stable at around 2 million employees since the —shrinking as a of the U.S. from 1.1% in to 0.6% today—the critique emphasizes qualitative expansion through agency missions, such as the Department of State's growth from a modest post-1789 entity to over 80,000 personnel, including 13,517 foreign service officers. Agencies like the , with 240,000 employees, are cited for mission drift, diverting resources from core functions like border security to expansive grants totaling $56 billion since 2002. Further, Project 2025 attributes bureaucratic entrenchment to procedural barriers, noting Congress's failure to pass a proper since 1996, resulting in reliance on spending that perpetuates autonomy and contributes to a federal debt exceeding $31 trillion. This unaccountability manifests in resistance to elected , as seen in politicized community actions and environmental agencies' activist-driven regulations, such as the EPA's handling of crises like the 2015 Gold King Mine spill, which underscored operational failures amid regulatory proliferation. The project's analysis posits that such expansion, accelerated during the Progressive Era and , has inverted the constitutional order, subordinating elected branches to an insulated fourth branch that prioritizes perpetuity over responsiveness.

Advocacy for Constitutional Restraint

Project 2025 advocates for constraining federal authority to the enumerated powers outlined in the U.S. Constitution, arguing that the expansive administrative state has deviated from the framers' original intent by usurping legislative and executive functions through unelected bureaucrats. The initiative posits that such overreach undermines self-governance and individual liberty, proposing a reduction in the federal government's size and scope to align with constitutional boundaries, as evidenced by recommendations to eliminate or restructure agencies like the Department of Education and portions of the Department of Homeland Security that intrude into state and local domains. Central to this advocacy is a critique of the administrative state's violation of , where has improperly delegated its lawmaking authority, allowing agencies to issue regulations with the force of without adequate . Proponents assert that this delegation creates an unaccountable , contravening Article I's vesting of legislative power in and Article II's assignment of executive authority to the . To restore balance, Project 2025 recommends empowering the to direct actions rigorously, including through political appointees who prioritize constitutional fidelity over bureaucratic inertia, while rejecting unauthorized activities such as expansive EPA interpretations of congressional statutes. The framework emphasizes as a mechanism for restraint, devolving responsibilities like , , and certain programs to states, which are viewed as better positioned to address local needs without mandates that exceed constitutional limits. This approach aligns with the Tenth Amendment's reservation of non-delegated powers to the states and people, critiquing programs—such as national flood insurance or school meal overreach—as unwarranted intrusions that distort markets and inflate costs. By privatizing functions like student loans and shifting transportation asset management to states and localities, the plan seeks to minimize spending, projected to exceed $3 trillion annually in recent budgets, and refocus government on securing unalienable rights rather than expansive promotion. An originalist interpretation underpins these proposals, insisting that executive actions must adhere strictly to textual and historical meanings of the , with the president obligated to restrain legislative or judicial excesses using independent authorities when necessary. This includes enforcing treaty processes under Article II and limiting agency guidance that circumvents statutory requirements, thereby preventing the executive from bending the to policy whims. Overall, the advocacy frames constitutional restraint not as diminished presidential power but as a bulwark against bureaucratic , enabling elected officials to realign with voter and limited mandates.

Promotion of Traditional Values

Project 2025 advocates restoring the family as the centerpiece of American life, emphasizing the structure comprising married biological parents as optimal for and societal stability. The initiative posits that intact families correlate with better educational outcomes and economic self-sufficiency, critiquing policies that undermine through welfare disincentives. It recommends eliminating marriage penalties in federal programs and the tax code to encourage family formation, including doubling contribution limits for married couples' retirement accounts and reforming (TANF) to prioritize metrics on marriage and family stability over mere poverty reduction. Central to this framework is a defense of traditional defined as between one man and one woman, with policies aimed at funding healthy marriage initiatives and sexual risk avoidance to promote and fidelity. Adoption reforms prioritize placement with married couples, supporting faith-based agencies that align with these preferences while protecting to biological parents absent or . The plan critiques deviations from binary , rejecting as unscientific and harmful, and calls for excising its tenets from curricula, defining biologically in federal regulations like , and prohibiting compelled affirmation of pronouns or gender transitions in K-12 without . It explicitly deems sex reassignment procedures for minors as , advocating reversal of policies accommodating service members and ending federal funding for such interventions or abortions. On life issues, Project 2025 seeks to advance pro-life policies across jurisdictions, building on the 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision by enforcing restrictions on , reversing FDA approvals of chemical abortifacients due to procedural irregularities, and defunding providers like through Medicaid exclusions. It mandates protection for infants born alive after failed s under laws like the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, while prohibiting federal support for abortion travel or related counseling. Broader moral safeguards include outlawing and prosecuting its distributors as a form of societal degradation, alongside shielding children from online exploitation by regulating platforms under reforms. Education policy subordinates federal involvement to parental authority, banning (CRT) and ideological indoctrination in curricula, auditing Department of Defense schools for inappropriate content, and promoting transparency in under laws like FERPA. Religious liberty receives robust defense, with calls to fortify institutions against cultural pressures, protect conscience rights in healthcare and , and ensure First Amendment protections preclude government hostility toward faith-based expressions. These elements collectively aim to realign governance with principles favoring heterosexual marriage, biological reality, and moral order derived from heritage, viewing deviations as empirically linked to family breakdown and cultural decline.

Policy Framework

Executive Authority and Governance

Project 2025 advocates for a robust interpretation of Article II of the U.S. Constitution, positing that the possesses plenary authority over the executive branch to direct all federal agencies and ensure accountability to the electorate. This framework draws on the , which holds that all executive power must reside with the President, enabling removal of agency heads at will and challenging precedents like (1935) that grant independence to certain commissions. Proponents argue this counters the "Administrative State," where unelected bureaucrats allegedly usurp congressional intent and presidential directives, as evidenced by agency and resistance to policy changes during prior administrations. Central to these reforms is the reinstatement of Schedule F, an category established by Trump in October 2020 via 13957, which would reclassify tens of thousands of policy-influencing positions as at-will "excepted service" roles. Under this proposal, employees in roles affecting policy implementation—estimated at up to 50,000 positions—could be hired, fired, or reassigned without traditional protections, facilitating alignment with the 's agenda on Day One. The 2025, a 922-page document released in July 2023 by and over 100 conservative organizations, explicitly calls for this measure to "restore accountability" by transferring career Senior Executive Service (SES) members out of politically appointed positions and piloting term-limited roles. Governance enhancements include expanding political appointees from approximately 4,000 to more than 5,000, implementing hiring freezes across agencies, and reorganizing structures to eliminate redundant bureaucracies, such as dismantling the Department of and redistributing its functions. hiring would shift toward merit-based assessments via tools like USAHire, with performance pay tied to market rates and reduced union bargaining over non-wage issues, aiming to curb what the plan describes as entrenched resistance to executive priorities. These changes, if enacted, would prioritize rapid policy execution, including to halt regulations deemed unconstitutional and refocus agencies like the Office of Management and Budget as the President's "air-traffic control system" for oversight. Critics from left-leaning outlets contend this centralizes power excessively, but the proposals rest on the empirical observation that prior administrations faced implementation barriers from career officials, as documented in resistance to Trump-era directives on and .

Civil Service and Staffing Reforms

Project 2025 advocates reinstating Schedule F, a category of established by 13957 on October 21, 2020, which would reclassify policy-influencing positions—such as those involving confidential, policy-determining, policy-making, or policy-advocating roles—removing their tenure protections and enabling status for greater presidential control. This reform targets an estimated 50,000 positions across executive agencies, allowing the president to more readily hire and dismiss personnel aligned with administration priorities rather than entrenched career bureaucrats who may resist elected directives. Proponents argue this restores accountability in a system where unelected officials have historically undermined policy execution, as evidenced by instances of bureaucratic obstruction during prior administrations. The Mandate for Leadership's Chapter 3, authored by Donald Devine, Dennis Dean Kirk, and Paul Dans, emphasizes reforming hiring, evaluation, retention, and compensation processes to prioritize taxpayer value and merit over identity-based preferences or seniority. Key measures include reinstating 13839 from May 25, 2018, to streamline removal procedures for underperforming employees; ending judicial bans on aptitude tests like the FBI's exam; and implementing skills-based assessments via platforms such as USAHire. Performance evaluations would shift to results-oriented metrics, enabling layoffs based on effectiveness rather than longevity, with hiring freezes and attrition targeted to shrink the overall federal workforce bloated by redundant roles. Agency-specific staffing adjustments further these goals, such as maximizing political appointees in the Department of Labor for direct accountability; rescinding improper delegations at the Department of Veterans Affairs to limit career Senior Executive Service (SES) influence in political roles; and downsizing the Environmental Protection Agency by terminating hires in low-priority programs while eliminating specialized hiring authorities that inflate salaries. In the Department of Homeland Security, proposals include restructuring career personnel to field operations and increasing Schedule C appointees for oversight. These changes aim to align the 2.1 million civilian federal workforce—grown significantly since the 1980s—with constitutional executive authority, countering what reformers describe as a "" insulated from democratic oversight. Critics, including federal employee unions like the , contend these reforms enable mass firings and politicization, potentially affecting up to 1 million positions through agency dismantlements, though official proposals focus on targeted reductions via program eliminations rather than arbitrary purges. The Biden administration revoked Schedule F via 14003 on January 19, 2021, citing risks to expertise, but Project 2025 counters that civil service laws like the Pendleton Act of 1883 have evolved into barriers against responsive . Implementation would require executive action on day one, with congressional support for structural changes to ensure durability against future reversals.

Unitary Executive Enhancements

Project 2025 advocates for bolstering the , which interprets Article II of the U.S. as granting the sole and complete authority over the executive branch, including the power to direct, supervise, and remove subordinate officials without interference from or independent commissions. This approach aims to counteract what proponents describe as bureaucratic entrenchment that impedes presidential mandates, enabling more direct implementation of elected policy priorities through enhanced appointment, oversight, and removal mechanisms. Key enhancements include challenging the Supreme Court's 1935 decision, which permits "for cause" removal protections for heads of independent agencies like the and Securities and Exchange Commission; Project 2025 recommends that a conservative formally argue this precedent violates by diluting presidential control, advocating instead for at-will removal to align agency leadership with the executive's agenda. Similarly, it proposes extending the White House Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) regulatory review authority—established under 12866—to independent agencies, subjecting their rulemaking to centralized presidential scrutiny and cost-benefit analysis to prevent autonomous regulatory expansion. To facilitate personnel alignment, the plan calls for reinstating Schedule F, an category created in 2020 and revoked in 2021, which would reclassify up to 50,000 policy-influencing positions as at-will employees removable for failing to execute the 's directives, thereby reducing careerist resistance while preserving expertise in non-policy roles. Additional measures involve maximizing political appointees across agencies—potentially increasing their numbers to enhance accountability—and prioritizing rapid installation of acting officials in unconfirmed posts to bypass delays, as outlined in the executive branch chapter authored by , former OMB director under . These reforms, drawn from first-term experiences, seek to dismantle what the document terms an "unaccountable, un-elected administrative state" by vesting operational control firmly in the elected executive. Critics from left-leaning organizations, such as the Center for American Progress, contend these changes risk creating an "imperial presidency" by eroding congressional checks, though proponents counter that such enhancements restore constitutional balance against post-New Deal bureaucratic accretions, citing historical precedents like the Reagan administration's use of similar Heritage-guided mandates. Implementation would rely on and legislative support, with emphasizing in related writings that ensures fidelity to voter intent over entrenched interests.

Economic and Regulatory Reforms

Project 2025 proposes a comprehensive overhaul of economic policy centered on reducing government intervention to foster private-sector growth, simplify the tax code, and curb federal spending. The framework emphasizes restoring "sound money and fiscal responsibility" through reforms at the Department of the Treasury, while coordinating via the National Economic Council to prioritize incentives for work, saving, and investment. Key mechanisms include legislative collaboration for tax restructuring and executive actions to reinstate prior deregulatory orders, such as Executive Order 13771, which mandated two new regulations for every one issued. In tax policy, the plan advocates a two-tier individual system with rates of 15% and 30%, lowering the corporate rate to 18%, and taxing capital gains and dividends at 15%, alongside immediate expensing for business investments and repeal of tax increases from the . These changes aim to broaden the tax base, reduce marginal rates, and eliminate distortions like marriage penalties, with additional proposals to cap untaxed at $12,000 annually to encourage wage growth over fringe perks and raise business loss deductions to $500,000. A consumption-based tax system is suggested as a long-term shift, requiring a vote for future rate hikes to enforce discipline. Reforms also include doubling 401(k) contribution limits for married couples and introducing targeted credits, such as a Child Support for noncustodial parents earning up to specified income thresholds. Regulatory reforms focus on aggressive to eliminate barriers to and , including reinstatement of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) reviews for all significant guidance documents and reversal of Biden-era expansions of 12866. Proposals target environmental rules by pausing contracts over $100,000 for review, abolishing the metric, and reorganizing the Environmental Protection Agency to devolve authority to states while curtailing enforcement offices. Energy-specific measures involve repealing appliance efficiency standards, ending Department of Energy loan subsidies for favored technologies, and streamlining (NEPA) processes to exclude cumulative impact analyses. Labor regulations would see rescission of liabilities and mandates via , alongside clearer rules for plans to boost participation. A proposed Regulatory Reduction Commission would identify obsolete rules for repeal, with automatic sunsets for new ones, and the Administration's Office of Advocacy would gain resources to challenge overreach under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Fiscal policy emphasizes restraint by enhancing Treasury oversight of budgets, reducing non-defense discretionary outlays, and rejecting inflationary monetary practices. Trade elements include shifting to a destination-based via border adjustments compliant with rules, promoting mutual recognition agreements with allies, and repealing certain protective tariffs like Sections 232 and 301 to lower consumer costs while pursuing reciprocity. In agriculture and manufacturing, reforms target subsidy reductions, such as cutting premiums from 60% to 40-50% and privatizing extension programs, to minimize taxpayer burdens and market distortions. These measures collectively seek to prioritize economic liberty, with projected outcomes of higher wages, investment, and GDP growth through diminished bureaucratic hurdles, though critics from progressive outlets contend they favor corporations at the expense of environmental safeguards and middle-class protections.

Energy and Resource Policies

Project 2025's energy policies, outlined primarily in Chapter 12 of the : The Conservative Promise, seek to restore American energy dominance by promoting domestic production across fossil fuels, , and other sources while eliminating what the authors describe as ideologically driven regulations and subsidies that prioritize climate goals over affordability and reliability. Authored by Bernard L. McNamee with contributions from energy policy experts, the chapter recommends restructuring the (DOE) into a focus on security and advanced science, slashing budgets for clean energy programs, and rescinding Biden-era rules such as those from the (IRA) that subsidize renewables. Specific actions include reinstating Trump administration orders like Secretarial Order 3349 for and conducting quarterly onshore oil and gas lease sales to boost output. The rationale emphasizes reducing reliance on foreign suppliers like and countering China's dominance in critical minerals, arguing that current policies inflate costs—evidenced by U.S. household energy expenditures rising 20-30% under recent administrations—and threaten grid stability amid increasing intermittent renewable integration. Fossil fuel development forms the core, with proposals to end the "war on coal, oil, and natural gas" by approving projects like Alaska's Willow oil development, accelerating (LNG) export permits without greenhouse gas (GHG) considerations, and resuming coal leasing in states. Nuclear energy receives strong support through streamlining (NRC) licensing for small modular reactors (SMRs) and advanced designs, aiming to extend plant licenses within two years and increase capacity by 50% over a decade via private-sector innovation. Renewables face restrictions: eliminate IRA tax credits (e.g., Subtitle D production credits), mandate backup dispatchable power for wind and solar in transmission organizations, and defund offices like the Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations, citing their role in uneconomic projects that burden taxpayers without proportional reliability gains. Climate policies are to be reframed as secondary, with withdrawal from the , repeal of the metric, and cessation of programs like Justice40 that allocate funds based on equity rather than merit. Natural resource policies, addressed in Chapters 16 and 18 on the Department of the Interior (DOI), prioritize multiple-use management of federal lands under laws like the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), advocating expanded extraction to support economic growth and security. Authored by figures including William Perry Pendley and Jonathan Berry, these sections call for reducing federal land holdings through transfers to states or sales, relocating the () headquarters westward (e.g., to ), and rejecting initiatives like the "" conservation target that limits development on 30% of U.S. lands and waters by 2030. Oil and gas leasing would resume without moratoriums, maximizing offshore sales under the 2023-2028 program and setting royalties at market-competitive levels to generate revenue—projected at billions annually—while mining reforms streamline permits for critical minerals, approving infrastructure like Alaska's Ambler Road to access deposits rivaling global reserves. Environmental regulations face overhaul, with reinstatement of Trump-era National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) reforms imposing time and page limits on reviews to curb delays—averaging 4.5 years per project—and limiting Endangered Species Act (ESA) applications that hinder energy projects without proven species benefits. National parks and forests would balance preservation with commercial use, increasing timber harvests to 3-4 billion board feet annually (from 2.4 billion in 2021) for wildfire prevention via thinning, and reviewing monument designations under the for overreach, such as those in Utah's Bears Ears. The authors argue these changes address bureaucratic inertia, where federal ownership of 640 million acres stifles local economies—contributing to unemployment rates 2-3% higher in resource-dependent counties—and enhances resilience against threats like s, which consumed 7.4 million acres in 2021. Overall, the framework posits that could lower energy prices by 20% in one term through supply expansion, grounded in data from prior deregulatory periods showing production surges of 20-30% in oil and gas output.
Policy AreaKey RecommendationsProjected Impacts
Fossil FuelsResume leasing, approve LNG/pipelines without GHG reviews, end coal moratoriumsIncrease domestic output to reduce imports by 50%; lower prices via supply growth
Streamline NRC approvals, fund SMRs and waste sites like Add 100 capacity; resolve 80,000 tons of stored waste
RenewablesCut subsidies, require backups for Shift to market-driven adoption; avoid $500B+ in uneconomic subsidies
/ResourcesExpand / leases, reduce NEPA/ESA burdens, transfer landsBoost GDP by $1T+ via extraction; create 1M+ jobs in rural areas

Immigration and Border Measures

Project 2025 advocates for stringent measures to secure the U.S. southern and enforce laws, viewing the influx of over 2 million encounters in 2022 as an unprecedented crisis threatening , public safety, and . The policy framework, detailed in the Department of Homeland Security chapter authored by , emphasizes restructuring federal agencies to prioritize enforcement over processing backlogs and humanitarian considerations. Proposals aim to deter illegal entries through physical barriers, technological surveillance, and rapid removals, while curtailing visa programs that displace American workers. Central to border security is the completion of a physical wall system along the southwest , supplemented by advanced sensors, drones, and port-of-entry upgrades to and unauthorized crossings. would assist in non-combat roles if civilian resources prove insufficient, with coordination through the Domestic Policy Council and to integrate enforcement across agencies. Interior enforcement would mandate for all employers and government contractors to eliminate job magnets for illegal immigrants, ending programs like Alternatives to Detention except in exceptional cases. Sanctuary jurisdictions would face withheld federal funds and increased federal prosecutions for obstructing removals. Deportation efforts would expand expedited removal authority nationwide, beyond the current 100-mile restriction, prioritizing individuals posing public safety or risks. and Enforcement detention capacity would increase to at least 100,000 beds, reinstating mandatory under Title 8 with "shall" language to end catch-and-release practices. The Department of Justice would allocate resources to litigate against precedents like the Flores Settlement, facilitating family s, and assist in data-sharing for criminal aliens in resistant localities. Asylum reforms seek to raise the credible fear interview standard, codify bars for third-country transit, and narrowly define or eliminate "particular social group" as a basis for claims to curb system abuse. Policies like Remain in Mexico would resume, requiring applicants to await hearings abroad, while unaccompanied minors' processing shifts from Health and Human Services to DHS oversight. Visa overhauls include prioritizing high-wage "best and brightest" for H-1B allocations, phasing down H-2A and H-2B caps over 10-20 years, eliminating T and U visas prone to fraud, and enforcing reciprocity sanctions on non-cooperative nations. Refugee admissions under the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program would pause amid the border crisis. Agency restructuring proposes consolidating U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and U.S. and Immigration Services into a cabinet-level and Immigration Agency, potentially closing the broader DHS to eliminate bureaucratic redundancies. U.S. and Immigration Services would align with intelligence community standards for vetting, emphasizing over . These measures, justified by data on over 750,000 releases under prior administrations, intend to restore and deter future violations through consistent application of existing statutes.

Defense and Security Priorities

The 2025 outlines defense priorities centered on refocusing the (DoD) on lethality, readiness, and deterrence against peer adversaries, particularly , while critiquing bureaucratic expansion and ideological influences that it argues have eroded effectiveness. Authored primarily by Christopher Miller, former acting Secretary of Defense under President Trump, Chapter 4 recommends appointing a service secretary unencumbered by prior DoD ties to ensure loyalty to the and civilian oversight, emphasizing the unitary executive's authority over operations. It calls for eliminating (DEI) initiatives, which the chapter describes as divisive and counterproductive to , and restoring merit-based promotions free from racial or gender quotas. Key personnel reforms include reinstating policies barring transgender individuals from military service unless they meet pre-2016 standards, reversing expansions under the Biden administration that the chapter claims increased medical costs and readiness risks without enhancing combat capability; this aligns with empirical data showing elevated absenteeism rates from gender dysphoria treatments, estimated at up to 163 days per service member annually in some analyses. The plan advocates reducing the number of general and flag officers by at least 20% from 2020 levels (approximately 900 to under 700), citing a 50% increase since 1980 despite shrinking force sizes, to eliminate top-heavy leadership and reallocate resources to junior ranks and procurement. It also proposes purging "woke" training programs, such as critical race theory elements in curricula, which Heritage-linked reports argue distract from warfighting skills and correlate with declining recruitment—U.S. Army enlistments fell 25% short of goals in fiscal year 2022. On strategic posture, the document prioritizes great-power competition by redirecting resources toward the theater, advocating procurement of additional long-range munitions, submarines, and aircraft to counter China's military buildup, which includes over 370 naval ships and hypersonic missiles outpacing U.S. capabilities as of 2023. It urges modernization of the , including ground-based replacements and Columbia-class submarines, to maintain credible deterrence amid Russia's suspension of treaty obligations in February 2023 and China's estimated 500+ warheads. Acquisition reforms target reducing the average major weapon system development time from 20+ years by streamlining regulations and prioritizing off-the-shelf technologies, addressing GAO findings that DoD programs overrun costs by 40% on average. Security priorities extend to homeland defense via Department of (DHS) restructuring for border enforcement and intelligence community reforms to refocus on foreign threats rather than domestic surveillance expansions post-9/11. Critics from progressive outlets, such as the Center for American Progress, contend these priorities risk isolating allies and escalating conflicts by de-emphasizing multilateral engagements like contributions, though proponents counter that empirical alliance burden-sharing data—Europe's defense spending at 1.7% of GDP versus U.S. 3.5% in 2023—necessitates U.S.-centric deterrence without subsidizing non-compliant partners. The framework rejects DoD's initiatives as , arguing they divert funds from core defense; for instance, the Pentagon's 2021 climate adaptation plan allocated resources amid a $800 billion budget where readiness shortfalls affected 60% of units in 2023 audits. Overall, these recommendations aim to achieve a leaner, more agile force capable of prevailing in high-intensity conflicts, supported by reallocating 5-10% of the budget from overhead to combat enablers.

Nuclear Capabilities Review

Project 2025 advocates for a thorough review of the ' nuclear posture, emphasizing the need to align strategy with emerging threats from peer competitors such as and . The is tasked with leading the drafting and review of the Nuclear Posture Review, alongside other key documents like the National Defense Strategy, to ensure alignment with presidential priorities and efficient resource allocation. This review aims to restore a credible deterrent capable of addressing simultaneous nuclear challenges from multiple adversaries, given 's rapid expansion of its arsenal—including new silo fields and hypersonic capabilities—and 's ongoing modernization efforts. Central to the proposed nuclear capabilities enhancements is the modernization and potential expansion of the . Recommendations include accelerating procurement of the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent (Sentinel) , the Long Range Standoff (LRSO) , the Columbia-class , the B-21 Raider bomber, and F-35 aircraft configured for dual-capable ( and conventional) operations. The plan calls for funding life-extension programs for such as the B61-12 gravity bomb and W80-4 , while rejecting extensions to the aging Minuteman III ICBM . Additionally, it supports reversing the cancellation of the Sea-Launched Cruise Missile-Nuclear (SLCM-N) program under the Biden administration's Nuclear Posture Review, aiming for deployment by the end of the decade to bolster deterrence against in the . These measures seek to tailor the force for tailored deterrence, including potential reviews of nonstrategic weapons or new designs in response to adversaries' asymmetric advancements. To sustain these capabilities, Project 2025 prioritizes revitalizing the nuclear enterprise's infrastructure. This includes accelerating plutonium pit production to meet stockpile needs, maintaining operations at two sites ( and ), and developing new warheads for the to replace Cold War-era designs lacking sufficient yield and safety features. A key proposal is to restore readiness for nuclear testing at the Nevada National Security Site, enabling rapid response to technological surprises from adversaries, such as novel warhead designs or delivery systems. The document explicitly rejects ratification of the , viewing it as incompatible with maintaining a safe and effective deterrent amid global modernization trends. Arms control policies under this framework would prioritize agreements that advance U.S. and allied interests without compromising deterrence, avoiding any that constrain American capabilities disproportionately. Overall, these recommendations reflect a first-principles of deterrence requirements, grounded in the empirical reality of adversaries' buildups—China's projected to reach 1,000 warheads by 2030 and Russia's deployment of novel systems—necessitating a robust, tailored U.S. to prevent or attack.

Education and Institutional Reforms

Project 2025 proposes the abolition of the U.S. Department of Education (), arguing that federal involvement has failed to improve educational outcomes despite a dramatic increase in spending from $14 billion in 1980 to $95.5 billion in 2021, as measured by congressional appropriations. The plan calls for devolving most programs to states or other agencies like Health and Human Services, the Department of Justice, and Labor over a 10-year period, with the passage of a Department of Education Reorganization Act to facilitate block grants and reduce . This restructuring aims to save over $17 billion annually by cutting duplicative programs and reducing the agency's staff from approximately 4,400 employees, whose salaries cost $2.2 billion yearly. In K-12 education, the agenda emphasizes universal to empower parents, including the expansion of Education Savings Accounts (ESAs) modeled on Arizona's program, which allocates 90% of per-pupil funding since 2022. It advocates making Title I and (IDEA) funds portable through micro-ESAs, providing options like $1,800 per child for tutoring or schooling, and supports a federal scholarship to fund nonprofit organizations aiding education. Proposals include prohibiting (CRT), gender ideology, and compelled speech in federal programs, with funding cuts to institutions rejecting parental authority, alongside requirements for parental consent on gender-related policies and transparency in grants like GEAR UP and Community Learning Centers. The Academic Partnerships Lead Us to Success (APLUS) Act would allow states to of federal regulations, prioritizing local control. For , reforms target accreditation to block (DEI) mandates, permitting states to recognize alternative accreditors or serve as accreditors themselves via amendments to the Higher Education Act (). The plan seeks to end federal direct student lending, returning to private lenders with government guarantees, while phasing out income-driven repayment plans, Graduate PLUS loans, Parent PLUS loans, and to curb federal overreach. Enforcement of Section 117 reporting on foreign gifts and grants would tie compliance to aid eligibility, with investigations into non-reporting, and funding for universities hosting Confucius Institutes—viewed as conduits for influence—would cease, potentially revoking accreditations. Title VI international programs would wind down, redirecting 40% of funds to free-market business initiatives, and a shift toward apprenticeships and workforce skills over traditional degrees is recommended. Institutional reforms extend to specific programs, such as expanding the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program to $22,856 per student (2020 levels) without assessment mandates, and offering ESAs for military and tribal students to enhance options. These changes prioritize parental rights, state flexibility, and , critiquing federal interventions for lacking evidence of efficacy in student performance metrics like the Nation's .

Healthcare and Welfare Adjustments

Project 2025's recommendations for the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), outlined in a dedicated chapter authored by , emphasize restructuring the agency to prioritize protection of life, reduction of federal overreach, and promotion of market-driven healthcare alongside work-oriented welfare policies. The proposals seek to address fiscal unsustainability, with and expenditures totaling $17.8 trillion from 1967 to 2020, equivalent to federal deficits over that period, by introducing block grants, caps, and enhanced program integrity measures. HHS administrative costs would be cut by at least 10% in the first year through elimination of duplicative programs and offices, while centralizing authority under a committed to conservative principles. In healthcare, Medicare reforms focus on increasing patient control, reducing regulatory burdens, and combating fraud via , including restoration of Trump-era rules on audits and risk adjustment data validation. Site-neutral payments would be implemented to equalize reimbursements across care settings, and restrictions on physician-owned hospitals imposed by the (ACA) would be lifted to foster competition. A national coverage determination would be reissued, affirming insufficient evidence for gender reassignment surgeries and limiting coverage accordingly. For , financing would shift to block grants or allotments to states, coupled with mandatory work requirements, stricter eligibility verification, and options for private substitution to curb waste, fraud, and improper enrollments exceeding 20 million individuals as of recent estimates. Funding to would cease, and states mandating abortion coverage in plans would lose matching funds; additionally, no dollars would support travel or procedures, enforcing the . The ACA faces calls for and replacement with market-based alternatives, including separation of subsidized and non-subsidized pools, enforcement of hospital price transparency, and revision of nondiscrimination rules to reject redefinition of sex under Section 1557, thereby excluding from civil rights protections in healthcare. Welfare adjustments target programs like (TANF) and propose consolidating nutrition assistance such as and under HHS from the USDA for unified oversight. Work requirements would extend to noncash benefits valued at $50 or more monthly after six months, with time limits or lifetime caps on benefits to discourage permanent dependency and single motherhood, which the chapter critiques for subsidizing family breakdown. TANF funding transparency would improve, prioritizing goals of marriage promotion and father engagement to bolster stable nuclear families, while repealing regulations that hinder faith-based agencies. These changes aim to realign welfare with incentives for self-sufficiency, viewing current structures as penalizing marriage and work. Regulatory bodies within HHS would undergo refocusing: the (FDA) would streamline drug approvals to accelerate innovation, reverse the approval of chemical drugs citing procedural irregularities, and restore risk evaluation and mitigation strategies prohibiting mail-order distribution. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) would split into separate entities for data collection and policy guidance, banning pharmaceutical industry funding, modernizing surveillance systems, and ceasing collection of data while mandating accurate reporting from states. Public health emergency declarations would face time limits to prevent indefinite extensions, and a pro-life would enforce protections for providers. Overall, these adjustments position HHS—potentially renamed the "Department of Life"—as an enforcer of biological realities, patient choice, and fiscal discipline over ideological initiatives.

Justice System and Law Enforcement

Project 2025's recommendations for the justice system center on refocusing the Department of Justice (DOJ) toward impartial enforcement of federal laws, prioritizing , drug trafficking, and violations while curtailing perceived politicization and bureaucratic expansion. The chapter, authored by Gene Hamilton, a former administration official, advocates a Day One review of all DOJ policies, investigations, and cases to terminate those deemed unlawful or misaligned with statutory mandates, aiming to restore public trust eroded by prior administrations' selective prosecutions. This includes reassigning election-related offenses from the Civil Rights Division to the Criminal Division for consistent handling under criminal statutes rather than civil rights frameworks. Reforms to the (FBI) emphasize subordination to the Attorney General and core law enforcement functions, prohibiting the agency from investigating or absent ties to criminal activity, such as or threats. Structural changes propose abolishing the FBI's Office of , Office of Legislative Affairs, and Office of Public Affairs to reduce overhead and outsource functions to broader DOJ resources; shrinking headquarters bureaucracy to prioritize field offices; and relocating FBI headquarters to the Robert F. Kennedy Department of Justice Building for direct oversight. Additionally, legislation would eliminate the FBI Director's 10-year to align tenure with presidential accountability. Prosecution priorities shift toward aggressive pursuit of violent offenders, with U.S. Attorneys required to develop jurisdiction-specific plans for reduction, enforcement of the penalty for capital-eligible heinous acts like child exploitation or , and mandatory minimum sentences under the Armed Career Criminal Act for repeat armed felons. The DOJ would apply Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations () statutes against drug cartels and gangs such as , intensify interstate drug trafficking probes amid the , and intervene in localities with "rule-of-law deficiencies" by filing federal charges against complicit officials, such as those in jurisdictions shielding criminal aliens. calls for prioritizing violations under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1324–1328, assisting Department of tracking of criminal noncitizens, and litigating to overturn precedents like the Flores Settlement that hinder detention. The Civil Rights Division would reorganize to target anti-white, anti-male, or anti-merit under color of (DEI) programs, enforcing equal laws in and while prosecuting mail-based of abortifacients under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1461–1462. Law training would emphasize constitutional policing to build trust, with federal resources directed to support local agencies combating unrest, critiquing past leniency in prosecutions as exemplified by dismissed Portland cases. Overall, the plan expands political appointees across DOJ components for policy alignment and efficiency, rejecting independent agency pretensions within the FBI.

Electoral Process Safeguards

Project 2025's recommendations for electoral process safeguards emphasize strengthening federal oversight to prevent voter fraud and foreign interference while limiting agency overreach into state-administered elections. The Department of Justice (DOJ) is directed to prioritize election integrity by robustly investigating and prosecuting violations of election laws, including those involving mail-in ballots and unlawful ballot handling. Specifically, responsibility for offenses under 18 U.S.C. § 241—such as voter registration fraud and unauthorized ballot corrections—should shift from the Civil Rights Division to the Criminal Division to enable more aggressive enforcement, critiquing prior DOJ inaction on state-level irregularities like Pennsylvania's 2020 provisional ballot guidance. The (FEC) plays a central role in upholding integrity to protect the broader electoral process. Authored by election law expert Hans A. von Spakovsky, Chapter 29 advocates empowering the FEC to enforce the (FECA), enhance transparency in political spending, and counter foreign election meddling, stating that "the FEC must be empowered to ensure the integrity of our electoral process." Proposals include raising contribution limits, indexing reporting thresholds to inflation, and opposing bipartisan structural dilutions like reducing commissioners from six to five, as in the For the People Act of 2021. The DOJ should prosecute only clear FECA breaches in alignment with FEC interpretations and defend the commission in litigation where it fails to act. Cybersecurity measures focus on technical support without federal dominance over elections. The (CISA) should aid states in evaluating election infrastructure's cyber vulnerabilities but restrict direct involvement near voting periods to avoid interference. It must cease counter-misinformation initiatives, viewed as unconstitutional that undermines electoral trust. In intelligence assessments, the community is urged to maintain objectivity on foreign threats, such as China's potential influence, by incorporating dissenting analyses and holding leaders accountable for suppressing them, as prior CIA practices violated analytic standards. These safeguards aim to restore public confidence in elections amid documented fraud risks, though the blueprint defers primary administration to states and avoids mandating uniform measures like voter ID, instead targeting federal enforcement gaps. Critics from left-leaning organizations, such as the Brennan Center, frame these as threats to access despite evidence of irregularities in past elections, reflecting institutional biases that minimize fraud concerns.

Cultural and Media Integrity

Project 2025 proposes defunding the (CPB), which received $565 million in fiscal year 2023 appropriations, arguing that taxpayer funding sustains outlets like and that exhibit systemic liberal bias, as evidenced by a 2014 study showing 60% of their audience identifies as liberal. The plan calls for privatizing CPB to end government involvement in what contributors describe as noneducational content propagation, removing these entities from noncommercial educational status under . Similarly, reforms to the U.S. Agency for Global Media (USAGM) emphasize hiring personnel who affirm American values, revoking the Firewall Regulation to enable oversight of content alignment with U.S. , and consolidating redundant services like to prevent anti-American propaganda. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) restructuring under Project 2025 prioritizes spectrum management and competition over regulatory overreach, with directives to reinterpret of the to curb platform immunities for , impose transparency on algorithms, and support legislation banning due to risks. These measures aim to safeguard free speech by addressing perceived biases in tech moderation, where empirical data from platform disclosures reveal disproportionate content restrictions on conservative viewpoints, though critics from left-leaning institutions like Brookings frame such reforms as threats to media independence. In cultural domains, the agenda seeks to excise tenets of () and gender ideology from federal education programs and curricula, advocating elimination of the Department of Education to devolve authority to states, localities, and parents, thereby countering what the document terms the "long march of cultural through our institutions." Proposals include prohibiting on race and gender in K-12 systems, establishing a Parents' , and auditing academies and Department of Defense schools to remove Marxist indoctrination and (DEI) offices, prioritizing merit-based promotions over social engineering. At the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), initiatives protect parental rights in child upbringing, abolishing offices like NIH's equity division for promoting unlawful quotas and rejecting unsubstantiated gender science claims. Broader integrity efforts target ideological capture across agencies, such as barring grants to " nonprofits" advancing leftist agendas through the of National Drug Control Policy and reversing equity initiatives in the Office of Science and Technology Policy. These reforms draw on causal observations of institutional bias—evident in surveys like those from documenting DEI proliferation correlating with declining public trust in federal entities—to restore empirical fidelity and traditional American principles over . While academic and media sources often decry these as authoritarian, the proposals substantiate their rationale with data on biased outcomes, such as Pew-documented audience skews and curriculum analyses revealing ideological dominance.

Implementation Mechanisms

Personnel Database Development

Project 2025 designates personnel as its second pillar, emphasizing the creation of a comprehensive database to compile profiles of conservative candidates suitable for appointments and career positions. This initiative aims to enable swift staffing of approximately 4,000 political appointees and up to 50,000 Schedule F roles—reclassifying -influencing civil servants as at-will employees—to overcome bureaucratic resistance encountered during Donald Trump's first term. The database functions as a where applicants submit detailed resumes, views, and ideological assessments, reviewed by a coalition of over 100 partner organizations for alignment with conservative priorities such as and . Development began in January 2023 under the direction of Paul Dans, then-executive director of the project, who described it as a "conservative " to match vetted individuals with agency needs. By November 2023, the database contained over 4,000 entries, expanding to more than 10,000 Trump-aligned candidates by mid-2024, with a target of 20,000 by December 31, 2024. provided engineering support, integrating to accelerate vetting through passcode-protected questionnaires probing stances on issues like , policies, and religious liberty. The effort, costing over $2 million, prioritizes ideological fidelity to prevent internal sabotage, drawing lessons from the first administration's struggles with unfilled positions and non-compliant holdovers. The underscores personnel as the linchpin of policy execution, recommending reinstatement of Schedule F via on Day One, alongside merit-based hiring reforms at the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to eliminate liabilities and union influences that hinder conservative staffing. Coalition partners, including former officials, conduct reviews to ensure candidates' commitment to the agenda, facilitating rapid placements in agencies like the Department of Justice and Environmental Protection Agency. Post-election, as of November 2024, transition officials have utilized the database despite campaign-era disavowals, appointing contributors to key roles and advancing Schedule F reimplementation to align the federal workforce with presidential directives. Critics, including outlets like , portray this as politicizing the , but proponents argue it restores accountability in an often resistant to elected mandates, as evidenced by prior term delays in deportations and regulatory rollbacks.

Training and Preparation Modules

The Presidential Administration Academy constitutes the core of Project 2025's training and preparation modules, functioning as an online educational platform to ready conservative personnel for executive branch positions. Launched as the third pillar of the initiative, it delivers curriculum developed by experts from the project's of over 100 organizations, focusing on operational skills for federal administration. The academy aims to address perceived deficiencies in prior conservative administrations by instilling knowledge of structures, execution, and resistance to institutional inertia. Training content emphasizes practical governance tactics, including modules on outmaneuvering career bureaucrats and aligning agency operations with presidential directives. Videos instruct participants on decoding "progressive language" in policy documents and personnel evaluations, such as flagging terms indicative of ideological misalignment, to facilitate swift personnel adjustments. Other sessions cover "Conserving America" principles, detailing how to prioritize constitutional fidelity and counter entrenched administrative practices through targeted oversight and . These materials, totaling over 14 hours across dozens of videos produced by August 2024, were designed for internal use among potential appointees and staff. Development of the academy accelerated in late 2023, with highlighting its role in ensuring an incoming conservative administration's operational readiness from inauguration day, January 20, 2025. The program integrates with Project 2025's personnel database, channeling trained individuals into vetted roles across departments, from policy advisors to agency heads. By fostering a cadre versed in executive action mechanics, the modules seek to minimize transition delays and maximize implementation of the project's policy blueprint.

Action Playbooks and Draft Orders

The action playbooks of Project 2025 form the initiative's fourth pillar, consisting of detailed, agency-specific transition plans intended to guide the first 180 days of a administration. These playbooks operationalize the policy recommendations in the by outlining prioritized actions such as personnel reassignments under Schedule F to facilitate firing up to 50,000 civil servants, immediate regulatory pauses, and structural agency reforms to centralize executive authority. The plans emphasize rapid execution to counter perceived bureaucratic resistance, with agency teams tasked to review and rescind Obama- and Biden-era regulations within weeks of . Unlike the publicly available document released in July 2022, the 180-day playbooks were developed internally and not disclosed to the public, prompting demands for from congressional Democrats in 2024. Participants described them as practical toolkits drawing from the 2017 transition experience, incorporating lessons to accelerate implementation and avoid delays from confirmations or legal challenges. For instance, playbooks for the Department of Justice and prioritize enforcement actions on immigration and , including directives to end programs across agencies. Draft prepared under Project 2025 supplement the playbooks, providing ready-to-sign documents for immediate policy shifts. Organizations like the Center for Renewing America, led by —a former director and Project 2025 advisory board member—drafted orders on topics including reinstating Schedule F for easier dismissals and invoking the for domestic military deployments to address unrest or border security. These drafts also cover by rescinding climate regulations and halting federal funding for certain social programs, aligned with the Mandate's calls for . Proponents argue such pre-drafted orders enable a to fulfill campaign promises efficiently, bypassing entrenched opposition within . Critics, however, contend they risk consolidating unchecked executive power, though from Trump's first term shows many similar orders faced judicial scrutiny and partial implementation.

Scenario Planning Exercises

Scenario planning exercises within Project 2025 form a component of the initiative's implementation mechanisms, designed to equip prospective appointees and agency leaders with tools to anticipate and navigate uncertainties in policy execution, bureaucratic resistance, and external disruptions. These exercises draw from military-style simulations, economic modeling, and administrative contingencies outlined in the , emphasizing rapid adaptation to real-world challenges such as legal obstacles, career opposition, and geopolitical threats. By simulating varied outcomes, they aim to foster proactive decision-making aligned with conservative priorities, including and institutional realignment. In the defense sector, manifests through and joint exercises, particularly for naval and cyber operations. For instance, the U.S. chapter advocates using as for career milestones, enabling participants to hone collective warfighting skills in hypothetical conflict scenarios, such as Pacific theater engagements. Similarly, U.S. Cyber Command calls for reviewing doctrines via battlefield evidence from conflicts like , incorporating contingency analyses to refine cyber strategies against adversaries. The U.S. Coast Guard proposes annual joint wartime drills with the to validate mission requirements under simulated high-threat conditions. These military-focused exercises underscore a broader emphasis on preparedness for kinetic and non-kinetic threats, prioritizing force planning to deter scenarios like a fait accompli in . Economic and policy integrates quantitative scenario modeling to evaluate policy impacts. The proposed U.S. section details two simulated scenarios: one where trading partners lower , reducing the trade deficit by $58.3 billion, and another where the U.S. imposes , yielding a $63.6 billion deficit reduction and 350,000 to 380,000 new . Such exercises test causal effects of tariff adjustments on and deficits, informing trade enforcement. In financial domains, the chapter suggests establishing a "school of financial warfare" with the Department of Defense, incorporating scenario-based training and testing for sanctions and economic coercion against international rivals. Administrative and intelligence applications extend scenario planning to covert actions and agency contingencies. A 60-day review process for covert operations evaluates findings across agencies like the CIA and , planning subsequent actions based on simulated effectiveness in threat environments. The intelligence community advocates refocusing on emerging threats through prioritized and authority shifts, implying contingency frameworks for adaptive responses. Within the Department of , durable succession plans and emergency contingencies empower acting officials to execute decisions amid disruptions, while retraining at prepares immigration enforcement personnel for vetting scenarios. The Presidential Administration Academy complements these by offering online modules and seminars that simulate governance roles, training appointees to counter bureaucratic "persecution" through leaked instructional videos emphasizing identification of progressive influences and strategic maneuvering. These exercises collectively prioritize causal realism in implementation, using empirical modeling and historical lessons to mitigate risks from entrenched interests, though critics from left-leaning sources argue they enable politicization without sufficient , a claim rooted in broader institutional biases against rapid executive reforms. Proponents, including contributors, view them as essential for efficiency, citing past failures like inadequate preparation in prior administrations.

Association with the Trump Administration

Pre-Election Linkages and Personnel Overlaps

Project 2025's development involved significant participation from individuals who held positions in 's 2017-2021 , establishing pre-election personnel overlaps despite public disavowals from 's . A review identified at least 140 former officials among the project's over 300 contributors, including key roles in policy formulation and personnel recruitment. These overlaps reflect continuity in conservative policy expertise, as many participants drew from experiences implementing 's executive agenda. Prominent examples include , Trump's Director of the Office of Management and Budget, who authored sections on federal budgeting and regulatory reform in Project 2025's . Vought's involvement underscores linkages in , where Project 2025 proposes mechanisms like the Department of Government Efficiency, echoing Trump's emphasis on reducing federal spending. Similarly, , a senior advisor on immigration policy during Trump's first term, contributed to Project 2025's chapters advocating mass deportations and border security enhancements aligned with Trump's campaign rhetoric.
Key PersonnelTrump Administration RoleProject 2025 Contribution
OMB DirectorBudget and deregulation policy
Stephen MillerSenior Advisor for PolicyImmigration and
Paul DansSpecial Assistant to Project Director, personnel strategy
Acting DirectorBorder enforcement proposals
Additional contributors, such as former EPA appointees, focused on environmental deregulation, building on Trump's rollback of over 100 Obama-era rules. Pre-election, these ties were evident in Project 2025's personnel database, which aimed to vet and train 20,000 potential appointees, many from Trump's prior orbit, though Trump's July 2024 statement claimed no knowledge of the initiative. This database facilitated rapid staffing preparations independent of the campaign but leveraging established networks. Despite campaign leaders like and demanding distance in July 2024, the inherent overlaps highlighted shared ideological foundations without formal pre-election coordination.

Campaign-Era Disavowals and Realities

During the 2024 presidential campaign, Donald Trump repeatedly disavowed direct involvement with Project 2025, a policy blueprint developed by the Heritage Foundation and allied conservative organizations. On July 5, 2024, Trump posted on Truth Social stating, "I know nothing about Project 2025. I have no idea who is behind it," while criticizing certain proposals within the document as "ridiculous and abysmal" and emphasizing that he had not read it nor been asked to endorse it. This statement came amid Democratic efforts to portray Project 2025 as Trump's hidden agenda, prompting his campaign to highlight disagreements, particularly on issues like federal abortion restrictions, which Trump noted were not aligned with his position of leaving the matter to states. Trump's disavowals intensified in response to attack ads and media coverage linking him to the project. In a September 10, 2024, interview, he reiterated, "I have nothing to do with Project 2025," accusing Democrats of using it as a fearmongering tactic despite his lack of endorsement. adjusted its approach, with Project 2025 director Paul Dans resigning on July 30, 2024, following Trump's public criticism, and the organization scrubbing some online content to mitigate political fallout. Campaign spokespeople, including those from Trump's team, maintained that the initiative was and not reflective of Trump's Agenda 47 , which outlined his specific policy priorities like mass deportations and energy deregulation—areas of partial overlap but distinct in scope and authorship. Despite these disavowals, substantive connections persisted between Project 2025 and Trump's orbit. A review identified at least 140 individuals who served in Trump's first administration as contributors to the project's 900-page , including key figures like , former director and a chapter author on executive authority. Other notable overlaps included Stephen Miller, architect of Trump's immigration policies, and , former acting director, both of whom influenced sections on border security and —priorities echoed in Trump's . These personnel ties underscored a shared conservative , though Trump emphasized that policy alignment did not equate to adoption, positioning Project 2025 as one of many external ideas rather than a blueprint. Mainstream media outlets, often critiqued for amplifying Democratic narratives, frequently framed the project as Trump's de facto plan, a characterization disputed by as an independent effort to prepare for any victory. The disavowals reflected strategic campaign calculus amid polling showing voter unease with perceived extremism, yet realities of ideological and personnel convergence highlighted ongoing influence from the conservative policy ecosystem. Trump's Agenda 47 shared conceptual similarities with Project 2025 on dismantling , Schedule F reinstatement for civil servants, and regulatory rollbacks, though without the project's detailed implementation mechanisms. This duality—public separation coupled with underlying affinities—allowed to neutralize attacks while benefiting from preparatory work by allies, a dynamic rooted in the non-partisan nature of initiatives like Heritage's prior Mandate documents for past administrations.

Post-Inauguration Actions (2025)

Following Trump's inauguration on January 20, 2025, his administration pursued a series of actions, regulatory reforms, and personnel selections that aligned with numerous proposals outlined in Project 2025, the Foundation-led initiative for restructuring the federal government. By mid-October 2025, trackers from policy monitoring organizations reported that approximately 48% of Project 2025's domestic policy recommendations had been at least partially implemented through these measures, including directives on , energy production, and administrative efficiency. These steps reflected a deliberate effort to consolidate authority and reverse prior regulatory expansions, though implementation faced legal challenges and congressional hurdles.

Executive Orders Aligned with Proposals

In 2025, President Trump issued 210 executive orders, numbered from EO 14147 to EO 14356, many of which echoed Project 2025's emphasis on , border , and shifts. For instance, early orders advanced expansions by directing federal funding toward programs and schools, aligning with Project 2025's calls to decentralize education control from the Department of Education. Another directive reinstated military personnel discharged over COVID-19 vaccine refusals and imposed restrictions on service members, mirroring recommendations to prioritize over diversity initiatives. On immigration, orders invoked powers to expedite deportations and limit claims, directly implementing Project 2025's blueprint for mass enforcement operations. Analyses indicated that nearly 45% of these orders closely tracked Project 2025 policy language, particularly in areas like closing the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs to reduce mandates.

Regulatory Rollbacks and Agency Changes

The administration accelerated regulatory rollbacks targeting environmental, labor, and health policies, fulfilling Project 2025's vision of curtailing what it described as bureaucratic overreach. Within the first month, 26 executive orders altered environmental regulations, including rescinding climate-focused rules on emissions and wind energy leases to boost fossil fuel production. These actions suspended prior mandates on appliance efficiency standards and credit card fee disclosures, aiming to lower compliance costs for businesses. Agency restructurings involved Schedule F reimplementation to ease civil service dismissals, enabling rapid placement of political appointees in policy roles, as advocated in Project 2025. By October 2025, the pace of deregulatory proposals had substantially increased compared to the first term, with trackers documenting reversals in clean energy subsidies and worker protections. Such changes prioritized energy independence, with directives to expand oil and natural gas drilling on federal lands, consistent with Project 2025's critique of prior administrations' fossil fuel restrictions.

Appointments from Project Contributors

Key positions in the Trump administration were filled by individuals who authored or contributed to Project 2025, facilitating the blueprint's operationalization. Russell Vought, a primary architect of the project's personnel and budget reforms, was confirmed as Director of the Office of Management and Budget, where he oversaw spending cuts and agency consolidations. Tom Homan, former acting ICE director and Project 2025 contributor on immigration, was appointed Border Czar to lead enforcement operations. Other roles included Brendan Carr as FCC Chairman, drawn from the project's telecommunications chapter, and Stephen Miller advising on policy with his anti-immigration focus integral to the agenda. Analyses by October 2025 revealed that over 70% of Cabinet members had ties to Project 2025-affiliated groups like the Heritage Foundation, enabling coordinated execution of reforms despite pre-election distancing. This personnel strategy emphasized loyalty and expertise in dismantling entrenched bureaucracies, as Vought's swearing-in symbolized the integration of Project 2025 personnel into executive functions.

Executive Orders Aligned with Proposals

On January 20, 2025, shortly after his inauguration, President Donald Trump signed Executive Order 14147, declaring a national emergency at the southern border and directing the Department of Homeland Security to prioritize deportation of criminal aliens and end catch-and-release policies, measures that parallel Project 2025's recommendations for aggressive immigration enforcement and border security enhancements outlined in its Mandate for Leadership. This order invoked the Immigration and Nationality Act to facilitate rapid removals, aligning with the project's call to treat illegal immigration as an invasion requiring immediate executive action. Subsequent orders addressed federal workforce reforms akin to Project 2025's advocacy for reinstating Schedule F to reclassify policy-influencing civil servants as at-will employees, enhancing presidential control. 14151, issued February 2025, revived elements of Schedule F by directing the Office of Personnel Management to streamline removal processes for non-merit-based positions and prioritize loyalty to constitutional directives, citing inefficiencies in . Analyses indicate this facilitates the project's goal of dismantling bureaucratic resistance, with over 50,000 federal positions potentially affected. In regulatory and , 14160 in 2025 mandated a review and rollback of environmental regulations deemed overly burdensome, including pauses on green mandates, echoing Project 2025's blueprint for unleashing domestic production and withdrawing from international climate agreements like the Paris Accord. This included directives to the Environmental Protection Agency to prioritize cost-benefit analyses favoring , consistent with the project's emphasis on reducing administrative overreach in sectors. Military and social policy alignments include 14205, which barred individuals from and allowed reinstatement of personnel discharged for refusing vaccines, reversing Biden-era policies and matching Project 2025's proposals to refocus the armed forces on lethality over social engineering. Additionally, orders targeting (DEI) initiatives, such as closing the Office of Compliance Programs via 14180 in April 2025, aligned with the project's critique of such programs as discriminatory and inefficient in federal procurement. By October 2025, independent trackers reported that approximately 45-48% of Trump's 210 issued that year contained provisions mirroring Project 2025 recommendations across , staffing, and , though the administration has not formally acknowledged the project as a direct guide. These actions reflect a pattern of executive to implement conservative priorities rapidly, bypassing congressional hurdles where possible.

Regulatory Rollbacks and Agency Changes

On February 6, 2025, President Trump issued 14192, "Unleashing Prosperity Through ," which instructed federal agencies to identify and prioritize the repeal or modification of regulations where costs exceeded benefits, aiming to reduce the estimated $2 annual regulatory burden on the U.S. economy. This action aligned with Project 2025 proposals in the Foundation's to dismantle what it described as excessive administrative state overreach, including directives for agencies to submit deregulation plans within 60 days. Subsequent orders, such as the , 2025, trio of deregulatory directives, targeted sectors like energy and finance by pausing pending rules and requiring cost-benefit reviews under revised standards that emphasized quantifiable economic impacts over qualitative environmental or social factors. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), under Administrator , implemented one of the most extensive rollbacks on March 12, 2025, announcing 31 actions to rescind or amend rules from the prior administration, including revisions to emissions standards for vehicles and power plants that Project 2025 critiqued as stifling and raising energy costs by up to 20% for consumers. These changes involved withdrawing proposed climate-related mandates and streamlining permitting processes, resulting in an estimated $100 billion in annual savings for industries, according to agency analyses. Similar efforts at the Department of Energy focused on lifting restrictions on fossil fuel extraction, reversing Biden-era pauses on exports that had constrained market growth. Agency-level changes complemented these rollbacks through structural reforms, including the February 19, 2025, on "Ensuring Lawful Governance and Implementing the President's Department of Government Efficiency () Regulatory Initiative," which empowered advisory bodies led by and to recommend eliminations of duplicative offices and mandates within agencies like the () and (). This facilitated the reallocation of over 5,000 positions from regulatory enforcement roles to efficiency-focused units by mid-2025, drawing directly from Project 2025's blueprint to refocus agencies on core statutory missions rather than expansive interpretations. Additionally, the reinstatement of Schedule F via executive action in January 2025 enabled the reclassification of approximately 50,000 policy-influencing civil servants, allowing for targeted removals that shifted agency cultures toward deregulation, with initial waves affecting the Department of Labor and Securities and Exchange Commission. These modifications yielded measurable reductions, such as a 15% drop in active rulemaking dockets across 20 major agencies by October 2025, as tracked by independent monitors.

Appointments from Project Contributors


, who authored Project 2025's chapter advocating for an overhaul of the executive branch to enhance presidential authority, was appointed Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in November 2024 and confirmed by the in early 2025. In this role, Vought has directed efforts to implement mass layoffs and agency restructurings aligned with Project 2025's recommendations for reducing federal bureaucracy. Brendan Carr, author of Project 2025's (FCC) chapter calling for reforms targeting big tech and apps like , was nominated as FCC Chairman in November 2024 and assumed the position in January 2025. Carr has initiated probes into telecom companies and pursued of policies as outlined in the project. Tom Homan, a contributor to Project 2025's immigration sections emphasizing stricter enforcement, was appointed Border Czar in November 2024 to oversee mass deportation operations. Homan, former acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, has coordinated interagency efforts to execute border security measures proposed in the project. Other notable appointments include John Ratcliffe as CIA Director, whose chief of staff Dustin Carmack authored the project's intelligence chapter, and Peter Navarro as Senior Counselor for Trade and Manufacturing, who contributed tariff and China policy recommendations. These placements reflect direct integration of Project 2025 personnel into advisory and operational roles across executive agencies.
NamePositionProject 2025 Contribution
Russell VoughtOMB DirectorAuthored executive branch overhaul chapter
Brendan CarrFCC ChairmanAuthored FCC reforms chapter
Tom HomanBorder CzarContributed to immigration enforcement sections
Peter NavarroSenior Counselor for TradeOutlined tariff and China policies

Reception and Analysis

Proponent Rationales

Proponents of Project 2025, led by the Heritage Foundation, assert that the initiative is essential for reasserting constitutional governance by curbing the expansive "administrative state," which they view as an unelected bureaucracy that impedes elected officials' ability to implement voter-mandated policies. The project's core document, Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise (published April 2023), outlines a framework to dismantle this structure through four pillars: restoring the family as the centerpiece of American life, dismantling the administrative state, defending national sovereignty and borders, and securing individual rights. This approach, they argue, addresses decades of regulatory expansion—federal rules increased by over 88,000 pages in the Federal Register since 1980— that burdens citizens and businesses without sufficient legislative oversight. Central to their reasoning is the , which interprets Article II of the as vesting the with exclusive authority over executive branch operations, including the power to direct or remove subordinate officials. Proponents contend that civil service laws, originally intended to prevent political , have evolved to protect entrenched interests, resulting in policy sabotage; for instance, during the first administration, agencies delayed or altered deregulatory efforts, contributing to only partial achievement of promised reforms. By prioritizing empirical inefficiencies—such as the federal government's $6.75 trillion budget in fiscal year 2023 amid persistent deficits—Project 2025 advocates structural changes to align bureaucracy with presidential directives, thereby enhancing democratic accountability.

Restoring Accountability and Efficiency

Proponents emphasize reinstating Schedule F, an from October 2020 reclassified approximately 50,000 policy-influencing positions as at-will to facilitate removal of personnel obstructing administration goals, arguing this restores accountability by ensuring the executive branch reflects the electorate's choice rather than insulated careerists. They cite examples like resistance to and , where bureaucratic inertia led to incomplete mandate fulfillment, as evidence that current protections foster inefficiency and unresponsiveness. Efficiency gains are projected through workforce reductions, agency consolidations, and program eliminations; for instance, proposals target cutting non-defense by identifying redundancies across 400+ federal programs, potentially saving billions annually by refocusing on core functions like over expansive social engineering. analyses underscore that such reforms mirror successful private-sector models, where accountability to leadership drives productivity, contrasting with government's 2.1 million civilian employees operating with limited performance-based incentives.

Addressing Administrative Overreach

Project 2025 proponents argue that administrative overreach—manifest in agencies issuing rules with the force of law, such as the EPA's 1970s-era expansions under the Clean Air Act—has usurped Congress's legislative role, with regulatory costs exceeding $2 trillion annually in compliance burdens as of 2023. The plan calls for abolishing departments like Education (with 4,000 employees enforcing mandates on 50 million students) and refocusing others, like reverting the Department of Health and Human Services to pre-1965 welfare limits, to prevent unelected officials from dictating policy on issues like curriculum or healthcare. This aligns with the Supreme Court's 2024 Loper Bright decision overturning Chevron deference, which proponents say validates their long-standing critique that judicial abdication enabled agencies to interpret statutes expansively, often advancing ideological agendas over statutory text. By devolving powers—e.g., eliminating the FBI's domestic intelligence role post-9/11 expansions—they aim to mitigate overreach risks, such as the 2016-2019 Russia investigation's perceived abuses, ensuring agencies adhere strictly to enacted laws rather than self-generated doctrines.

Restoring Accountability and Efficiency

Proponents of Project 2025 contend that the bureaucracy has expanded into an unaccountable "administrative state" that resists presidential directives and undermines democratic accountability to voters, necessitating reforms to realign executive agencies with elected leadership. , leading the initiative, argues that protections, originally intended to prevent , have instead shielded incompetence and sabotage, with the workforce growing to over 2 million employees while delivering inefficient outcomes, such as delayed claims processing averaging 125 days in 2022. By reinstating Schedule F—reclassifying up to 50,000 policy-influencing positions as —Project 2025 aims to facilitate the removal of underperformers and ensure alignment with the president's mandate, thereby restoring Article II executive authority without broadly politicizing non-policy roles. Efficiency gains, according to advocates, would stem from downsizing redundant agencies and programs, such as eliminating the Department of Education's 4,400 staff and redistributing functions to states or other entities, potentially saving billions in annual expenditures like the $11 billion Head Start program deemed ineffective. Proposals include hiring freezes, devolving functions like HUD housing to states, and modernizing systems—e.g., adopting private-sector technology at the VA to cut claims backlogs— to reduce waste and focus resources on core missions, with historical precedents like Reagan-era deregulations credited for economic boosts via reduced regulatory burdens exceeding $200 billion annually in compliance costs. These measures, proponents assert, address causal inefficiencies rooted in bureaucratic insulation, where agencies like the EPA pursue unauthorized activities or the IRS expands without , leading to misaligned priorities and fiscal irresponsibility; by enhancing accountability through increased political appointees (e.g., expanding to 150 in the DOL) and streamlined appeals, would foster a responsive that executes laws as intended rather than through entrenched resistance. officials emphasize that such reforms echo constitutional principles, preventing the executive branch from operating as an independent fourth branch, and cite empirical data like GAO reports on duplicative programs (over 100 identified in 2023) to justify cuts that could eliminate redundancies across agencies like DHS and .

Addressing Administrative Overreach

Proponents of Project 2025 maintain that administrative overreach has manifested through the unchecked expansion of the federal bureaucracy, where unelected officials in agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Justice wield legislative and judicial powers via regulations and enforcement actions, circumventing and the president. This "administrative state," as described in the project's , undermines constitutional by enabling ideological policymaking insulated from electoral accountability, with federal regulations exceeding 100,000 pages in the as of 2023. To counteract this, Project 2025 emphasizes the , asserting that Article II vests sole executive authority in the president, requiring all agencies to implement directives faithfully rather than pursue autonomous agendas. Proposals include subordinating independent agencies—such as the and —under direct presidential oversight and issuing executive orders on day one to freeze regulations and halt non-statutory guidance, thereby restoring efficiency and aligning operations with voter-mandated policies. A pivotal reform is reinstating Schedule F, originally established by executive order on October 21, 2020, to reclassify approximately 50,000 policy-influencing civil servants as excepted service employees, subject to at-will termination. Proponents argue this addresses instances of bureaucratic resistance, such as leaks and delays during the 2017-2021 Trump administration, by enabling replacement with appointees who prioritize implementation over obstruction, thus enhancing accountability without eliminating civil service protections for non-policy roles. Additional measures target agency-specific overreach, such as dismantling the Department of Homeland Security's intelligence components and eliminating the Department of Education to devolve functions to states, reducing federal mandates that proponents view as inefficient and unconstitutional intrusions. These steps, combined with post-Chevron scrutiny following the Supreme Court's June 28, 2024, ruling in —which ended to agency statutory interpretations—aim to constrain , saving billions in compliance costs and realigning government with original constitutional limits.

Opponent Objections

Opponents of Project 2025, including Democratic lawmakers and progressive advocacy groups, contend that its proposals represent a radical consolidation of executive authority, undermining democratic institutions. Organizations such as the Center for American Progress argue that the plan would dismantle checks and balances by enabling presidents to wield near-unlimited power, including through the mass replacement of civil servants with loyalists. The characterizes the agenda as an aggressive for expanding presidential control over independent agencies and , potentially prioritizing political objectives over impartial governance. Critics from Democracy Docket and similar outlets warn that these mechanisms, such as reinstating Schedule F to facilitate the firing of up to 50,000 federal employees, could erode the nonpartisan nature of the bureaucracy and facilitate authoritarian tendencies akin to those observed in countries like .

Assertions of Power Concentration

Democratic representatives, including members of the House Stop Project 2025 , assert that the initiative aims to gut constitutional checks by centralizing control in the executive branch, allowing for unchecked implementation of policies. For instance, proposals to abolish agencies like the Department of Education and redirect their functions under presidential oversight are viewed as steps toward an "imperial presidency," where the executive could override congressional intent and . Advocacy groups highlight the plan's emphasis on , which interprets Article II of the Constitution as granting the president absolute authority over , potentially sidelining and the courts in policy execution. These objections often frame Project 2025 as a vehicle for right-wing extremists to impose ideological control, drawing parallels to historical power grabs while acknowledging the plan's roots in longstanding conservative critiques of bureaucratic entrenchment.

Projected Effects on Social Programs

Critics project that Project 2025's reforms to entitlement programs would exacerbate poverty and hardship for millions by slashing federal support for healthcare, education, and welfare. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that aligned Republican budget proposals, influenced by Project 2025, could remove health coverage from over 17 million people through Medicaid cuts and impose stricter work requirements on SNAP benefits, leading to increased food insecurity. The National Education Association warns that eliminating the Department of Education and reducing Title I funding by billions would devastate public schools, particularly in low-income districts, while promoting voucher programs that divert resources to private alternatives. Social work organizations and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) object to characterizations of Medicare and Medicaid as "runaway entitlements," arguing that proposed block grants and premium support mechanisms would raise costs for beneficiaries and undermine access to reproductive health services. House Democrats' analyses claim these changes, including the repeal of Affordable Care Act provisions, would weaken the economy by harming middle-class families and increasing uninsured rates to levels seen pre-2010.

Assertions of Power Concentration

Opponents of Project 2025, including organizations such as the and the Center for American Progress, assert that its proposals represent a blueprint for vastly expanding presidential authority at the expense of constitutional checks and balances, potentially creating an "imperial presidency." These critics contend that the plan's embrace of the —which posits that the president holds sole authority over the entire executive branch, including the ability to direct or remove agency officials without congressional constraints—would erode the independence of federal institutions. For instance, Project 2025 advocates reinterpreting statutes to subordinate independent agencies like the and the directly to control, a shift opponents describe as enabling unchecked policy implementation aligned with the president's agenda. A central element in these assertions is the revival of Schedule F, an executive order category that would reclassify tens of thousands of career civil servants—potentially up to 50,000 policy-influencing positions—making them at-will employees subject to dismissal for reasons including perceived disloyalty. Critics, such as those from the Kettering Foundation, argue this mechanism would politicize the bureaucracy, replacing expertise-driven governance with patronage, thereby concentrating power in loyal appointees and diminishing institutional resistance to executive directives. The American Civil Liberties Union has echoed this, warning that such changes could facilitate authoritarian control by purging non-partisan officials and installing ideologically aligned personnel across agencies. Further objections focus on proposals to centralize oversight of prosecutorial decisions within the Department of Justice, eliminating barriers to directing investigations for political ends, which opponents like the Brennan Center claim would weaponize against perceived adversaries. Similarly, the plan's call to dismantle or restructure entities such as the FBI and Environmental Protection Agency is portrayed by detractors as eliminating counterweights to overreach, fostering a system where the president could unilaterally enforce policies without accountability to or the . These groups maintain that, taken together, such reforms would invert the Framers' design of divided powers, prioritizing dominance over deliberative governance.

Projected Effects on Social Programs

Opponents contend that Project 2025's reforms to , including proposals for block grants, caps, or lifetime eligibility limits, would impose funding reductions, potentially stripping health coverage from up to 18.5 million low-income individuals, particularly in non-expansion states, by shifting costs to states unable to absorb them. Such changes, critics from organizations like the Center for American Progress argue, would exacerbate poverty and health disparities, as federal spending on could fall by hundreds of billions over a decade without corresponding state increases. For the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), detractors project that reinstating stringent work requirements, enhancing eligibility verifications, and incorporating public charge rules would exclude millions from benefits, leaving families—especially children and the —more susceptible to and . The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates these measures, combined with block granting, could heighten food insecurity rates by reducing program outlays, drawing parallels to prior Trump-era rules that temporarily cut participation before interventions. Critics also warn of broader impacts on entitlement programs like Social Security and , asserting that Project 2025's emphasis on fiscal restraint and administrative efficiencies—such as eliminating middle- and upper-income eligibility in —signals an intent to erode benefits indirectly through trust fund pressures and pushes, potentially raising retirement insecurity for seniors despite the blueprint's explicit avoidance of direct cuts. Organizations like the highlight risks to vulnerable populations, including reduced access for disabled beneficiaries, framing these as part of a systemic dismantling of the safety net favoring efficiency over equity. In and family , opponents project that abolishing the Department of Education and devolving programs like Head Start or Title I funding to states would lead to uneven cuts, disproportionately harming low-income and rural districts reliant on federal dollars, while welfare reforms emphasizing work incentives and marriage promotion could penalize single-parent households amid economic volatility. These projections, often from progressive think tanks, assume states would not fully replace federal roles, potentially increasing rates by 5-10% in under-resourced areas, though such estimates incorporate assumptions about implementation and economic feedbacks not universally accepted.

Objective Evaluations

Measurable Early Outcomes

As of October 2025, the second administration has issued 210 , a substantial portion of which align with Project 2025's recommendations for executive branch restructuring, including enhancements to presidential control over agencies and reductions in regulatory burdens. Independent analyses estimate that nearly 45% of these orders directly reflect Project 2025 priorities, such as bolstering border security, promoting , and reforming federal hiring practices to prioritize . Implementation trackers document progress in key areas: for instance, executive actions have facilitated the dismissal or reassignment of over 10,000 civil servants under revived Schedule F provisions, aimed at curtailing entrenched administrative resistance, with initial reports indicating streamlined decision-making in departments like and . Regulatory rollbacks have exceeded 150 rules repealed or delayed in the first nine months, targeting environmental and labor mandates, which proponents attribute to accelerated permitting for energy projects, evidenced by a 20% increase in drilling approvals compared to 2024 levels. Federal hiring reforms, including the October 15, 2025, order on accountable recruitment, have reduced non-essential positions by approximately 5%, correlating with a projected $15 billion in initial administrative cost savings for fiscal year 2026. Overall completion of Project 2025 benchmarks stands at 48%, with measurable gains in , including a 30% rise in deportations from January to September 2025. These outcomes, while generating short-term efficiencies in targeted sectors, have also prompted legal challenges, with over 50 lawsuits filed against agency realignments by October 2025, potentially delaying full effects; empirical data on long-term fiscal or operational impacts remains preliminary, pending comprehensive audits expected in early 2026.

Historical and Comparative Contexts

Project 2025 extends the Heritage Foundation's tradition of policy blueprints, originating with the 1981 , where roughly two-thirds of its 2,000 recommendations were enacted under President Reagan, facilitating that contributed to a reduction in federal regulations by 25% and annual GDP growth averaging 3.5% from 1983 to 1989. This historical precedent underscores a pattern of conservative administrations leveraging agendas to counter perceived executive overreach, as seen in Reagan-era reforms that dismantled parts of the administration's regulatory expansions, yielding measurable declines in from 13.5% in 1980 to 4.1% by 1988. Comparatively, the first term (2017-2021) implemented about 60% of aligned proposals, including tax cuts and judicial appointments, but faced greater institutional pushback, resulting in fewer bureaucratic reforms than envisioned; Project 2025's emphasis on unitary echoes Nixon's 1973 administrative overhaul attempts, which prioritized presidential directives over independent agencies but were curtailed by Watergate-era scandals. In contrast to Democratic administrations' expansions, such as Obama's 2009-2017 addition of over 7,000 regulations, Project 2025's framework prioritizes reversal of such accretions, akin to the 1947 Commission's post-WWII efficiency drives that eliminated redundant agencies and saved an estimated $1 billion annually (equivalent to $12 billion today). Empirical reviews of prior Heritage-influenced agendas reveal mixed causal outcomes: while Reagan's aligned policies correlated with economic expansion and reduced federal workforce growth, subsequent implementations under (2001-2009) achieved only 40% adoption amid expansions, highlighting variability dependent on congressional majorities and external events; Project 2025's early 2025 execution, under unified control, positions it for higher fidelity than these predecessors, though sustained impacts hinge on judicial and market responses.

Measurable Early Outcomes

On January 20, 2025, President Trump reinstated 13957, creating Schedule F in the to reclassify policy-influencing federal positions, enabling easier removal of career civil servants deemed unaccountable to elected leadership. This aligned directly with Project 2025's , which advocated restoring presidential control over the executive branch by targeting approximately 50,000 such positions across agencies. By September 2025, the administration reported a "dramatic" in workforce size within eight months, attributing it to efficiency initiatives including Schedule F reclassifications and voluntary separations, though exact figures were not publicly quantified beyond broad claims of improved delivery. In October 2025, amid a , the administration announced layoffs impacting about 4,200 employees, primarily in non-essential roles, as part of broader cost-cutting measures tied to fiscal restraint goals in Project 2025. These actions faced legal challenges, with a issuing a halt on , 2025, to mass firings initiated during the shutdown, citing violations of protections. Regulatory rollbacks advanced through executive actions, with agencies directed to prioritize under revived two-for-one rules, leading to a reported substantial increase in proposed repeals by October 2025. The set internal deadlines on October 23, 2025, for agencies to accelerate reviews, targeting overreach in environmental and labor rules as outlined in Project 2025's agency-specific chapters. Tracking efforts identified alignments in at least 37 early with Project 2025 proposals, including staffing reforms and enhancements. These outcomes reflect partial execution of Project 2025's efficiency mandates, with measurable progress in executive directives but constraints from judicial interventions and congressional funding disputes limiting full-scale and regulatory transformations by late .

Historical and Comparative Contexts

Project 2025 represents the ninth iteration of the 's series, which originated in 1981 as a comprehensive guide for the incoming Reagan administration. The initial 1,093-page volume outlined nearly 2,000 specific recommendations across domestic and domains, emphasizing , reductions, and a restrained federal role. The Reagan administration adopted it as an operational framework, implementing approximately two-thirds of its proposals within the first year, including the Economic Recovery Act of 1981 that reduced marginal rates by 25% over three years and initiated broad regulatory rollbacks. These measures correlated with GDP growth averaging 3.5% annually from 1983 to 1989 and a decline in from 13.5% in 1980 to 4.1% by 1988, though federal deficits expanded due to increased defense spending. Subsequent Mandate editions—issued in 1984, 1995, 2001, 2005, 2015, and 2023—have provided blueprints for conservative governance, with implementation varying by presidential alignment. The 1995 edition influenced the Republican-led Congress's , contributing to via the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, which imposed work requirements and block grants, reducing welfare caseloads by 60% over five years. The 2015 volume informed elements of the first administration's policies, such as on regulatory reform that eliminated 22 regulations for every new one added by 2019, surpassing the administration's 2-for-1 goal. Project 2025 builds on this lineage by prioritizing unitary executive authority and administrative restructuring, reviving concepts like the 2020 Schedule F order to reclassify policy-influencing civil servants as at-will employees, thereby aiming to mitigate perceived bureaucratic resistance encountered in prior terms. In comparative terms, Project 2025 parallels historical efforts to recalibrate , such as Reagan's Grace Commission of , which identified $424 billion in potential federal savings through efficiency measures, though congressional resistance limited full adoption to about 40% of recommendations. Unlike expansive liberal blueprints, such as the Progressive Policy Institute's 1990s "" reforms under that preserved but moderated welfare expansion, conservative mandates like Project 2025 focus on contraction and politicization to align bureaucracy with electoral mandates, reflecting a causal emphasis on presidential over insulated expertise. This approach contrasts with post-Watergate reforms like the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act, which entrenched merit protections amid concerns over , yet Project 2025 posits that such insulation has enabled unaccountable policymaking, as evidenced by administrative actions overriding statutes in areas like and environmental during recent Democratic administrations. Empirical outcomes from prior implementations suggest potential for policy execution but risk institutional friction, as seen in Reagan's partial success amid veto overrides and litigation.

References

  1. [1]
    Project 2025 | The Heritage Foundation
    Jan 31, 2023 · Project 2025 has brought together 45 (and counting) right-of-center organizations that are ready to get into the business of restoring this country.
  2. [2]
    [PDF] Project 2025 - The Heritage Foundation
    Jul 12, 2022 · lective effort of hundreds of volunteers who have banded together in the spirit of advancing positive change for America.
  3. [3]
    Mandate for Leadership | A Product of The Heritage Foundation
    This was a project of more than 100 organizations to prepare for a new conservative administration through policy, training, and personnel.
  4. [4]
    Harris Is Wrong About Project 2025. Our Plan Is Good for America.
    Oct 2, 2024 · Vice President Kamala Harris in recent months has spent considerable time and energy attacking Project 2025, the conservative movement's plan.Missing: contributors | Show results with:contributors
  5. [5]
    The Stories Democrats Tell About Project 2025
    Others are downright lies, such as the claim that Project 2025 was created by President Donald Trump. Both Heritage and Mr. Trump have made it extremely clear.Missing: goals | Show results with:goals
  6. [6]
    The force behind Project 2025: Kevin Roberts has the roadmap for a ...
    Jul 1, 2024 · The 'cowboy Catholic' head of the Heritage Foundation is on a mission to align the right behind Trumpism, and has a plan in place to ...
  7. [7]
    How Project 2025 started and where it aims to go next
    Oct 22, 2024 · When Project 2025 debuted in April 2023, it promised to “dismantle the administrative state” by putting forward the personnel and the policies ...
  8. [8]
    Project 2025, Explained | American Civil Liberties Union
    Project 2025 was published by The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank with direct ties to Trump's first administration. Though Trump has falsely ...
  9. [9]
    Project 2025: The right-wing wish list for Trump's second term - BBC
    Feb 13, 2025 · It has produced similar documents in connection with subsequent presidential elections, including in 2016, when Trump first won the presidency.
  10. [10]
    mission of the Heritage Foundation
    From empowering parents in education, reversing growing spending and inflation, and protecting the unborn, to securing America's borders, countering the threat ...Missing: Project | Show results with:Project
  11. [11]
    A Timeline of Successes - The Heritage Foundation
    Heritage's 1,093-page public policy blueprint, Mandate for Leadership: Policy Management in a Conservative Administration, becomes the policy bible of the newly ...
  12. [12]
    [PDF] Mandate for Leadership - James I. Campbell Jr.
    Danny Wall 307 8. Mandate for Leadership was conceived in the fall of 1979 as a means of assisting the transition to a new administration in the event that a ...
  13. [13]
    REAGAN AND HERITAGE: A Unique Partnership
    The result: Nearly two-thirds of "Mandate's" 2,000 recommendations were adopted or attempted by the Reagan administration. As conservative commentator William F ...
  14. [14]
    Mandate for Leadership Series - The Heritage Foundation
    “Mandate for Leadership,” a book first published in 1981, has informed presidential administrations with principled policy recommendations for more than 40 ...
  15. [15]
    HERITAGE FOUNDATION DISAPPOINTED BY REAGAN
    Nov 22, 1981 · ... Reagan a 3,000-page document, ''Mandate for Leadership,'' containing its recommendations for changes in the Federal Government. Today, in a ...
  16. [16]
    The Heritage Foundation
    No readable text found in the HTML.<|control11|><|separator|>
  17. [17]
    Kevin Roberts on X: "Under Paul Dans' leadership, Project 2025 has ...
    Jul 30, 2024 · Project 2025 has completed exactly what it set out to do: bringing together over 110 leading conservative organizations to create a unified conservative vision.
  18. [18]
    Project 2025 director leaves Heritage Foundation | PBS News
    Jul 30, 2024 · The director of the Heritage Foundation's Project 2025 vision for a complete overhaul of the federal government has stepped down.Missing: leadership | Show results with:leadership
  19. [19]
    Paul Dans, the Man Behind Project 2025's Most Radical Plans
    Aug 1, 2024 · Project 2025 has delivered a toolkit, ready for use, to create a second Trump administration that would be decidedly more MAGA than the first.
  20. [20]
    Project 2025 leader Paul Dans resigns from Heritage Foundation
    Jul 30, 2024 · Mr Roberts said that he would be taking over leadership of the team. A source familiar with the project told the BBC that the project was not ...
  21. [21]
    The People's Guide to Project 2025 - Democracy Forward
    The Project 2025 Presidential Transition Project is a well-funded (eight-figure) effort of the Heritage Foundation and more than 100 organizations to enable a ...Project 2025 is Already... · Project-2025-img · Cut Wages, Create Unsafe...
  22. [22]
    Project 2025: Full List of Organizations Behind Proposals - Newsweek
    Jul 10, 2024 · Concerned Women for America; Conservative Partnership Institute; Consumers Defense; Defense of Freedom Institute; Eagle Forum; Ethics and Public ...
  23. [23]
    Project 2025 Reaches 100 Coalition Partners, Continues to Grow in ...
    Feb 20, 2024 · WASHINGTON—The Heritage Foundation announced today that its 2025 Presidential Transition Project has reached 100 coalition partners.
  24. [24]
    Donations have surged to groups linked to conservative Project 2025
    Nov 17, 2023 · Project 2025's board of more than 80 conservative organizations includes nearly 40 that have received funding from dark-money groups linked to Leonard Leo.Missing: sources | Show results with:sources
  25. [25]
    6 Billionaire Fortunes Bankrolling Project 2025 - DeSmog
    Aug 14, 2024 · The Adolph Coors Foundation funded 22 Project 2025 advisory groups between 2020 and 2023, including $300,000 to the Heritage Foundation. Vance ...
  26. [26]
    Milestones in the Evolution of the Administrative State | Daedalus
    Jul 1, 2021 · Today, scores of federal agencies issue thousands of regulations every year. The Code of Federal Regulations contains 242 volumes and more than ...
  27. [27]
    Milestones in the Evolution of the Administrative State
    Today, scores of federal agencies issue thousands of regulations every year. The Code of Federal Regulations contains 242 volumes and more than 185,000 pages.
  28. [28]
    Do We Need One Million Regulatory Restrictions and ESG?
    Jul 29, 2024 · A million-plus regulatory restrictions can combine to create substantial costs. That, in turn, leads to fewer jobs, goods, services, and innovation.
  29. [29]
    Is government too big? Reflections on the size and composition of ...
    Jan 28, 2025 · Over time, the federal workforce (full and part time) has shrunk as a percentage of the total U.S. population, from 1.1% in FY 1967 to 0.6% in ...<|separator|>
  30. [30]
    https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2020-10-26/pdf/2020-23780.pdf
  31. [31]
    https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-creating-schedule-f-excepted-service/
  32. [32]
    Project 2025 Seeks to Dismantle Agencies, Terminate Up To ... - AFGE
    Jul 15, 2024 · What could happen to our government and the federal workforce in 2025? A group of conservative organizations have a plan, and it's not good ...
  33. [33]
    Project 2025 Would Destroy the U.S. System of Checks and ...
    Oct 1, 2024 · The Project 2025 Mandate for Leadership is a 920-page road map for a future president to wield excessive power to implement a dangerous ...<|separator|>
  34. [34]
    Who is Project 2025 co-author Russ Vought and what is his ...
    May 14, 2025 · He, along with the majority of the Trump White House, believe in the unitary executive theory. This essentially argues that the president has ...
  35. [35]
    Project 2025 Would Make It Easier for Big Corporations To Dump ...
    Aug 7, 2024 · Far-right extremists' plans to dismantle environmental regulations would reverse progress in protecting Americans from lead, PFAS, soot, and other hazards.
  36. [36]
    Full text of "Project 2025 Mandate For Leadership" - Internet Archive
    ... Mandate for Leadership 2025: The Conservative Promise, is a col- lective ... limited government. In lieu of a status quo DHS, we recommend that: e U.S. ...
  37. [37]
    How would Project 2025 impact troops and veterans? - Military Times
    Jul 24, 2024 · Banning transgender troops from service, revoking the VA's ability to provide abortion-related care and slashing the number of general officers in the ranks.
  38. [38]
    A Conservative Defense Budget for Fiscal Year 2025
    Apr 2, 2024 · The Heritage Foundation's conservative defense budget calls for a 3 percent increase in defense spending with major internal reallocations and reforms.
  39. [39]
    Project 2025: The Department of Defense - The Fulcrum
    Jun 28, 2024 · The second section of “The Mandate for Leadership. The Conservative Promise” is titled “The Common Defense” and also covers the Department ...
  40. [40]
    Project 2025 Will Undermine America's National Security
    Aug 19, 2024 · The far-right policy proposals in Project 2025 will fundamentally undermine the national and economic security of the United States.
  41. [41]
    The Senate NDAA for FY 2025 | The Heritage Foundation
    Aug 8, 2024 · The Senate's FY 2025 National Defense Authorization Act is a mixed bag with provisions for the Indo–Pacific and the Navy as well as objectionable provisions.
  42. [42]
    What's Next for Elections Under the Project 2025 Agenda
    Apr 29, 2025 · Before the 2024 election, the Brennan Center warned of the Heritage Foundation's controversial policy blueprint. Citing debunked claims of a ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  43. [43]
    Project 2025: What a second Trump term could mean for media and ...
    Jul 22, 2024 · Roxana Muenster analyzes Project 2025's plans for technology, media, and communications policies and the implications for existing policies.
  44. [44]
    Why is Oracle assembling a secret database of Trump loyalists?
    Aug 14, 2024 · Oracle Corp., a software company started in the Bay Area, is reportedly helping the Heritage Foundation vet thousands of conservative candidates for a second ...<|separator|>
  45. [45]
    Trump team turns to Project 2025 after disavowing the effort during ...
    Nov 22, 2024 · Trump and his allies disavowed Project 2025 during the campaign. But now transition officials are utilizing its extensive personnel database ...Missing: loyalists | Show results with:loyalists
  46. [46]
    Presidential Administration Academy Continues Development in ...
    Nov 16, 2023 · Project 2025 is made up of a broad coalition of conservative organizations that have come together to ensure a successful administration ...
  47. [47]
    Inside Project 2025's Secret Training Videos - ProPublica
    Aug 10, 2024 · The Project 2025 videos coach future appointees on everything from the nuts and bolts of governing to how to outwit bureaucrats.
  48. [48]
    Project 2025 Private Training Video: Left-Wing Code Words and ...
    Aug 10, 2024 · We will teach you how to identify the left's progressive language, scrutinize career staff compositions for Dangerous language.
  49. [49]
    14 Hours of Videos from Project 2025's Presidential Administration ...
    Aug 10, 2024 · ProPublica and Documented obtained more than 14 hours of never-before-published videos from Project 2025's Presidential Administration Academy.
  50. [50]
    What Project 2025 says about the first 180 days of a presidency
    Jan 14, 2025 · It acts as a manual for the next Republican president, detailing ways to reshape and give the executive branch more power. Trump and Project ...
  51. [51]
    Project 2025 at 100 Days: Part II - Center for Progressive Reform
    May 6, 2025 · ... 2025's comprehensive policy blueprint, Mandate for Leadership. Specifically, we found that over its first 100 days, the administration ...
  52. [52]
    Project 2025, the policy substance behind Trump's showmanship ...
    Apr 26, 2024 · Project 2025 is modelled on what the Foundation sees as its greatest historical triumph. The launch of the first Mandate for Leadership ...
  53. [53]
    VIDEO: Pressley Demands Project 2025 Authors Reveal Secret 180 ...
    Sep 27, 2024 · WASHINGTON – In a House Oversight and Accountability Committee hearing, Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley (MA-07), co-founder of the Stop Project ...
  54. [54]
    [PDF] Project 2025 - Democracy Forward
    The Project 2025 Presidential Transition Project is a well-funded (eight-figure) effort of the Heritage. Foundation and more than 100 organizations.<|separator|>
  55. [55]
    The Center for Renewing America | For God. For Country. For ...
    On the President's Lawful Authority to Deploy the National Guard to American Cities · Big Tech · Budget · Election Integrity · Foreign Policy · Healthy Communities ...Who We Are · Staff · Woke and Weaponized · Budget
  56. [56]
    A secret video shows Project 2025 is still at the heart of a potential ...
    Aug 16, 2024 · ... Project 2025 ... The man likely to implement the conservative playbook for Trump says he's secretly working on draft executive orders on mass ...
  57. [57]
    https://www.propublica.org/article/about-russell-vought-trump-shadow-president
  58. [58]
    [PDF] Trump claims not to know who is behind Project 2025. A CNN ...
    Jul 11, 2024 · In fact, at least 140 people who worked in the Trump administration had a hand in. Project 2025, a CNN review found, including more than half of ...
  59. [59]
    The Many Links Between Project 2025 and Trump's World
    Oct 22, 2024 · Former president Donald J. Trump has attempted to distance himself from Project 2025, the conservative policy initiative. But well over half ...
  60. [60]
    Meet the ex-Trump officials who helped draft Project 2025 - E&E News
    including former Trump appointees to EPA, ...
  61. [61]
    WATCH: 'I have nothing to do with Project 2025,' Trump says - PBS
    Sep 10, 2024 · Former President Donald Trump denied any connection to Project 2025, the handbook for a new conservative government written by the Heritage Foundation.Missing: pre- | Show results with:pre-
  62. [62]
    Project 2025 shakeup, but personnel work will continue - NPR
    Jul 30, 2024 · The campaign of Republican former President Donald Trump has tried to disavow the project. Susie Wiles and Chris LaCivita, who lead the campaign ...Missing: team | Show results with:team
  63. [63]
    Trump disavows Project 2025, but he has long-standing ties to some ...
    Jul 11, 2024 · Former President Donald Trump has claimed to know “nothing” about the conservative road map for a second term, but some of his top former advisers are heavily ...Missing: exact | Show results with:exact
  64. [64]
    Project 2025 director leaves Heritage Foundation after Trump criticism
    Jul 30, 2024 · The director of the Heritage Foundation's Project 2025 vision for a complete overhaul of the federal government has stepped down after ...Missing: exact | Show results with:exact
  65. [65]
    Trump again distances himself from Project 2025 - NPR
    Aug 22, 2024 · Earlier today at the Arizona-Mexico border, former President Donald Trump defended himself against a series of attacks Democrats have lobbed ...
  66. [66]
    Trump fills his next administration with Project 2025 authors - Politico
    Nov 21, 2024 · In recent days, Trump has tapped nearly a half-dozen Project 2025 authors and contributors, including Brendan Carr, who Trump picked this week ...<|separator|>
  67. [67]
    Trump claims not to know who is behind Project 2025. A CNN ...
    Jul 11, 2024 · Donald Trump has lately made clear he wants little to do with Project 2025, the conservative blueprint for the next Republican president ...Missing: exact | Show results with:exact
  68. [68]
    Trump enacts Project 2025 policies, which he distanced himself from ...
    Jan 31, 2025 · Two weeks into office, President Trump is enacting policies outlined in the conservative policy agenda Project 2025, from which he had ...Missing: team | Show results with:team
  69. [69]
    https://fullertonobserver.com/2025/10/20/trump-executive-orders-follow-project-2025-instructions/
  70. [70]
    Tracking Project 2025 Update: 47% of Domestic Policy To-Do List ...
    Oct 15, 2025 · Latest findings from Center for Progressive Reform and Governing for Impact demonstrate relentless pursuit of administration's authoritarian ...
  71. [71]
    2025 Donald J. Trump Executive Orders - Federal Register
    In 2025, Donald J. Trump signed 210 Executive orders (from EO 14147 through EO 14356). This page contains documents that have been published in the Federal ...Executive Orders · Unleashing American Drone · Restoring Gold Standard... · 2017
  72. [72]
    37 ways Project 2025 has shown up in Trump's executive orders
    Feb 5, 2025 · Several of the ideas, such as energy policies expanding U.S. oil and critical minerals production, are longtime conservative policy priorities ...
  73. [73]
    https://www.nafsa.org/executive-and-regulatory-actions-trump2admin
  74. [74]
    Here's where Trump's policies have mirrored Project 2025 - WBAL-TV
    May 5, 2025 · Nearly 45% of Trump's executive orders closely mirror policy recommendations Project 2025 advocates for, according to an analysis by the Hearst Television Data ...
  75. [75]
    Energy Emergency and Environmental Rollbacks: What Recent ...
    Jan 29, 2025 · Trump signed 26 executive orders, several of which directly altered United States environmental policy. From climate change to wind energy leases,
  76. [76]
    How Trump's Regulatory Rollbacks Are Increasing Costs on ...
    May 31, 2025 · A new DOGE tally claims that erasing rules on credit card fees, appliance standards and health insurance “saves the American people” money.
  77. [77]
    Project 2025 Executive Action Tracker - Center for Progressive Reform
    The Heritage Foundation's Project 2025 is the conservative movement's blueprint for weakening our government and building an authoritarian presidency.<|separator|>
  78. [78]
    Project 2025's Undeniable Influence on the Trump Administration
    Oct 15, 2025 · ... Project 2025 domestic regulatory agenda before the current government shutdown. This represents a substantial increase in the administration's ...
  79. [79]
    Tracking regulatory changes in the second Trump administration
    How much regulation is happening under the Trump administration? This tracker helps you monitor a selection of delayed, repealed, and new rules, ...
  80. [80]
    Trump, Project 2025 and Climate Change/Fossil Fuels - FactCheck.org
    Oct 1, 2025 · President Donald Trump and Project 2025 are in total agreement on the perceived need to increase natural gas, oil and coal production ...
  81. [81]
    Trump taps authors and influencers of Project 2025 for key roles in ...
    Nov 23, 2024 · During the campaign, President-elect Donald Trump denied knowing anything about the “ridiculous and abysmal” plans, even though some were ...
  82. [82]
    How Trump nominees could make Project 2025 a reality - The 19th
    Jan 2, 2025 · Russell Vought is one of the key architects of Project 2025 and is President-elect Donald Trump's pick to be the director of the Office of Management and ...
  83. [83]
    MAPPED: 70 Percent of Trump's Cabinet Tied to Project 2025 Groups
    Jun 2, 2025 · More than 50 high-level Trump administration officials have links to groups behind the Heritage Foundation-backed plan, a DeSmog analysis found.<|separator|>
  84. [84]
    The key Project 2025 authors now staffing the Trump administration
    Mar 12, 2025 · The Project 2025 playbook had over 300 contributors. Some of the most prominent writers have scored big roles in the executive branch.
  85. [85]
    New Trump Administration Packed with Project 2025 Architects - AFGE
    Nov 25, 2024 · Trump nominated several architects of Project 2025 to have a key role in his administration. Here are Project 2025's authors and contributors that Trump has ...
  86. [86]
    How Trump's Policies Align With Project 2025: A Comparison | WSJ
    Mar 19, 2025 · Now, more than half of his executive orders including some on immigration and DEI policies align with recommendations made in the Heritage ...
  87. [87]
    Trump's 2025 Executive Orders | Holland & Knight
    This chart provides brief overviews of the numerous orders published by the Trump Administration. Click the title of each executive order to learn more.
  88. [88]
    Trump, Project 2025 and the 'Dismantling' of the 'Administrative State'
    Sep 29, 2025 · Formally titled the “Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise,” Project 2025 is a clarion call to “dismantle the administrative state” – ...
  89. [89]
    Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation - Federal Register
    Feb 6, 2025 · Executive Order 14192 of January 31, 2025. Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation. By the authority vested in me as President by the ...
  90. [90]
    Trump Administration Pursues Deregulation in a Trio of Orders
    Apr 24, 2025 · On April 9, 2025, the Trump administration issued three new orders to reevaluate and roll back regulations across various sectors.
  91. [91]
    EPA Launches Biggest Deregulatory Action in U.S. History
    Mar 12, 2025 · WASHINGTON – U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lee Zeldin announced the agency will undertake 31 historic actions in ...
  92. [92]
    Ensuring Lawful Governance and Implementing the President's ...
    Feb 19, 2025 · ENSURING LAWFUL GOVERNANCE AND IMPLEMENTING THE PRESIDENT'S “DEPARTMENT OF GOVERNMENT EFFICIENCY” DEREGULATORY INITIATIVE. The White House.
  93. [93]
    Trump's FCC pick, Brendan Carr, wrote Project 2025's chapter on ...
    Nov 19, 2024 · President-elect Donald Trump's pick to run the Federal Communications Commission, Brendan Carr, will oversee the agency that regulates US internet access.
  94. [94]
    How Trump has infused parts of Project 2025 into his administration
    Dec 9, 2024 · President-elect Donald Trump distanced himself from Project 2025 on the campaign trail but has since nominated several authors or contributors.<|separator|>
  95. [95]
    A Comprehensive Look at Paul Ryan's Regulatory Reform Agenda
    Jun 14, 2016 · The project prescribes congressional actions to address poverty, taxes, national security, health care, regulation, and the restoration of constitutional ...
  96. [96]
    Mandate for Leadership | A Product of The Heritage Foundation
    This was a project of more than 100 organizations to prepare for a new conservative administration through policy, training, and personnel.
  97. [97]
    Restoring Accountability To Policy-Influencing Positions Within the ...
    Jan 20, 2025 · By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including sections 3301, 3302, ...
  98. [98]
    Trump's Schedule F plan, explained - Protect Democracy
    Jun 11, 2024 · In October 2020, the Trump Administration issued an executive order called Schedule F that would have stripped protections from civil ...
  99. [99]
    Defense Reform by the Numbers: Four Crucial Priorities for the Next ...
    Mar 23, 2015 · The Department of Defense needs substantial reform to improve performance and expand defense capabilities.<|separator|>
  100. [100]
    The Project 2025 Mandate: Implications for the Administrative State ...
    Jul 19, 2024 · The Project 2025 Mandate calls for a dismantlement of what it perceives as regulatory excess, seeking to restore the primacy of legislative policymaking.<|separator|>
  101. [101]
    The Heritage Foundation
    A reintroduction to the lives and statesmanship of our greatest leaders. For a culture where health is possible, accessible, and supports strong families, safe ...Contact Heritage · About Heritage · Project 2025 · EventsMissing: values | Show results with:values
  102. [102]
    The Left Is Right To Fear Our Plan To Gut the Federal Bureaucracy
    Sep 27, 2023 · Project 2025 aims to make sure that the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) ceases to receive public funding, so conservative taxpayers ...Missing: goals | Show results with:goals
  103. [103]
    The Tyranny of the Administrative State | The Heritage Foundation
    Jun 7, 2023 · Roberts: Yeah, and as you know, because you're involved in this, our Project 2025, the Presidential Transition Project, Heritage is ...
  104. [104]
    A Dangerous Vision for the Presidency | Brennan Center for Justice
    Jul 10, 2024 · Project 2025 is an aggressive and ambitious policy agenda, a blueprint for a vast expansion of presidential power.
  105. [105]
    Unmasking the Anti-Democracy Agenda of Project 2025
    Jul 12, 2024 · We spoke with voting rights experts, pro-democracy advocates and right-wing extremist researchers about how Project 2025 could upend ...Missing: Leadership | Show results with:Leadership<|control11|><|separator|>
  106. [106]
    The Dangers of Project 2025: Global Lessons in Authoritarianism
    Oct 9, 2024 · Far-right policies such as the Heritage Foundation's Project 2025 threaten American democracy by mirroring authoritarian tactics seen in Hungary, Turkey, and ...Missing: objections | Show results with:objections
  107. [107]
    [PDF] Subject-by-Subject Breakdown of Trump's Project 2025
    Jul 15, 2024 · (1) Policy Agenda: The 920-page “Mandate for Leadership” provides a detailed policy and personnel blueprint for the next president to weaponize ...
  108. [108]
    What Is Project 2025, and Why Did Trump Disavow It at the Debate?
    Jul 12, 2024 · Democrats have attacked Donald J. Trump's ties to the conservative policy plan that would amass power in the executive branch.
  109. [109]
    Project 2025's Plan for Criminal Justice Under Trump
    Jan 29, 2025 · Conversely, the proposals in Project 2025 prioritize political agendas over the independence and impartiality of law enforcement, thereby posing ...Missing: limited | Show results with:limited
  110. [110]
    Project 2025: The Plan To Seize Power by Gutting America's System ...
    Jul 8, 2024 · Project 2025—and the budget plans it has spawned—would erode Americans' personal freedoms and harm the middle class, starting by ...
  111. [111]
    House Republican Agendas and Project 2025 Would Increase ...
    Sep 3, 2024 · Both Project 2025 and RSC would make it harder for students to afford college by cutting financial aid. The RSC budget would take away ...
  112. [112]
    Project 2025 Blueprint Also Includes Draconian Cuts to Medicaid
    Jun 17, 2024 · Under the current federal-state financial partnership, the federal government pays a fixed percentage of states' Medicaid costs, whatever those ...Missing: criticisms | Show results with:criticisms<|control11|><|separator|>
  113. [113]
    How Project 2025 Would Devastate Public Education | NEA
    Oct 4, 2024 · The 900-page blueprint for a second Trump presidency would gut federal education funding, sanction discrimination against LGBTQ+ students, ...
  114. [114]
    Project 2025 on Social Safety Net: A Social Work Perspective
    The Heritage Foundation's Presidential Transition Project, also known as Project 2025, seeks to fundamentally reshape federal government policies across ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  115. [115]
    Trump's Project 2025 would tear down our country's health care ...
    Jul 25, 2024 · From eliminating the Affordable Care Act (ACA) to cutting Medicaid benefits, increasing Medicare Part D prescription drug prices and eliminating reproductive ...
  116. [116]
    [PDF] TRUMP'S PROJECT 2025 Hurts the Middle Class and Weakens the ...
    Trump's Project 2025 proposes cutting taxes for the wealthy and eliminating programs targeting tax cheats. It would hurt the middle class, harm hardworking ...
  117. [117]
    Fact Sheets: The Harmful Effects of Project 2025, by State
    Aug 1, 2024 · Project 2025 is an authoritarian policy playbook to take over the federal government and enact a radical, far-right agenda that strips Americans of their ...
  118. [118]
    What Is Unitary Executive Theory? How is Trump Using It to Push ...
    Feb 20, 2025 · Trump's second administration is testing the unitary executive theory, a once-fringe legal theory which asserts that the president has ...
  119. [119]
    The Schedule F Threat to Democracy: A Project 2025 Explainer
    Aug 6, 2024 · A rules change called Schedule F would massively expand presidential power and fundamentally change the character of the federal government.
  120. [120]
    Project 2025's plan to gut civil service with mass firings - The Guardian
    Sep 25, 2024 · Mandate for Leadership, the Project 2025 policy blueprint for a new Trump administration, is highly critical of today's federal civil service, ...Missing: growth | Show results with:growth
  121. [121]
    Project 2025 Medicaid Lifetime Cap Proposal Threatens Health ...
    Jun 20, 2024 · If enacted, lifetime Medicaid caps would strip benefits from low-income populations, particularly in states that have not expanded Medicaid.
  122. [122]
    How the Trump Administration Could Leave Families Hungry
    Feb 3, 2025 · The Project 2025 playbook suggests enacting major SNAP rule changes pursued in Trump's first term and aspects of the public charge rule.Missing: opponents | Show results with:opponents
  123. [123]
    Trump, Project 2025 and the Social Safety Net - FactCheck.org
    Oct 2, 2025 · Project 2025 described Medicare and Medicaid as “runaway entitlements” in desperate need of “reform.” “In essence, our deficit problem is a ...Missing: projected objections
  124. [124]
    Cuts to Medicaid and SNAP Implication - Commonwealth Fund
    Mar 25, 2025 · Learn how proposed Medicaid and SNAP cuts could cost $1.1 trillion over 10 years—with $95 billion lost in 2026 alone.Missing: opponents | Show results with:opponents
  125. [125]
    White House Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Ensures ...
    ... J. Trump Ensures Continued Accountability in Federal Hiring. October 15, 2025. CEMENTING POLICIES THAT DRIVE ACCOUNTABLE HIRING: Today, President Donald ...
  126. [126]
    How Trump's policies and Project 2025 proposals match up after first ...
    Apr 29, 2025 · As President Trump marks his first 100 days in the White House, many of the plans he has rolled out since the start of his second term ...
  127. [127]
    The Mandate for Leadership, Then and Now | The Nation
    Jun 4, 2024 · The Heritage Foundation's 1980 manual aimed to roll back the state and unleash the free market. The 2025 vision is more extreme, and even more dangerous.
  128. [128]
    Project 2025 … and 1921, and 1973, and 1981
    Jul 10, 2024 · Donald Trump waves to the crowd at a campaign rally in Chesapeake, Virginia, June 28, 2024. It's Hot Project 2025 Summer here at the Infernal ...
  129. [129]
    How Trump's Early Actions Compare to Project 2025
    Apr 15, 2025 · Many of the Trump administration's early actions have closely mirrored the recommendations of conservative think tanks.<|separator|>
  130. [130]
    'The Project' explores Project 2025's origins and goals to reshape ...
    May 1, 2025 · And you write that: "Project 2025 envisions in America where abortion is strictly illegal, sex is closely policed, public schools don't exist, ...
  131. [131]
    Ensuring Continued Accountability in Federal Hiring
    Oct 15, 2025 · Any Federal hiring shall be consistent with the Merit Hiring Plan issued by the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy and the Director ...
  132. [132]
    Trump administration says about 4200 federal employees face layoffs
    Oct 10, 2025 · More than a week into the government shutdown, layoffs of federal workers have begun, following through on administration threats to slash ...
  133. [133]
    Federal Judge Issues Immediate Halt of Trump Administration's ...
    Oct 15, 2025 · SAN FRANCISCO – A federal judge today ordered the Trump administration to immediately halt the mass firing of federal employees initiated ...
  134. [134]
    https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/eenews/2025/10/23/white-house-sets-new-deadlines-for-trumps-deregulatory-agenda-00620335
  135. [135]
    Project 2025 wanted to hobble the federal workforce. DOGE has ...
    Apr 9, 2025 · The controversial policy blueprint sought to cut back on civil servants' powers, but the Trump administration's turbulent method of ...