it's Project 2025's playbook
Many of these actions are unprecedented. Some appear to be illegal and unconstitutional, according to legal experts and judges. But none of them should come as a surprise – nearly all of them were outlined in 2022 in a plan called Project 2025.
Project 2025 is a multifaceted strategy to advance conservative policies in the federal government. Part of this effort revolves around the 'Mandate for Leadership,' a 922-page document published in April 2023 that outlines a slew of proposed governmental policy changes.
The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank and advocacy group, organized the collaborative effort. A long list of other right-leaning research organizations and interest groups, like Moms for Liberty and Turning Point USA, also participated in Project 2025.
A Heritage Foundation representative attends a Moms for Liberty National Summit in Washington on Aug. 30, 2024. Photo: Dominic Gwinn/Middle East Images/AFP via Getty Images / The Conversation
In the lead-up to the 2024 presidential election, Project 2025 participants wrote on the plan's website that 'to rescue the country from the grip of the radical Left,' they would 'need both a governing agenda and the right people in place, ready to carry this agenda out on day one of the next conservative administration.'
In my research on think tanks, I've investigated how these research organizations can influence public policymaking. The most potent strategy is to ally with a political party and support its objectives through research and advocacy. This is exactly what the Heritage Foundation has done via Project 2025.
Even though Trump said during his 2024 campaign that he was not affiliated with the project, evidence of Project 2025's agenda can be seen throughout the beginning of his second term – as well as in his first administration.
For example, on January 20, 2025, Trump echoed the plan's statement that 'men and women are biological realities' when he signed an executive order that, in part, recognizes 'two sexes, male and female' that are 'not changeable and are grounded in fundamental and incontrovertible reality.' This order led to the removal of transgender references from government websites.
Other orders are similarly aligned with Project 2025. Take Trump's executive order that, in part, eliminated the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, or OFCCP, a government office previously charged with ensuring companies working with the government did not discriminate against any employees. Project 2025 recommended, quite simply, to 'eliminate OFCCP.'
Some news reports have found that there are already many other examples of Trump policy decisions and executive orders that appear to mirror Project 2025 recommendations.
One CNN analysis from Jan. 31 found that more than two-thirds of the 53 executive orders Trump issued during his first week in office 'evoked proposals outlined in [the] 'Mandate for Leadership.''
Decades of activism
Project 2025's influence on Trump reflects the Heritage Foundation's growing importance to the Republican Party.
In my forthcoming book about the polarization and politicization of policy research organizations, I show the many ways that think tanks like the Heritage Foundation have become embedded within partisan networks and intimately connected to politicians.
Increasingly, Heritage and other partisan-aligned think tanks, including progressive groups like the Center for American Progress, use their research to consistently support partisan agendas that align with their policy goals.
The relationship between the Heritage Foundation and the GOP represents the most extreme version of this dynamic. The think tank has supported Republican presidents as far back as Ronald Reagan, using another policy document – also called the 'Mandate for Leadership' – to secure significant policy gains through his administration. But the symbiosis between the Heritage Foundation and the GOP has been particularly notable since Trump gained more influence in the party.
At the start of Trump's first term, as one Heritage Foundation researcher told me in 2017, the think tank recognized that the 'administration didn't have much policy depth, so when they won the election they were sort of like, 'Now what do we do?' And that's where Heritage comes in. … We work on these issues year-round, so we'll stand by your side.'
The Heritage Foundation also vetted potential staffers for federal government positions. This led to more than 66 Heritage employees or former employees working for the Trump administration by the middle of 2018.
But Heritage has not entirely dictated Trump's agenda. While the group did say that Trump 'embraced 64 percent of our 321 recommendations' by the end of 2017, the think tank has also revamped its agenda to align with Trump on the issues he cared most about, like trade and culture wars.
As the think tank's president, Kevin Roberts, said in 2024, Heritage views its job as 'institutionalizing Trumpism.'
The people connecting Trump to Project 2025
Many of the contributors to the 'Mandate for Leadership' had been Trump administration officials, like Russ Vought, the former director of the Office of Management and Budget and current nominee for the same position.
This list also includes John Ratcliffe, the former director of National Intelligence and incoming CIA director, and Tom Homan, former acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement and current border czar.
In all, more than half of the plan's 312 authors, editors and contributors previously worked in the first Trump administration.
An incredibly important but often underappreciated part of Project 2025 was its staffing effort: The coalition worked to identify, vet and train potential staffers and appointees who are now making their way into the Trump administration and executive agencies.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer gestures toward a visual aid about Project 2025 during a news conference in September 2024 in Washington. Photo: Kent Nishimura / Getty Images via The Conversation
What the law says about Project 2025
Polling from January 2025 shows that a majority of Americans oppose many of Trump's actions since retaking office, sometimes by large margins.
Even during the presidential campaign, both Project 2025 itself and the policy ideas it advocated were broadly unpopular. Democrats consistently warned about the plan in their attacks against Republicans.
The lack of popular approval for Project 2025 and its proposals is notable because the Heritage Foundation has historically invested time and money into gaining public support for its work.
It even operates an initiative that polls citizens on how they 'interpret arguments for and against our policy recommendations and how we can best gain their understanding and support.'
There are also legal considerations. Many of Trump's actions – like saying the government will deny citizenship to children born to some immigrants in the US – rest on potentially unconstitutional interpretations and expansions of presidential power.
This represents another about-face for the think tank, which has historically opposed efforts to empower the president at the expense of congressional authority. Indeed, the Heritage Foundation was founded to work through Congress to accomplish its goals. But with Project 2025, it seems it is pursuing a new strategy.
How successful the Heritage Foundation is in helping Trump implement Project 2025 proposals will partially depend on how the public reacts. Whether Congress asserts its control over budgetary matters and exercises general oversight of the executive branch will also matter, as will the decisions made by the American judicial system.
These checks and balances have helped sustain American democracy for nearly 250 years – whether they will continue to do so remains to be seen.
Zachary Albert is assistant professor of politics, Brandeis University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
AllAfrica
5 hours ago
- AllAfrica
Putin-Trump talks shift focus from ceasefire to peace deal
If you read the headlines in American and European newspapers, you would conclude that the Alaska Summit failed. It did not. Washington changed direction and abandoned its support for a ceasefire. Here is Trump's official statement: A great and very successful day in Alaska! The meeting with President Vladimir Putin of Russia went very well, as did a late-night phone call with [Ukrainian] President Zelensky of Ukraine, and various European Leaders, including the highly respected Secretary General of NATO. It was determined by all that the best way to end the horrific war between Russia and Ukraine is to go directly to a peace agreement, which would end the war, and not a mere ceasefire agreement, which often does not hold up. President Zelensky will be coming to DC, the Oval Office, on Monday (August 18) afternoon. If all works out, we will then schedule a meeting with President Putin. Potentially, millions of people's lives will be saved.' The summit's major outcome was that the push for a ceasefire agreement, a non-starter for the Russian side, has been taken off the table. This will come as a big shock for Zelensky and Europe, although Zelensky has already announced he will be in Washington on Monday to meet with Trump. The agenda is an actual peace agreement, not a ceasefire. We don't know anything about the terms Trump will suggest, but it will involve territorial adjustments. Trump will try and convince Zelensky to cooperate, but it is a good bet that he won't. Nor will his backers in Europe. Should the above prediction hold, Trump will have to figure out what to do next. He could go back to trying to squeeze the Russians with more sanctions or other punishments. But that would require yet another reversal and won't achieve anything. The foreign policy crowd has been betting that the Russian economy is so bad that the whole Russian enterprise might collapse if the West jacks up the pressure on Russia. A good result, in this estimation, would be for Russia to surrender or for Putin's government to collapse. Even under dire circumstances, after the fall of the Soviet Union and the collapse of the ruble, with massive unemployment, shut-down factories and crazy-high inflation, Boris Yeltsin, then president, found a way forward, and Russia did not have a civil war, and government institutions started to restore their authority. Yeltsin's administration lasted eight years and was replaced by a more conservative and authoritarian leader, Vladimir Putin. It is very hard to accurately read sentiment in Russia. Generally speaking, the Russians like order and certainty, and dislike war. If there was a hard sense in the Russian public, especially the top echelons of Russian society, that the Ukraine war was a disaster, then one would expect to see evidence that this was the case. When the Russian invasion of Afghanistan went sour, the Russian people, especially the nomenklatura, demanded that Russia's military involvement come to an end. After nearly ten years of war in Afghanistan, the Russian army began to pull out in May 1988, and all the Russian troops were gone by February 1989. Russians objected to the Afghan war mainly because of casualties. Russia suffered some 26,000 killed and 35,000 wounded, far less than the casualties in Ukraine. In the Chechen wars, on Russia's territory, the Russian army perhaps lost 15,000 troops, although official numbers are not available. Regarding Chechnya, research outfits such as the Jamestown Foundation argue that the Russian public supported a negotiated settlement and were against continuation of the fighting. In the end, the Russian army flattened the Chechen resistance and the Russian public remained mostly passive. One of the asymmetries of the Ukraine conflict is the political impact of Ukrainian drone and missile strikes on Russian territory. These attacks presumably are designed to answer Russia's relentless aerial strikes on Ukraine's critical infrastructure, on military targets and in limited cases on civilian targets. But the other side of the coin is the impact of Ukraine's drone and missile strikes in garnering public support for the Russian 'Special Military Operation' in Ukraine. Ukraine's attacks reinforce public opinion in favor of the SMO. It is noteworthy, as illustrated by a recent Gallup poll in Ukraine, that despite the Russian drone and missile strikes, public opinion in Ukraine is turning decisively against continuing the war without a political settlement. Young men and women, in large numbers, are leaving Ukraine to escape the war and military conscription. According to the London Telegraph, at least 650,000 Ukrainian men of fighting age have fled the country since the conflict with Russia escalated in 2022. This number does not include the thousands who are currently hiding from the authorities or paying bribes to stay out of the Ukrainian army. A Ukrainian soldier and a militia man help a fleeing family. Image: Emilio Morenatti / AAP Zelensky hews to a tough no-compromises line on any settlement with Russia. He rejects any territorial deal. So when he bargains with Washington, he likely will do two things: try and get his supporters here in Washington to back up his position on no territorial concessions; and attempt to refocus Trump on providing security guarantees for Ukraine, demanding a Russian withdrawal from Ukrainian territory. He will most certainly ask Trump for more weapons and money, and for heavy sanctions on Russia. It isn't clear after the summit with Putin how Trump will respond. As for security guarantees, despite some who support sending troops to Ukraine, the sad reality is that no European state, let alone the UK, France or Germany, is going to send even one soldier unless they go there as a backup to US forces. Trump has previously said no US boots on the ground in Ukraine, so any security guarantee would have to be virtual, not with troops, or limited to flyovers and satellite surveillance. It is unlikely Zelensky will like a virtual security guarantee, even one with flyovers. Of course, Trump could change his mind, but it would risk his presidency if the net result is US physical involvement in the Ukraine war. It is too bad we do not have a detailed readout on the actual conversation at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson. Trump's use of provocative symbols, F-35s and a flyover involving a B-2 stealth bomber, and the lack of the usual protocols (no honor guard and no national anthems), was hardly conducive to a diplomatic encounter of heads of state. Moreover, the use of a military base, explained as a 'security measure,' was inappropriate, but the Russians, anxious to state their case to Trump and intent on showing deep respect for the United States, accepted the venue and the conditions, even the escort of Putin's presidential aircraft by US fighter jets. The view from Putin's window. The bottom line is, at least for now, US policy has shifted. The US and Trump no longer support a ceasefire but want to settle the Ukraine war through negotiations. How long that will take, and even if it is possible, remains to be seen. Meanwhile, the war continues, and for the most part, Russia will continue pushing to take Pokrovsk and to expand the contact line further to the west. Ukraine, already stretched and now with uncertainties on military supplies, is facing a crisis. Stephen Bryen is a special correspondent to Asia Times and former US deputy undersecretary of defense for policy. This article, which originally appeared in his Substack newsletter Weapons and Strategy, is republished with permission.
South China Morning Post
5 hours ago
- South China Morning Post
US stops all visitor visas for people from Gaza
The US State Department on Saturday said it was halting all visitor visas for individuals from Gaza while it conducts 'a full and thorough' review. The department said 'a small number' of temporary medical-humanitarian visas had been issued in recent days but did not provide a figure. The US issued more than 3,800 B1/B2 visitor visas, which permit foreigners to seek medical treatment in the United States, to holders of the Palestinian Authority travel document, according to an analysis of monthly figures provided on the department's website. That figure includes 640 visas issued in May. The State Department's move to stop visitor visas for people from Gaza comes after Laura Loomer, a far-right activist and an ally of US President Donald Trump, said on social media on Friday that the Palestinian 'refugees' had entered the country this month. Play Loomer's statement sparked outrage among some Republicans, with congressman Chip Roy, of Texas, saying he would inquire about the matter and congressman Randy Fine, of Florida, describing it as a 'national security risk'.
South China Morning Post
7 hours ago
- South China Morning Post
Trump-Putin summit: was it a win for Russia or the US?
The highly anticipated US-Russia presidential summit in Alaska had raised hopes for progress on ending the Ukraine war, but instead left more questions than answers Advertisement Still, observers viewed Vladimir Putin's diplomatic return to US soil – his first in a decade – as a symbolic win for Moscow. The nearly three-hour talks, which both Putin and Donald Trump described as 'productive', signalled a potential thaw in the fraught US-Russia relationship despite concluding without a ceasefire agreement, they said. Meanwhile, as China offered a cautious endorsement of the summit, Chinese and Russian analysts warned that Beijing could face a strategic dilemma , wary of how the limited détente might reshape the US-China-Russia power triangle. With Ukraine and Europe notably absent from the discussions, Trump's post-summit remarks about territorial swaps and US security guarantees sparked confusion over whether he had tacitly accepted Russia's retention of occupied territories amid the prolonged war. Advertisement There was a joint press appearance after the meeting, but neither Trump nor Putin announced concrete outcomes or details on what they had agreed on. They also did not take any questions from reporters. Putin, who was the first to speak, described the US and Russia as 'close neighbours'. He said he hoped 'the agreement that we've reached together' would be seen 'constructively' by Kyiv and European capitals and 'they won't throw a wrench in the works'.
