By Matt Lammens 
AP Photo/Charlie Neibergall
Overview
Republican nominee Donald Trump disavows connection to the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, which is a collection of policy proposals for a potential conservative administration in 2024. However, the organization itself boasts that their 2016 version of “Mandate for Leadership” ”earned significant attention from the Trump administration, which embraced 64 percent of its policy solutions.” The newest edition of the “Mandate for Leadership” has been a primary topic of controversy in recent weeks but it is only one piece of a four-part puzzle surrounding Project 2025. This article explores the different parts of the current policy proposal, evaluating its policy suggestions and the roles played by those with connections to the former president.
The Project 2025 Presidential Transition Project, or simply Project 2025, is a conservative plan to “pave the way for an effective conservative administration” in the White House. Its developer, the Heritage Foundation, is a non-profit conservative think-tank founded in 1973. Project 2025 was created with the help of an advisory board of over 100 conservative organizations such as The Center for Renewing America and Turning Point USA. Today, the project is widely known for its over 900-page book, “Mandate for Leadership 2025: The Conservative Promise,” of recommended policies for the next conservative administration to follow. Project 2025’s webpage states the “next conservative President will enter office on January 20, 2025,” indicating the belief that former president Donald Trump will regain power because he is the current Republican nominee.
Project 2025 is not the first time the Heritage Foundation has directed the formulation of conservative policy ideas for incoming or aspiring conservative administrations, as indicated in the introduction. In 1981 the foundation published “Mandate for Leadership: Policy Management in a Conservative Administration,” which contained policy recommendations for the incoming conservative Regan administration. Since then there have been more editions of “Mandate for Leadership” put out by the Heritage Foundation including “Mandate for Leadership: Blueprint for Reform,” a publication of policy advice to the incoming Trump administration in 2016, and “Mandate 2020: Clear Vision for the Next Administration.” “Mandate for Leadership 2025” does not stand alone, but is one of four pillars encompassing Project 2025. Each pillar will be discussed in more detail in the following section.
The Four Pillars of Project 2025
As described by former program director Paul Dans in “A Note on ‘Project 2025,’” the project’s goal is to “assemble an army of aligned, vetted, trained, and prepared conservatives to go to work on Day One to deconstruct the Administrative State.” They plan to do this through what they refer to as the four “pillars” of Project 2025 which includes a “Policy Agenda,” a “Personnel Database,” “Training,” and the “180-Day Playbook.” The first pillar is covered in the “Mandate for Leadership,” as it lays out different policies they believe Trump should pursue if elected. It is divided into five broad sections which are further subdivided into chapters, with topics ranging from reforming federal and independent agencies, to discussing what to do with the military, plans for healthcare and the economy, and so on.
The “Personnel Database” is Project 2025’s plan to get the “right people in place” to implement the conservative policies outlined in the book. More specifically, they are looking to “cast a net across the country to identify conservatives from all walks of life to serve in the next conservative administration” by allowing those interested to complete a questionnaire to be “considered for positions in a presidential Administration.” Such a database would make it quick and easy to appoint like-minded conservatives who support the project’s mission into open positions. Once a pool of candidates is available, the project could fulfill its third pillar of “Training” by “bringing together experts who have served in prior administrations and can share their knowledge through workshops, seminars, online videos, and mentorship.” Recently, ProPublica obtained and reviewed some of these training videos, finding “29 of the 36 speakers have worked for Trump in some capacity.” Combined, these two pillars aim to gather all conservatives interested in the cause and train them to potentially hold positions in government.
The “180-Day Playbook” will outline the actions the next conservative administration should take during its first 180 days in office. According to Forbes, Russell Vought, a former Trump administration member, is “reportedly in charge of the work on the playbook” and will not release it to the public. As noted on the Project 2025 website, the goal of the playbook is to “bring quick relief to Americans suffering from the Left’s devasting policies.” Its contents remain unknown as of now.
Controversial Ideas in Project 2025
“Mandate for Leadership 2025” contains a variety of policy suggestions that have raised concern among those who are skeptical of the true intentions behind the project. Some of the more well-known sources of controversy come from its suggestion to reinstate Executive Order 13957 (also known as Schedule F), its stance on abortion and environmental regulations, and its plans for government agencies like the Department of Education and the Department of Justice.
With the “Mandate for Leadership” being over 900 pages, the topics discussed in this article are only a fraction of what the project is proposing. Some of the policies this article does not thoroughly discuss includes the project’s suggestions to end DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) Protections in government, to “promote and expedite capital punishment,” and for the government to engage in the “mass deportation of illegal immigrants.”
Schedule F and its Implications
In Chapter 3, “Central Personnel Agencies: Managing the Bureaucracy,” the authors advise the next conservative administration to reinstate Schedule F, which was issued by the Trump administration on October 21, 2020, through an executive order. The order was soon revoked by the Biden administration on January 22, 2021, before it ever went into effect. Trump has made it clear he plans to reinstate the executive order by placing it at the top of his “ten-point plan to dismantle the deep state,” saying “On Day One,” he will “re-issue 2020 executive order restoring the president’s authority to fire rogue bureaucrats.”
Trump’s executive order amended Title 5 (Administrative Personnel), Section 6.2 (Schedules of excepted positions) of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) to create a new “schedule” of federal workers known as Schedule F, which were to be federal workers in “positions of a confidential, policy-determining, policy-making, or policy advocating character.” It also amended Section 6.4 (Removal of incumbents of excepted positions) so the “Civil Service Rules and Regulations [would] not apply” to removals of employees from positions listed in Schedule F just as it does not apply to those in Schedules A, C, D, and E.
Employees who are protected by Civil Service Rules and Regulations are entitled to certain protections that make it more difficult to discipline or remove them. For example, as outlined in the 5 U.S. Code S. 7503, protected employees must be given advance notice with “specific reason” for any disciplinary action to be taken against them. They also must be provided an opportunity to present an answer and rebuttal to the disciplinary action, be afforded an opportunity to be represented, and be provided a written decision for the action taken. As explained in a 2015 report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board to the President and Congress, Civil Service Rules and Regulations were implemented so the government could move away from the “‘spoils system’ in which employees could be removed for any reason, including membership in a different political party than the president,” creating career civil servants who were chosen based on merit rather than affiliation.
Some are worried of what Schedule F could mean for thousands of people in government positions, particularly whether their existing positions with civil service protections will be converted to unprotected Schedule F positions. If so, this could subject them to termination if their beliefs do not align with the administration and existing positions could become increasingly controlled by employees who aren’t being hired based on merit but instead ideology. In an article by Johnathan Swan of Axios who interviewed “more than two dozen people close to the former president,” the Trump official who “came up with Schedule F found it could apply to as many as 50,000 federal workers.” In other words, if Schedule F is reinstated by Trump, he would potentially have the ability to terminate hundreds or thousands of employees due to perceived or actual differences in ideology, replacing them with loyal conservatives who will see eye to eye with him on policy and regardless of merit.
While Trump’s support for Schedule F is evident, a statement from J.D. Vance in 2021 indicates his support of one of the main concerns over Schedule F. During an interview on the “Jack Murphey Live” podcast, Vance stated if he was giving Trump “one piece of advice,” he would advise he “fire every single mid-level bureaucrat, every civil servant in the administrative state, replace them with our people.” He further explained if the courts were to “stop” Trump from such an action, Trump should “stand before the country and say ‘the chief justice has made his ruling, now let him enforce it.’” The ability to fire civil servants because they do not have the same beliefs as the president as suggested by Vance in the 2021 interview is exactly what could happen under Schedule F if reinstated. Given Trump’s commitment to reinstating the executive order as well as Vance’s suggestion of firing a massive number of civil servants, it is safe to expect the reinstatement of Schedule F via Executive Order should Trump retake the presidency.
Future of the Department of Education
In the introduction to section 3 of Project 2025, the Department of Education is described as “a convenient one-stop shop for the woke education cartel, which–as the COVID era showed–is not particularly concerned with children’s education.” They claim schools should be more responsive to parents “rather than to leftist advocates intent on indoctrination,” which they believe will only come about if the federal government is less involved in education. As argued by Lindsey Burke in Chapter 11, Project 2025 believes “Federal Education policy should be limited,” and ultimately the Department of Education be eliminated. Burke argues any federal funds for education should be “block-granted to the states without strings,” giving state and local governments more control over education. By moving away from the federal government and closer to the local level, project leaders believe parents will have more power. In a recent interview with Elon Musk, Trump expressed his support for the policy suggestion, saying “I want to close the Department of Education” and “move education back to the states.”
To further strengthen parental power in schools, the project suggests “no public education employee or contractor” may address a student other than the name listed on the birth certificate or refer to them by pronouns that “do not match” that student’s biological sex without explicit permission from the parent or guardians of the student. The chapter goes as far as noting “The next Administration should take particular note of how radical gender ideology is having a devastating effect on school-aged children today.”
Just as Project 2025 leaders believe “gender ideology” is a form of indoctrination, they also believe an agenda they refer to as “critical race theory” is being pushed in schools which they claim forces students to believe things like “America is systemically racist.” Project 2025 says individuals should not be “required” to feel “guilty or responsible for the actions based on race or ethnicity.” Because they argue “critical race theory” as being a form of racism against white people, they suggest “lawmakers design legislation that prevents the theory from spreading discrimination.” The project hopes to attain minimal (or even no) federal oversight of education so influence over schools will be directed at a more local level and parents will have more direct control over their child’s public education.
Regulations and the Environmental Protection Agency
Chapter 13, written by Mandy Gunasekara, covers suggested changes to the Environmental Protection Agency. Project 2025 looks to greatly reduce environmental regulations they claim to have been implemented as a result of “fear-based rhetoric within the agency, especially as it pertains to the perceived threat of climate change.” Demonstrating a dismissive stance on climate concerns, she argues “mischaracterizing the state of our environment” is a “favored tool that the Left uses to scare the American public into accepting their ineffective, liberty-crushing crushing regulations, diminished private property rights, and exorbitant costs.” Those in support of EPA regulations believe climate change is not a “mischaracterization” of the environment, but a real threat to the future of the planet. For instance, a new survey of scientists around the world which was conducted by the University of Amsterdam found “most respondents (83%) in the survey say they are ‘quite a bit’ or ‘a great deal’ worried about climate change.” As it pertains to Project 2025 and its potential impact on science, Rachel Cleetus, a “policy director of the Climate and Energy program at the nonpartisan Union of Concerned Scientists, told the Scientific American in an interview that “any attempt to reverse policies, any attempt to slow down this transition to clean energy, is putting us at greater risk” from climate change impacts.
Stance on Abortion
In Chapter 14, which discusses the future of the Department of Human Health and Services (HHS), Roger Severino outlines the project’s stance on abortion in the United States. At the top of the project’s goals for the future of the HHS is to “protect the right to life” from the moment of conception, and Severino claims “abortion and euthanasia are not health care.” Severino explains the HHS should “use every available tool” to ensure states are reporting how many abortions occur within its borders, at what stage of the pregnancy the abortion occurred and why, and in what state the person who received the abortion lives. The project is also firm in its stance against abortion pills, referring to them as “the single greatest threat to unborn children in a post-Roe world,” and insists the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reverse its approval of chemical abortion drugs. The project also suggests the FDA “stop promoting or approving mail-order abortions,” which would inevitably make it more difficult for people in states with strict abortion laws to access abortion pills which could be mailed from a state with more laxed abortion laws.
Further, the document recommends prohibiting abortion travel funding, prohibiting Planned Parenthood from receiving Medicaid funds, as well as ending “taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood and all other abortion providers.” The Project 2025 website denies the “Mandate for Leadership” says anything about banning or restricting contraception, but it is undisputed that the project does discuss and strongly advocate against any kind of abortion, indicated by the proposed policies and their interpretation of human life beginning at conception.
Changes to the Department of Justice
Project 2025 also has bold plans for the future of the Department of Justice (DOJ) and agencies under it, such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), all detailed by Gene Hamilton in Chapter 17. Hamilton declares there is a need for a “top-to-bottom overhaul” of the FBI. He further argues not “reforming” the DOJ as a whole will “guarantee the failure of that conservative Administration’s agenda.” He suggests the Attorney General move supervision of the FBI from the Deputy Attorney General to the supervision of the Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division and the Assistant Attorney General for the National Security Division. He also proposes the elimination of the ten-year term for the Director of the FBI. Although the FBI is part of the DOJ, Scott Bomby, the Editor-in-Chief for the National Constitution Center, explains it is “known as one of the most independent offices of the executive branch, due to the nature of its work.” To maintain a unique level of independence, the Director of the FBI serves for a term of ten years and is responsible to the Attorney General. This generally allows an FBI director to serve during different administrations, regardless of party. If Project 2025 is implemented, however, the FBI would lose a significant degree of independence.
Instead of standing on its own and reporting to the Attorney General and/or the Deputy Attorney General, the FBI would be a part of two sections (criminal and national security), with oversight by two lower-level appointees. This alone could lead to more oversight on what the FBI investigates and could diminish its ability to investigate politically sensitive matters. Further, the removal of the ten-year term would immediately make the position more partisan, again reducing its ability to follow investigative leads on issues that may be unpopular with the administration but might have otherwise been pursued. In sum, Project 2025 aims to make the FBI “remain politically accountable to the President in the same manner as the head of any other federal department or agency.” Such a change would be a great expansion of Presidential power undermining the agency’s unique responsibilities.
Along with other proposed reforms, this chapter contains some of the controversial actions they hope the DOJ will take. One of these is to “enforce the death penalty where appropriate and applicable,” in an attempt to deter violent crimes from federal to local levels. On top of controversy surrounding the moral and monetary grounds of the death penalty, findings like those discussed by the Department of Justice in a 2016 report stating “there is no proof that the death penalty deters criminals” makes the stance even more contentious. Another point of contention lies with the project’s plan to dismantle “international crime enterprises” by finalizing the wall on the southern border and possibly the “use of active duty personnel and National Guardsmen to assist in arrest operations along the border.”
Trump’s Ties With Those Involved in the Project
With November approaching, top democrats like President Biden and Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris have denounced the project as a threat to the country as a whole, and have begun campaigning against Trump on the notion that he is connected to the project and if elected will implement the suggested policies. At a July campaign event in Detroit, Michigan, Biden described the project as “run and paid for by Trump people” and “a project built for Trump.” Likewise, at a campaign event in the same city one month later, Harris stated “as we move our nation forward, Donald Trump intends to take our nation backward,” telling her crowd to “just look at his Project 2025 agenda.”
As scrutiny about his ties to the project has intensified, Trump has tried to distance himself from Project 2025. On July 5, 2024, for example, Trump posted to his social media platform (Truth Social) “I know nothing about Project 2025. I have no idea who is behind it.” On the same day, “Project 2025” posted a statement on X, stating “Project 2025 does not speak for any candidate or campaign.” Given the results of a new poll from UMass Amherst finding “more than half (53%) of Americans” have heard of the project and “don’t particularly care for it,” it is unsurprising the Trump campaign is trying to create distance as the election nears.
Paul Dans
One of Trump’s most notable connections to Project 2025 is with its former director Paul Dans. Before joining the Heritage Foundation to lead the development of the project, Dans served as the Chief of Staff at the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) under the Trump administration, and in January 2021 was appointed by Trump to serve as Chairman of the National Capital Planning Commission. Later, Dans became the director of Project 2025 where he remained for two years until stepping down from his position in July 2024 amidst scrutiny against Trump for his connections to those within the project. As Trump was trying to create distance between his campaign and Project 2025, having a former member of his administration be the director made a difficult task even harder.
Although Dans will be completely leaving the project and the Heritage Foundation altogether, the president of the Heritage Foundation, Kevin Roberts, praised the former director in a post on X for building the project “from scratch” and for his “dedication to saving America,” also noting the project will continue its efforts. Considering the man leading the project was one with whom he was familiar, there is skepticism over the truth behind Trump’s claims that he had never heard of the project.
Contradicting the picture Trump is attempting to paint, Paul Dans explained in a 2023 interview with the “We the People Convention News & Opinion” podcast that Project 2025 had “great relationships” with the Republican presidential campaigns (he specifically referred to the DeSantis, Ramaswamy, and Trump campaigns) and described Trump as being “very bought-in” with the project. Although Dans is now out of the effort as of recently, such statements from before this year directly link Trump to at least having heard of or been told about the project before his X post in July.
Kevin Roberts
There were also two events in April of 2022 suggesting Trump knew about the project while it was in its infancy. The Washington Post reports Trump and Heritage Foundation president Kevin Roberts “flew together from the former president’s home in Palm Beach, Fla., to the foundation’s annual conference on Amelia Island” in April 2022 because “Trump’s jet was being refurbished at the time.” A Heritage Foundation official claims when Robert mentioned the project on the flight, “Trump seemed uninterested and moved on to another subject.” Conversely, a Trump official claims the project was not discussed at all on the flight. While the specifics remain unknown, the fact Trump was close enough to fly with Roberts to an event his foundation was hosting reveals there was familiarity between Trump and the Heritage Foundation even before the event. While at the conference, Trump told the audience the Heritage Foundation is “a great group,” and “they’re going to lay the groundwork and detail plans for exactly what our movement will do when the American people give us a colossal mandate to save America.” Trump’s description of the Heritage Foundation’s efforts as laying the “groundwork,” having “detailed plans,” and it being a “colossal mandate” could possibly lead some to think that he was referring to Project 2025. The project is indisputably large and contains a lengthy policy book containing the word “mandate” in its title, a word Trump decided to use when describing the “movement.” Lastly, the characterization of Project 2025 being something with the potential to “save America” or “save the country” is used by the Heritage Foundation on their web pages and throughout their new policy book.
The relationship between Roberts and the Trump campaign is not limited to their shared flight and the former president’s attendance at the foundation’s event two years ago. According to the Washington Post, in April of 2024, Roberts told a reporter “I personally have talked to President Trump about Project 2025.” As recently as August 8, Roberts applauded the Trump campaign on the Michele Tafoya Podcast for distancing itself from the project, following up with “I mean, they’re trying to win an election.” Such a statement strongly suggests Trump is only trying to distance himself from the project not because he has no idea what it is, but because he does not want it to hurt his chances of winning, especially with more moderate voters. Even those within the project have attested to this, with NBC News reporting one member of the Heritage Foundation as saying “the general sense is this is a PR gesture for him [Trump] to provide himself maximum room to maneuver and avoid making any commitments at this point,” concluding with, “most people I know who are involved with it don’t seem overly worried that this actually constitutes a repudiation and is going to mean anything on Jan. 20.” More proof that Trump will likely not reject the entire project could come from the fact that in 2016 he adopted over half of Heritage Foundation’s policy proposals, as mentioned earlier.
Shortly after making the statement discussed above, Roberts claimed “our relationship with Mr. Trump and his advisors remains very good,” although maintaining there is no coordination between them. These words prove there is plenty of familiarity between the project and Trump, a direct contradiction to any claims by Trump saying he knows nothing about who is behind it or what it is.
Russell Vought
Under the Trump administration, Russell Vought served as deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and later served as the director of the OMB during Trump’s last year in office. In 2021, Vought created the Center for Renewing America, which is one of the organizations on Project 2025’s advisory board helping create the project. Vought has personally been involved with Project 2025, writing a section in “Mandate for Leadership 2025: The Conservative Promise” titled “Executive Office of the President of the United States,” and, as mentioned before, the 180-Day Playbook. Vought was also named the policy director of the Republican National Committee in May of 2024.
In a secretly recorded video captured by two men working for the Centre for Climate Reporting who interviewed Vought posing as “relatives of a wealthy conservative donor,” he explains Trump supported him when he explained his plans to create the organization. Vought goes on to credit Trump for raising money for the organization, and says he is “very supportive of what we do.” Even though Trump was referring to supporting Vought’s organization and not the project, the conservative principles his organization advocates for are similar to those found in the project, which is likely why the Center for Renewing America is a contributing organization to Project 2025.
J. D. Vance
Another notable link between Trump and the project was his selection of Ohio Senator J.D. Vance as his running mate. At the Heritage Foundation’s 50th Anniversary Leadership Summit in 2023, Vance announced “this organization is going to play a major role in helping us figure out how to govern at the White House, at the Senate, at the House, and all across our great country.” Vance also wrote the forward for Kevin Robert’s upcoming book titled “Dawn’s Early Light: Taking Back Washington to Save America,” illustrating a fond relationship with the foundation’s president. While the book was initially to be published before the election, Roberts postponed its publishing until after the election just weeks after Vance joined Trump on the Republican ticket, which may indicate another attempt to keep the foundation and campaign as far as possible.
The connection between the two men reaches beyond Roberts’ future book. According to an article from Politico, Roberts said of Vance: “He is absolutely going to be one of the leaders – if not the leader – of our movement.” Furthermore, when Trump announced Vance as his running mate, Roberts posted on X praising the Ohio Senator, saying he appreciates his “values and vision.” Vance’s public Venmo account revealed a connection to the Heritage Foundation beyond Roberts, with Wired reporting “Amalia Halikias,” “a government relations director at the Heritage Foundation” as being one of the people on his friends list. As demonstrated through these findings, there is substantial evidence of a strong relationship between Vance and the president of the Heritage Foundation, and at least some connection with others in the foundation.
Many More
Aside from the big names above, there are more important individuals who worked for Trump and are involved in the project. A CNN review conducted in July found “at least 140 people who worked in the Trump administration had a hand in Project 2025,” with many of those contributions to the development of “Mandate for Leadership,” and “nearly 240 people with ties to both Project 2025 and to Trump.” CNN notes the number is “likely higher because many individuals’ online résumés were not available.” These findings from CNN have been cited by many other news outlets, including Forbes and the Washington Post.
Takeaway
While Trump did not compose Project 2025 personally, many people who played important roles in developing the project have strong connections to the former President in various capacities. Many of these people are still connected with him to this day. Despite his repeated claims that he does not know what the project is and who is behind it, those within the Heritage Foundation believe he is doing it for the sake of keeping his campaign away from the controversy surrounding the project’s contents and plans. Furthermore, he paid significant attention to advice from the Heritage Foundation in 2016, so there is also reason to believe he would pay attention to their advice again in 2024 if elected, especially given his familiarity with some of its leaders.
As demonstrated through his past and current connections with the Heritage Foundation and many of the chief authors of Project 2025, Trump’s claims of ignorance about the project in July are untenable. With such a timeline of events, Trump must have known at least something about the contents of the project and those behind it well before making his Truth Social post in July. It remains to be seen how Project 2025 will play a role moving forward.