Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Fact check: Wanna give us a nice checklist project 2025 goals that’s been met so far
Executive Summary
Project 2025’s progress is contested but measurable: a volunteer-run Project 2025 Tracker reports 118 completed objectives out of 318, while journalism summaries have described both “over a third” and “roughly half” completion depending on timing and methodology, revealing discrepancies in counting and framing [1] [2] [3]. The clearest documented completed actions named in the available analyses include a freeze on foreign aid spending and reversals related to the Inflation Reduction Act’s IRS expansions, but the sources differ on scope, date, and analytic method, so a definitive checklist requires cautious interpretation [1] [2].
1. Why the Numbers Differ — A Small Tracker vs. Media Rounds Up the Wins
The Project 2025 Tracker’s headline figure of 118/318 completed objectives comes from a volunteer-built site that aggregates discrete items and marks them as completed; this raw count produces a 37% completion rate by simple division and is cited without an explicit publication date in the supplied analyses [1]. Fast Company’s February 28, 2025 report framed early progress as “over a third” accomplished in less than two months, signaling rapid initial movement but relying on the same tracker as its primary data point; journalists flagged the tracker’s provenance — a Redditor-built site — which affects how authoritative the figure should be treated [2]. The differences are not only arithmetic but also about who tallies items, how “completion” is defined, and the snapshot date used for reporting, producing legitimate variance between public trackers and subsequent media summaries [1] [2] [3].
2. What Has Been Named as “Completed” — The Substantive Examples
The analyses list specific policy actions that were counted as completed in the tracker: a freeze on foreign aid spending and reversal of the Inflation Reduction Act’s IRS expansion, among other items catalogued by the tracker [1]. These named items illustrate the tracker’s approach: it records discrete, policy-level results that are politically salient and easy to classify as done or undone, which benefits headline counts but can obscure partial implementations, conditional actions, or administrative steps that don’t fully achieve the stated original objective [1]. Relying on these named examples without broader verification risks overstating completion because a counted “win” may reflect a single executive action, a proposed rule change, or a drafted memo, distinctions not fully resolved in the supplied analyses [1].
3. Who Built the Tracker and Why That Matters for Credibility
Fast Company’s reporting emphasizes that the tracker was created by Reddit volunteers, describing it as “super simple” and community-driven, which explains both rapid updates and structural limitations in methodology and vetting [2]. The volunteer origin implies transparency in intent but potential inconsistency in sourcing: crowd-driven trackers can surface developments quickly yet lack uniform standards for evidence and adjudication compared with institutional fact-checking or peer-reviewed compilation [2]. The absence of detailed metadata or a published rubric in the provided analyses means users should treat the tracker as a useful but provisional resource, requiring cross-checking with official documents or independent reporting for high-stakes assessments [1] [2].
4. Media Interpretations and Timing — How Headlines Shifted Over 2025
Reporting varied by date: Fast Company’s February 28, 2025 piece presented early momentum as “over a third” completed, while a later WBUR summary (August 18, 2025) characterized progress as roughly half of the policy goals being accomplished, showing how incremental actions and differing inclusion criteria change the narrative over time [2] [3]. This temporal spread highlights two drivers of divergence: actual new actions taken across months, and periodic journalistic syntheses that may rely on different versions of the tracker or independent counts. Both phenomena mean any snapshot should be anchored to a clear publication date and methodology to avoid conflating evolving totals [2] [3].
5. What the Non-Related Sources Reveal — Gaps and Noise
Several provided analyses from the second pool are unrelated to Project 2025 — covering a Good Project Award, project management careers, and corporate privacy statements — which underscores an important caution: not every “2025” label is about the Project 2025 political agenda, and conflating unrelated content can distort a checklist [4] [5] [6]. The presence of these tangential items in the dataset demonstrates the risk of noise in aggregated searches and the need to filter for topical relevance and authoritative sourcing when compiling a checklist of accomplished goals [4] [5].
6. Practical Takeaway — How to Treat a “Checklist” Today
Given the available analyses, the prudent approach to a checklist is to use the Project 2025 Tracker as a starting inventory of candidate completed items, then independently verify each high-profile entry (e.g., foreign aid freeze, IRS reversal) against primary sources such as official actions, agency notices, or contemporaneous reporting [1]. Because the tracker and press summaries differ in counting and timing, users should record date-stamped evidence for each item and flag entries that represent partial, symbolic, or contested accomplishments; this yields a defensible checklist rather than an unvetted tally [2] [3].