Which conservative groups and think tanks are officially partnering with Project 2025?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Project 2025 is a Heritage Foundation–led initiative that the organization says is built with a coalition of “more than 100” conservative groups and policy outfits; Heritage is the anchor and public face of the project [1] [2]. Independent and watchdog reporting confirms the project assembled an unusually large advisory network of conservative think tanks, advocacy groups and policy institutes, but publicly available sources in this packet do not provide a single canonical roster here—Newsweek reported a full list exists on Project 2025’s site and compiled one in 2025 [2], while other outlets emphasize the coalition’s scale and ideological orientation rather than enumerating each member [3] [1].
1. Heritage as architect and the claim of “110+ partners”
The Heritage Foundation is the lead organization behind Project 2025 and repeatedly describes the effort as a coalition—Project 2025’s materials and subsequent reporting state the project “formed” with a network of over 100 conservative organizations that helped shape pillars and personnel resources [1] [2]. Newsweek summarized Project 2025’s own claim that it is “a coalition of more than 110 conservative groups” and reported that the project’s website contains a full list of participating organizations [2].
2. What reporting verifies by name and what remains opaque
Coverage in this packet directly names Heritage as the sponsor and cites a range of conservative policy outfits as contributors generally, but most of these sources emphasize count and ideological focus rather than publishing a repeatable roster in the excerpts provided [1] [3] [4]. The ACLU and Democracy Docket pieces link Project 2025 closely to other conservative institutions and to figures tied to America First–aligned networks—ACLU notes ties between Project 2025 authors and institutions such as the America First Policy Institute through individuals involved with the project [5] [6]—but the present source set does not include a verified, complete, up‑to‑date partner list to quote line‑by‑line.
3. Independent outlets and researchers: corroboration, not a neat list
Investigations and analysis by outlets such as BBC, The Guardian, Snopes, The Conversation and academic commentary corroborate Heritage’s role and the breadth of the coalition—BBC reported “more than 100 conservative organisations contributed” to the 900‑page plan [3], The Guardian and Snopes documented Project 2025’s recruiting, personnel database and influence on staffing [7] [8], and scholars track recurring participation from legacy conservative think tanks [4]. These pieces reinforce that Project 2025’s “partners” are predominantly right‑of‑center think tanks, advocacy groups and policy institutes focused on limited government, traditional social policies and stronger immigration controls [1] [4].
4. Conflicting framings and implicit agendas among sources
Reporting diverges on implication and emphasis: Project 2025 and Heritage frame the network as a coordinating coalition readying policy and personnel recommendations for a conservative administration [2], while critics—civil liberties groups and progressive outlets—describe the coalition as an alignment of far‑right organizations pushing sweeping institutional change and an expanded executive authority [5] [6]. Academic and watchdog accounts point out that while many of the partnering think tanks are long‑standing policy shops, the scale and operational ambitions of Project 2025 mark a more direct effort to translate think‑tank plans into an administration’s day‑one playbook [4] [9].
5. How to verify the exact partner roster (and why it matters)
For anyone seeking a definitive partner list, the clearest next step is the Project 2025 site and the Newsweek compilation—which Newsweek says reproduced the full list of organizations behind Project 2025 proposals [2]. That roster matters because it distinguishes organizations that formally signed on, groups that advised informally, and individuals who contributed chapters or personnel lists; the distinction shapes whether an organization’s tacit association is substantive policy partnership or merely an authorial/endorsement role [2] [1]. The materials in this packet establish the scope and lead players (Heritage) but do not supply a single, source‑verified, line‑by‑line partner list here; Newsweek and Project 2025’s own publications are the most direct primary sources cited in these reports [2].