What is Project 2025 and which Heritage alumni drafted its key policy proposals?
Executive summary
Project 2025 is a sprawling, 900+ page policy blueprint and presidential transition playbook produced and promoted by The Heritage Foundation that lays out conservative legal, administrative and personnel strategies for a future Republican administration [1] [2]. Its core authors and contributors include Heritage staffers and dozens of conservative operatives and former Trump-administration officials — editors Paul Dans and Steven Groves led the effort and the roster of contributors includes people who served in or advised the Trump White House and hard‑right policy figures such as Stephen Miller and Jeffrey Clark among others identified in reporting [1] [3] [4] [5].
1. Origins, editors and format: a modern “Mandate for Leadership”
Heritage explicitly framed Project 2025 as a contemporary Mandate for Leadership — a comprehensive “policy bible” intended to guide a conservative president and remap federal agencies — assembled under Heritage’s leadership by editors Paul Dans (director of Project 2025) and Steven Groves and drawing on scores of primary authors and hundreds of contributors [1] [3]. The project was published as a sprawling transition playbook that combines detailed policy recommendations, sample executive orders, and a personnel database to vet and recommend loyal staffers for agency posts [4] [1].
2. What’s in the blueprint: scope and headline prescriptions
Project 2025 proposes sweeping changes across immigration, reproductive health, civil‑rights protections, agency structure, and economic policy — from strengthening executive authority and restructuring agencies (including proposals touching Homeland Security) to restricting access to mifepristone and rolling back LGBTQ+ protections — presenting hundreds of specific recommendations rather than merely aspirational goals [6] [7] [2]. The document’s Mandate chapters include targeted model policies, legal strategies, and suggested first‑100‑day actions designed to be executable by a compliant executive branch [1] [8].
3. Who drafted the key proposals: Heritage staff, former Trump officials, and allied conservatives
Key authors and contributors were drawn from Heritage’s network and the broader Trump‑aligned conservative ecosystem; Heritage named Paul Dans and Steven Groves as central editors and conveners, and reporting and watchdog groups identified numerous contributors who previously served in or advised the Trump administration — numbering in the dozens or more — as well as prominent right‑wing operatives like Stephen Miller and Jeffrey Clark who shaped immigration and legal sections, respectively [1] [5] [4] [3]. Additional contributors included constitutional scholars and conservative lawyers whose names surfaced in outlet coverage and in departures from Heritage amid internal disputes [9] [8].
4. The personnel pipeline: from document to appointments
Project 2025 was designed not only as policy text but as a recruitment and staffing tool: the Heritage project built a database of potential appointees and trained personnel with the explicit aim of populating a future administration with ideologically aligned civil servants, and multiple reports found a measurable overlap between Project 2025 proposals and executive actions taken by the subsequent administration [1] [4] [3]. Watchdog groups and unions warned that this pipeline could centralize power in the presidency and accelerate implementation of the Mandate’s recommendations without legislative action [8] [2].
5. Influence, controversy, and competing interpretations
Supporters portray Project 2025 as a responsible, long‑range conservative blueprint for restoring limited government and “institutionalizing” policy priorities [5] [10], while critics — civil‑liberties groups, some journalists and Democratic operatives — describe it as an “extremist” or anti‑democratic playbook that would curtail rights and concentrate executive authority, citing specific proposals on abortion drugs, LGBTQ+ rights and DHS restructuring as alarming examples [5] [6] [8]. Heritage and allies dispute some characterizations and emphasize policy goals; outside analyses have documented both substantive overlap with administration actions and fierce political pushback, making Project 2025 both influential and deeply polarizing [1] [4] [7].