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.
Who are key contributors like Paul Dans, Paul Wolfowitz, or Heritage Foundation staff to Project 2025?
Executive Summary
Project 2025 is a Heritage Foundation–led effort to produce an operational playbook and vetted personnel pipeline for a future conservative administration; Paul Dans is repeatedly identified as a central architect and director, while there is no reliable evidence that Paul Wolfowitz is a key contributor. Reporting and organizational rosters show the project is staffed by Heritage leaders and dozens of conservative operatives with explicit goals to reshape federal personnel, policy, and agency structures, which supporters frame as conservative governance planning and critics characterize as a partisan purge plan [1] [2] [3]. This analysis compares reporting from Heritage announcements, investigative journalism, and participant rosters to map who is named, who is not, and where interpretations diverge.
1. Who the Heritage announcement places front and center — a project run by insiders
Heritage’s own announcement names Paul Dans as director of the 2025 Presidential Transition Project and frames the initiative as an organized program to prepare conservative personnel and policy playbooks for a future administration; Heritage president Kevin Roberts is explicitly tied to creating the effort [1]. Journalistic profiles and Project materials corroborate Dans’s role and link him to prior Trump-era personnel work at the Office of Personnel Management, underscoring the project’s institutional continuity with past Republican personnel strategies. There is no mention of Paul Wolfowitz or of him playing any visible role in Heritage’s core leadership or the named associate directors, which undermines claims that Wolfowitz is a primary contributor [1] [4]. Supporters describe the effort as routine transition planning; Heritage frames it as a governance resource, while critics emphasize partisan objectives embedded in personnel tactics [1].
2. Investigative reporting reveals the operational emphasis on personnel and a “conservative LinkedIn”
In-depth reporting by ProPublica frames Project 2025 as not only a policy manifesto but a functioning personnel database—what participants describe as a “conservative LinkedIn” designed to vet and deploy more than 10,000 potential appointees and loyalists to federal agencies (Aug. 1, 2024) [2]. ProPublica documents Dans’s design role and the emphasis on replacing career civil servants through mechanisms such as Schedule F, portraying the project’s work as focused on personnel over detailed policy debates. This reporting paints Project 2025 as operational and already embedded into training seminars and recruitment networks, which proponents say is prudent succession planning and critics warn is preparatory work for sweeping administrative purges [2]. The investigative frame amplifies concerns about the project’s practical impact versus Heritage’s public positioning.
3. Public rosters and third‑party lists show broad participation but contradict the Wolfowitz claim
Other compilations and coalition lists assembled by researchers and activist groups enumerate dozens of named contributors—Heritage staff, former Trump officials, academics, and conservative activists—placing Steven Groves, Spencer Chretien, Troup Hemenway, Russ Vought, and others within Project 2025’s circle alongside Dans [3] [4]. These rosters demonstrate wide institutional backing across the conservative ecosystem and substantiate the Heritage-centric staffing picture. None of the available rosters or contemporaneous reports list Paul Wolfowitz as a named contributor or architect; Wolfowitz’s absence from primary Heritage statements and investigative profiles indicates that his involvement is either minimal, indirect, or incorrectly attributed in some secondary discussions [3] [4].
4. Participants’ own statements show mixed messaging on influence and implementation
Interviews with Paul Dans and Project participants signal pride in the project’s readiness and influence while revealing nuance about what Project 2025 claims versus what it dictates. Dans has characterized the project as a resource guide and personnel pipeline aligned with conservative goals and has noted that subsequent administrations may adopt elements beyond the original scope (March 16, 2025) [5]. Simultaneously, some Republican leaders including former President Trump publicly distanced themselves from the brand “Project 2025,” even as operational overlaps (personnel strategies, Schedule F advocacy) appear in policy proposals. This tension highlights a separation between formal endorsement and practical adoption, which supporters say keeps the project useful and critics say masks accountability for controversial reforms [5] [2].
5. What critics, advocates, and neutral compilers emphasize — different agendas, same names
Advocates present Project 2025 as disciplined conservative planning by the Heritage Foundation and a network of allies to ensure competent governance; donors and Heritage leadership emphasize preparedness and personnel vetting [1]. Investigative outlets and critics emphasize the project’s potential to centralize control, downgrade career civil servants, and implement ideological tests, characterizing the effort as an apparatus for partisan staffing changes [2] [3]. Neutral rosters compiled by researchers show a broad coalition of right‑of‑center organizations and ex‑officials, reinforcing that the project is a coordinated institutional effort rather than a single figure’s initiative. Across sources, the consistent verified claim is Dans’s central role and Heritage’s leadership; the inconsistent claim is Paul Wolfowitz’s involvement, which lacks corroboration in the principal sources reviewed [1] [2] [3].
Overall, the evidence converges on Paul Dans and Heritage Foundation personnel as primary, verifiable contributors to Project 2025, while Paul Wolfowitz is not documented as a key contributor in the primary announcements, investigative profiles, or public rosters reviewed. [1] [2] [3]