Which organizations were involved in creating Project 2025?

1. Who Claims to Have Built the Playbook — A Conservative Coalition Assembled

Reporting uniformly identifies the Heritage Foundation as the lead organizer of Project 2025, framing the effort as a coordinated transition-style project that brought together a large advisory coalition to draft a conservative governance agenda. Sources state the project launched in 2022 and produced a multi-hundred–page "Mandate for Leadership" that outlines policy changes, staffing plans, and a 180-day playbook intended to guide a future administration. The Heritage Foundation’s central role is emphasized repeatedly, while the initiative’s public materials portray Project 2025 as a policy and personnel resource rather than an organ directly affiliated with any campaign ^{[3] [1]}.

2. Which Organizations Joined — A Directory of Over 100 Conservative Partners

Multiple sources list over 100 coalition partners spanning conservative think tanks, advocacy groups, and movement organizations. Named partners include groups such as the American Legislative Exchange Council, the American Family Association, Competitive Enterprise Institute, and other organizations in the conservative institutional ecosystem. Coverage emphasizes that the advisory board is extensive, representing a broad cross-section of conservative institutions that contributed to policy chapters, personnel lists, or promotional support, signifying a coordinated but multi‑actor venture rather than a single‑organization project ^{[4] [1] [5]}.

3. Who Contributed People and Ideas — Former Officials and Movement Actors

Reporting indicates Project 2025’s policy content and personnel recommendations drew on contributions from former Trump administration officials and movement figures, with more than two dozen ex‑administration individuals said to have helped craft portions of the document. The project’s personnel pillar aimed to identify candidates for federal posts and to propose structural changes. Sources stress that contributors’ proximity to the prior administration shaped proposals in the document, and some named individuals and organizations have repeated ties to Republican campaigns and conservative networks, underlining personnel pipeline intentions central to the project’s stated mission ^{[2] [4] [5]}.

4. How Agencies Were Named — A Wide Scope of Targeted Federal Bodies

Beyond external partners, project trackers compiled objectives across dozens of federal agencies, with one tracker listing 34 agencies that had specific objectives tied to Project 2025. Agencies named in tracking materials include the White House, Departments of State, Education, Interior, Treasury, and agencies like USAID and CPB. The tracker documents both proposed goals and claimed completions for certain actions, portraying Project 2025 as not only a policy playbook but also a set of agency‑specific agendas intended for operational execution if implemented ^{[6] [7]}.

5. What Critics and Supporters Emphasize — Competing Perspectives on Purpose and Risk

Coverage presents two competing frames: supporters describe Project 2025 as a necessary conservative blueprint for governance and personnel readiness; critics portray it as an effort to centralize power, replace career staff with loyalists, and advance policies that could erode institutional independence. Sources cite the document’s proposals for sweeping changes to civil service and agency mandates, and critics warn of democratic risks, while partners argue the project merely supplies policy options and personnel lists. The tension illustrates differing readings of intent—either a readiness project or an organizing platform for structural change ^{[3] [2] [1]}.

6. Timeline, Documentation, and Source Agreement — Points of Convergence and Limits

Sources converge on the core facts: Project 2025 was led by the Heritage Foundation, involved a coalition of over 100 conservative groups, produced a comprehensive "Mandate for Leadership," and compiled agency‑targeted objectives and personnel recommendations. Dates cited for public milestones include reporting through 2024 and tracker updates into 2025, indicating an evolving project and post‑publication tracking of objectives. The major limits in publicly available reporting are the precise role of each partner and granular attribution for specific policy proposals, which the sources note but do not fully enumerate ^{[1] [7]}.