Which policy proposals in Project 2025 are linked to Trump or his allies?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Project 2025 is a 900‑page Heritage Foundation blueprint that recommends sweeping federal changes — many tied to Trump allies who wrote or were later appointed to implement it — and Time found nearly two‑thirds of Trump’s early executive actions mirror or partially mirror its proposals [1] [2]. Major linkages reported include reclassifying federal civil servants to enable politicized hiring/firing (Schedule F), pulling mifepristone and restricting abortion by reviving laws like the Comstock Act, and personnel placements of Project 2025 authors into the administration [3] [4] [5] [2].
1. Who produced Project 2025 and why it matters
Project 2025 is a Heritage Foundation–led “Mandate for Leadership” style playbook compiled with more than 100 conservative groups to prepare a future conservative administration; it is explicitly designed as an operational manual for reshaping agencies and staffing them with aligned personnel [1]. Reporters and analysts treat it as consequential because authors and contributors later surfaced in Trump’s orbit and because scholars note the document’s recommendations go well beyond partisan platform items into structural governance changes [2] [3].
2. Personnel ties: authors became appointees
Multiple outlets documented that several authors and architects of Project 2025 were nominated or appointed to key posts in the Trump administration, creating a direct personnel pipeline from the blueprint to government [4] [2]. Time’s review noted that a substantial share of early executive actions reflected Project 2025 language, strengthening the claim that authorship and appointments are operationally linked [2].
3. Civil service overhaul and “Schedule F” style moves
Project 2025 advocates reclassifying large numbers of civil servants as political appointees so they can be replaced with loyalists; critics say this would hollow out career expertise and politicize the bureaucracy [3]. PBS and other reporting tie those recommendations to Trump’s early executive orders: a hiring freeze and moves akin to Schedule F that make firing career officials easier, which were implemented in the administration’s first weeks [6] [2].
4. Abortion, the Comstock Act and mifepristone
Project 2025 mentions abortion roughly 200 times and recommends actions short of a nationwide ban, including removing the abortion pill mifepristone from the market and reviving statutes such as the 19th‑century Comstock Act to block abortion medications and information from the mail [4] [5]. The BBC and the ACLU flag those provisions as central flashpoints; Project 2025 itself does not call for an explicit national ban but pushes regulatory and legal pathways to restrict medication access [4] [5].
5. Media, communications and consolidation policies
The plan argues for reshaping media policy: stripping public broadcasting of funding and legal status and altering FCC rules to enable greater consolidation and nationalization of local news, recommendations that dovetail with appointments of sympathetic FCC figures who pursued investigations into public broadcasters [7] [3]. Brookings and Project 2025 materials show those media/tech prescriptions are part of a broader agenda to shift the information ecosystem [7] [3].
6. Energy, environment and economic priorities
Heritage’s follow‑on messaging and Axios reporting show Project 2025 favors expanding oil and gas, cutting reliance on renewables, and rolling back environmental protections; Heritage says it will back Trump’s agenda to reshape agencies and oppose expanded authority for independent regulators [8]. Critics view this as an explicit policy alignment between the blueprint and administration priorities [8].
7. Political and partisan interpretations of intent
Sources diverge on motive and character. Opponents describe Project 2025 as a template for authoritarian consolidation — an effort to “intellectually retrofit” Trumpism and pursue culture‑war rollbacks — while Heritage frames it as restoring efficient conservative governance and defending constitutional separation of powers [3] [8]. Reporting shows Trump publicly distanced himself while campaigning but embraced many recommendations in office, creating ambiguity about deliberate adoption versus convergent agendas [2].
8. What reporting does not settle
Available sources document strong personnel links and many mirrored policies, but they do not, in these excerpts, provide exhaustive evidence tying every single Project 2025 recommendation to a named Trump ally or an identified implementation action; for many items the degree of direct causation versus ideological overlap remains a matter of interpretation in the reporting [2] [1].
Limitations: this account relies solely on the supplied reporting and summaries; readers should consult the Project 2025 “Mandate for Leadership” and investigative timelines for full clause‑by‑clause mapping between proposals and specific executive actions [1] [2].