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.
What state legislatures have adopted elements of Project 2025 and which specific policies did they pass?
Executive summary
Coverage in the provided sources says Project 2025 is a Heritage Foundation–led federal policy blueprint that many observers warn could be implemented at federal level and is already echoed by state-level laws and actions; specific state adoptions of Project 2025 elements are discussed in watchdog pieces but no single authoritative catalogue of every state law is in these sources (Democracy Forward catalogs state-level examples such as Utah’s “Constitutional Sovereignty Act” and actions in Texas and Florida) [1] [2] [3].
1. What Project 2025 is, and why states matter
Project 2025 is a 900+ page “Mandate for Leadership” policy playbook produced by the Heritage Foundation and allied groups to steer a conservative presidential transition and reshape the federal administrative state; it emphasizes returning powers to states, dismantling parts of the administrative state, and advancing conservative social policies, which makes state-level adoption or experimentation an important pathway for implementation or normalization [1] [4] [3].
2. Which states are named in watchdog coverage as enacting similar ideas
Democracy Forward’s reporting highlights several states where laws or executive actions parallel Project 2025 aims: Utah is cited for passing a “Utah Constitutional Sovereignty Act” intended to allow the state legislature to overrule federal law; Texas and Florida are described as testing anti‑democratic governance measures—Texas with threats and interventions in state institutions and Florida with high‑profile suspensions and punitive actions against businesses like Disney—that Democracy Forward frames as consonant with Project 2025’s anti‑administrative-state and state‑empowerment themes [2] [3].
3. Specific policies in states that watchdogs link to Project 2025
The provided materials point to certain concrete state actions rather than to direct “we adopted Project 2025” proclamations: Utah’s sovereignty law is singled out as an attempt to resist federal authority, while Texas interventions (e.g., state takeover of Houston’s school district leadership) and Florida’s removal or suspension of local officials and sanctions on corporations are cited as operational examples of the same tactics Project 2025 favors—devolving federal roles, politicizing enforcement, and elevating state power [2].
4. How advocacy groups and civil‑rights organizations frame state activity
Civil Rights and civil‑liberties organizations treat state moves as part of a larger pattern that dovetails with Project 2025’s proposals—warning about threats to voting access, civil rights enforcement, and public‑health and education programs—pointing to attempts to reassign or curtail federal roles and to punish local officials who pursue policies Project 2025 would oppose [5] [6].
5. Limits of the available reporting: what’s asserted vs. what’s documented
The sources document parallels and specific state actions that resemble parts of the Project 2025 agenda, but they do not provide a definitive, source‑verified list of every statute or resolution in each state that formally “adopted” Project 2025 language. Democracy Forward and allied trackers argue that many state policies operationalize Project 2025 goals, yet a single paper trail showing state legislatures passing laws that explicitly cite or officially adopt Project 2025 text is not presented in the materials here [2] [7].
6. Alternative perspectives and contested claims
Conservative sources and Heritage affiliates frame Project 2025 as a positive blueprint for restoring constitutional authority and de‑bureaucratizing government; opponents label it “authoritarian” and warn it would concentrate power and erode checks and balances. FactCheck.org and others have scrutinized specific claims about Project 2025 (e.g., whether it mandates monitoring pregnancies), confirming some proposals (like shuttering the Department of Education) appear in the playbook even as public figures have at times distanced themselves from the project—showing disagreement over interpretation and political intent [8] [4].
7. What reporters and trackers are monitoring next
Multiple projects are tracking implementation: Democracy Forward has catalogued state examples and impacts; an independent community‑driven “Project 2025 Tracker” records federal actions that mirror the plan; FactCheck.org and the Brennan Center provide policy‑by‑policy analysis. These monitoring efforts aim to document whether state initiatives continue to mirror Project 2025 themes (devolving federal functions, politicizing enforcement, restricting civil rights or regulatory regimes) and whether more states adopt laws clearly traceable to the Heritage blueprint [7] [9] [10].
8. Bottom line for readers
Available reporting shows clear thematic overlap between Project 2025’s federal playbook and a set of state laws and executive actions in Utah, Texas, Florida and elsewhere that advocates say operationalize its goals, but the sources do not present a comprehensive, source‑by‑source list of state statutes that explicitly adopt Project 2025 text; readers should treat claims of “state adoption” as often meaning alignment in policy aims and tactics rather than formal legislative endorsement [2] [3] [8].