What is Project 2025 and who is behind it?
Executive summary
Project 2025 is a sprawling conservative blueprint published and coordinated by the Heritage Foundation that packages policy recommendations, personnel lists, training programs and a playbook intended to remake the federal government for a right‑wing administration [1] [2] [3]. It was drafted largely by former Trump administration officials and allied conservative groups and has been cast by supporters as a readiness plan and by critics as a strategy to concentrate executive power and roll back civil‑rights, environmental and administrative safeguards [4] [5] [1].
1. Origins and organizational architecture
The project grew out of the Heritage Foundation’s longrunning “Mandate for Leadership” tradition and was convened during the post‑2020 conservative interregnum as a coordinated effort among more than 100 organizations to prepare for a new conservative administration through policy, training and personnel planning [2] [3] [6]. Heritage framed Project 2025 as four pillars—a policy guide, a recruitment/“conservative LinkedIn,” a Presidential Administration Academy and an implementation playbook—produced as part of the Mandate for Leadership series [7] [2].
2. What the plan contains — policy, personnel and playbooks
The public face of Project 2025 includes a large policy manual (often described as roughly 900–920 pages), detailed agency‑by‑agency recommendations, proposed executive orders, and a database intended to identify and vet personnel for key federal jobs; advocates pitched it as a practical transition manual, while critics note it reads as an implementation guide that goes well beyond mere policy ideas [4] [8] [1].
3. Who wrote it and who is listed as behind it
Authors and architects include many former Trump administration officials and conservative operatives; press reporting and organizational materials list dozens—and at times over a hundred—contributors, with named leaders including Paul Dans as project director and figures such as John McEntee and Russell Vought among prominent advisers and architects [9] [10] [7]. Heritage Foundation directed and convened the effort, and the advisory network has at times included organizations ranging from mainstream conservative think tanks to groups identified by critics as far‑right or socially conservative [2] [11].
4. Stated goals and the mechanism of implementation
Project 2025’s stated aim is to have a conservative administration “ready” at noon on January 20, 2025 by offering legal and administrative steps to remake agencies, shift rulemaking priorities, and centralize authority in the executive branch; some of its recommendations reflect a controversial, expansive reading of unitary executive theory that would significantly increase presidential control over the administrative state [1] [5]. The plan recommends personnel changes, structural reorganizations and executive orders as immediate levers to implement a conservative agenda across immigration, labor, environmental regulation, and social policy [4] [8].
5. Supporters, critics and political positioning
Supporters portray Project 2025 as pragmatic transition work and a “conservative promise” to dismantle what they see as regulatory overreach; opponents—from civil‑liberties groups, unions and many progressive organizations—describe it as a blueprint for authoritarian consolidation, attacking civil‑service protections, reproductive and LGBTQ rights, racial equity efforts and environmental safeguards [4] [11] [8]. Reporting shows tension even within conservative ranks—some Republican climate advocates and younger conservatives criticized aspects of the plan—while labor and civil‑rights trackers have documented that a substantial portion of Project 2025’s recommendations have been implemented or pursued in the early months of the subsequent administration [1] [12] [8].
6. Early influence and the contested legacy
By late 2024 and into 2025, multiple outlets documented that many officials aligned with Project 2025 were placed in influential roles and that a measurable share of its proposals had been advanced through executive actions and personnel changes; defenders argue this demonstrates effective planning, critics warn it demonstrates how a policy playbook can reshape government structures permanently [8] [5] [10]. Public debate over Project 2025 therefore centers not only on its prescriptions but on the implicit agenda of using transition planning to rapidly translate ideological priorities into institutional change—an outcome advocates accept as the point of the exercise and critics say poses risks to separation of powers and civil liberties [4] [5] [11].