Who developed Project 2025 and key contributors?

1. Origins and the lead institutional sponsor

The Heritage Foundation is the driving institutional force behind Project 2025, commissioning and directing what it framed as a presidential transition and governing roadmap; the project was presented as a multi‑pillar initiative combining a policy guide, personnel recruiting, training, and an implementation playbook ^{[2] [6]}. Advocacy groups and legal observers characterize the work as a Heritage-led conservative blueprint; the ACLU describes the project as authored and published by former Trump officials in partnership with Heritage ^{[1] [2]}.

2. The named architects and directors

Russell Vought is regularly identified as a co‑author and one of Project 2025’s key architects, credited with writing important chapters and later elevated to a senior White House role tied to implementation ^{[4] [5] [3]}. Project leadership also included Paul Dans as a project director until he stepped away; other senior figures tied directly to the drafting include Paul Atkins and contributors such as John McEntee and Christopher Miller, who authored or helped author specific agency chapters ^{[7] [3]}.

3. The extensive contributor network (who actually wrote it)

Reporting and crowd-sourced tracing have identified several hundred authors and contributors: The New York Times and project trackers trace roughly 300+ named authors and contributors with about 182 tied to Trump, while Heritage acknowledged participation by more than 100 conservative and right‑leaning organizations in producing the policy guide ^[2]. The ACLU and various news outlets note that around 140 former Trump staffers and many veterans of the first administration were involved in producing the Mandate for Leadership/Conservative Promise volumes ^{[1] [2]}.

4. Policy authors placed in government and named contributors elevated

Multiple contributors were later nominated to or placed in Trump administration positions—names frequently cited in coverage include Russell Vought, John Ratcliffe, Tom Homan, Peter Navarro, Paul Atkins and others—illustrating an explicit pipeline from Project 2025 authorship to staffing roles ^{[5] [8] [3]}. Labor groups and watchdogs have tracked those transitions, arguing Project 2025 operated as a “conservative LinkedIn” meant to vet and steer personnel into a future administration ^{[2] [9]}.

5. The project’s structure, aims and contested agenda

Project 2025 presented itself across “four pillars”: a large policy manual (the Mandate or Conservative Promise), a database of vetted candidates for federal posts, a Presidential Administration Academy for training, and an implementation playbook—ambitions that critics say amount to a blueprint for concentrating executive power and reshaping civil service norms ^{[2] [6]}. Supporters and Heritage framed it as practical transition planning; critics and civil liberties groups (e.g., ACLU, labor unions, progressive trackers) describe it as an ideological plan to roll back DEI, reshape agencies, and expand unilateral presidential authority ^{[1] [10] [2]}.

6. How reporting frames motives and the political debate

Mainstream outlets report that while Trump publicly distanced himself from Project 2025 during the campaign, many of its authors were embraced into his administration and numerous proposals have been implemented, lending credence to the idea that Heritage’s project influenced policy and personnel choices ^{[3] [4] [8]}. Alternative perspectives exist: Heritage and some conservative defenders present Project 2025 as conventional transition work, while advocacy groups present it as a coordinated effort to embed a far‑right agenda across the executive branch—readers should note these competing agendas are reflected in the sources ^{[1] [2]}.