What is ‘Project 2025’?

Image by Isabel Ames

A focal point in the lead-up to the November presidential election has been The Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025. Why has this strategic plan garnered so much attention in recent months? What does the 922-page document say, and what reforms does it include?

In September, we sat down to break down the document and highlight some of the most impactful and consequential aspects of Project 2025 for you. With this monumental election in mind, please register to vote, check your nearest polling place or mail-in availability, and educate yourself! See the link in our Instagram bio to check your registration status and find further information.

A focal point in the lead-up to the November presidential election has been The Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025. The 922-page document provides a detailed blueprint for integrating strong conservative principles into the next Republican presidential administration, which is expected to be led by former President Donald Trump. So why has this strategic plan garnered so much attention in recent months?  Its proposals for sweeping structural reforms, many drafted by former Trump White House officials, have sparked intense debate. These include calls for reshaping federal agencies to ensure they act in concert with conservative values. 

“Project 2025” is organized into five sections: (1) Taking the Reins of Government, (2) The Common Defense, (3) The General Welfare, (4) The Economy, and (5) Independent Regulatory Agencies. 

The central theme of the first section of Project 2025 is loyalty. Every aspect of restructuring the executive branch aims to carry out conservative policies without hesitation. The logic is simple: aligning federal agencies with the president’s goals will streamline the process of implementing a conservative agenda across all levels of government. 

Section One 

Section one of Project 2025 stresses the importance of aligning the bureaucracy with the priorities of the executive branch. The solution to making federal agencies more aligned with the executive branch is to reclassify a significant number of federal employees as political appointees. It is the view of The Heritage Foundation that many of these agencies are too large, inefficient, and require more executive oversight. Dennis Dean Kirk, another Project 2025 co-author who served as Senior Advisor under President Trump, discusses the goal of implementing a merit system. The aim would be to ensure federal agencies are staffed with supporters of the president’s policy agenda rather than career civil servants.  

Former White House Deputy Chief of Staff to President Donald Trump, Rick Dearborn, highlights his vision for the West Wing within the Project 2025 framework. This section shows the critical role of the President’s inner circle and the requirement to “be deeply committed both to the President’s agenda and to affording the President proactive counsel and zealous representation.”

Section Two

Section Two of The Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, titled “The Common Defense,” explores the proposed future of U.S. national security, particularly defense reforms. In section two, Russ Vought who served as the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for former President Trump describes the Department of Defense as politicized, and seeks to reverse policies that have elements of “social engineering.”

The first element of this section discusses the Department of Defense and the desire to eliminate “woke” policies. This incorporates a ban on transgender service members and the reinstatement of troops who were discharged for refusing COVID-19 vaccinations. Further, the document calls for an end to the DoD’s mentions of climate change and critical race theory in military training programs. Project 2025 explains that the military’s defensive and offensive missions are being undermined, and need refocusing. 

Under the DoD section, military recruitment is also discussed. The Heritage Foundation believes that the mandatory COVID-19 vaccination program led to recruitment challenges. Distancing from policies put in place by the Biden Administration, troops who refused the vaccines would be reinstated and given back pay. The DoD section further refers to a reduction in the promotion of generals and flag officers who were advanced for non-defense reasons, including diversity initiatives. 

Lastly, the DoD section poses China as the most notable threat to U.S. national security. Project 2025 poses a denial defense strategy for expanding world influence, specifically in the Indo-Pacific. The strategy highlights the importance of alliances with Japan, South Korea, and Australia to non-violently combat China’s hegemonic status and territorial control. The section also describes the necessity of prioritizing defense resources and increasing the U.S. participation in the Belt and Road initiative, an investment strategy of worldwide infrastructure projects. 

Next, the future of the Department of Homeland Security is detailed by Ken Cuccinelli, the former acting Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security. A core emphasis of Project 2025 is the strengthening of the U.S. southern border. This undertaking includes the completion of the border wall, increasing Border Patrol agents, and the inclusion of more surveillance technology. Furthermore, the DHS section explains that the President should have additional authority to deploy federal resources and military to the border. 

This excerpt also examines the restriction of asylum rules, including the changing of standards for claiming asylum. Cucinelli writes, “At a minimum, an enhanced regulatory agenda should include rules strengthening the integrity of the asylum system, parole reform, and U visa reform that prioritizes relief for victims of heinous crimes and ensures that we protect the truest and most deserving victims of crime.” Project 2025 also plans to increase fees for asylum applications. 

The final discussion in this section centers around the Department of State. Project 2025 recommends a shift in U.S. foreign policy to bilateral relationships from multilateral diplomacy. This means reducing the U.S.’s role in large international organizations like NATO and the United Nations and instead focusing the State Department’s efforts on relationships with individual nations based on projected mutual benefit. The document also calls for a large reduction in foreign aid and a repositioning of that aid to U.S. Security interests, as a means of pressuring foreign governments. Project 2025 discusses the threat China poses, mentioning the nation 483 times throughout the document, and the importance of creating partnerships with Latin American and African countries.

Dustin J. Carmack, former Chief of Staff for the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), discusses the “Intelligence Community” under the next section of Project 2025. Carmack contends that bolstering U.S. Intelligence capabilities is crucial for a future conservative President to effectively address potential threats.

There is great emphasis on fortifying intelligence authorities to “anticipate and thwart our adversaries, including Russia, Iran, North Korea, and especially China.” Carmack brings forth the term “whole of government” arguing that it’s key to efficiently respond “to the general threat posed by the Chinese Communist Party.” Maintaining that “the whole of government” is needed to combat this threat, Carmack points out that the intelligence agencies need significant bolstering in order to be truly effective in combatting the Chinese threat. 

This stress on fortification comes from “the recent discovery of China’s successful test of a nuclear-capable hypersonic missile” in February 2024. This alarmed many American officials, as a warning that they were no longer at an advantage in a rivalry dating back to the Cold War. 

“No longer can America’s information and technological dominance be assumed,” Carmack states. He argues that the need to understand “Chinese motivations, capabilities, and intent” is paramount, and thus crucial that the “whole of government be rowing together.” 

Carmack proposes that the best way to instigate change is through stronger leadership and the removal of government officials who abuse public trust. “The American people are understandably frustrated by the fact that those who abuse power are rarely held to account for their actions,” Carmack explained. 

He emphasizes an IC leadership that is apolitical, and boldly stresses that it “must address the widely promoted ‘woke’ culture that has spread throughout the federal government with identity politics and ‘social justice’ advocacy replacing such traditional American values as patriotism, color blindness, and even workplace competence.” 

Carmack proposes an “obligation to share” be integrated into the IC framework. In order to create a more efficient system for collecting and sharing sensitive information he suggests the creation of deadline oriented and “write for release” reports when anything related to cyber defense is discovered and reported to the public within 48 hours. 

This section of the 2025 Mandate for Leadership concludes with a focus on media agencies and comments on the current state of journalistic independence. 

A journalistic firewall refers to a set of policies and practices designed to maintain editorial independence and integrity in news organizations. The firewall exists to protect editorial decisions from the influence of advertisers, donors, or other external parties as well as to maintain the credibility and independence of journalism and ensure that news coverage is based on journalistic ethics rather than external agendas. Nevertheless, Mora Nandar and Mike Gonzalez argue that the “vital error” in the U.S. Agency for Global Media is “the agency’s selective application of a journalistic ‘firewall.’” 

Mora Nandar argues that the biases of what a firewall is “shifts, depending on which Administration is in office.” Following the same thread, Mike Gonzalez argues for the defunding of domestic broadcasts, namely the National Public Radio (NPR). Gonzalez states that “to stop public funding is good policy and good politics.” He claims that it did not become what President Lyndon Johnson pledged it would in 1967 – “a vital public resource to enrich our homes, educate our families and to provide assistance to our classrooms.” Rather, Gonzalez argues, “public broadcasting immediately became a liberal forum for public affairs and journalism.”

“The government should not be compelling the conservative half of the country to pay for the suppression of its own views.” Gonzalez states. 

Section Three 

A key component of the third section on General Welfare is prioritizing an “ideological shift.” This section centers on personal responsibility and the dismantling of the federal government’s role in day-to-day welfare management by devolution. The third section also underlines a dramatic shift in budget cuts, slashing welfare budgets in order to appeal to voters with a bootstrap mentality. Similar to the Clinton-era welfare reforms, Project 2025 advocates limiting welfare to those actively contributing to the workforce.  

Daren Bakst, a former senior research fellow at The Heritage Foundation, proposes lifting barriers on farm production which American farmers struggle to expand under. Bakst proposes the elimination of UDSA climate-friendly policies which specifically aim to reduce the use of pesticides and fertilizers seeing them as obstacles for production, in order to increase crop yield and reduce food prices.

Agricultural yield and production was not Bakst’s only concern for the future. Federal welfare food programs and farming insurances like Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) are critiqued  by Project 2025 for providing aid and benefits, such as food stamp allocations and low crop yield insurance subsidies. The Heritage Foundation emphasizes cutting food programs that it claims “encourage dependence,” such as SNAP, and proposes stricter work requirements for welfare eligibility. 

Roger Severino, known for his leadership at the Office for Civil Rights under the Trump Administration, advocates for conservative Christian values and proposes renaming the Department of Health and Human Services to the “Department of Life.” An ode to religious conservative values, he emphasizes protecting life “from conception to natural death.” In conceiving these ideals, Project 2025 aims to defund Planned Parenthood and further limit access to abortion and contraceptive care. 

For the future of U.S energy, Bernard L.McNamee, former member of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, stresses the need for efficient and affordable energy. McNamee notes that to achieve this outcome they would need to remove green energy policies, which he views as creating energy scarcity. He notes that increased energy costs are hurting low income American families and creating businesses which “drive our economy to be less competitive.” Instead, Bernard suggests expanding non-renewable energy as crucial for protecting U.S interests.   

Ultimately, The Heritage Foundation's welfare reforms aim to return America to a system where government aid is reserved for those who are contributing to the workforce. 

Section Four

Section Four addresses economic policy, advocating for a reduction in government intervention and regulations. One way Project 2025 plans on prioritizing Americans' interest is by revising trade policies. The Heritage Foundation proposes an conservative trade policy that would echo a limited-government approach to encourage free trade. The plan aims to reinvigorate manufacturing and strengthen the industrial base through policy consolidation, such as with SelectUSA and the Advocacy Center.

Former Assistant Secretary of Commerce, Thomas F. Gilman, focuses on the International Trade Administration (ITA) in charge of promoting U.S. trade, investment, innovation, and economic growth. Gilman writes that moving forward, the ITA should prioritize individualization and separatism from the global sphere. Gillman explains that as a result of globalization, national economies have become intricately knotted. 

The Heritage Foundation’s main concern simmers down to the consequence on the American economy if one element of the global supply chain faces obstacles. Concerns about instability have prompted a response from some conservatives who are advocating for economic self-reliance. To achieve this, Project 2025 argues that the U.S must secure access to vital supply chains and technologies such as pharmaceuticals and food. 

Eliminating financial policies that promote climate protection, equity, diversity, and accessibility is one of the many cutbacks suggested. Many global organizations such as the World Bank or the International Monetary Fund require nations to spend on policies such as climate change. Project 2025 calls instead for a prioritization of American spending on American needs, rather than global organizations’ climate change regulations.

The Federal Reserve section reveals a more critical side of Project 2025 with a focus on the Reserve’s role in monetary policy. The Heritage Foundation’s recommendation is that there should be less intervention by the Federal Reserve. Project 2025 suggests that quantitative easing and low interest rates have led to the overstimulation of asset bubbles in the stock and housing markets. Beyond this, the document looks into the possibility of increasing congressional oversight of the Federal Reserve. One proposed reform is the possibility of a formal audit of the Federal Reserve’s balance sheet to ensure transparency and accountability in the Reserve. Lastly, there is a push by Project 2025 for the return to sound money, which means the inclusion of policies that limit inflation and encourage stable currency values.

A considerable priority of the economic branch of Project 2025 is the Small Business Administration. The Heritage Foundation’s former distinguished fellow in economic policy and public leadership, Paul Winfree, recommended limiting government backed loans and lowering federal dependency. 

The President and CEO of the Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council, Karen Kerrigan, proposes reducing federal loan guarantees from the SBA to encourage private sector lending to small businesses. Further, to cultivate market driven innovation, The Heritage Foundation advises prioritizing private equity and venture capital funding for small businesses to limit the federal footprint in the arena. Lastly, there is the suggestion of simplifying the process for obtaining permits and reducing regulations on federal reporting. 

After the discussion of the Federal Reserve and the SBA there is the trade subsection, which is divided into two parts: fair trade and free trade. The policies presented in this section align with a protectionist approach to international trade. 

The first proposal within fair trade is regarding the protection of American workers through trade agreements that would be tailored to ensure that foreign competitiors adhere to equivalent labor and environmental standards as the United States. An example of this is the potential reinforcement of agreements like the USMCA (United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement), which contains provisions that do not allow the outsourcing of labor to countries less worker protections. Fair trade in Project 2025 can also be understood as reciprocal tariffs that would assure that countries imposing tariffs on U.S. exports face similar tariffs when their goods are imported into the U.S. market.

The free trade section of Project 2025 takes an America-first approach to trade. The document endorses free trade while suggesting that trade agreements should be revised to protect U.S. industries and sovereignty. The free trade section authored by the President and CEO of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Kent Lassmam, suggests fighting off currency manipulation, which Lassman explains is happening in China. Project 2025 suggests the penalization of countries that artificially devalue their currencies to cheapen their exports in global markets. 

Section Five

Section five of Project 2025 is focused on independent regulatory agencies. The heads of these agencies are appointed by the President and the commissions themselves are created by Congress. These commissions operate independently to avoid political influence. 

David Burton, a senoir economic fellow at the Heritage Foundation, explains that although the President can appoint people to these commissions, they cannot remove them. This section is focused around five main agencies, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the Federal Trade Commision (FTC) and the Federal Election Commision (FEC). 

The SEC was set up in the wake of the 1929 Wall St. Crash and aimed to protect investors from financial misconduct and market misinformation. Burton makes the point that the setting up of the agency was “rushed and haphazard,” which has led to financial security laws which “do not constitute a coherent, rational regulatory regime.”

Burton suggests that this complex web of legislation harms financial markets through enforcing unnecessary regulations, such as a proposed SEC regulation on climate change which could quadruple the cost of being a public company. Burton argues that regulations like these will hinder capital formation and hurt the market, which is the opposite of what the SEC is designed to do. Project 2025 suggests that the SEC’s regulatory powers should be limited, reducing their ability to enforce regulations altogether. 

Project 2025 additionally advocates for the curbing of the CFPB’s authority, arguing it has too much influence over financial institutions, especially given that it is not subject to congressional oversight and therefore “highly politicized, damaging and utterly unaccountable.” Project 2025 points out the controversial past of the CFPB, which has been criticized and presented before the U.S. Supreme Court for being unconstitutional. Project 2025 suggests more congressional oversight to encourage transparency within the CFPB, and streamline its organization. 

The Heritage Foundation is eager to reduce the regulatory powers of the FCC over media and telecommunication sectors. Brendan Carr, the commissioner of the FCC and author of this chapter, seeks to encourage market-driven innovation by cutting down on regulations that are outdated or unnecessary. Carr aims to foster competition in the market and cut down on government intervention. There is also discussion of the threat Tiktok could pose to American security, as well as the broader question of Chinese domination in tech and AI markets. Carr proposes a framework of accountability and transparency for big tech companies who ‘abuse’ their positions in the market. 

The theme of limiting government intervention to encourage the market is continued throughout the chapter as the Heritage Foundation suggests that the FTC’s scope ought to be narrowed. They argue that current antitrust and consumer protection policies discourage free market competition. Project 2025 calls for the FTC to do more to protect minors in online contracts and assess if it is lawful for children to have contractual relationships without their parent’s consent. The Heritage Foundation suggests that corporate social advocacy on such issues leads to favorable treatment by government actors, which it finds inappropriate, stating that “the business of American business is business, not ideology.”

The FEC’s role in overseeing campaign finance is also scrutinized, as the Heritage Foundation calls for clearer rules and a less bureaucratic process, which it argues would make campaigning more efficient. This approach also aims to preserve the bipartisan deadlock that has rendered the FEC largely ineffective in enforcing campaign finance laws. Additionally, the plan suggests stripping the FEC of its independent litigating authority, potentially making it harder to hold candidates and super PACs accountable for violations.

Project 2025 is a vision for the future. In the afterword, titled “Onward!”, Edwin J Feulner, co-founder of The Heritage Foundation, gives a brief history of the foundation and a rallying cry for what is yet to come. Reiterating points made across Project 2025, Feulner gives a passionate defense of the free market and warns against overcentralisation of power, advocating for an America built upon “the core principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense[...] where freedom, opportunity, prosperity, and civil society flourish for all.” Feulner concludes with these words:

“Our next mission is just beginning.”

Full link to Project 2025: https://static.project2025.org/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf 

MEUF is not associated with any campaign and is not taking a position on the election with this piece.