It’s not unusual for U.S. think tanks to propose policy agendas for future administrations before an election. But one in particular has drawn heightened attention: Project 2025.
It’s a 900-page, multi-part plan for former President Donald Trump’s second term -- if he gets one. It’s led by the Heritage Foundation, one of Washington’s main right-wing public policy and research institutes.
Project 2025 proposes to overhaul the federal government by giving more power to the executive branch: dismantling several government agencies, including the Department of Education and the Department of Homeland Security. It also calls for further restricting abortion access, removing protections for LGBTQ+ Americans and rolling back DEI programs. The policy blueprint suggests leaving the Paris Climate Agreement, scaling back on clean energy initiatives, increasing deportations and restricting legal immigration.
During the presidential debate, Trump denied having ties to Project 2025, after Vice President Kamala Harris brought it up.
“What you’re going to hear tonight is a detailed and dangerous plan called Project 2025 that the former president intends on implementing if he were elected again. I believe very strongly that the American people want a president who understands the importance of bringing us together knowing we have so much more in common than what separates us. And I pledge to you to be a president for all Americans,” said Harris.
In response, Trump said: “Number one, I have nothing to do, as you know and as she knows better than anyone, I have nothing to do with Project 2025. That’s out there. I haven’t read it. I don’t want to read it, purposely. I’m not going to read it.”
Although the former president has attempted to distance himself from Project 2025, at least 140 of its co-authors worked within the Trump administration.
Contributors include Joseph Grogan, a nonresident senior scholar at the USC Schaeffer Institute who served as the former president’s assistant and director of the Domestic Policy Council. Grogan did not respond to Annenberg Media’s request for a comment.
We spoke with David Simas, managing director of Emerson Collective and former president of the Obama Foundation. He says he’s not surprised by any of the Heritage Foundation’s proposals. Instead, what has stuck out to him is how Harris’ team has used Project 2025 in campaign messages.
Simas says the strength of Harris’ messaging around Project 2025 is effective, as it draws connections between Trump and the policies it outlines.
“You will see references to Trump wanting to cut Medicare, Social Security, etc, that, in and of itself, is a very effective hit that moves voters. But one thing you don’t see in the advertising is references to Project 2025,” said Simas.
In this way, voters associate Trump with specific policies instead of a vague playbook. That is what could sway voters, he says, especially in swing states.
“If you are of the remaining eight to 10% of the electorate who are just deeply skeptical of anything they hear from anyone in the final month, month and a half, and if she says he’s for it, and he says he doesn’t know anything about it. The general reaction is, I don’t know who to believe. Now, when you say, do you believe that a Democrat or Republican is more likely to cut Social Security and Medicare, there are priors that voters have about the parties,” said Simas.
In terms of how much of Project 2025 Trump could actually implement in office, Simas says it depends on who wins control of the House and Senate. But, some of the policies could be carried out through executive orders during his first 100 days in office.
“The things that I think he will do immediately involve the border and border security. Involve energy production, those two immediately, I think you would see at the top. And then the third thing that I think would be fairly straightforward to be around taxes, where I think the expiration of the tax cuts from when he was president provide the opportunity to really drive a tax agenda,” said Simas.
Still, Simas asserts that radical change is difficult in the White House, no matter who wins.
“Imagine a world where there is a realization in Congress and in the White House that the only way you’re going to move anything is by making sure that you have got a sufficient number of Republicans and a sufficient number of Democrats, which then requires trades in order to build a consensus,” said Simas.
Something that in these polarized times is difficult to come by.
The electorate remains deeply divided on who should win the top of the ticket. Regardless of Election Day results, the next president will have to face polarization within Washington, and the nation at large.
This story was written by Yana Savitsky and voiced by Lexi Rosser.