The left is incessantly bringing up Project 2025, attempting to tie the conservative strategic plan to Donald Trump to hurt him in the election. One of my leftist friends insists over and over that I read all 922 pages of it — he hasn’t bothered to — ominously warning that it is a plan for fascism. But it’s a whole bunch of to-do about nothing.
Project 2025 was created by the respected, longtime conservative think tank Heritage Foundation, which is not exactly a fringe organization. The plan covers typical conservative topics, primarily securing the border, energy independence, education, and dismantling the deep state.
Even the leftist USA Today’s fact-checkers rated it false that Trump is connected to Project 2025. Over and over, Trump has repeatedly said that he has nothing to do with Project 2025 and even called some of the proposals in it “abysmal.”
The main accusation about Project 2025 appears to be that it would give the executive branch additional power. It would ensure that there aren’t rogue agencies under that branch, such as what Trump encountered with some of his appointees like Attorney General Bill Barr. Barr refused to authorize U.S. Attorneys to investigate the 2020 election anomalies, instead declaring without looking into them that there weren’t any problems.
There’s nothing illegal about this executive branch reorganization; even the BBC admitted it’s known as “unitary executive theory.” However, the station spun the rest of its description, stating that “independent agencies such as the Department of Justice, be placed under direct presidential control.” There’s nothing in the Constitution that says executive branch agencies were ever supposed to be independent.
The BBC criticized Project 2025 for proposing transforming merit-protected jobs into political appointee positions with fewer protections like job security. This isn’t unusual; elected. Officials at all levels of government, including state and local, the characterization of these types of jobs depending on their needs. Outgoing electeds change appointee jobs to merit-protected jobs to protect their subordinates from being fired by the next elected. Newly elected officials do the opposite to fire past political appointees.
Similarly, critics slammed the recommendation to put more partisans into political appointee jobs in the administration. Well, that’s exactly what political appointee jobs are for, unlike merit employees.
Critics ominously warned that Project 2025 includes proposed executive orders for Trump to sign. So what? Partisan groups do that all the time for presidents. The Wall Street Journal reported that Republican operatives are referring to it as the “shadow transition operation,” but that is also standard for partisan groups to advise presidents assuming office. It is modeled after a similar effort in January 1981 to assist the new Reagan administration. That plan was called "Mandate for Leadership,” and similarly Project 2025 is called "Mandate for Leadership 2025: The Conservative Promise."
The Heritage Foundation created a Mandate for Leadership for Trump in 2015 and said that two years into his first term, he’d implemented 64% of its recommendations.
In another rare show of accuracy, the BBC admitted, “That's not unusual — it's common for US think tanks of all political stripes to propose policy wish lists for future governments.” It also admitted, “The Republican party platform has absorbed many — but not all — of these ideas.”
Any overlap between Heritage Foundation employees and Trump’s campaign or former administration is not unusual; partisan operatives frequently maneuver through the “revolving door” between government and politics. So naturally, their agenda is going to overlap with Trump’s. CBS News claimed that at least 270 proposals are identical to Trump’s previous policies or campaign promises. The AP titled an article, “Trump’s protests aside, his agenda has plenty of overlap with Project 2025.” Well duh, conservatives tend to have the same policies.
The Democrats’ coverage of Project 2025 is practically identical to that of the MSM, prompting many to believe that’s where the actual overlap is. The DNC posted an article a few days ago titled “The Many Links Between Project 2025 and Trump’s World.”
Much criticism of Project 2025’s agenda is no different than criticism of conservative policies. Over 110 conservative groups are a part of Project 2025. If it was so radical, how was Heritage able to get that many groups on the right together in agreement on everything? That is quite the feat, and evidence nothing is too radical.
Joe Biden posted on X that Project 2025 “will destroy America.” Harris said during a speech that "Project 2025 is a plan to return America to a dark past."
It is no different than how the left is trying to make MAGA a bad word. MAGA is synonymous with conservative Republicans. But since it’s a new, different word, they are focusing on it as a bogeyman, trying to fool people into thinking it’s not just standard conservatism, but something nefarious. The ACLU said that Project 2025 is a “a roadmap for how to replace the rule of law with right-wing ideals.” How is this any different than their attitude toward ANY conservative viewpoint?
If the MSM were honest, which it’s not, articles about Project 2025 would be titled “Conservative Groups Issue Expected, Regular, Updated List of Conservative Recommendations for a Trump Presidency.” Heck, they could even be critical about it, note that there’s not much new in there, it’s much of the same conservative agenda that has been in place the last few years.
The lies about Project 2025 have spread so much that the group issued its own fact check refuting many of them. Elon Musk posted a meme on X a couple of days ago that said “Project 2025 is just QAnon for lefties.”
While the left may have successfully made Project 2025 into a bogeyman, causing Trump and others to distance themselves, don’t forget it’s just yet another super sneaky, sleazy way the left is coming after standard conservative principles to falsely discredit them.