The Heritage Foundation’s ‘Project 2025,’ a comprehensive policy blueprint aimed at guiding the next conservative administration, has ignited a firestorm of controversy. While some Democrats have branded it a right-wing boogeyman, the foundation insists it’s simply a collection of plans and actions designed to address what they see as the ‘damage’ inflicted by the Biden administration.
The project has roots in the 1980s, originating from the ‘Mandate for Leadership’ series, which the Heritage Foundation published almost every election cycle since the Reagan administration. The 2024 iteration, dubbed ‘Project 2025,’ has attracted intense scrutiny, particularly from President Trump, who expressed disapproval of certain proposals.
‘I disagree with some of the things they’re saying, and some of the things they’re saying are absolutely ridiculous and abysmal,’ Trump stated last month. Despite the criticism, Heritage Foundation leaders, including former Attorney General Edwin Meese III, contend the project is a continuation of a long-standing tradition and not a radical departure.
Meese, considered a prominent figure in the conservative movement, highlights the evolution of the project over time. ‘In the first one, in 1981, it was much more organizational, with information on structure and organizational norms, where – later on in 1989 – it was much more individual policy issues-based,’ he explained.
The project’s genesis can be traced back to a dinner hosted by the Heritage Foundation during the Reagan transition. Meese recalls being invited to the event and being offered early proofs of the 1981 ‘Mandate for Leadership.’ Notably, Charles Heatherly, involved in the project’s initial development, emphasizes that both the Reagan and Carter campaigns were invited to attend the dinner, suggesting a bipartisan intent from the outset.
Meese describes the 1981 project as ‘particularly helpful’ in the Reagan era, as it provided a framework for policy direction. He points out the project’s comprehensive nature, encompassing chapters dedicated to various government departments and agencies, drawing on the expertise of former officials and academics.
The impact of the project on the Reagan administration was undeniable. Meese recounts how Reagan, deeply impressed with the work, had a copy of the ‘Mandate for Leadership’ placed on every cabinet member’s desk. Subsequent meetings at the State Department focused on implementing the project’s recommendations, illustrating its influence on policymaking.
Despite the project’s perceived influence, Heatherly acknowledges that its reception varied across different government agencies. While some embraced the project’s recommendations, others were less receptive. Nevertheless, the project’s reach was undeniable, contributing to the shift in policy direction during the Reagan administration.
As for the 2024 iteration, Steve Groves, a co-editor of the ‘Mandate for Leadership’ portion of ‘Project 2025,’ refutes claims that the project is a pro-Trump agenda. He attributes the surge in media attention to a need for a new narrative following Biden’s perceived struggles in the June debate.
Groves vehemently denies allegations that the project advocates for outlawing abortion or ending birthright citizenship. He views the accusations as a deliberate attempt to shift focus away from Biden’s performance.
Groves and Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts emphasize the project’s diverse perspectives, showcasing a range of conservative viewpoints rather than a monolithic ideology. The inclusion of authors like Peter Navarro, a Trump ally known for his ‘fair trade’ stance, and Kent Lassman, CEO of the pro-free trade Competitive Enterprise Institute, exemplifies this inclusivity.
Roberts highlights that the project’s materials were offered to all potential candidates in the 2022-2023 timeframe, including Biden, Trump, Nikki Haley, and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. While Biden did not respond, Roberts stresses the foundation’s willingness to engage with all candidates.
Roberts also refutes the notion that the project has remained static across election cycles. He points to the 2004 election, where a complete rewrite of the ‘conservative manual’ was deemed unnecessary due to the policy continuity of a potential Bush re-election.
Spencer Chretien, an associate director of ‘Project 2025,’ underscores the evolution of conservatism since the 1980s, highlighting the shift in views regarding government oversight and the intelligence community.
‘Project 2025′ has been characterized as a consortium of varying viewpoints within the conservative realm, rather than a singular, Heritage-centric document. This, Roberts argues, reflects the project’s candidate-agnostic nature, offering a platform for diverse conservative voices.
Roberts addresses the concerns raised by Trump, acknowledging the inclusion of former administration officials like Navarro and other experts like Lassman. He reiterates the project’s candidate-agnostic nature, emphasizing the importance of non-partisanship in its approach.
He also dispels rumors surrounding the departure of co-editor Paul Dans, clarifying that Dans’ work had concluded, and he had moved on to other projects. Roberts emphasizes that, despite the project’s comprehensive nature, there is no guarantee that any candidate will implement its recommendations.
‘We want to wake up in a normal country. We want to wake up in a country where the American dream is alive. That’s what this project is about,’ Roberts concludes.
The debate surrounding ‘Project 2025’ is likely to continue, reflecting the deep divisions within American politics. The project serves as a window into the evolving priorities of the conservative movement, highlighting its enduring influence on policy debates.
