Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Project 2025: A blueprint for Christian nationalist regime change

Perston holding a sign that reads "Project 2025 is Christian nationalism"

Opponents of Project 2025 hold a rally at Times Square on July 27.

Selcuk Acar/Anadolu via Getty Images

Casey is a former editorial writer for The New York Times and has worked with the Kettering Foundation since 2010.

This is part of a series offering a nonpartisan counter to Project 2025, a conservative guideline to reforming government and policymaking during the first 180 days of a second Trump administration. The Fulcrum's cross-partisan analysis of Project 2025 relies on unbiased critical thinking, reexamines outdated assumptions, and uses reason, scientific evidence, and data in analyzing and critiquing Project 2025.

The Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 is a “presidential transition project” created as a blueprint for recruitment and indoctrination should Donald Trump become the next president. The plan calls for establishing a government that would be imbued with “biblical principles” and run by a president who holds sweeping executive powers.


The Heritage Foundation, a prominent conservative think tank and sponsor of the Republican National Convention, is directing the effort, along with hundreds of additional organizations. Despite Trump’s disavowal of Project 2025, the effort includes 140 staff members, advisors and agency heads who served in the former Trump administration.

Project 2025 touts four “pillars” to accomplish its goals:

A policy agenda for Christian nationalists

The Heritage Foundation’s president, Kevin Roberts, recently said, “We are in the process of the second American Revolution, which will remain bloodless if the left allows it to be.”

He’s not exaggerating.

The plan is ambitious. “Mandate for Leadership” is both specific in detail and vengeful in tone. Its central agenda is to impose a form of Christian nationalism on the United States.

Christian nationalists believe the Christian Bible, as God’s infallible law, should be the basis of government and have primacy over public and private institutions. Its patriarchal view does not recognize gender equality or gay rights and sanctions discrimination based on religious beliefs. Christian nationalist ideas are woven through the plans of Project 2025 and the pages of “Mandate for Leadership.” Its thousands of recommendations include specific executive orders to be repealed or implemented. Laws, regulations, departments and whole agencies would be abolished. It portrays anyone who opposes its sweeping ambitions as being enemies of our republic.

Page 4 sets the tenor:

“The next conservative president must make the institutions of American civil society hard targets for woke culture warriors. This starts with deleting the terms sexual orientation and gender identity (‘SOGI’), diversity, equity, and inclusion (‘DEI’), gender, gender equality, gender equity, gender awareness, gender-sensitive, abortion, reproductive health, reproductive rights, and any other term used to deprive Americans of their First Amendment rights, out of every federal rule, agency regulation, contract, grant, regulation, and piece of legislation that exists.”

Presumably, First Amendment freedoms would be reserved for only those who agree with this dystopian view.

In addition to erasing the rights of women and minorities, “Mandate for Leadership”

  • Expresses a special contempt for the LGBTQ+ community.
  • Recognizes women primarily in their roles as wives or mothers.
  • Recommends the elimination of the Head Start child care program despite the fact that for nearly six decades the program has helped low-income children and families with nutrition, education, and high-quality, affordable day care to prepare children for school and enable low-income parents to work. Indeed, Project 2025 suggests that the new administration should “prioritize funding for home-based childcare, not universal day care.”. It states that children who spend undefined “significant” time in day care experience “higher rates of anxiety, depression, and neglect as well as poor educational and developmental outcomes.”
  • Recommends banning abortion, ensuring that only pro-life government policy prevails, and outlaws the mailing of abortion-inducing medication.
  • Portrays single motherhood as destroying families.
  • Identifies fatherlessness as the root of all evil, stating that fatherlessness is “one of the principal sources of American poverty, crime, mental illness, teen suicide, substance abuse, rejection of the church, and high school dropouts.”

Structural change

The major means to bringing about such deep and lasting change is by eviscerating the federal civil service and enabling a president to fire 50,000 civil servants. Loyalists would be hired in their place to return the federal government to the patronage system (also known as a “spoils system”) that existed in the 19th century. Education and experience would be secondary to right-wing ideology. Loyalty to a president with conservative principles would become a prospective employee’s primary qualification.

In these and other ways, Project 2025’s vision for America would make the president a strongman. Institutions and departments that are now independent or answerable to Congress would instead be weakened or put under his control. Serving the public would become an afterthought.

Orbanism in America

If Project 2025 were put in place, America would change from a beacon of democracy to a superpower version of Viktor Orban’s Hungary. The extreme right-wing of the Republican Party has been openly besotted with Orban: his autocratic rule, his takeover of Hungarian government institutions and especially his patriarchal Christian nationalism, which embraces traditional gender roles and marriage while demonizing LGBTQ+ individuals. The implication is clear: The values of Christian fundamentalism would hold sway, not separation of church and state, secular science or the current rule of law.

An example of this is found in the document’s denunciation of actions taken by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention during the pandemic: “How much risk mitigation is worth the price of shutting down churches ... as happened in 2020? What is the proper balance of lives saved versus souls saved?” Rights in the Constitution are praised as God-given; Project 2025 claims that the federal government should “maintain a biblically based, social science-reinforced definition of marriage and family.”

Should a conservative president put the tenets of Project 2025 into practice, America would no longer be a shining city on a hill, or even a democracy where every person matters. Instead, it would be refashioned as a religious autocracy that is intolerant, patriarchal and discriminatory. It is a dark future against which every American should fight.

This article was first published by the Charles F. Kettering Foundation.

More in The Fulcrum about Project 2025

      Read More

      Guarding What? The Moral Cost of Militarizing Our Cities

      Protestors in Chicago, August 2025

      Credit: Angeles Ponpa

      Guarding What? The Moral Cost of Militarizing Our Cities

      A federal judge recently blocked plans to deploy the National Guard to Chicago. But the battle over militarizing American streets is far from over. On Monday, a federal appeals court lifted a temporary restraining order and ruled that the National Guard can be deployed to Portland, Oregon, amid ongoing protests at the Macadam ICE Facility.

      Every time political leaders propose sending troops into cities or float invoking the Insurrection Act, they test a fragile boundary that keeps democracy in check.

      Keep ReadingShow less
      Joe Manchin on Taxpayer-Funded Primaries: 'They're Locking Us Out!'

      Joe Manchin

      Alex Wong/Getty Images

      Joe Manchin on Taxpayer-Funded Primaries: 'They're Locking Us Out!'

      While appearing on CNN host Michael Smerconish’s show, former Democratic U.S. Senator Joe Manchin, now a registered independent, told Smerconish that “we have to have open primaries” in order to get candidates who prioritize representation to run and have a chance to win.

      “We have to change the primary,” he added. “They are locking us out.”

      Keep ReadingShow less
      Ingrassia Exit Highlights Rare GOP Pushback to Trump’s Personnel Picks

      President Donald Trump speaks at a White House press briefing on Jan. 30, 2025.

      Credit: Jonah Elkowitz/Medill News Service

      Ingrassia Exit Highlights Rare GOP Pushback to Trump’s Personnel Picks

      WASHINGTON — Paul Ingrassia withdrew his nomination to lead the Office of Special Counsel on Tuesday night after facing Republican pushback over past controversial statements.

      While Ingrassia joins a growing list of President Donald Trump’s nominees who have withdrawn from consideration, many who have aired controversial beliefs or lack requisite qualifications have still been appointed or are still in the nomination process.

      Keep ReadingShow less
      A Revolution in Congressional Decision-Making
      low light photography of armchairs in front of desk

      A Revolution in Congressional Decision-Making

      The dysfunction of today’s federal government is not simply the product of political division or individual leaders; it is rooted in the internal rules of Congress itself. The Founders, in one of their few major oversights, granted Congress the authority to make its own procedural rules (Article I, Section 5) without establishing any framework for how it should operate. Over time, this blank check has produced a legislative process built to serve partisan power, not public representation.

      The result is a Congress that often rewards obstruction and gridlock over compromise and action. The Founders imagined representatives closely tied to their constituents—one member for every 30,000 to 50,000 citizens. Today, that ratio has ballooned to one for every 765,000 in the House, and in the Senate, each member can represent tens of millions (e.g., California). As the population has grown, representation has become distant and impersonal, while procedural rules have tightened the grip of party leadership. Major issues can no longer reach the floor unless the majority party permits it. The link between citizens and decisions has nearly vanished.

      Keep ReadingShow less