Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
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 The Fulcrum's cross-partisan analysis of Project 2025 relies on unbiased critical thinking, reexamines outdated assumptions, and uses reason, scientific evidence, and data in analyzing and critiquing Project 2025.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 Its thousands of recommendations include specific executive orders to be repealed or implemented.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

      People wearing vests with "ICE" and "Police" on the back.
      The latest shutdown deal kept government open while exposing Congress’s reliance on procedural oversight rather than structural limits on ICE.
      Getty Images, Douglas Rissing

      Where Can Immigration Enforcement Take Place?

      This nonpartisan policy brief, written by an ACE fellow, is republished by The Fulcrum as part of our partnership with the Alliance for Civic Engagement and our NextGen initiative — elevating student voices, strengthening civic education, and helping readers better understand democracy and public policy.

      The Origins: The Clinton Administration

      Keep ReadingShow less
      The Iran war could shape American policy for decades

      U.S. forces patrol the Arabian Sea near M/V Touska on April 20, 2026, after firing upon the Iranian-flagged vessel that the U.S. accused of attempting to violate the U.S. naval blockade of Iranian ports near the Strait of Hormuz.

      (U.S. Navy/Getty Images/TNS)

      The Iran war could shape American policy for decades

      The war with Iran that never really ended is back on. Like everybody else, including the Trump administration and the Iranian regime, I have no idea how it will end. But it eventually will, and how it will be remembered will matter enormously.

      Politics is about many things, but whether you call it “spin,” “framing” or “narrative competition,” storytelling is never far from the heart of it. As the philosopher Richard Rorty observed, “Competition for political leadership is in part a competition between differing stories about a nation’s self-identity, and between differing symbols of its greatness.”

      Keep ReadingShow less
      Presidential powers: Corporate abuses big concern after SCOTUS move

      An oil production operation is shown in North Dakota. With the U.S. Supreme Court granting more presidential powers to the executive branch, environmental groups warned key agencies will have a harder time going after polluters.

      (Adobe Stock)

      Presidential powers: Corporate abuses big concern after SCOTUS move

      A U.S. Supreme Court opinion issued last month expands presidential power over independent federal agencies, prompting warnings from environmental advocates about potential implications for states such as North Dakota.

      The court’s conservative majority said President Donald Trump had the authority to fire a former Federal Trade Commission member without cause. Legal observers countered the opinion nullifies longstanding precedent involving the role of Congress in insulating certain federal agency officials from direct presidential control.

      Keep ReadingShow less
      6 US Cities that Show America What Independent Leadership Looks Like

      Image: Downtown Riverside, California. By Matt Gush on Alamy.

      Provided: Image license obtained and used exclusively by IVN Editor Shawn Griffiths.

      6 US Cities that Show America What Independent Leadership Looks Like

      Independent candidates face structural barriers at every level of American politics—ballot access restrictions, fundraising disadvantages, and the near-total dominance of two-party infrastructure. The problem is only getting more stark with recent rulings such as this week’s NRSC v. FEC, where the Supreme Court ruled that First Amendment considerations bar limits on how much money political parties can spend in support of their candidates.But the absence of independent officeholders is not absolute. At the local level, a number of mayors governing major American cities have been elected outside of party structures, winning competitive races and building governing records, showing American voters what independent leadership can mean.

      While some of these officeholders are more closely affiliated with major parties than others, they have all publicly spoken on their independence.

      Keep ReadingShow less