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 The Fulcrum's cross-partisan analysis of Project 2025 relies on unbiased critical thinking, reexamines outdated assumptions, and uses reason, scientific evidence, and data in analyzing and critiquing Project 2025.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 Its thousands of recommendations include specific executive orders to be repealed or implemented.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

      Two volunteers standing in front of a table with toiletries and supplies.

      Mutual aid volunteers hand out food, toiletries and other supplies outside the fence of Amphi Park in Tucson, which was closed recently over concerns about the unsheltered population that previously lived there.

      Photo by Pascal Sabino/Bolts

      Facing a Crackdown on Homelessness, Two Arizona Cities Offer Different Responses

      In August, fewer than 250 voters cast a ballot in a South Tucson recall election targeting the mayor and two allies in the city council. The three officials, Mayor Roxnna “Roxy” Valenzuela and council members Brian Flagg and Cesar Aguirre, form a progressive coalition in the small city’s leadership. Outside government, they also all work with Casa Maria, a local soup kitchen that provides hundreds of warm meals daily and distributes clothing, toiletries and bedding to the city’s unhoused population.

      It was their deeds providing for the homeless population that put a target on their back. A political rival claimed their humanitarian efforts and housing initiatives acted as a magnet for problems that the already struggling city was ill-equipped to handle.

      Keep ReadingShow less
      From Nixon to Trump: A Blueprint for Restoring Congressional Authority
      the capitol building in washington d c is seen from across the water

      From Nixon to Trump: A Blueprint for Restoring Congressional Authority

      The unprecedented power grab by President Trump, in many cases, usurping the clear and Constitutional authority of the U.S. Congress, appears to leave our legislative branch helpless against executive branch encroachment. In fact, the opposite is true. Congress has ample authority to reassert its role in our democracy, and there is a precedent.

      During the particularly notable episode of executive branch corruption during the Nixon years, Congress responded with a robust series of reforms. Campaign finance laws were dramatically overhauled and strengthened. Nixon’s overreach on congressionally authorized spending was corrected with the passage of the Impoundment Act. And egregious excesses by the military and intelligence community were blunted by the War Powers Act and the bipartisan investigation by Senator Frank Church (D-Idaho).

      Keep ReadingShow less
      In and Out: The Limits of Term Limits

      Person speaking in front of an American flag

      Jason_V/Getty Images

      In and Out: The Limits of Term Limits

      Nearly 14 years ago, after nearly 12 years of public service, my boss, Rep. Todd Platts, surprised many by announcing he was not running for reelection. He never term-limited himself, per se. Yet he had long supported legislation for 12-year term limits. Stepping aside at that point made sense—a Cincinnatus move, with Todd going back to the Pennsylvania Bar as a hometown judge.

      Term limits are always a timely issue. Term limits may have died down as an issue in the halls of Congress, but I still hear it from people in my home area.

      Keep ReadingShow less
      “It’s Probably as Bad as It Can Get”:
A Conversation with Lilliana Mason

      Liliana Mason

      “It’s Probably as Bad as It Can Get”: A Conversation with Lilliana Mason

      In the aftermath of the killing of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, the threat of political violence has become a topic of urgent concern in the United States. While public support for political violence remains low—according to Sean Westwood of the Polarization Research Lab, fewer than 2 percent of Americans believe that political murder is acceptable—even isolated incidence of political violence can have a corrosive effect.

      According to political scientist Lilliana Mason, political violence amounts to a rejection of democracy. “If a person has used violence to achieve a political goal, then they’ve given up on the democratic process,” says Mason, “Instead, they’re trying to use force to affect government.”

      Keep ReadingShow less