Bold claim: Project 2025 reshaped Trump’s approach more than you might expect. When Donald Trump delivers his State of the Union address, he’s likely to spotlight his first-year policies, but one item probably won’t appear: Project 2025.
In the run-up to the 2024 election, Trump publicly distanced himself from Project 2025—a 900-page policy wish list from the Heritage Foundation that many saw as a blueprint for a second term. “I have no idea who is behind it,” he said at the time. “I disagree with some of the things they’re saying and some of the things they’re saying are absolutely ridiculous and abysmal.” That distancing followed a backlash from Democratic opponents.
Now that Trump is in the White House, several ideas from Project 2025 appear to have moved into reality. Liberal groups tracking the president’s second term say roughly half of the document’s proposals have been enacted, citing different methodologies that converge on roughly the same figure.
Key enacted proposals include:
- Halting billions of dollars in foreign aid
- Rolling back federal diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs
- Expanding immigration enforcement
- Ending federal funding for NPR and PBS
The section on immigration imagined appointing military forces to seal borders, ending protected enforcement zones around schools and churches, conducting broad workplace enforcement against undocumented workers, and increasing detention capacity. These elements mirror policies the administration has pursued.
On foreign policy, Project 2025 touched on Venezuela and broader regional dynamics. A chapter on foreign affairs stops short of calling for Maduro’s removal, but it frames Venezuela as a case to pressure abusive actors while supporting the Venezuelan people. It also flags neighboring South American nations—Colombia, Guyana, and Ecuador—as either regional security risks or vulnerable to outside pressure from powers like China and Russia, urging the United States to lead these democracies in facing external threats and local security concerns.
The 2025 National Security Strategy likewise casts China as a principal adversary. In its Western Hemisphere section, it contrasts two futures: an American-led world with sovereign, free economies versus a parallel order influenced by adversaries abroad.
Commentators differ on Project 2025’s trajectory. Dans argues the document resonated with Trump’s base and views its demonization by Democrats as a strategic error that misread voters’ hopes for the next four years. He also warns that sweeping executive powers—some expanded in tandem with Project 2025—could be used by future administrations to pursue very different agendas if Democrats regain the White House.
Kiley adds a cautionary note: political power shifts back and forth, and today’s liberals could one day hold the White House just as conservatives do now. He suggests that the next swing in power will inevitably reshape how these policies evolve.
Others see opportunity in the counterfactual: if Democrats regain the White House, they could craft a comprehensive policy document with left-leaning priorities, using Project 2025 as a catalyst to articulate a different, more broadly supported vision for governing. James Goodwin of the Center for Progressive Reform says this moment could be a chance to rebuild with clearer, consensus-driven ideas that improve policy without getting trapped in partisan rancor.
What do you think: should current policy follow Project 2025’s blueprint, adapt its ideas for a broader coalition, or reject it altogether? Is there a middle ground where specific reforms can be pursued with bipartisan support, or are these ideas inherently polarizing? Share your perspective in the comments.
