In the run-up to the 2024 and 2025 election cycles, progressive activists and many Democratic officials elevated Project 2025—a 920-page transition handbook and personnel pipeline assembled by The Heritage Foundation and more than 100 allied conservative groups—into a campaign centerpiece.
Press releases, television ads, and fundraising e-mails warned that the document was the “playbook for a Trump-Vance dictatorship,” portraying it as a scheme to outlaw abortion, end civil-service protections, and suppress dissent on “Day One.”
Yet political transition manuals are not unique to the Right; every recent Democratic administration has been buoyed by comparable blueprints from progressive think-tanks.
To assess whether Democrats wielded Project 2025 primarily as a fear tactic, we must (1) examine the document and its authors, (2) map parallel efforts on the Left, and (3) weigh claims about “deep-state” resistance and presidential overreach in the Obama, Clinton, and Biden years.
What Project 2025 Is—and What It Is Not
Heritage’s Core Ideals
Heritage’s formal mission is to “formulate and promote public policies based on free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.”
Those same principles animate Mandate for Leadership 2025, the project’s flagship volume. Its foreword lists four governing aims:
- Restore the family as the centerpiece of American life.
- Dismantle the administrative state.
- Defend national sovereignty and borders.
- Secure God-given individual rights.
Kevin Roberts—The “Cowboy Catholic” Behind the Effort
Kevin Roberts, Heritage’s president since 2021, is a historian and former Wyoming Catholic College president. Reporters note his outspoken embrace of Christian nationalism (“pursuit of blessedness, not mere happiness”) and admiration for figures such as Viktor Orbán.
Roberts argues that the federal leviathan has become “weaponized” against faith, family, and liberty; his Catholic anthropology therefore grounds a policy agenda aimed at reviving subsidiarity, parental authority, and border integrity.
The Coalition
By February 2024 the Project had enrolled 100 partner organizations, ranging from the Alliance Defending Freedom to the Conservative Partnership Institute and Focus on the Family. Heritage supplied project management; specialists from groups such as the Center for Renewing America drafted chapter-length agency roadmaps; former Trump OPM chief Paul Dans built a database of vetted appointees.
4. Advisory, Not Binding
Neither Donald Trump nor any other Republican nominee is legally bound to adopt the plan, a point Heritage itself concedes. Trump’s campaign released its own Agenda 47 and, when pressed, insisted that Project 2025 is merely “one of many outside recommendations.”
Democrats’ “Dystopia” Narrative
Project 2025 became the centerpiece of a narrative that warned voters of an impending “dictator on day one.” Examples include:
| Democratic Source | Core Claim |
|---|---|
| ACLU explainer (July 2024) | Blueprint to “replace the rule of law with right-wing ideals,” resurrect the Comstock Act, and authorize mass surveillance |
| DNC rapid-response (Sept 2024) | “Gut checks and balances, ban abortion nationwide, rig the economy for billionaires.” |
| Jackson Advocate op-ed | “Ripped from a dictator’s playbook … demolishes checks and balances.” |
The pattern mirrors conventional “Mediscare” tactics (e.g., senior-citizen mailers claiming Republicans will eliminate Medicare). The most sensational charges—for instance, that the plan would “criminalize miscarriages” or “abolish voting rights”—rely on extrapolations rather than text.
Heritage’s immigration chapter indeed recommends reinstating Schedule F to expedite removal of hostile bureaucrats, and its HHS chapter urges vigorous Comstock enforcement, but neither proposal is self-executing; each would require statute changes or litigation.
Conflating “think-tank wish list” with “certain policy” thus served an electoral purpose: mobilizing turnout through fear.
Progressive Analogues to Project 2025
| Year | Left-leaning Blueprint | Sponsoring Organization | Scope |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020 | Biden-Sanders Unity Task Force Recommendations (110 pp.) | Biden and Sanders campaigns + DNC platform committee | Climate, criminal justice, immigration, health care; identifies 277 unilateral actions a president can take |
| 2020 | First 100 Days Series | Center for American Progress | Whole-of-government policy memos on racial equity, LGBTQ policy, national security, energy |
| 2021-25 | Roosevelt Institute “New Progressivism” reports (e.g., A 100-Day Progress Report) | Roosevelt Institute | Industrial policy, permitting reform, climate finance |
| Indivisible Guide 2.0 (2024 edition) | Indivisible | Field manual for grassroots activists; warns of “Project 2025” but also lays out methods to pressure agencies |
These documents share several traits with Heritage’s effort:
- Personnel is policy. CAP and Roosevelt each maintain fellowship programs that seed agencies with ideologically aligned staff, mirroring Project 2025’s “Presidential Personnel Database.”
- Executive-centric governance. The CAP and Indivisible guides catalogue hundreds of actions a progressive president can execute without Congress—precisely the power-consolidation critics decry in Project 2025.
- Values-driven worldview. Whereas Heritage foregrounds faith, family, and national sovereignty, the progressive blueprints center “environmental justice,” “racial equity,” and “care work” as cross-cutting priorities.
Thus, Project 2025 is less a unique authoritarian coup plan than the Right’s answer to a playbook Democrats have refined since the Clinton era.
The Embedded Bureaucracy Debate
Heritage’s personnel chapters argue that career staff often “slow-walk” directives—a complaint echoed by every modern president but felt acutely by Trump. Brookings Institution analyst Elaine Kamarck notes that Trump “believed senior officials were slow-walking or even blocking his initiatives,” though she doubts the scale of resistance Conservative accounts catalog explicit leaks, regulatory holds, and inspector-general maneuvers that hampered first-term priorities.
Project 2025 recommends reviving Schedule F, an excepted-service category that would allow appointees to reclassify policy-influencing employees and dismiss them at will. Critics warn this would politicize the civil service and end merit protections supporters counter that entrenched partisan activism already erodes neutrality.
Democratic Administrations and Bureaucratic Leverage
| Administration | Illustrative Tactics |
|---|---|
| Clinton (1993-01) | Record-setting wave of “midnight regulations” in the final weeks of 2000 (26,500 Federal Register pages) |
| Obama (2009-17) | Public vow to use “a pen and a phone” to bypass Congress, issuing DACA, Clean Power Plan, and Deferred Action for Parents via executive action |
| Biden (2021-25) | Day-one regulatory freeze, climate executive orders, whole-of-government DEI and “environmental justice” mandates |
Each Democratic White House relied heavily on agency rulemaking and guidance to entrench policy priorities, demonstrating that bureaucratic power is hardly an innovation of the Right. The contention, then, is not whether presidents shape the bureaucracy but whose values prevail.
Why Trump Is Not “Bound” by the Plan
Project 2025 explicitly states that it is a “collective effort … not necessarily shared by all” contributors. Donald Trump’s advisers emphasize that he reserves the right to ignore any recommendation and pursue Agenda 47. In practical terms:
- Statutory limits. Abolishing the Department of Education or resurrecting the Comstock Act requires congressional action or litigation.
- Personnel bottlenecks. Even with a Schedule F order, converting 50,000 civil-service roles would take months and face court challenges.
- Political calculus. Presidents weigh electoral repercussions; full adoption of contentious provisions (e.g., nationwide abortion restrictions) could imperil swing-state support.
Thus, while the document is a sophisticated reconnaissance map—flagging “landmines” for any conservative executive—it does not lock Trump into a “dictator” path.
Conclusion
Democrats and their media allies did, in fact, deploy Project 2025 as a potent fear narrative, framing it less as a think-tank proposal than as a guaranteed blueprint for authoritarian rule.
Yet an honest comparison shows that progressive organizations have long produced similar tomes—Unity Task Force, CAP’s First 100 Days, Roosevelt’s industrial-policy dossiers—all designed to steer Democratic presidents toward sweeping executive action.
It is an established characteristic of Democrats to cry foul and accuse Republicans of malicious behavior for the same activities they themselves have practiced. With regards to Project 2025, Donald Trump is not a President entering his first term anyways….American citizens can be assured that he was exposed to the political landscape already through his first term.
I doubt the content of Project 2025 was a surprise to him.
Heritage’s effort reflects the same premise: elections are short, bureaucracies are vast, and personnel equals policy. Its distinctive features are openly Christian anthropology and an aggressive civil-service reform agenda. Whether those ideas are wise or workable is a matter for voters and courts—yet the charge that merely drafting them heralds a dictatorship ignores decades of parallel strategy on the Left.
Recognizing that both camps field transition “war rooms” should cool apocalyptic rhetoric and refocus debate on the substantive merits of each policy vision rather than on exaggerated specters of tyranny.
S.D.G.,
Robert Sparkman
rob@christiannewsjunkie.com
RELATED CONTENT
Concerning the Related Content section, I encourage everyone to evaluate the content carefully.
If I have listed the content, I think it is worthwhile viewing to educate yourself on the topic, but it may contain coarse language or some opinions I don’t agree with.
Feel free to offer your comments below. Respectful comments without expletives and personal attacks will be posted and I will respond to them.
Comments are closed after sixty days due to spamming issues from internet bots.
You can always send me an email at rob@christiannewsjunkie.com if you want to comment on something afterwards, though.
If you have evidence that I am wrong about a material statement of fact, provide the evidence and I will gladly review it and make revisions if merited. Obviously, there are some assertions that are matters of opinion that I will not change, but I always strive to be truthful.
I will continue to add videos and other items to the Related Content section as opportunities present themselves.
I highly recommend these Youtube channels for good content on politics and news from a Christian and/or conservative worldview: Actual Justice Warrior, Albert Mohler, Allie Beth Stuckey, Bill O’Reilly, Campus Reform, Charlie Kirk, Daily Wire, Don’t Walk Run! Productions, Forgotten History, Founders Ministries, Fox News, GBNews (UK), Heritage Action, Hugh Hewitt, James Klug, John Anderson Media (Australia), Joshua Carr, Landeur (UK), Matt Walsh, Michael Knowles, Nate Friedman, National Conservatism, National Review, New York Post, Nick Freitas, Nick Shirley, NTD News, Red Eagle Politics, Ruthless Podcast (language warning), Scott Jennings, Sky News Australia, The Hot Zone with Chuck Holton, and Verdict withTed Cruz.