SHARE
SHARE
Explore Our Latest Project 2025 Updates
Project 2025 is a 920-page plan spearheaded by the powerful and extreme far-right Heritage Foundation. More than 100 organizations support this blueprint for autocracy. Their stated goal is to create an “ideal” America that would see women, LGBTQ+ people, immigrants, people of color, and others deprived of their hard-won constitutional rights and the erosion of environmental and education protections. It also advocates for a frightening centralization of power in the executive branch. Rooted in hate and Christian Nationalism, the plan promises to “rescue the country.” Read GPAHE’s full analysis of Project 2025 and the groups behind it.
GPAHE tracks the activities of those behind Project 2025, and their plans for an authoritarian and Christian Nationalist America, no matter who is president, and the groups in this extremist movement are relentlessly implementing initiatives at local, state, and federal levels.
This week we look at how Project 2025 threatens Latinos, a leaked Project 2025 training video, how the Supreme Court is quietly implementing Project 2025’s agenda, and Project 2025’s waning popularity. We’ll also hear outbursts from Hans von Spakovsky, Charlie Kirk, Kevin Roberts, Michael Anton, and Moms for Liberty members disrupting Nevada school board meetings.
Project 2025 Threatens Latino Progress in America
The League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), the nation’s oldest and largest Hispanic civil rights organization, has raised alarm bells over the potential consequences of Project 2025 for the Latino community. In a recent statement, LULAC leadership characterized the Heritage Foundation’s initiative as a grave threat to decades of progress made by Latinos in the United States.
Domingo Garcia, National President of LULAC, emphasized the organization’s concerns: “Project 2025 represents a coordinated effort to roll back critical protections and opportunities that our community has fought hard to secure. We at LULAC are deeply troubled by the wide-ranging negative impacts this initiative could have on Latino families, workers, and businesses.”
LULAC’s analysis of Project 2025 highlights several areas of particular concern. On the immigration front, the organization warns that the project’s proposals could tear families apart and create an atmosphere of fear in Latino communities. “The suggested expansion of deportation efforts and the reinstatement of policies like ‘Remain in Mexico’ would not only separate families but also deter Latinos from accessing essential services out of fear of immigration enforcement,” stated Sindy Benavides, LULAC’s Chief Executive Officer.
The organization is equally concerned about Project 2025’s potential impact on education. LULAC has long championed educational opportunities as a pathway to advancement for the Latino community. However, the project’s proposed overhaul of the Department of Education, including potential cuts to federal student aid programs, could put higher education out of reach for many Latino students.
“Education has always been the great equalizer,” said Dr. Johanna Pino, LULAC’s National Education Chair. “By potentially reducing access to financial aid and undermining support for diverse curricula, Project 2025 threatens to slam shut the doors of opportunity for countless young Latinos.”
In the realm of healthcare, LULAC points out that Project 2025’s vision could reverse significant gains made by the Latino community under the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The organization cites statistics showing that the uninsured rate among Latinos dropped from 26.2% to 14.9% between 2013 and 2022, largely due to the ACA and Medicaid expansion. “Dismantling the ACA and cutting Medicaid expansion, as proposed by Project 2025, would be devastating for Latino health outcomes,” warned Dr. Elena Rios, a LULAC healthcare advisor and president of the National Hispanic Medical Association.
LULAC also expresses deep concern over the economic implications of Project 2025. The organization argues that the initiative’s deregulatory agenda could disproportionately affect Latino workers, who are overrepresented in industries such as construction and hospitality. “While we support economic growth, it cannot come at the expense of worker safety and fair labor practices,” stated Elsie Valdes, LULAC’s national vice president for the Northeast.
Furthermore, LULAC criticizes Project 2025’s skepticism towards programs supporting minority-owned businesses. “Latino entrepreneurs are a driving force in our economy, but they still face significant barriers in accessing capital,” said Justin Vélez-Hagan, a LULAC economic policy advisor. “Any rollback of support for minority-owned businesses could stifle Latino economic empowerment and innovation.”
In response to these challenges, LULAC is mobilizing its extensive network of councils and members across the country. The organization is launching a comprehensive campaign to educate the Latino community about the potential impacts of Project 2025 and to encourage civic engagement.
“We cannot stand idly by while our community’s future is threatened,” declared Garcia. “LULAC calls on all Latinos and allies to unite in opposition to the regressive policies outlined in Project 2025. Our power lies in our unity, our voice, and our vote.”
The organization is planning a series of town halls, voter registration drives, and advocacy days to ensure that the Latino perspective is heard loud and clear in policy debates. LULAC is also reaching out to coalition partners across the civil rights spectrum, recognizing that the challenges posed by Project 2025 extend beyond the Latino community.
As the 2024 election cycle approaches, LULAC emphasizes the critical role that Latino voters will play in shaping the nation’s future. “The Latino electorate has the power to reject the vision put forth by Project 2025 and to demand policies that reflect our values of inclusivity, opportunity, and justice,” said Benavides.
LULAC’s message is clear: the stakes for the Latino community in the face of Project 2025 could not be higher. The organization is committed to fighting against what it sees as a roadmap for regression and to advancing an alternative vision that builds on, rather than dismantles, the progress Latinos have made in American society.
As this debate unfolds, LULAC stands firm in its century-long commitment to advancing the civil rights and opportunities of Latinos in the United States. The organization’s response to Project 2025 is not just about opposing a set of policies; it’s about affirming the vital role of Latinos in shaping a more inclusive and equitable American future.
The Hidden Agenda: Inside Project 2025’s Plan to Reshape America
In a startling revelation, a leaked training video from Project 2025 has exposed a concerted effort to radically alter the language and policies of the federal government. The video, one of 23 released on August 10, 2024 by ProPublica and Documented that features former Trump administration officials Katie Sullivan and Bethany Kozma, outlines a comprehensive strategy to erase years of progress on civil rights, environmental protection, and social justice.
Sullivan, general counsel for the 1792 Exchange and a senior fellow at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, both Project 2025 supporters, was acting assistant attorney general at the DOJ, a senior advisor at the White House Domestic Policy Counsel, and the acting director of the Office on Violence Against Women at the DOJ, according to her bio. The 1792 Exchange rates some 3,000 businesses on how likely they are to cancel a contract or deny services to someone with different political or religious beliefs. “The Corporate Bias Ratings report is intended to help allies choose vendors and service providers. It is our sincere hope corporate America moves back to neutral and gets out of the business of political and ideological debates,” their website explains.
For example, retailer Abercrombie & Fitch is deemed a “high risk” for cancellation because the company’s policies include covering transgender medical procedures for employees and dependents, using “gender ideology” in various business practices, and mandates ideological training.
Kozma is a conservative activist and former Trump administration official known for her stance on gender-related issues. She served as the senior advisor for women’s empowerment at the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). Kozma gained prominence for her opposition to transgender-inclusive bathroom policies in Fairfax County, Virginia, schools and for advocating against Obama-era guidelines allowing transgender students to use bathrooms matching their gender identity. “The safety of bathrooms and other intimate facilities must be protected from predators seeking any vulnerability to commit heinous criminal acts,” the then stay-at-home mom wrote in an opinion piece for the Daily Signal in 2016.
Kozma joined the Trump administration in 2017 at USAID and played a significant role in promoting conservative causes globally, including efforts to remove references to sexual and reproductive health from United Nations documents. She is currently on the board of advisors of Project 2025 supporter the American Family Project, which evaluates members of the House of Representatives as “pro-family” or “anti-family.” These scorecards rate politicians on how they uphold AFP values, such as “AFP discourages murdering children in any form,” “AFP favors sexuality as God has made it,” and opposing DEI and climate change policies.
The training video, clearly intended for future political appointees, reveals a disturbing blueprint for dismantling what they call “left-wing code words and language” across all levels of government.
Seated in armchairs with copies of the Mandate for Leadership and a model of the White House on an end table between them, the same setting as the September 2023 Project 2025 promotional video in which longtime Trump advisor Stephen Miller appears, the two women read from a teleprompter as they attempt to decode and annihilate progressive concepts.
Sullivan opens the video with a chilling statement: “Hi, I’m Katie Sullivan and just a normal American woman, but to the left that makes me a cisgendered, ethno, imperialist birthing person with pronouns. She, her. Words like that are quite a mouthful and it’s one America needs to spit out before we choke on it.”
This inflammatory rhetoric sets the tone for an hour-long presentation that pits “politicals” or political appointees against “careers,” career civil servants of which Project 2025 aims to fire tens of thousands and replace with conservative loyalists.
Kozma and Sullivan’s presentation outlines a systematic approach to purging federal agencies of language related to gender equality, reproductive rights, climate change, and racial equity. The speakers frame these concepts not as advancements in civil rights and scientific understanding, but as insidious attempts to undermine American values.
Perhaps most alarming is the video’s focus on dismantling protections for marginalized communities. Kozma states, “The word gender is no longer a polite way to refer to biological sex, male or female. The word now is completely toxic.” She goes on to advise future appointees to “never use the word gender as conservatives” and instead use only “biological sex or male and female.”
This regressive stance extends to reproductive rights as well. The presenters advocate for removing terms like “reproductive health” and “reproductive rights” from all federal documents, framing these as code words for abortion. Sullivan asserts, “The left got very creative years ago and started using different words to make abortion sound a little less like murder,” adding later in the video, “Bethany, it’s incredible how the left is able to make killing children and babies a pro movement.”
The video also takes aim at environmental protections, with Sullivan mockingly recounting past environmental concerns: “I remember when I was in school, um, in, uh, elementary school, we were taught that we were all gonna be frozen over by an ice age. And of course, this was terrifying. And then in the eighties, it was acid rain. We were all gonna die from the acid rain. And then it moved to global warming,” she quipped. “And then science comes along and disproves the global warming theory in large part, and we have one of the most frigid winters ever known. And then the next thing you know, they’re calling it climate change. Now, I always understood that climate change meant seasons. Our climate does change all the time, but of course, that’s not what’s meant by the left.”
The presenters go so far as to link environmental concerns with population control, with Kozma recounting a disturbing anecdote: “When I arrived at USAID, I had a career employee ask me how many children I had. I thought it was a bit odd of a question, but to be kind, I answered. And I said, I had three children. And he actually said to me, ‘oh wow, one and a half too many for the environment,’” she says. “I think about the people who don’t want you to have children because of the impact on the environment. Perhaps not everyone will make that connection, but after spending time in the international space trying to protect life, I can tell you that this is part of their ultimate goal to control people.”
The training also reveals a strategy to roll back progress on racial equity. Sullivan states, “Equity no longer means all men are created equal, the cornerstone of our U.S. Constitution, but rather now mandates the government to dispense with unequal treatment in order to achieve what they believe to be equal outcomes. This creates divisiveness, not equality.”
This mischaracterization of equity efforts as promoting “unequal treatment” rather than addressing systemic inequalities is a common tactic used by Christian nationalists to undermine civil rights initiatives, DEI, and further their “anti-white racism” claims.
The presenters outline a detailed plan for future federal appointees to implement these changes, including scrutinizing all documents for “dangerous language,” rewriting grant applications, and changing internal processes. Sullivan advises, “Create a system where nothing goes out, nothing is published, nothing is put on your website without review by a delegated political or the principal of any office.”
This level of micromanagement and ideological policing within federal agencies could lead to a paralysis of government functions and a rollback of decades of progress on civil rights, environmental protection, and social justice.
The video concludes with a call to action from Heritage President Kevin Roberts: “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 regulations, and piece of legislation that exists,” she reads from Roberts’ foreword to the Project 2025 Mandate for Leadership playbook, adding, “Are you up for this challenge? We think you are. Together let’s conquer the monsters in Uncle Sam’s attic.”
As this training video, “Hidden Meanings: The Monsters in the Attic,” makes clear, Project 2025 is not simply a think tank exercise, but a comprehensive blueprint for reshaping the federal government in ways that could fundamentally alter American society. The leak of these videos reinforces the need for vigilance in protecting the progress that has been made on civil rights, environmental protection, and social justice in the face of a conservative onslaught.
The Silent March of Project 2025: How the Supreme Court is Reshaping America
A consequential story is unfolding in the hallowed chambers of the Supreme Court. Project 2025, the ambitious blueprint for reshaping American governance, aimed at installing Christian nationalist policies and rolling back civil rights, is already being quietly implemented through a series of landmark rulings.
While public attention has been captivated by culture war flashpoints, the Court’s conservative majority has been steadily laying the groundwork for a profound transformation of the American legal landscape. This transformation aligns eerily well with the stated goals of Project 2025, raising questions about the invisible hands guiding the Court’s agenda, Salon reported on August 12, 2024.
The Snyder v. United States decision represents a startling redefinition of political corruption. By narrowing the definition of bribery to exclude “after the fact” payments, the Court has effectively given a green light to a new era of quid pro quo politics. This ruling dovetails neatly with Project 2025’s vision of a strong executive empowered to reward loyalty without legal consequence.
The erosion of the administrative state, another key pillar of Project 2025, found expression in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. By overturning the long-standing Chevron doctrine, the Court has dealt a body blow to federal regulatory agencies. This decision, ostensibly about herring fisheries, carries profound implications for environmental protection, workplace safety, and a host of other regulatory domains. It shifts power away from subject matter experts and into the hands of generalist judges, potentially hamstringing future administrations’ ability to address pressing national challenges.
“In one fell swoop, the majority today gives itself exclusive power over every open issue—no matter how expertise-driven or policy-laden—involving the meaning of regulatory law,” Justice Elena Kagan wrote in her dissent. “As if it did not have enough on its plate, the majority turns itself into the country’s administrative czar.”
The advance of Christian nationalism, a central tenet of Project 2025, has been bolstered by rulings in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, where the court found that choosing not to do business with LGBTQ+ people is an expression of free speech rather than blatant discrimination, and Elenis and Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, in which a high school football coach successfully sued for the right to hold a prayer session on the field after each game. These decisions have expanded the scope of religious expression in public life, reinterpreting the First Amendment to allow for greater entanglement of faith and state.
The Court’s willingness to elevate religious liberty claims over anti-discrimination protections signals a sea change in the balance between competing rights, and reflects the court’s majority conservative Catholic makeup, thanks to conservative funder and influencer Leonard Leo, who has been stacking the court since 1991. Leo, who funnels hundreds of millions of dollars into Project 2025 supporters, is on the board of directors of Washington D.C.’s Catholic Information Center, operated by the prelature of Opus Dei since 1993.
Perhaps most notably, the Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade has reshaped the legal landscape around reproductive rights in a manner fully consonant with Project 2025’s objectives. By rejecting decades of precedent on privacy and bodily autonomy, the Court has opened the door to a new era of state-level restrictions on reproductive healthcare.
While each of these rulings has sparked individual controversy, their cumulative effect has received insufficient attention. Taken together, they represent a coherent judicial program that closely mirrors the aspirations of Project 2025, Christian nationalism, and Catholic integralism, which believes in the integration of politics and religion. This alignment raises troubling questions about the independence of the Court, the separation of church and state, and the influence of well-funded ideological networks on the judiciary.
The fossil fuel industry’s fingerprints on this judicial revolution cannot be ignored. Several justices have well-documented ties to oil and gas interests, from family land leases to long-standing relationships with industry organizations. These connections cast a shadow over rulings that consistently favor deregulation and undermine climate action, also a major part of Project 2025’s agenda.
The stakes of Supreme Court reform have never been higher. Proposals for term limits, ethics reforms, and rebalancing the Court’s composition take on new urgency in light of these developments. Project 2025, far from being a mere think-tank fantasy, is already reshaping American law from the bench. The silent implementation of this radical agenda demands our attention and our action, lest we wake up in 2025 to find ourselves in a nation transformed beyond recognition.
Project 2025 Faces Headwinds Across the Political Spectrum
In the ever-shifting landscape of American politics, Project 2025 has emerged as a focal point of debate. Despite its origins as a roadmap for a potential conservative administration, recent polling data suggests that the project is facing significant challenges in garnering public support, even among its intended base.
As ABC News reported, recent polls conducted for the University of Massachusetts Department of Political Science and The Economist have revealed a growing awareness of Project 2025 among the American electorate.
However, this increased familiarity has been accompanied by a marked decline in favorability across party lines. The project, which outlines sweeping conservative and far-right policy proposals, appears to be struggling to resonate with voters, raising questions about its viability as a political platform.
Perhaps most striking is the erosion of support within Republican circles. Recent Navigator Research surveys indicate that net favorability for Project 2025 has dropped by nine percentage points among self-identified MAGA supporters and by a more substantial 17 points among other Republicans.
The specific policy proposals within Project 2025 have also come under scrutiny. Policies such as reducing federal civil rights protections for LGBTQ+ individuals and withdrawing approval for certain medications have faced particularly strong headwinds. Even traditionally popular conservative positions, such as bolstering border security, have received only lukewarm support when framed within the context of Project 2025.
This widespread skepticism has not gone unnoticed by political strategists on both sides of the aisle. Democrats, sensing an opportunity, have begun to emphasize criticism of Project 2025. Meanwhile, some Republicans, including Trump, have sought to distance themselves from the project. In an era of increasing polarization, the reception of Project 2025 serves as a reminder that voters across the political spectrum remain engaged and discerning when it comes to detailed policy proposals.
In Their Own Words
“It’s people who are in favor of abortion who deny the basic humanity of developing life in the womb the same way slave owners denied the basic humanity of the men, women, and children that they owned. So, I mean, if there’s anyone who resembles in attitude the slave owners of the old South, it’s Kamala Harris and her compatriots who all support basically abortion with no limit.”
— Heritage Foundation Senior Fellow and Project 2025 contributor Hans von Spakovsky on the Marc Cox Morning Show, July 25, 2022.
“We don’t merely seek an exit from the system; we are coming for the curriculums and classrooms of the remaining public schools, too.”— Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts explaining his vision of education in his upcoming book Dawn’s Early Light, per Media Matters.
“I’ll state it extra clearly for the FBI: I am a parental rights extremist.”
— Ibid.
“The problem is that our schools have been transformed from institutions designed to cultivate children’s souls into godless assembly lines meant to shape obedient little comrades who think morality is a construct and nature is an illusion.”
— Ibid.
“Right now, parents’ rights must be jealously guarded because America’s teachers have gone insane. The reason many parents are having to reassert their rights is that teachers are trying to enforce a truly radical agenda, one that assumes that reality is a social construct.”
— Ibid.
“It might seem to average American parents as though our current educational environment is a passing fad. In fact, it’s the result of a hundred years of plotting by progressives who want to create generations of obedient drones.”
— Ibid.
“The idea that the framers intended to extend citizenship to anyone whose parents snuck across our border is absurd and betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the nineteenth-century American mind.”
— Project 2025 coauthor Michael Anton on birthright citizenship on August 1, 2024, in The American Mind. Anton is a research fellow at Hillsdale College, a senior fellow at the Claremont Institute, and a former national security official in the Trump administration.
“The ceaseless importation of Third World foreigners with no tradition of, taste for, or experience in liberty means that the electorate grows more left, more Democratic, less Republican, less republican, and less traditionally American with every cycle. As does, of course, the U.S. population.”
— Michael Anton in his 2016 essay The Flight 93 Election.
“By affirming gender dysphoria instead of treating it you’re normalizing mental illness. Pedophilia is also a mental illness. With so much inclusivity, why would you leave out pedophiles?”
— Moms for Liberty Clark County chapter vice chair Lorena Biassotti at a school board meeting on September 28, 2023
