Project 2025 August 8th Update

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 examine the links between Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts and Opus Dei and take a look at Russell Vought, one of Project 2025’s principal architects. We’ll expose Project 2025 and Christopher Miller’s frightening plans for the U.S. military, and the grim future for undocumented immigrants and asylum seekers should Project 2025’s plans be implemented. We’ll also hear from Project 2025 supporters Russell Vought, Mike Howell, Charlie Kirk, Ken Cuccinelli, Liz Wheeler, and Jeremy Carl in their own words.

Kevin Roberts, Project 2025, and the Opus Dei Connection

Kevin Roberts, president of The Heritage Foundation, has outlined a disturbing vision for America’s future in his upcoming book Dawn’s Early Light: Taking Back Washington To Save America. Originally scheduled for publication on September 24, RealClearPolitics reports that Roberts has delayed the publication of the book, which features a foreword from J.D. Vance, until after the November elections. “There’s a time for writing, reading, and book tours – and a time to put down the books and go fight like hell to take back our country,” Roberts told the media outlet. “That’s why I’ve chosen to move my book’s publication and promotion to after the election.” 

Nevertheless, his book (Media Matters received a galley copy) and the Christian Nationalist Project 2025 initiative he spearheads represent a determination to reshape American governance according to a staunchly conservative blueprint, with deep ties to the secretive Catholic organization Opus Dei.

At the heart of Roberts’ worldview is the notion that technological and social changes have eroded traditional family structures and values. He takes particular aim at what he terms “contraceptive technologies,” arguing that these innovations have reshaped American culture “away from abundance, marriage, and family.” Roberts writes:

“We need to understand what could be called contraceptive technologies — revolutionary inventions that shape American culture away from abundance, marriage, and family — in the same vein. They shift norms, incentives, and choices, often invisibly and involuntarily.”

Roberts, who is fiercely Catholic, goes further, Media Matters reports, labeling birth control and other forms of reproductive choice as “a snake strangling the American family,” in the upcoming tome. This perspective extends to in vitro fertilization (IVF), which he criticizes for allegedly incentivizing women to delay starting families:

“In vitro fertilization (IVF) seems to assist fertility but has the added effect of incentivizing women to delay trying to start a family, often leading to added problems when the time comes.”

These views align closely with the goals of Project 2025, which advocates for sweeping changes to federal policy on reproductive rights. The project’s broad scope and its deep roots in conservative Catholic thought have drawn attention to the influence of Opus Dei in shaping its agenda.

As The Guardian recently reported, the connection to Opus Dei becomes even clearer when examining Roberts’ recent speech at the Catholic Information Center (CIC) in Washington D.C. in September 2023. The CIC, operated by Opus Dei, has long served as a nexus for conservative Catholic power brokers. Its board of directors includes Leonard Leo, a figure whose impact on American politics cannot be overstated.

Leo, widely believed to be associated with Opus Dei, is known as the judicial kingmaker who has played a pivotal role in reshaping the federal judiciary. More recently, he has turned his attention to Project 2025, funneling hundreds of millions of dollars to partner organizations, including his own, supporting its goals.

At the CIC, Roberts’ speech articulated a vision of government infused with religious purpose, echoing Opus Dei’s central tenet that everyday work can be a path to holiness. He argued for a fundamental reimagining of the role of government employees, envisioning public servants driven by a deep sense of spiritual vocation.

As a former military historian, Roberts’ rhetoric often takes on a militant tone, framing political disagreements in terms of spiritual warfare. At the CIC, he proclaimed:

“Sometimes we just have to fight. And right now we have to fight on religious liberty, in particular religious liberty as it relates to protecting institutions of faith. And that’s not a time for strategic retreat. It’s not a time to be savvy. It’s not a time to be sweet. It’s not a time to develop friendships with the other side. It is a time to take our fist figuratively, Father Charles, and bust them in the nose because they hate what you and I believe.”

This combative approach extends to Roberts’ views on family and procreation. In his book, he frames childlessness as a path to societal decadence:

“That’s a problem because a childless society becomes decadent and nostalgic. Aging, barren societies literally become consumptive, taking on higher levels of debt and depleting savings as they pay foreign workers to keep things going.”

In contrast, Roberts writes that having children is a patriotic duty:

“Getting married and having kids, on the other hand, gives you skin in the game for the future of your country. It forces you to grow up, give up childish things, and live in the real world. It grounds you, gives you a sense of purpose in life, and helps generate community, gratitude, and joy. A culture of children is a culture of hope.”

The views expressed in Roberts’ book and echoed in Project 2025, highly influenced by Opus Dei’s philosophy and supported by figures like Leonard Leo, represent an extreme overreach into personal freedoms and a dangerous blurring of church and state. 

Project 2025’s Russell Vought: The Architect of Conservative Revolution

In the corridors of Washington power, few figures loom as large or as consequential as Russell Vought. A man of fierce conviction and unwavering purpose, Vought has emerged as a pivotal force in shaping the conservative vision for America’s future, most notably through his central role in the ambitious and controversial Project 2025, as Raw Story and the Seattle Times have recently reported.

Born into a blue-collar family in New York and raised in Connecticut, Vought’s upbringing was steeped in the values of hard work, frugality, and devout Christianity. These formative experiences would come to define his worldview and political philosophy, setting the stage for a career dedicated to reshaping the federal government in the image of his conservative ideals.

Vought’s journey to the pinnacle of conservative policy making began at Wheaton College, a bastion of evangelical education. From there, he embarked on a path that would take him through the halls of Congress, where he honed his skills as a fiscal hawk and small-government advocate. His tenure as policy director for the House Republican Conference, under the leadership of then-Representative Mike Pence, further solidified his credentials within conservative circles.

But it was during the Trump administration that Vought truly came into his own. As Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), he found himself at the epicenter of some of the most contentious battles between the executive and legislative branches. From redirecting funds for the border wall to withholding aid to Ukraine, Vought demonstrated a willingness to push the boundaries of executive authority in service of the president’s agenda.

In the aftermath of Trump’s presidency, Vought did not retreat from the political arena. Instead, he founded the Center for Renewing America, a think tank dedicated to advancing the “America First” agenda. This organization would become a crucial player in the development of Project 2025, with Vought contributing an entire chapter of the Mandate for Leadership.

Vought’s fingerprints are all over Project 2025’s most transformative proposals, including reviving a Trump-era policy that would reclassify tens of thousands of federal workers as political appointees, potentially enabling mass dismissals of career civil servants. This aligns with Vought’s vision of consolidating executive power and reducing the influence of what he sees as an entrenched bureaucracy.

At the heart of Vought’s vision, and by extension Project 2025, is a radical reinterpretation of executive power. In Vought’s view, the notion of independent agencies within the executive branch is anathema to the Constitution. This philosophy, if implemented, would bring traditionally independent entities like the Justice Department more directly under presidential control.

Vought’s approach to governance is not merely technocratic; it is infused with a sense of moral and religious purpose. A proponent of Christian nationalism, Vought sees no contradiction between the separation of church and state and the influence of Christianity on government and society. This worldview underpins much of Project 2025’s agenda, reflecting a desire to reshape not just the mechanics of government, but its underlying values and priorities.

Vought’s influence continues to grow. He has been working on a yet-to-be-revealed “180-Day Transition Playbook,” designed to rapidly implement Project 2025’s proposals should a conservative win the White House. His name is frequently mentioned as a potential White House Chief of Staff in a second Trump administration, a position that would give him unprecedented power to enact his vision.

Vought’s rhetoric, like that of Heritage Foundation president Kevin Roberts, reflects the urgency and combativeness of his mission. He speaks of “taming a woke and weaponized federal government” and describes political opposition as “enemy fire that’s coming over the target.” His calls for allies to be “fearless at the point of attack” underscore the confrontational approach he believes is necessary to achieve transformative change.

Critics of Vought and Project 2025 warn that their proposals amount to a recipe for chaos and dysfunction in government. They argue that dismantling long-standing institutions and safeguards could lead to abuses of power and undermine the stability of the federal government.

Regardless of one’s political leanings, it is clear that Vought has positioned himself as one of the most influential conservative thinkers of his generation. Vought stands ready to lead what he sees as a necessary and long-overdue revolution in governance. Whether his vision will come to fruition remains to be seen, but one thing is certain: Russell Vought and Project 2025 have already left an indelible mark on the conservative movement and the broader political landscape. The coming years will determine whether that mark becomes a footnote in history or the beginning of a dark new era in American governance.

Project 2025: A Radical Vision for America’s Military Future

A controversial blueprint in Project 2025 for reshaping America’s national security landscape is stirring debate in policy circles. Project 2025 has a detailed plan for overhauling the Department of Defense. At the helm of this disastrous chapter of Project 2025’s Mandate For America is an unfortunate architect: Christopher Miller, the former acting Secretary of Defense whose tenure during the January 6th Capitol riot raised serious questions about his judgment, the San Francisco Chronicle reports.

This is the same Christopher Miller who headed up the initial drawdown in Afghanistan, leaving the Taliban intact, because that, also, seemed like a good idea, indicating that poor judgment is not a fluke. Also the same Christopher Miller who in January 2021 told reporters during an odd press briefing that  “I still think we have a hangover on a lot of that…high tech, very expensive weapons systems.  And we need to go smaller, swarmy, mass over…quantity over quality, in some cases,” before  adding,  “I cannot wait to leave this job, believe me.”

Miller’s strategically myopic vision for the country’s future, as outlined in the Project 2025 document, represents a seismic shift in U.S. military strategy and global engagement. The plan calls for a dramatic reduction in America’s overseas commitments and a corresponding slash in defense spending by as much as 40 to 50 percent. This proposed downsizing is framed as a necessary corrective to what Miller sees as decades of military overreach and misallocation of resources.

Central to Miller’s argument is the assertion that the U.S. should abandon its role as the leader of the free world, instead positioning itself as merely one great power among many in a multipolar world order. This stance marks a stark departure from the post-World War II consensus that has underpinned American foreign policy for generations. A retreat from global leadership could create a power vacuum, potentially destabilizing regions and emboldening adversaries.

The plan’s treatment of key allies and strategic partnerships has raised eyebrows among foreign policy experts. NATO, the cornerstone of transatlantic security for over seven decades, is given surprisingly short shrift in Miller’s proposal. The document suggests reducing the U.S. force posture in Europe at a time when the alliance faces its greatest challenge since the Cold War in the form of Russian aggression against Ukraine.

During that same 2021 press conference, before the invasion of Ukraine, Miller demonstrated admiration for Russia, telling the media, “I kind of, you know, like professionally I’m like, wow, they’re doing pretty well, and they’re using a lot of irregular warfare concepts, information, all this stuff, in a way that, you know, like…good on them.”

Perhaps most controversially, Miller’s plan reorients U.S. defense strategy to focus almost exclusively on China as the primary threat. While few would dispute the importance of addressing Beijing’s growing military and economic clout, Miller’s singular focus comes at the expense of other critical security challenges. The plan’s relative dismissal of the threat posed by Russia, in particular, is especially concerning given recent geopolitical developments.

A drastic reduction in America’s global military presence could embolden adversaries, weaken key alliances, and ultimately diminish U.S. influence on the world stage and overall global stability.

Project 2025: Reshaping America’s Immigration Landscape

At the forefront of Project 2025’s immigration reform strategy stands Ken Cuccinelli, a figure known for his hardline stance on immigration policy who is currently a senior fellow at Russell Vought’s Center for Renewing America. Cuccinelli, who served as Acting Director of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and later as Acting Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security during the previous administration, has emerged as a key architect of Project 2025’s immigration proposals, Univision reports.

The plan envisions a dramatic overhaul of the current system, proposing the creation of a merit-based immigration framework that prioritizes skills and employment over family ties. This shift represents a stark departure from the longstanding emphasis on family reunification that has been a cornerstone of U.S. immigration policy for decades.

One of the most controversial aspects of Project 2025 is its call for the complete closure of certain immigration benefits programs. This includes proposals to end all Temporary Protected Status designations and severely restrict parole programs, which have provided relief to thousands of individuals fleeing conflict or natural disasters in their home countries.

The document also advocates for a significant expansion of enforcement measures. It recommends increased funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to facilitate a more aggressive approach to locating, detaining, and deporting undocumented immigrants residing in the United States. This enhanced enforcement strategy would be coupled with the construction of additional physical barriers along the southern border and the deployment of advanced surveillance technology.

Perhaps most controversially, Project 2025 suggests deploying military troops to assist in domestic law enforcement related to immigration, a move that would blur the traditional lines between military and civilian operations within U.S. borders.

Cuccinelli’s influence is particularly evident in the proposals related to asylum policy. The plan recommends a stringent review and restriction of asylum and refugee policies, arguing that the current system is subject to abuse. It proposes granting immigration officers greater discretion in determining credible fear claims at the border, potentially making it more difficult for asylum seekers to have their cases heard before an immigration judge.

These proposals align closely with Cuccinelli’s past statements and actions. During his tenure in government, he famously suggested rewriting Emma Lazarus’ poem inscribed on the Statue of Liberty to “Give me your tired and your poor who can stand on their own two feet and who will not become a public charge.” This sentiment is reflected in Project 2025’s emphasis on self-sufficiency and economic contribution as key criteria for admission to the United States.

The document also advocates for increased cooperation between local, state, and federal agencies in enforcing immigration laws, echoing Cuccinelli’s position in 2021 that the National Guard should be deployed to the border. Project 2025 is similarly pushing to restore and expand programs like the 287(g) agreements, which allow local law enforcement to act as de facto immigration agents. Such measures have been controversial in the past, leading to racial profiling and eroding trust between immigrant communities and local police. Arizona’s SB 1070 “Show Me Your Papers” law, passed in 2010, is a prime example of how such policies can go horribly wrong,

Project 2025’s vision for immigration reform extends beyond enforcement and admissions policies. It calls for a comprehensive restructuring of the Department of Homeland Security, potentially dismantling or dramatically reforming the agency to align with its anti-immigration principles. This would represent a significant shift in the federal government’s approach to national security and immigration management.

The plan’s emphasis on a points-based immigration system draws inspiration from countries like Canada and Australia. Under this proposed framework, potential immigrants would be evaluated based on factors such as education, professional skills, and language proficiency,  which would inevitably disadvantage vulnerable populations and undermine family reunification goals.

The ideas put forth in Project 2025 will likely play a significant role in shaping the national conversation on immigration, no matter who wins the 2024 presidential election. As the debate on all forms of immigration unfolds, the nation faces profound questions about its identity, values, and future direction in an increasingly interconnected world.

In Their Own Words

“We have a situation where just because you’re an effective general in the conservative movement, like Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro, you’re going to jail. How is that possible? Right? What, how is it that after 40 years of a conservative movement built up with all these institutions and many different Republican presidents and many different Republican congresses, and we’re on the verge of tyranny, like this stuff didn’t work. We need a different strategy. And that’s what we’ve tried to reorient the country around, which is we have to unite the fiscal battle with the battle to save the country from this woke and weaponized administrative state.”

— Russell Vought preparing for battle on Steve Bannon’s War Room, July 31, 2024

— The Heritage Foundation’s Mike Howell, a self-proclaimed “deportation scientist” on X/Twitter, August 1, 2024

“At the very end of Article One of the Constitution, in what’s called the Compacts Clause, it lists things states may not do except with congressional permission. One of them, not surprisingly, is wage war. Makes sense. Right? You want the whole country in on that. But there’s an exception to that. Except when actually invaded. So the American people believe that’s what, what’s happening on our border is an invasion. That’s not even a close call among the American people. When that happens, those states being invaded, the border states, have war powers.”

— Project 2025 contributor Ken Cuccinelli musing about going to war with Mexico on The Kevin Roberts Show, July 12, 2023.

— Liz Wheeler, a prolific spreader of misinformation and speaker for Project 2025 supporter Young America’s Foundation, on X/Twitter.

“The left does control the commanding heights of culture and they’re able to, to shut down that discussion because it threatens their power, because all of their power, or not all of it, but a tremendous amount of it is about ultimately mobilizing various groups kind of to, you know, to be against whites.”

— Jeremy Carl of Project 2025 supporter the Claremont Institute discussing anti-white racism on The Liz Wheeler Show, August 2, 2024.

“We’re investing, you know, $400 million in minority communities.
Well, that, you know, really means we’re spending $400 million on something that white people are not eligible for.”

— Ibid

“Whites are overwhelmingly the victims not the perpetrators of interracial crimes. And that many of those crimes and particularly sexually related crimes, have an explicitly or implicitly racial valence to them, unfortunately. And the media doesn’t like to talk about that, but it’s there. I think something like 98% of interracial rape murders are black on white.”

— Ibid