Explore Our Latest Project 2025 Updates
Project 2025 Is Here.
With Trump’s return to the presidency, Project 2025, a 920-page plan spearheaded by the powerful and extreme far-right Heritage Foundation, is becoming a reality. More than 100 far-right organizations support this blueprint for autocracy, which now appears to be an important source for Trump’s proposed policies, despite his repeated disavowal of Project 2025 during his campaign. Multiple nominees for the new administration have direct ties to the effort.
Project 2025’s 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, something Trump is keen to achieve. Read GPAHE’s full analysis of Project 2025 and the groups behind it.
GPAHE monitors how Project 2025 is becoming a reality and reports on the ties between the project and the administration, and its impact on the American people and democracy. We track Project 2025 activities at the federal, state, and local level, and their plans for an authoritarian and Christian Nationalist America.
This week we look at Project 2025’s Heritage Foundation and their million-dollar bet on Pete Hegseth, how Project 2025 has arrived early for some military families, and how Democratic governors across the country are quietly preparing for its bleak agenda.
The Shadow Cabinet Trump Said He “Had Nothing To Do With”
The Heritage Foundation, the leading group behind Project 2025, has thrown down a million-dollar gauntlet in Washington’s power game, launching an aggressive campaign to secure Trump’s cabinet picks that reveals the think tank’s evolution from policy shop to political enforcer. While Trump claimed during his campaign that he had “nothing to do with” Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation is now positioning itself as the muscular defender of his presidential prerogatives.
“Taking down the deep state isn’t just a priority for President Trump — it’s the mandate the American people gave him,” declared Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts, framing the stakes in revolutionary terms. “If he succeeds, it will cement his legacy as the president who confronted Washington’s unaccountable bureaucracy and restored power to the people.”
The million-dollar campaign represents a bold evolution in Heritage’s traditional role. Rather than simply producing policy papers, the organization is now explicitly targeting senators’ home states to pressure confirmation votes. This tactical shift demonstrates how Project 2025 has become more than just a 900-page federal policy agenda — it’s emerged as a parallel power structure working to reshape the government itself.
Heritage Action, the foundation’s advocacy arm, has made clear they view this as a mandate for wholesale change. “Under President Trump’s mandate delivered by the American people, Heritage Action and our millions of grassroots conservatives stand ready to support President Trump and his slate of nominees through a swift Senate confirmation process,” said Ryan Walker, the group’s executive vice president.
The immediate battleground is Pete Hegseth‘s nomination for Defense Secretary, where Project 2025’s influence operation is being put to its first major test. Controversies roil around the former Fox News host — including allegations of workplace drinking, anti-Muslim rants, promotion of the “Great Replacement Theory,” mishandling of charity funds and sexual assault — all of which he denies. Heritage is leveraging its financial might to pressure Republican senators who haven’t fallen in line with voting Hegseth in.
Steve Bradbury, a Heritage Foundation distinguished fellow and former Trump administration official, has framed the confirmation battle in stark constitutional terms. “The advice-and-consent function of the Senate is critical to our constitutional system of separated powers, but it should not be used to obstruct the president’s ability to put qualified appointees in place,” he wrote in a press release, suggesting Heritage views Senate scrutiny of nominees as potential obstruction rather than legitimate oversight.
The organization’s approach represents a significant departure from traditional think tank operations. While Heritage has been influential in conservative politics throughout its 50-plus-year history, Project 2025 marks an unprecedented attempt to directly influence Senate votes through targeted pressure campaigns in senators’ home states.
What makes this particularly noteworthy is how it contrasts with Trump’s campaign stance. Despite his public distancing from Project 2025, he has since recruited at least 15 of its architects and supporters, suggesting a behind-the-scenes alignment that belies his earlier disavowal. The Heritage Foundation, for its part, seems unfazed by this contradiction, positioning itself as the vanguard of Trump’s mission to reshape the federal government.
Roberts frames this mission in sweeping historical terms, declaring, “I think we’re in the middle of a re-founding of this country.” Such rhetoric, backed by Heritage’s million-dollar war chest for confirming nominees, signals that Project 2025 isn’t just about individual appointments — it’s about fundamentally transforming how federal power is exercised.
As the Hegseth confirmation battle unfolds, it serves as a proving ground for this new power dynamic. Heritage’s million-dollar campaign represents a declaration that Project 2025 intends to be a kingmaker in Trump’s Washington, regardless of his previous disavowal. In this light, the initiative appears less as a traditional think tank project and more as a shadow transition team, ready to reshape the federal government in ways that could long outlast any single administration.
Project 2025’s Military Assault on Gender-Affirming Care
The House passage of the $895 billion defense policy bill on December 11 reveals how Project 2025‘s vision is materializing ahead of schedule. The NDAA passed with a 281-140 vote, but the bipartisan facade masks a deeper story of Heritage Foundation influence.
House Armed Services Chair Mike Rogers (R-Ala.) inadvertently confirmed Project 2025’s influence when explaining the controversial anti-trans provision to reporters. “We would have 375, 380 votes but for that one provision, which is irrelevant after January 20th.” That date — Trump’s potential inauguration — aligns precisely with Project 2025’s implementation timeline.
The numbers tell the real story. While 81 Democrats supported the final bill, the margin would have been significantly wider without Speaker Mike Johnson’s last-minute addition restricting TRICARE coverage for gender-affirming care. As reported by both Politico and the Washington Blade, Johnson inserted this requirement after committee negotiations had concluded, reflecting Project 2025’s strategy of using administrative leverage points to advance policy goals.
The Heritage Foundation’s influence extends beyond this single provision. Victoria Coates, the foundation’s vice president, praised the bill’s alignment with Project 2025 objectives on December 10.
“The FY25 NDAA takes an important step toward a defense budget that flows from strategy and directs DOD to become as lethal as possible to protect the national security of Americans. These policies in this bill combined with new military leadership will make America stronger,” she wrote in a statement.
For military families, the implications are immediate. While the NDAA dropped some conservative proposals like rolling back abortion travel reimbursement, it maintains a year-long freeze on diversity, equity, and inclusion hiring — another Project 2025 priority. The Christian Nationalist document’s detailed implementation strategy suggests these administrative changes are just the beginning of a broader campaign to reshape military family policy. For LGBTQ+ service members and their families, Project 2025’s influence isn’t a future concern — it’s already reshaping policy.
States of Resistance: Inside the Multi-Front Battle Against Project 2025
From Michigan’s quiet diplomacy to California’s legislative defiance, Democratic-led states are mounting an unprecedented defense against Project 2025, constructing what the ACLU calls a “firewall for freedom” against potential federal overreach. The preparations, months in the making, reveal a sophisticated network of state-level resistance that learns from past confrontations while anticipating new challenges. Some of it involves secretly stocking up on mifepristone, or planning how to react should the National Guard invade their communities rounding up immigrants.
“It would be irresponsible not to anticipate all scenarios,” says New York Governor Kathy Hochul in an interview with CNN. Behind the scenes, governors’ offices are running tabletop exercises, drafting executive orders, and building legal bulwarks against what they view as potential federal encroachment on state authority.
In Michigan, Governor Gretchen Whitmer exemplifies this new approach. Gone is the confrontational stance that once earned her the dismissive label “that woman in Michigan” during COVID pandemic disputes. Instead, she’s pursuing a careful balancing act. “People in Michigan voted for Donald Trump, and my oath is to Michigan,” Whitmer told CNN. “I’ve got experience in this type of environment that will help inform how I continue to fight for Michigan.”
The West Coast is emerging as another center of resistance. Washington State, under outgoing Governor Jay Inslee, says he has already “embedded Trump-proofing to the extent humanly, constitutionally possible,” including blocking immigration officials from elementary schools and preventing medical data sharing.
California’s Gavin Newsom called a special legislative session explicitly to “safeguard California values,” while Los Angeles leads a growing network of sanctuary cities.
In New Jersey, where Democrats control both the statehouse and governor’s office, officials are implementing what the ACLU considers model protections. The state has banned immigrant detention centers, declared itself a sanctuary for transgender individuals, and codified reproductive rights. “This isn’t about simply playing defense. We have to play offense too,” says Amol Sinha, head of ACLU-NJ, as reported by the New Jersey Monitor.
The ACLU’s national leadership has outlined a five-point strategy, according to their public statements: protecting private information, preparing for potential mass deportations, funding abortion care and travel, protecting vulnerable children, and keeping military forces out of law enforcement activities. “Our message to state and local leaders is simple: Just say no to Trump’s radical agenda,” says Deirdre Schifeling, ACLU’s chief political and advocacy officer.
Even purple states are quietly joining the preparation effort. Pennsylvania and Wisconsin are conducting vulnerability assessments, while Minnesota’s Governor Tim Walz faces calls for a special legislative session. “Really, we have no idea what’s coming down the pike,” Kansas Governor Laura Kelly, chair of the Democratic Governors Association said.
Some governors are taking a more diplomatic approach, CNN reports. New York’s Hochul has already initiated direct communication with Trump, appealing to his New York roots in discussions about Penn Station improvements. Others are making similar overtures to Mar-a-Lago, hoping to maintain access to federal resources and grants.
The stakes are particularly high for states with significant immigrant populations or strong environmental initiatives. Michigan’s clean energy manufacturing sector, Washington’s tech industry, and New Jersey’s diverse population of over two million immigrants all face potential disruption under Project 2025’s proposed policies, according to state assessments and the New Jersey Monitor‘s reporting.
“There are lines that cannot be crossed,” Hochul tells CNN, capturing the delicate balance Democratic governors are trying to strike between cooperation and resistance.
