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 the shocking resignation of Project 2025 director Paul Dans, Project 2025’s racist contributors, the conservative right’s embrace of “self-deportation,” and the dark money funding Project 2025.
The Unraveling of Project 2025? Director Paul Dans Announces His Resignation
In a significant development that underscores the shifting political landscape, Paul Dans, the director of Project 2025 has stepped down from his role at the Heritage Foundation. This move comes as the project faces increased scrutiny and criticism from the Trump campaign, Democratic opponents, media, and civil and human rights organizations.
Under this increasing criticism, Project 2025 has found itself on the defensive and recently updated its website to include a page on “debunking the lies” about Project 2025.
Kevin Roberts, president of the Heritage Foundation, confirmed Dans’ departure on Tuesday to CBS News, praising his two-year tenure and the project’s accomplishments. “Under Paul Dans’ leadership, Project 2025 has completed exactly what it set out to do: bringing together over 110 leading conservative organizations to create a unified conservative vision,” Roberts stated. “We set a timeline for the project to conclude its policy drafting after the two-party conventions this year, and we are sticking to that timeline,” he added.
It is doubtful that Project 2025’s policy work will end as Roberts and reporting have suggested.
Former President Donald Trump has also publicly distanced himself from the project and its comprehensive policy agenda, claiming on July 5, 2024 “I know nothing about Project 2025. I have no idea who is behind it,” despite the fact that Project 2025 was written by, and has undeniable ties to, Trump’s inner circle. Dans himself was an official under the Trump administration.
According to media reports, the negative attention brought by Project 2025’s ties to Donald Trump has long angered the former president, who threatened that those associated with it would not be considered for positions in a potential Trump White House.
In response to news of Dans’ departure, the Trump campaign told the Washington Post that “reports of Project 2025’s demise would be greatly welcomed and should serve as notice to anyone or any group trying to misrepresent their influence with President Trump and his campaign — it will not end well for you.”
The timing of Dans’ exit, announced just hours after he appeared on Steve Bannon’s War Room defending Project 2025, just over a week after The Intercept reported that seven conservative organizations have vanished from the Project’s roster of supporters, is of note.
Dans’ War Room segment July 30 was entitled “The Disinformation Campaign Against Project 2025.” Dans appeared weary but gave no indication of the announcement to come.
“This project’s about restoring self-governance. It’s about putting Americans back in the room of their own government. What it isn’t about is drag queens running around on the south lawn of the White House and being saluted as the bravest people,” Dans told the War Room’s co-host (subbing for the imprisoned Steve Bannon) about three hours before the news of his imminent departure from Project 2025 broke. “Now the bravest people were the ones who fought and died and sacrificed for this country over 200 years, and it’s not what we’re seeing with the blasphemy of the Olympics and this really diabolical group.”
Shortly thereafter, the Daily Beast broke the news of his departure and Dans announced his resignation through a letter he posted to social media.
Roberts, who appears to be taking over leadership at Project 2025, suggests that Dans will continue the fight to turn the United States into a Christian Nationalist autocracy in a different role.
“Paul, who built the project from scratch and bravely led this endeavor over the past two years, will be departing the team and moving up to the front where the fight remains,” Roberts posted to social media. “Project 2025 will continue our efforts to build a personnel apparatus for policymakers of all levels — federal, state, and local.”
Project 2025’s Undeniable Racist and Eugenics Ties
Project 2025’s blueprint for a potential future conservative administration has come under intense scrutiny. At the heart of the controversy are the backgrounds and ideologies of several key contributors, with at least five having documented histories of racist writings, statements, or associations with white supremacist activities, a USA Today investigation revealed.
Perhaps the most notorious among these is Richard Hanania, a right-wing author who has gained prominence in conservative circles as an “anti-woke crusader,” and is a contributor to Project 2025’s Mandate for Leadership playbook. Hanania’s past reveals a deeply troubling history. A 2023 Huffington Post investigation uncovered that Hanania, writing under the pseudonym “Richard Hoste,” authored numerous racist essays for white supremacist publications in the early 2010s.
Hanania was a frequent contributor to racist and antisemitic websites like The Occidental Observer and AlternativeRight.com. His articles promoted scientific racism, eugenics, and white nationalism.
“We’ve known for a while through neuroscience and cross-adoption studies… that individuals differ in their inherent capabilities. The races do, too, with whites and Asians on the top and blacks at the bottom,” Hanania wrote as Hoste in a 2010 essay titled “Why An Alternative Right Is Necessary.”
“If we want to defend our liberty and property, a low-IQ group of a different race sharing the same land is a permanent antagonist,” he wrote in a 2010 article in the white nationalist Counter-Currents that advocated for ethnic cleansing of non-white migrants.
Hanania as Hoste also frequently argued that Black people are inherently less intelligent than white people. He claimed that Black people have “low intelligence and impulse control” and that “Race mixing is like destroying a unique species or piece of art. It’s shameful.”
Perhaps most disturbingly, Hanania openly advocated for eugenics and forced sterilization. In a 2011 article titled “Answering Objections to Eugenics,” he proposed forcibly sterilizing people with IQ scores under 90. He argued this was justified because “Letting the unintelligent breed is as surely damaging to society as letting schizophrenics run loose.”
Hanania appears to have stopped writing under the “Hoste” pseudonym in the mid-2010s as he pursued academic credentials. He earned a law degree from the University of Chicago and a Ph.D. in political science from UCLA.
In recent years, writing under his real name, Hanania has cultivated relationships with conservative media figures and Silicon Valley elites. He’s been published in The Wall Street Journal and interviewed by Tucker Carlson. Tech billionaire Peter Thiel had high praise for Hanania’s 2023 book, The Origins of Woke, writing “DEI will never d-i-e from words alone — Hanania shows we need the sticks and stones of government violence to exorcise the diversity demon,” he wrote in an online review of the book,
While Hanania has moderated his language, he continues to make racially-charged statements. In a May 2023 tweet, he wrote: “We need more policing, incarceration, and surveillance of black people. Blacks won’t appreciate it, whites don’t have the stomach for it.”
Hanania also frequently cites and praises Steve Sailer, a white nationalist writer who has claimed Black people “tend to possess poorer native judgment than members of better-educated groups.”
While Hanania has acknowledged and partially renounced this past in an August 2023 essay ( “The reason I’m the target of a cancellation effort is because left-wing journalists dislike anyone acknowledging statistical differences between races,” he wrote), his inclusion in Project 2025 raises serious questions about the ideological underpinnings of the manifesto. Notably, Hanania has connections to prominent Republicans, including Senator J.D. Vance, who described him as a “friend” and “really interesting thinker” in a 2021 interview.
Another Project 2025 contributor with a controversial history is Corey Stewart, a failed Virginia GOP Senate candidate. Stewart has long associated himself with white supremacists and positions himself as a defender of Confederate heritage. At a 2017 “Old South Ball” in Virginia, Stewart proudly stood next to a Confederate flag, stating, “That flag is not about racism, folks, it’s not about hatred, it’s not about slavery, it is about our heritage.”
Stewart’s campaign for the U.S. Senate in 2018 was marred by associations with white supremacists, including Jason Kessler, one of the organizers of the infamous Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Va. The New York Times reported that several of Stewart’s aides and advisers had used racist or anti-Muslim language or maintained links to outspoken racists.
Michael Anton, a former senior national security official in the Trump administration, is another Project 2025 contributor with a history of promoting racist ideologies. Anton has written in support of the “Great Replacement” — a racist conspiracy theory that claims powerful elites are intentionally changing America’s demographics through immigration. In a 2016 essay published under the pseudonym Publius Decius Mus (the name of a Roman consul) Anton wrote, “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.” Anton has also authored several essays arguing for the end of birthright citizenship, arguments that have been widely criticized as factually incorrect and racially motivated, or as Slate put it, “Racist, Ahistorical Gobbledygook.”
Anton contributed to the Mandate for Leadership chapter on the “Executive Office of the President of the United States.” He is a fellow at Project 2025 supporters Hillsdale College and the Claremont Institute.
Stephen Moore, another Project 2025 contributor who co-authored the section of the Mandate for Leadership focused on the Department of the Treasury, withdrew from consideration for the Federal Reserve Board in 2019 amid scrutiny over racist jokes and commentary.
Moore had made a joke about Trump removing the Obamas from public housing when he took office, a remark widely perceived as racist. In a television interview, Moore’s attempts to clarify the joke only exacerbated the controversy. The fallout from this incident, combined with concerns about Moore’s history of writing articles viewed as disparaging toward women, ultimately led him to withdraw his name from consideration for the Federal Reserve Board.
Jason Richwine of the Center for Immigration Studies, whose 2009 Ph.D. thesis argued that Hispanic immigrants have lower IQs than white native citizens, is also listed as a contributor to Project 2025. Richwine’s thesis, titled “IQ and Immigration Policy,” includes statements such as: “No one knows whether Hispanics will ever reach IQ parity with whites, but the prediction that new Hispanic immigrants will have low-IQ children and grandchildren is difficult to argue against.” Richwine’s work has been roundly criticized as racist and scientifically unsound. The controversy surrounding his research led to his resignation from the Heritage Foundation in 2013, although they turned to his expertise when crafting Project 2025.
The inclusion of these five individuals in Project 2025 has alarmed many observers and raised serious questions about the ideological foundations of the manifesto. Critics argue that their involvement taints the entire project, suggesting that its proposals — which include abolishing diversity programs, restricting abortion access, and dismantling social safety net programs — may be rooted in racist ideologies rather than sound policy considerations.
The presence of individuals with documented histories of racist rhetoric or associations in such a high-profile conservative project raises profound questions about the direction of far-right politics in America and the potential implications for marginalized communities should these ideas gain further traction.
The Resurrection of Self-Deportation: A Repugnant Strategy Gains New Life
In the realm of American immigration policy, an old and contentious idea is experiencing a surprising resurgence, the New York Times reported. Self-deportation, once dismissed as a fringe concept, has found new champions in conservative think tanks and policy circles. At the forefront of this revival is Project 2025’s Heritage Foundation, alongside other far-right and anti-immigrant groups, breathing new life into a strategy that has roots deep in America’s complicated history with immigration.
The concept of self-deportation is deceptively simple: make living conditions for undocumented immigrants so unbearable that they choose to leave the country voluntarily. It’s an approach that harkens back to some of the darkest chapters in American history, most notably the forced “repatriation” campaigns of the Great Depression era. During that time, at least 500,000 people were forcibly removed from the United States, with about half of them being U.S. citizens of Mexican descent. This historical precedent serves as a stark reminder of the human cost such policies can exact.
Ironically, the modern incarnation of self-deportation began not as a serious policy proposal, but as a satirical jab at anti-immigrant sentiment. In 1994, as California grappled with Proposition 187 — a ballot initiative aimed at denying illegal immigrants access to state-run hospitals and schools — two Mexican-American comedians, Lalo Alcaraz and Esteban Zul, decided to fight absurdity with absurdity, The New York Times reported.
They created a fictional conservative activist named Daniel D. Portado (a play on “deportado,” Spanish for “deported”) to mock the proposition’s supporters. Their satirical campaign gained unexpected traction when Telemundo, a Spanish-language television channel, invited the fictional Portado to appear on a show defending Proposition 187.
Alcaraz, playing Portado, and Zul, as his bodyguard, maintained their ruse throughout what Zul later described as “the longest half-hour of my life.”
The comedians’ satire was so convincing that it may have inadvertently shaped the language of actual immigration policy debates. Alcaraz believes that California’s then-governor Pete Wilson only began using the term “self-deportation” after their satirical news releases introduced it to the political lexicon.
What began as a joke, however, soon took on a life of its own. Anti-immigrant organizations such as FAIR, CIS, and NumbersUSA, collectively known as the Tanton Network, began promoting self-deportation as a serious strategy. The concept gained further traction in 2011 when Alabama passed a sweeping immigration law that served as a real-world test of the self-deportation theory.
The bill’s sponsor, Rep. Micky Hammon, was unambiguous about its intent: “This bill is designed to make it difficult for them to live here so they will deport themselves.” The law’s provisions were far-reaching, affecting everything from school enrollment to basic legal protections.
Initially, the Alabama law appeared to achieve its goals, prompting an exodus of immigrant families. However, the unintended consequences soon became apparent. Severe labor shortages damaged the state’s economy, with crops rotting in fields and investments stalling. Ultimately, the state was forced to water down many of the law’s restrictions, highlighting the complex interplay between immigration policy and economic realities.
Despite these cautionary tales, the concept of self-deportation has proven remarkably resilient. In 2012, self-deportation gained national attention when then-presidential candidate Mitt Romney promoted this policy during a presidential debate, marking a significant moment in the concept’s journey from satire to mainstream political discourse. However, the proposal faced significant media backlash, with The Washington Post‘s editorial board dismissing it as a “fantasy.”
In a twist of irony that echoed the original Portado satire, the day after Romney’s speech saw the launch of a new initiative.
A group calling themselves Patriots for Self-Deportation launched selfdeport.org, described as a “resource for patriotic Americans who wish to set an example of responsible citizenship by proving their own rights to remain in this great nation.” The website urged Americans to take a close look at their own family trees.
“A surprising number of authentic patriots have found in their own genealogical searches that one or more of their ancestors came here or stayed here illegally, and yet continued to make a living in this country and have children who in turn became instant citizens,” the group’s press release stated. “Some patriots, faced with this moral dilemma, have decided to set an example for others.”
This initiative, much like the original Portado character, was actually another layer of political satire. It was created by the Yes Lab at NYU’s Hemispheric Institute, designed to raise awareness about the absurdness of the concept of self-deportation. However, once again, what was intended as biting satire was embraced by some on the right as a serious proposal.
This pattern of satire morphing into conservative policy reached its apex in 2018 when self-deportation gained traction within the United States government. The shift included controversial measures such as separating children at the border and intensifying immigration raids.
Today, the Heritage Foundation stands at the forefront of efforts to revive and legitimize self-deportation as a cornerstone of immigration policy. In February 2024, the organization proposed requiring public schools to collect data on students’ immigration status and charge tuition for children who are undocumented or have a parent without legal status.
This proposal directly challenges the landmark Supreme Court ruling in Plyler v. Doe, which has protected the educational rights of immigrant children for four decades. The case originated in 1975 when Texas enacted a law preventing undocumented children from attending public school. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that such restrictions violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Heritage Foundation, however, argues that Plyler v. Doe is an “ill-considered” policy with “no basis in law” and should be overturned. Unaccompanied minor immigrants should be required to pay public school tuition, as should children of undocumented parents. They claim that enrolling undocumented minors who crossed the border in 2023 would cost $2 billion annually, and by making it difficult or impossible for these children to attend school, they hope to both save money and discourage future illegal immigration.
Supporters of stricter immigration policies see an opportunity in the current makeup of the Supreme Court. With a solid conservative majority, some believe the time is ripe for a challenge to Plyler v. Doe. The strategy mirrors the successful effort to overturn Roe v. Wade, suggesting that a state could pass legislation in line with the Heritage Foundation’s proposals, inviting a lawsuit that would eventually reach the Supreme Court.
The potential consequences of such a policy shift are far-reaching. Beyond the immediate impact on immigrant families, denying education to a significant portion of the population could have long-term effects on the economy and social fabric of the country. It also raises serious ethical questions about punishing children for the actions of their parents and the role of education in society.
As the debate over self-deportation continues to evolve, it serves as a potent reminder of the complex interplay between policy, satire, and social change. What began as a joke has become a serious proposal with potentially far-reaching, harmful consequences. The resurgence of self-deportation as a policy proposal reflects the rightward shift in the immigration debate, transforming what was once considered a fringe idea into a topic of mainstream conservative discussion.
Whether these proposals will gain traction beyond think tanks and policy papers remains to be seen. However, their mere presence in the debate signals a significant change in the political landscape. As America grapples with its identity as a nation of immigrants, the controversy surrounding self-deportation serves as a stark reminder of the ongoing tensions between inclusivity and exclusion, between the promise of the American dream and the realities of immigration policy.
In the end, the story of self-deportation — from satire to serious policy consideration — encapsulates the often surreal nature of American political discourse. It challenges us to consider the power of ideas, even those born in jest, to shape the lives of millions and the future of a nation.
The Shadowy Network Fueling Project 2025: Dark Money and the Conservative Blueprint
In the labyrinthine world of American politics, a new force is quietly reshaping the landscape of conservative power. Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation’s playbook for overhauling the federal government under a potential conservative administration, has emerged as a flashpoint in the ongoing debate over the future of American governance. While Project 2025’s proposed policies garner headlines, an equally intriguing story unfolds behind the scenes — one of shadowy financial networks and influential donors bankrolling this potential revolution in governance.
At the heart of this financial ecosystem lies a complex web of donor-advised funds, family foundations, and wealthy individuals, all united in their vision of a dramatically reshaped American government. These entities have poured millions into the conservative organizations responsible for crafting Project 2025, often operating in the shadows and leveraging financial mechanisms that obscure the true source of their influence.
The rise of donor-advised funds as a pivotal force in channeling dark money to conservative causes exemplifies the growing confluence of opaque financial mechanisms and political ambition. These funds have become a preferred vehicle for wealthy donors seeking to influence policy while maintaining anonymity. As The Lever reported, in 2023 alone, four of the largest donor-advised fund sponsors — Vanguard, Fidelity, Charles Schwab, and the National Philanthropic Trust — collectively donated $4.3 million to the Heritage Foundation, a significant increase from $2.7 million in the previous year.
The National Christian Foundation (NCF) emerges as a key player in this funding network. Between 2016 and 2023, NCF channeled nearly $134 million to 32 organizations on Project 2025’s advisory board, including substantial sums to anti-LGBTQ+ and anti-woman groups like the Alliance Defending Freedom and the American Family Association.
The Christian Community Foundation, also known as WaterStone, directed nearly $14 million to 13 groups behind Project 2025 from 2015 to 2023, with a notable surge in giving during the blueprint’s development phase, according to a Baptist News Global (BNG) investigation.
Another significant contributor, The Signatry, has funneled over $62 million to 26 organizations involved in Project 2025 since 2020. The majority of this funding — $43.5 million — was concentrated in 2022 and 2023, coinciding with the project’s creation. This pattern of giving suggests a coordinated effort to support the blueprint’s development, with many recipient organizations receiving funds from The Signatry for the first time.
Beyond these larger entities, a constellation of family foundations linked to Heritage Foundation board members has exerted significant influence, The Lever reports. The Diana Davis Spencer Foundation, helmed by Heritage board member Abby Spencer Moffat, directed $15 million to 16 organizations behind Project 2025 between 2020 and 2022. In February 2023, The Foundation pledged $25 million to the Heritage Foundation, $5 million a year through 2027.
The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, along with its sister organization the Bradley Impact Fund, channeled $61.4 million to 17 nonprofits involved in the project, while also supporting right-wing media outlets and climate science denial groups, BNG reports.
Traditional donors have not been absent from this financial landscape. The Adolph Coors Foundation, a long standing supporter of conservative causes, continues to play a significant role. “There wouldn’t be a Heritage Foundation without Joe Coors,” said Edwin J. Feulner, a former Heritage president. Beer magnate Joe Coors’s initial $250,000 donation helped found the Heritage Foundation in 1972 and set the stage for decades of support, with Heritage remaining one of the Coors Foundation’s featured projects.
The intricate structure of these funding networks reveals a sophisticated strategy for exerting political influence while minimizing public scrutiny.
This makes it increasingly difficult to trace the flow of money and influence, raising concerns about transparency and accountability in philanthropic and political processes. The concentration of giving around the period of Project 2025’s development suggests a strategic alignment of resources to support this Christian Nationalist vision, potentially shaping American governance from behind the scenes.
As the 2024 election approaches, understanding this financial ecosystem becomes crucial for voters and policymakers alike. Project 2025 is not merely a set of authoritarian policy proposals; it represents the culmination of years of strategic philanthropy aimed at fundamentally altering the American political landscape. The document’s potential to reshape government operations makes its backers’ identities and motivations a matter of significant public interest.
