Project 2025 October 29th 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 look at Project 2025’s plans to reinstate Schedule F and restrict freedom of the press, its connections to the Only Citizens Vote Coalition, and how private conversations reveal the true nature of Project 2025’s disdain for the fundamentals of democracy.

The New McCarthyism: Watchlists and the Return of Schedule F

In an alarming escalation of efforts to dismantle the federal civil service, a Heritage Foundation-funded organization has published a “DHS Bureaucrat Watchlist” targeting Department of Homeland Security employees deemed insufficiently loyal to conservative causes, The Revolving Door Project reports. Complete with a tip line for reporting “subversive bureaucrats,” the list represents the most overt step yet in laying the groundwork for a revival of Trump’s Schedule F executive order, which removes employment protections from career government employees, and a return to the kind of political targeting that characterized the McCarthy era.

The watchlist, created by the Project 2025-supporter the American Accountability Foundation with $100,000 in Heritage Foundation funding, provides a chilling preview of how Schedule F could be weaponized in a second Trump term. Unlike the 2020 version of Schedule F, which was rushed through in Trump’s final months, Project 2025’s architects are methodically preparing lists of both career employees to remove and loyalists to install in their places.

The implementation of Schedule F would represent the most dramatic overhaul of federal workforce rules since the 1883 Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act. The original order, signed by Trump in October 2020 but quickly rescinded by Biden, would have stripped employment protections from up to 50,000 federal workers by reclassifying them as at-will employees. While ostensibly targeting “policy-determining” positions, the order’s broad scope encompassed administrative staff and technical experts — essentially anyone whose work touched policy implementation could be fired without cause.

The historical parallels are striking. The Pendleton Act emerged after President James Garfield’s 1881 assassination by a frustrated office seeker who believed he deserved a government job for supporting Garfield’s campaign. That killing crystallized public revulsion with the corrupt spoils system, where federal jobs were political rewards rather than professional positions. The resulting reforms established merit-based hiring, competitive examinations, and protections against political firings — precisely the safeguards that Project 2025 now seeks to dismantle.

Project 2025 seeks to reverse this progress. Beyond the DHS watchlist, Heritage Foundation staffers are filing a flurry of strategic Freedom of Information Act requests seeking communications containing terms like “climate equity” and “voting rights” — building dossiers on career employees who could be targeted for removal. A database of vetted replacements stands ready, while conservative legal scholars develop theories to bypass civil service protections.

The implications extend far beyond personnel changes. By replacing expertise with political loyalty, Schedule F would fundamentally alter how federal agencies operate. Career civil servants currently provide continuity and institutional knowledge across administrations. They offer technical expertise and objective analysis that helps governments of both parties implement policies effectively. Converting these positions to political appointments would make agencies extensions of White House political operations rather than professional bureaucracies.

“Creating watchlists of so-called subversives inside government is a tactic straight out of the McCarthy era,” warned Everett Kelley, president of the American Federation of Government Employees. “Far from doing anything to improve government, this shameful, un-American behavior makes it more difficult to attract top talent to important government positions.”

The immediate impact would likely mirror what happened when Trump relocated the Bureau of Land Management’s headquarters to Colorado in 2020, Talking Points Memo reports. Over 75 percent of affected staff chose to leave their jobs rather than relocate, gutting the agency’s institutional knowledge. Policy updates ground to a halt as vacancies went unfilled under hiring restrictions. 

For agencies like the EPA, FDA, or Department of Justice, such changes could hamstring enforcement of regulations and laws regardless of what remains on the books. Even seemingly apolitical functions like weather forecasting or food safety inspections could be compromised if scientific integrity is subordinated to political demands. The civil service system emerged precisely because the spoils system had proven disastrous — agencies lacked continuity and expertise, while corruption flourished as political appointees prioritized party interests over public service.

The DHS watchlist suggests this transformation could happen far more quickly and thoroughly than many realize, despite safeguards the Biden administration has put into place. 

Rather than gradual policy shifts, career federal employees could face immediate pressure to demonstrate political loyalty or risk placement on public watchlists — a modern echo of McCarthy-era blacklists. For an administration armed with Schedule F authority, such lists could serve as ready-made guides for systematic purges of career expertise from federal agencies.

This groundwork extends beyond individual agencies. Conservative media outlets regularly vilify career federal employees as “deep state” operatives, while right-wing legal scholars develop theories to bypass civil service protections. The goal seems to be creating both the legal framework and public acceptance for a wholesale purge of the civil service.

These developments represent an insidious crisis. The civil service, for all its flaws, provides continuity and professional expertise that enables effective governance across administrations of both parties. The preparations being made today through watchlists, personnel databases, and legal theories suggest this transformation could be implemented with unprecedented speed and scope, fundamentally altering how the American government operates, and not for the better.

Project 2025: A Blueprint to Restrict Press Freedoms

Recent proposals from Project 2025 partner The Claremont Institute reveal an ambitious strategy to fundamentally alter the legal landscape governing American journalism. At the heart of their approach lies a direct challenge to New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, the 1964 Supreme Court decision that has served as journalism’s shield against libel lawsuits by public figures for six decades.

In Claremont’s The American Mind, the Institute’s Carson Holloway outlines a three-pronged approach that would marshal executive power to dismantle these press protections. The plan would weaponize the Department of Justice to actively seek Sullivan‘s reversal through strategic court filings, while simultaneously ramping up public rhetoric against the current libel standard. This would be paired with continued appointments of judges viewed as sympathetic to overturning the precedent.

Some groundwork for such a shift already exists within the Supreme Court. Conservative Justices Thomas and Gorsuch have previously signaled openness to reconsidering Sullivan. The Claremont proposal would seek to build on this foundation, explicitly drawing parallels to the strategy that led to Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization and the reversal of Roe v. Wade.

Beyond the direct assault on Sullivan, the blueprint includes broader mechanisms that could pressure news organizations. A Media Matters report highlights a renewed interest in leveraging broadcast license renewals as a point of pressure — a strategy that could find support from Trump-appointed FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr, who authored Project 2025’s FCC policy chapter.

The implications for newsrooms would be profound. Without Sullivan‘s “actual malice” standard, media organizations would face a radically different risk calculation when reporting on public figures. Stories that today pass legal review might never see publication under a restored pre-Sullivan framework, where even good-faith errors could trigger ruinous litigation. Voices critical of the reigning political regime would be easily silenced.

This press strategy dovetails with Project 2025’s broader vision for executive power and a shared emphasis with Claremont on dismantling what they view as obstacles to presidential authority. The Mandate for Leadership envisions a Justice Department explicitly aligned with presidential priorities rather than operating with traditional independence.

Critical to implementation would be Project 2025’s personnel strategy. Their database of pre-vetted candidates, combined with proposed civil service reforms, would staff key agencies with officials predisposed to advance these changes. This includes positions at the Justice Department and FCC that could influence both the legal landscape and regulatory environment for news organizations.

The framework represents more than just another round of press criticism — it’s a comprehensive strategy to reshape the legal and regulatory environment in which journalism operates. By targeting foundational protections while simultaneously building pressure through regulatory channels, the approach would create multiple vectors of vulnerability for news organizations and drive the country further down the road to authoritarianism.

Inside the Only Citizens Vote Coalition and Project 2025 Connections

A new investigation by Issue One reveals deep structural ties between the Only Citizens Vote Coalition (OCVC) and Project 2025, with shared leadership, overlapping funding networks, and coordinated infrastructure that illuminates how these initiatives intersect.

At the center of both efforts stands Cleta Mitchell, whose fingerprints appear across the coalition’s organizational framework. Mitchell holds leadership positions in three Project 2025 supporter organizations that are also part of the OCVC: she chairs the Public Interest Legal Foundation, presides over the Election Integrity Network, and serves as senior legal fellow and secretary at the Conservative Partnership Institute. Her role as a contributor to Project 2025’s “Mandate for Leadership” document bridges these parallel efforts.

The coalition’s financial architecture reveals sophisticated networks of donor-advised funds and conservative organizations. Issue One tracked over $590 million flowing to coalition members since January 2020, with the Schwab Charitable Fund emerging as the dominant donor at $328 million. DonorsTrust contributed $80 million, while the Bradley Impact Fund provided $31 million. These donor-advised funds, which allow individuals to receive immediate tax deductions while directing grants over time, obscure the ultimate sources of much of this funding.

The organizational overlap between the coalition and Project 2025 runs deep, with approximately one-quarter of the coalition’s 80-plus member organizations directly involved in Project 2025’s planning efforts. This convergence appears most clearly in shared leadership positions. Linda McMahon serves on America First Works’ board and chairs the America First Policy Institute. Former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows holds positions as senior partner at the Conservative Partnership Institute and director of the State Freedom Caucus Network.

The coalition’s largest beneficiary, the 85 Fund, which houses the Honest Elections Project, received $413 million from seven donor organizations — accounting for 70 percent of all identified funding. This concentration of resources through a single entity demonstrates how these networks can channel substantial funding while maintaining organizational separation.

Ed Corrigan exemplifies the interconnected leadership structure. A veteran of the Heritage Foundation and former Trump transition team leader, Corrigan now serves as president and CEO of the Conservative Partnership Institute while holding director positions at the America First Legal Foundation, State Freedom Caucus Network, Immigration Accountability Project, and Citizens for Renewing America.

Ken Blackwell similarly spans multiple organizations, serving on the Public Interest Legal Foundation’s board while holding leadership positions with the Council for National Policy, Center for Urban Renewal and Education, Conservative Action Project, and the America First Policy Institute’s Center for Election Integrity.

The funding patterns reveal strategic coordination through shared financial infrastructure. Mitchell’s Election Integrity Network provides a telling example: in 2022, it received 99.99% of its $753,255 funding from just two other coalition members—the Conservative Partnership Institute and Citizens for Renewing America.

Through this complex web of organizations, the coalition and Project 2025 share resources and infrastructure while maintaining distinct legal entities. Major donor-advised funds like Schwab Charitable, DonorsTrust, and Bradley Impact Fund support organizations involved in both initiatives, creating multiple channels for coordinated activity.

The sophistication of these organizational networks demonstrates careful attention to legal structure and operational efficiency. By maintaining separate organizations while sharing leadership and resources, these groups have created a robust infrastructure for coordinating activities across multiple entities. The overlapping membership between the Only Citizens Vote Coalition and Project 2025 reveals not just shared goals, but shared mechanisms for achieving them through interlocking organizational networks and funding channels.

This architectural framework shows how modern political organizations can maintain distinct legal identities while operating as part of larger, coordinated networks. Through careful structuring of leadership positions, funding flows, and organizational relationships, these initiatives have created multiple pathways for resource sharing and strategic alignment while preserving the independence of individual member organizations.

Private Conversations Reveal Russell Vought and Project 2025’s Plans to Transform the Federal Government

Newly revealed videos of Russell Vought, obtained by ProPublica, offer a stark glimpse into the mindset of Project 2025’s chief architect. Speaking to private audiences in 2023 and 2024, the former Trump budget chief outlined his vision for fundamentally restructuring the federal bureaucracy through what he characterizes as necessary “trauma.”

“When they wake up in the morning, we want them to not want to go to work because they are increasingly viewed as the villains,” Vought told his audience, describing his intended impact on career civil servants. His specific target in this instance was the Environmental Protection Agency, adding, “We want their funding to be shut down so that the EPA can’t do all of the rules against our energy industry because they have no bandwidth financially to do so.”

As the head of the Center for Renewing America, a Project 2025 supporter, Vought speaks with the certainty of a general planning a campaign. The Associated Press reports that he has characterized political opposition as “enemy fire that’s coming over the target” and urged allies to be “fearless at the point of attack,” describing his policy proposals as “battle plans.”

These martial analogies reflect Vought’s view of American politics as an existential struggle. In one of the newly revealed speeches, he painted an apocalyptic picture, claiming America is “in the late stages of a complete Marxist takeover… in which our adversaries already hold the weapons of the government apparatus, and they have aimed it at us.”

Beyond rhetoric, Vought has been methodically preparing for potential Republican victory in November. His team is drafting what the AP describes as a secret “180-Day Transition Playbook” to avoid the chaotic start that characterized the previous conservative presidency. “We are writing the actual regulations now,” Vought revealed in the 2024 speech.

The scope of Vought’s ambition becomes clear in Project 2025’s extensive blueprint. The 920-page document, which Vought helped shape, calls for dissolving the Department of Education, dismantling the Department of Homeland Security, and fundamentally restructuring how the federal government operates.

Vought’s approach to governance was forged during his tenure as Trump’s budget chief at the Office of Management and Budget. There, he demonstrated his willingness to push executive authority to its limits, redirecting billions in Pentagon funds to border wall construction after Congress refused to appropriate the money. He also played a central role in withholding military aid to Ukraine during Trump’s first term, an action that led to Trump’s first impeachment.

For Vought, independent government agencies represent an unconstitutional limitation on executive power. “The whole notion of independent agencies is anathema from the standpoint of the Constitution,” he declared in a recent Fox Business Network appearance. 

In preparation for potential implementation of his vision, Vought revealed in the 2023 speech that he has established what he describes as a “shadow” Office of Legal Counsel, designed to provide legal justification for expanded executive authority. The effort includes developing legal rationale for invoking the Insurrection Act, which would allow military deployment for domestic law enforcement. 

Should his plans not come to fruition, Vought has called for states to “create red-state sanctuaries” by “kicking out all the feds as much as they possibly can.” He defended January 6th defendants as “political prisoners,” saying federal agencies “are keeping political opponents in jail, and I think we need to be honest about that.”

The stark vision in these private talks reveals Project 2025 as more than transition planning. The conversations behind closed doors by key players is evidence of a detailed blueprint for dismantling governmental institutions through raw executive power, guided by a belief in divine mandate and an utter disregard for democratic principles.