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 a Project 2025 contributor’s past in adult entertainment, Paul Dans’ firing from Project 2025, how Project 2025 seeks to end death with dignity, and critics speak out about the dangers of “Schedule F.”
Project 2025 Contributor’s Porn Past Raises Questions
Corey DeAngelis, a prominent figure in the conservative education reform movement and a contributor to Project 2025’s Mandate for Leadership, which seeks to outlaw pornography, has been placed on leave from his position at the American Federation for Children (AFC) following reports of his alleged past involvement in adult entertainment, The Advocate reported.
DeAngelis, known for his staunch support of school choice policies and criticism of public education, has been a rising star in conservative circles. With over 163,000 followers on social media and regular appearances on Fox News, he has become an influential voice in debates surrounding education policy. His work has even garnered praise from former President Donald Trump, who endorsed DeAngelis’ book The Parent Revolution earlier this year.
However, recent revelations have cast a shadow over DeAngelis’ public persona. Reports surfaced last week alleging that DeAngelis appeared in several adult films under the stage name “Seth Rose” around 2014. (GPAHE recommends not Googling his name.) While the veracity of these claims is still under investigation, the AFC has taken swift action by placing DeAngelis on leave pending further inquiry.
In response to the controversy, DeAngelis issued a statement on September 30th, addressing the situation directly:
“As an activist for parental rights and school choice, my passion is personal. Just like everyone else, I have made mistakes throughout my life, learned from those mistakes, used that as an opportunity to grow and tried to channel that experience into something positive. I was a victim of poor decisions and poor influences. I have turned that experience into the fuel that fires me to save young people from being put in the same position I was put in and to help parents protect their children. I will never stop fighting for what is right.”
The situation has raised questions about the potential disconnect between DeAngelis’ public stance on education and his alleged past activities. As a vocal critic of discussing LGBTQ+ topics in schools, DeAngelis has often framed such discussions as inappropriate or distracting from core academic subjects. As NBC News noted, in a Fox News appearance last year, he stated, “It’s just so strange how the far left is so obsessed with inserting sexual topics into elementary schools. Why not just focus on the basics, get the math, reading and arithmetic correct?”
DeAngelis’ career trajectory has been marked by rapid ascension in conservative policy circles. After receiving his Ph.D. from the University of Arkansas in 2018, he quickly established himself as a leading voice in the school choice movement. His work has focused on promoting alternatives to traditional public education, such as charter schools and voucher programs.
In 2021, Forbes recognized DeAngelis in its “30 Under 30” list for education, cementing his status as a rising thought leader in the field. His arguments often center on the idea that public schools are failing students and that market-based solutions can provide better educational outcomes.
The current controversy surrounding DeAngelis highlights the complex interplay between personal history and public advocacy. Note that Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts, in his forward to the Mandate for Leadership, takes a very firm stance on banning the activities DeAngelis was allegedly involved in, and jailing those involved.
“Pornography should be outlawed. The people who produce and distribute it should be imprisoned. Educators and public librarians who purvey it should be classed as registered sex offenders. And telecommunications and technology firms that facilitate its spread should be shuttered,” Roberts writes.
As the situation continues to unfold, it remains to be seen how this revelation will impact DeAngelis’ career and standing within the conservative education reform movement. The AFC’s decision to place him on leave suggests that even sympathetic organizations are treading carefully in light of these allegations.
The Fall of Project 2025’s Paul Dans
In the high-stakes world of conservative politics, where alliances are forged and broken with the changing tides of power, the departure of Paul Dans from the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 has sent ripples through Washington’s think tank ecosystem, as RealClearPolitcs reports.
Initially framed as a resignation until the Heritage Foundation allegedly rejected Dans’ demand for a $3 million severance payout, the truth behind Dans’ exit reveals a more complex and contentious narrative that speaks volumes about the current state of conservative politics and the challenges facing those who seek to shape it.
Project 2025 was Dans’ brainchild and an ambitious venture. Its goal: to unite the often-fractious conservative movement around a cohesive vision for governance. Dans, with his reputation as a skilled coalition-builder, seemed the perfect architect for this grand design. However, as the project unfolded, it became clear that the path to conservative consensus was fraught with unforeseen obstacles.
The official narrative of Dans’ departure began to unravel when RealClearPolitics broke the story that he had, in fact, been fired on July 25, 2024. This revelation came as a shock to many in conservative circles who had accepted the Heritage Foundation’s initial announcement of a resignation at face value. The truth, it seems, was far more complicated and potentially damaging to all parties involved.
Sources close to the matter paint a picture of Dans as a leader whose vision was matched only by his volatility. Reports of professional misconduct and mistreatment of colleagues, particularly women, began to surface. The tipping point came during the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee, where Dans allegedly berated and swore at colleagues in a meeting that spiraled out of control, necessitating intervention from Heritage President Kevin Roberts.
This incident triggered an internal investigation, leading to Dans’ termination. The Heritage Foundation, hoping to manage the fallout, offered Dans a severance package and a mutual non-disparagement agreement. Dans, however, responded with a demand for $3.1 million, a move that effectively torpedoed any chance of an amicable separation.
The Dans affair is more than just a personnel matter; it’s a window into the challenges facing the conservative movement as it grapples with its identity. Project 2025 was meant to be a unifying force, but instead became a flashpoint for controversy.
The Heritage Foundation, for its part, has attempted to frame Dans’ dismissal as a principled stand against workplace misconduct. Kelly Adams, Heritage’s HR director, emphasized the organization’s commitment to a positive work environment.
“We are deeply disappointed that Mr. Dans is using the liberal media to attack Heritage’s decision to terminate him, thereby making the rationale behind his dismissal public,” Adams said in a statement “We will not allow him to falsely attack Heritage, its people, without defending the difficult decision to terminate Paul’s employment based on facts. We will continue to defend our staff and our institution from false narratives and disgruntled former employees.”
However, Dans vehemently denies these allegations, claiming he’s been made a scapegoat for Heritage’s mishandling of Project 2025’s public relations challenges.
“I was made a scapegoat by The Heritage Foundation to cover up for their own mishandling of the public relations fiasco over Project 2025,” he said in an email to Real Clear Politics. “The statements that you have provided to me are false and it appears that the Heritage Foundation continues to trash my good name and professional reputation for their benefit.”
As the dust settles, questions remain. What does this mean for Project 2025 and its vision for conservative governance? How will Heritage rebuild its reputation and reassert its influence? And perhaps most importantly, can the conservative movement find a way to reconcile its internal divisions and present a united front in an increasingly polarized political environment
Project 2025’s Stance Against Death with Dignity Laws
The conservative policy blueprint known as Project 2025 takes a firm stance against death with dignity laws, aligning with Christian Nationalist views on end-of-life care. This position, if implemented, could have far-reaching consequences for Americans’ autonomy in making decisions about their own deaths, Andra Watkins reports.
Currently, 10 states and the District of Columbia allow residents with terminal illnesses to end their lives under certain circumstances. Several other states are considering similar legislation. However, Project 2025 explicitly rejects this approach, instead advocating for palliative care as the only acceptable option for those facing terminal illness.
Roger Severino, Heritage Foundation’s Vice President for Domestic Policy, former Director of the Health and Human Services Office for Civil Rights under the Trump administration, and the author of Project 2025’s Health and Human Services section, writes: “From the moment of conception, every human being possesses inherent dignity and worth, and our humanity does not depend on our age, stage of development, race, or abilities. The Secretary must ensure that all HHS programs and activities are rooted in a deep respect for innocent human life from day one until natural death: Abortion and euthanasia are not health care.”
Severino’s chapter of The Mandate for Leadership goes further in its critique of physician-assisted suicide (PAS), stating: “Legalizing PAS is a grave mistake that endangers the weak and vulnerable, corrupts the practice of medicine and the doctor-patient relationship, compromises the family and intergenerational commitments, and betrays human dignity and equality before the law.”
Instead of allowing individuals to make their own end-of-life choices, Project 2025 advocates for an expansion of palliative care. The document argues that policymakers should “focus on the benefits of palliative care, which works to improve a patient’s quality of life by alleviating pain and other distressing symptoms of a serious illness.”
While palliative care undoubtedly plays a crucial role in end-of-life treatment, critics argue that mandating it as the only option infringes on personal freedom and ignores the complex realities many terminally ill patients face. Death with dignity laws typically include strict safeguards to prevent abuse, requiring multiple doctors to confirm a terminal diagnosis and the patient’s mental competence to make the decision, Watkins notes in her article entitled “Project 2025: Where Christian Nationalists Decide When You Die.”
The Project 2025 stance also raises concerns about the separation of church and state. By basing policy recommendations on religious beliefs about the sanctity of life “until natural death,” the document potentially imposes one particular religious viewpoint on a diverse population with varying beliefs about death and dying.
Politically, this issue presents a complex landscape. While some conservatives strongly support the Project 2025 position, others advocate for personal liberty in medical decisions. Meanwhile, many progressives and libertarians view death with dignity as a fundamental right.
As the population ages and medical technology advances, end-of-life issues are likely to become increasingly prominent in public discourse. The Project 2025 stance represents one pole in this debate, advocating for a religiously-informed, restrictive approach to death and dying.
Project 2025: Schedule F and A Blueprint for Reshaping Federal Governance
The controversial plan known as Project 2025 has captured the attention of political observers and federal employees alike. Backed by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, Project 2025 proposes sweeping changes to the federal workforce that could fundamentally alter the nature of civil service in America.
At the heart of Project 2025 is a vision to “dismantle the administrative state” by replacing many career civil servants with political appointees. This approach, supporters argue, would make the federal government more responsive to the will of elected officials. Critics, however, warn that such changes could undermine the professionalism and effectiveness of government agencies.
Central to the Project 2025 blueprint is the reinstatement of “Schedule F,” an executive order that would reclassify many federal positions, making them easier to replace with political appointees. While proponents suggest this would cover about 50,000 employees, unions representing federal workers argue the number could be much higher.
The implications of such a change are significant, The Guardian reports. Brian Kelly, an EPA emergency responder, expressed concern about how Schedule F could affect critical government functions: “If you’re Schedule F and you’re not following the political narrative, you could be fired. If you inject political biases that have no basis in science into an emergency response, that will endanger the public.”
The debate over Project 2025 echoes discussions from the 19th century when the Pendleton Act of 1883 established the modern civil service system. That law aimed to replace the “spoils system” with merit-based hiring, prioritizing competence and professionalism over political loyalty.
Recent polling suggests that the American public broadly supports the concept of a nonpartisan civil service. A survey by the Partnership for Public Service in March found that 87 percent of Americans, including 87 percent of Republicans, believe a nonpartisan civil service is important for a strong democracy. Moreover, 95 percent agreed that civil servants should be hired and promoted based on merit rather than political beliefs.
Critics of Project 2025 argue that implementing its recommendations could have far-reaching consequences for government operations and public service delivery. Jacqueline Simon, policy director of the American Federation of Government Employees, posed a stark question: “Do you want people with the skills, expertise, and credentials to perform their jobs, or do you want people who love [a particular political figure]?”
Donald Moynihan, a public policy professor at the University of Michigan, suggested two primary effects of the proposed changes: “One is it will reduce the capacity and performance of the federal government. Second, it will enable democratic backsliding or anti-democratic behavior to become more common.”
While discussions about federal employment often focus on Washington D.C., the reality is that 85 percent of federal employees work outside the capital. Seven of the ten states with the highest percentage of federal employees per capita are traditionally Republican-leaning states. This geographic distribution means that any major changes to federal employment policies would have impacts far beyond the Beltway.
Many federal workers have expressed apprehension about the potential implementation of Project 2025’s recommendations. Cheryl Monroe, a Detroit-based chemist with the Food and Drug Administration, worried about the potential for political pressure on scientific findings: “I fear that we’ll be forced to give politically motivated findings rather than scientific findings – people need their jobs, people need their paychecks.”
Jacob Morrison, a project manager with the Army Corps of Engineers in Huntsville, Alabama, echoed these concerns: “I consider all this an attack on people who dedicate their lives to civil service. If we were motivated by greed or politics, we would not stay in the civil service in the first place.”
Regardless of the election’s outcome, the discussion surrounding Project 2025 highlights fundamental questions about the role of government, the nature of public service, and the balance between political responsiveness and professional expertise in federal agencies.
