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 Project 2025’s quid pro quo with academia, TPUSA’s manufactured grassroots activism, Project 2025’s John McEntee’s sexting with young women, Project 2025’s dismal polling, its connections to the “TheoBros,” and Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts’ alleged murder of a dog.
Project 2025’s Quid Pro Quo With Academia
The Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 has thrust George Mason University (GMU) into the spotlight, raising serious questions about the blurring lines between academic institutions and political activism.
At the heart of this controversy is an email exchange revealed by American Oversight between Steve Bradbury, a distinguished fellow at the Heritage Foundation, and Trent McCotter, an adjunct professor at GMU’s law school and a contributor to Project 2025. The correspondence, dated March 2023, provides a revealing glimpse into the nature of the project and the Heritage Foundation’s recruitment tactics within academic circles.
George Mason University, located in Fairfax, Va., has long been associated with conservative and libertarian thought. Project 2025 coauthor Lindsey M. Burke, director of the Center for Education Policy at The Heritage Foundation, is a member of the Board of Visitors for George Mason, as well as a graduate. Other board members with Heritage ties include Nina Rees, the Heritage Foundation’s senior education policy analyst and spokesperson. Another Project 2025 co-author, Veronique de Rugy, is the George Gibbs Chair in Political Economy and Senior Research Fellow at the Mercatus Center at GMU.
George Mason has faced scrutiny over its funding sources and ideological leanings for years. The university’s Mercatus Center and Law and Economics Center, in particular, have been lightning rods for criticism due to their ties to conservative donors and causes.
The public university has received significant funding from conservative sources, most notably the Charles Koch Foundation. Between 2005 and 2015, GMU received over $50 million from Koch-linked foundations, The New York Times reported, more than any other university in the country. This financial backing has raised concerns about the potential influence of private donors on academic freedom and the direction of research at the institution.
It’s against this backdrop that the involvement of GMU faculty in Project 2025 becomes especially significant. The email from Bradbury to McCotter reveals Bradbury sought to recruit “attorneys who are smart, committed, capable, energetic, and who can be trusted to help research and draft detailed regulatory items for specific departments and agencies on a confidential basis.”
Perhaps most controversially, Bradbury’s email, marked confidential, suggests a potential career-enhancing quid pro quo arrangement for signing on to Project 2025. While stating that the work would be voluntary and unpaid, he added that those who show commitment and provide valuable contributions would be recognized by project leaders, whose recommendations are “likely to carry influence with those who make personnel decisions for any future administration that embraces our policy proposals.” This language implies that participants could be rewarded with positions in a future conservative administration, raising ethical concerns about the blending of academic expertise and political ambition.
McCotter’s affirmative response to join the team, particularly noting his Department of Justice background, further underscores the direct involvement of GMU faculty in this politically-charged initiative.
Project 2025’s approach to recruiting academic talent highlights the ongoing tension between scholarly expertise and political activism. The initiative aims to prepare detailed transition plans for executive departments and agencies, including specific regulatory actions to be implemented in the early days of a new administration. This level of preparation goes beyond traditional transition planning, raising questions about the appropriate role of academics in such partisan efforts.
The involvement of George Mason University faculty in Project 2025 is not occurring in a vacuum. It’s part of a broader trend of conservative think tanks and advocacy groups cultivating close ties with sympathetic academic institutions, whose research is often funded by donors who share their Christian Nationalist agenda. This relationship frequently involves funding research centers, sponsoring academic positions, and providing platforms for scholars who align with their ideological perspectives.
The unfolding story of Project 2025 and GMU’s involvement serves as a stark reminder of the complex interplay between academia, think tanks, and political power. As the debate continues, it’s clear that the impact of this initiative will extend far beyond the halls of George Mason University, potentially reshaping the landscape of American politics for years to come.
Turning Point USA and Project 2025: Coordinated Conservative Activism at the Local Level
In recent months, a series of disruptive incidents at school board meetings across the United States has drawn attention to a coordinated conservative activism strategy. At the center of these events is Pastor John Amanchukwu, affiliated with Turning Point USA Faith (TPUSA Faith) and TPUSA’s Blexit, whose provocative tactics in advocating for the banning of certain books, appear to be part of a larger, calculated effort.
Project 2025 supporter TPUSA, founded by Charlie Kirk in 2012, has evolved from a campus organization to a multi-faceted political entity. Its recent activities, exemplified by Amanchukwu’s school board confrontations, suggest a grassroots movement. However, closer examination reveals a carefully orchestrated campaign that aligns with the goals of Project 2025, spearheaded by the Heritage Foundation.
These public confrontations in which Amanchukwu typically insults school board members, documented by a TPUSA Faith camera crew, have played out in various locations:
- In Old Bridge, New Jersey, during a debate over transgender student rights, Amanchukwu was ejected from a school board meeting in February 2024. He was escorted out by police less than 30 seconds into his comments after using offensive language.
- In Odessa, Texas, Amanchukwu’s tactics were on full display in March 2024, when he read aloud from 13 Reasons Why by Jay Asher, a young adult novel about suicide, describing it as “pornography.” This incident led to his removal from the meeting.
- In Washoe County, Nevada, Amanchukwu targeted a local librarian in a July 2024 YouTube video following a school board meeting, criticizing her opposition to book bans.
- In Baltimore, Maryland, Amanchukwu’s appearance at a school board meeting in August 2024 led to an abrupt adjournment due to security concerns. Hours before the meeting, he had posted on social media about delivering a “tough message,” resulting in police intervention and the evacuation of the building.
Amanchukwu’s rhetoric, while seemingly spontaneous, reflects key themes embraced by TPUSA and Project 2025. In a May 2024 podcast interview with 1819 News, an outlet associated with the Project 2025-supporting Alabama Policy Institute, Amanchukwu’s statements provided insight into this strategy.
On the topic of LGBTQ+ issues in schools, Amanchukwu used graphic language to laughingly criticize homosexuality as against God’s natural order: “Homosexuals cannot reproduce. Can’t do it. Yeah. You put, you put 10 women, women in the room, they can lick and lap all day. Nothing will germinate. You put 10 men in the room and let them go at it. It’s gonna be a funky, hot smelling mess.”
Addressing educational content he opposes, Amanchukwu employed provocative terms, as he does in his in-person appearances at school board meetings across the country to advocate for banning books: “And I call content like this, I call this mental rape. Yeah. Because it assaults the soul, it stains the brain, and it robs children of their innocence. Our children are being raped mentally in the public school system, and now more than ever, we must address these issues. This book in particular, talks about, you know, um, the proper way of sanitizing and cleaning, um, dildos, it tells you to put the dildo in the dishwasher, but hey, when you put it in the dishwasher, make sure you let it cool down before you insert it again.”
These statements align with TPUSA’s strategy of generating nationwide controversy and media attention. Amanchukwu’s actions are being documented for a TPUSA Faith-backed documentary titled 22 Words, set for release in October 2024, indicating a planned media campaign to amplify these local confrontations.
By focusing on school boards, TPUSA is implementing a key aspect of Project 2025’s strategy: influencing local governance to effect broader political change. This approach allows conservative activists to build momentum at the grassroots level.
TPUSA’s ability to mobilize activists like Amanchukwu for local confrontations, combined with planned media productions like 22 Words, represents a new phase in conservative political activism. This approach aims to create controversy, shape narratives, and influence policy at both local and national levels.
The embrace of Amanchukwu’s confrontational tactics by TPUSA and their alignment with Project 2025’s goals raise questions about the future of conservative activism. It’s clear that what may appear as isolated incidents of local activism are part of a larger, coordinated effort to reshape American politics from the ground up as Project 2025 policies continue to be implemented in 2024.
Not the Right Stuff: John McEntee’s Alleged Misconduct and His Role in Project 2025
In a startling revelation, WIRED magazine has uncovered disturbing allegations against John McEntee, a former Trump administration official and current senior advisor to Project 2025. The report paints a troubling picture of a man using his position of power to pursue inappropriate interactions with teenage women, all while helping to shape a potential future conservative government.
At the center of the story are two young women who came forward with accounts of unsettling online conversations with McEntee. Grace Carter, an 18-year-old freshman at North Carolina State University, received an unexpected Instagram message in October 2023 from the business account of The Right Stuff, a conservative dating app co-founded by McEntee. What began as an offer for free merchandise quickly took an uncomfortable turn.
Carter, who describes her social media presence as “very leftist,” was surprised to be contacted by such a conservative figure. “I actually have no idea how he found me,” she told WIRED. Despite her sparse responses, McEntee repeatedly offered to fly Carter and a friend to Los Angeles, insisting it would be “his treat.” The persistence of these invitations left Carter feeling uneasy.
Another young woman, who chose to remain anonymous due to security concerns, shared a similar experience. She connected with McEntee on The Right Stuff app before moving to text conversations. Like Carter, she was just 18 at the time. Despite her initial interest in conservative politics, she was unprepared for the turn their conversations would take.
“It was very sexual from day one,” she alleged to WIRED. “He kept making comments about my age and how hot it would be to sleep with someone who was my age.” The young woman described McEntee’s repeated mentions of specific sex acts, even after she expressed discomfort. His invitations echoed those made to Carter, encouraging her to visit California and bring friends of the same age.
These allegations paint a disturbing picture of a 34-year-old man in a position of significant political influence pursuing inappropriate relationships with teenagers. But what makes these claims particularly alarming is McEntee’s role in shaping conservative politics through Project 2025, which includes a vision of “Biblical morality” that embraces a heteronormative view of marriage and calls for the criminalization of pornography.
As a senior advisor “supporting the personnel pillar” of Project 2025, McEntee is positioned to have a significant impact on who might hold power in a future conservative government. This role becomes even more concerning when considering his past actions in the Trump administration.
During his time as director of the White House Presidential Personnel Office, McEntee gained a reputation for valuing loyalty above all else. He conducted aggressive purges of officials deemed insufficiently supportive of Trump’s agenda, replacing them with die-hard loyalists. The Atlantic went so far as to refer to him as the unofficial “deputy president” and “the man who made January 6 possible,” highlighting the outsized influence he wielded in staffing key positions.
McEntee’s hiring practices during his White House tenure also raise eyebrows in light of the recent allegations. According to The Atlantic, he regularly hired young, attractive women. One official described McEntee’s hires as “the most beautiful 21-year-old girls you could find, and guys who would be absolutely no threat to Johnny in going after those girls.”
Beyond his political endeavors, McEntee has built a significant social media following through The Right Stuff app and its associated accounts. With 3.3 million followers on TikTok and 1.8 million on Instagram, he has a vast platform to influence young conservatives. His content often features him in staged dating scenarios, offering snarky conservative takes on various issues.
It was one such post that prompted Grace Carter to speak out. On September 10, McEntee posted a video challenging claims about women suffering due to abortion restrictions. For Carter, this was the final straw. “That video he made about abortions really upset me,” she told WIRED. “And I was just like, it needs to be called out.”
The young woman who wished to remain anonymous expressed similar concerns about McEntee’s influence. “The more I thought about it, the more it makes me sad that he’s sort of a role model, especially for young conservative men,” she told WIRED. “And I feel like this person isn’t a great role model for those young conservative men.”
Project 2025: A Political Liability in the Making
In the ever-evolving landscape of American politics, few policy proposals have generated as much controversy and backlash as Project 2025. This ambitious and far-reaching plan, spearheaded by the Heritage Foundation and involving numerous high-profile former administration officials, has quickly become a political hot potato.
As The Washington Post reports, recent polls paint a stark picture of Project 2025’s reception among the American public. A NBC News poll conducted in mid-September revealed that a mere four percent of respondents viewed the project favorably, while a staggering 57 percent held negative opinions. These numbers are not outliers; they’re consistent with other surveys conducted by reputable organizations. A New York Times/Siena College poll from earlier this month showed that among those who had heard of it, voters disliked it 65 percent to 13 percent.
To put this into perspective, Project 2025’s approval ratings in the NBC News poll are lower than those of socialism (18 percent positive to 55 percent negative) and are approaching the dismal numbers once associated with foreign leaders like Vladimir Putin (13 percent positive vs. mid-70s negative, per Gallup). Even historically divisive initiatives like the Affordable Care Act enjoyed significantly higher support at their lowest points, with more than 30 percent of Americans generally viewing it positively.
At its core, Project 2025 is a detailed policy roadmap ostensibly designed for the next conservative administration. Its proposals include consolidating executive power, overhauling the civil service system, reversing LGBTQ+ protections, restricting access to contraception, and implementing a mass deportation program for undocumented immigrants.
While some of these ideas resonate with portions of the conservative base, they have provoked strong opposition across the political spectrum.
Polls indicate that a significant portion of the electorate believes the project’s proposals would be implemented if a willing conservative returns to power. The Times/Siena poll showed that among those who had heard of Project 2025, 41 percent thought “most” of its proposals would be enacted, while 30 percent believed “some” would be implemented. One crucial factor that could influence the project’s impact on the political landscape is the current information gap. A significant portion of the electorate remains unaware or uninformed about Project 2025 and its specific proposals.
The Rise of the “TheoBros” and Their Ties to Project 2025
A new generation of ultra-conservative Christian Nationalists is gaining influence in right-wing political circles, with some members forging connections to high-level political figures and ambitious initiatives like Project 2025. Dubbed the “TheoBros” by observers, these young pastors and activists are pushing for a radically different vision of America – one that would upend core tenets of pluralistic democracy in favor of Christian theocratic rule.
As reported by Mother Jones, the TheoBros movement traces its ideological roots to R.J. Rushdoony, an Armenian-American philosopher who popularized Christian Nationalism in the 1970s. But today’s adherents have given those ideas a millennial makeover, swapping khakis for tailored suits and leaning heavily into social media to spread their message.
Central to TheoBro ideology is the notion that America should be an explicitly Christian nation governed by Biblical law. Many advocate for repealing women’s right to vote, criminalizing homosexuality, and even allowing for the execution of “heretics.” They reject the concept of America as a pluralistic melting pot, instead envisioning it as a country fundamentally shaped by and for white Anglo-Protestant Christians.
“This is our homeland, and we welcome you on the condition of conformity,” declared Stephen Wolfe, author of the book The Case for Christian Nationalism, at a recent conference. Wolfe told Mother Jones that his ideal version of America would prohibit gay marriage, bar women from voting, and potentially allow the state to “suppress theological heresy.”
While such extreme views remain far outside the mainstream, there are signs that TheoBro ideas are gaining traction in some conservative political circles. Of particular concern to many observers are the movement’s growing ties to Project 2025 — an initiative led by the Heritage Foundation to prepare for a potential conservative administration in 2025.
Project 2025 aims to have a full slate of personnel and policy proposals ready to implement on day one should a conservative win the presidency. Critics warn this could allow radical ideologues to quickly reshape federal policy across a range of issues.
William Wolfe (no relation to Stephen), founder of the Center for Baptist Leadership, author for the Project 2025 supporter The American Conservative and a prominent TheoBro figure, has openly touted his involvement with Project 2025. On social media, Russell Vought, one of the chief architects of Project 2025, said he was “proud to work with” Wolfe on “scoping out a sound Christian Nationalism.”
Wolfe previously served in the Trump administration as deputy assistant secretary of defense and director of House affairs at the State Department. He has called for “civil magistrates” to establish “the Ten Commandments as the foundational law of the nation.”
Another notable connection is Josh Abbotoy, executive director of the TheoBro-aligned American Reformer organization and a 2023 fellow at the Project 2025 supporter the Claremont Institute. Abbotoy reported participating in a Project 2025 “strategic planning session” hosted by the Heritage Foundation. He also has ties to influential conservative donors like Peter Thiel through the Rockbridge Network, a little-known coalition of wealthy conservative donors formed in 2019.
The precise nature and extent of TheoBro involvement in Project 2025 remains unclear. But even limited influence could have significant implications given the initiative’s ambitious scope and the extreme nature of TheoBro ideology.
“It’s not just conferences and interviews with the likes of Tucker Carlson where [TheoBros] promote their ideas,” noted Mother Jones. “They have blogs, podcasts, and YouTube channels” allowing them to reach a growing audience.
Many TheoBros are working to implement their vision at the local level, establishing classical Christian schools and attempting to create insular religious communities. Pastor Andrew Isker, for instance, recently announced plans to relocate his family to a “New Founding” community in Tennessee designed around TheoBro principles.
But their ultimate aim appears to be national transformation. “I want Christians to be more assertive and to recognize the Christian heritage of the American way of life, and to seek to restore that,” Stephen Wolfe told Mother Jones. “This is a Christian country, and we’ve got to work to restore it to what it once was.”
Critics argue this “restoration” would amount to dismantling core democratic norms and institutions. TheoBro leaders have openly called for replacing the Constitution with Biblical law and granting sweeping powers to a Christian “Caesar” figure.
Mainstream religious conservatives have expressed alarm at the movement’s rise. “A lot of us find that terrifying,” said Janet Mefferd, a former Christian radio host who tracks TheoBro activity.
Project 2025’s stated goal is to hit the ground running with pre-vetted personnel and policies should a conservative win the White House. But it could also serve as a Trojan horse, allowing fringe groups like the TheoBros to exert outsized influence on a future administration.
Regardless of electoral outcomes, the TheoBro movement appears poised to remain a force in conservative politics. Their savvy use of social media, appeals to traditionalism, and cultivation of ties to mainstream figures have helped their once-fringe ideas gain a wider audience. As the lines between far-right Christian Nationalism and establishment conservatism continue to blur, the implications for American democracy could be profound.
Project 2025’s Kevin Roberts, the Dog Incident, and a Pattern of Violent Rhetoric
In the realm of conservative policy making, few documents have garnered as much attention as Project 2025. This 900-page blueprint, masterminded by Kevin Roberts, president of the Heritage Foundation, outlines a radical vision for a potential second Trump administration. But as Project 2025 takes center stage in political discourse, disturbing allegations from Roberts’ past and a pattern of violent rhetoric have emerged, casting a shadow over both the man and his manifesto.
According to recent reporting by The Guardian, multiple former colleagues claim that Roberts, during his tenure as a history professor at New Mexico State University around 2004, told them he had killed a neighbor’s pit bull with a shovel. The alleged reason? The dog’s incessant barking was disturbing his family.
This shocking claim, vehemently denied by Roberts, has sent ripples through Washington’s political circles. It raises unsettling questions about the character and judgment of the man behind one of the most influential conservative policy documents in recent memory.
Adding to these concerns is Roberts’ well-documented tendency toward violent rhetoric in his political discourse. In various public appearances and interviews, Roberts has employed martial metaphors and confrontational language that go beyond typical political hyperbole. He has spoken of “waging war” against progressive policies, called for “crushing” political opponents, and described policy debates in terms of “battle” and “conquest.”
Roberts delights in courting controversy, famously suggesting political violence looms large in the country’s future. “The left has taken over our institutions. The reason that they are apoplectic right now, the reason that so many anchors on MSNBC, for example, are losing their minds daily is because our side is winning. And so I come full circle on this response and just want to encourage you with some substance that we are in the process of the second American Revolution, which will remain bloodless if the left allows it to be,” Roberts pronounced on the July 2, 2024, episode of Steve Bannon’s War Room, the day after the show’s host reported to prison.
This combative approach is reflected in Project 2025 itself. The document calls for mass deportations of immigrants, the dismantling of key federal agencies, and a sweeping rollback of civil liberties. In light of the dog allegations and Roberts’ violent rhetoric, critics argue that Project 2025’s draconian approach to governance takes on a more sinister tone.
Kenneth Hammond, then chair of the university’s history department, recalls Roberts discussing the dog incident in the faculty hallway. “My recollection of his account was that… a neighbor’s dog had been barking pretty relentlessly and was, you know, keeping the baby and probably the parents awake and that he kind of lost it and took a shovel and killed the dog. End of problem,” Hammond told The Guardian.
The alleged incident paints a picture starkly at odds with Roberts’ current image as a polished conservative intellectual. Yet, when viewed alongside his penchant for aggressive language, it suggests a worldview where problems — whether barking dogs or political opponents — are best dealt with through forceful means.
Adding a layer of irony to the situation is the recent fear-mongering campaign falsely claiming that Haitian immigrants in Ohio have been killing and eating people’s pets. The fact that the architect of a sweeping potential policy agenda stands accused of harming a pet (albeit under different circumstances) underscores the hypocrisy at play in current political narratives.
Roberts’ neighbors at the time, the Aran family, have a different recollection of events. While they confirm that their female pit bull, Loca, went missing around 2004, they stop short of directly accusing Roberts. “I’m not here to make up stories or to say he did it,” Daniel Aran told The Guardian. “But it was right around 2004 when all that happened, that Loca was missing.”
For his part, Roberts categorically denies the allegations about the dog incident. In a statement, he claimed that a neighbor’s chained pit bull had attempted to jump a fence into his yard while he was gardening with his young daughter. He says the owner arrived in time to restrain the animal, and he expresses gratitude that he and his daughter avoided physical contact with the dog.
