Project 2025, that sprawling conservative playbook cooked up by the Heritage Foundation and a coalition of right-wing groups, lays out a radical overhaul of the federal government. It's a 900-page manifesto aiming to dismantle what its authors call the "administrative state," pushing for expanded presidential power, gutting environmental regulations, and reshaping everything from education to civil rights. At its core, the plan calls for firing thousands of civil servants and replacing them with loyalists, a move that critics decry as authoritarian.
During the 2024 campaign, Donald Trump went out of his way to distance himself from it, claiming he knew nothing about the project. But now, in the thick of his second term, that's all changed. Trump has openly embraced Project 2025, even meeting with key architect Russ Vought—now heading the Office of Management and Budget—to plot cuts to what he dubs "Democrat agencies" amid the ongoing government shutdown. Indeed, this pivot isn't subtle; it's a full-throated adoption of the blueprint's most aggressive elements.
Trackers from progressive watchdogs paint a stark picture of how far along this agenda has come. One tally, updated regularly, shows the administration has already aligned with 115 out of 317 specific goals in just the first six months—nearly halfway through, by August's count. That includes executive orders slashing climate protections and rolling back public health safeguards, moves straight from the project's wish list. Moreover, Trump's cabinet is stacked with Project 2025 contributors, from policy advisors to agency heads, ensuring the ideas seep deep into government operations.
However, the pace has sparked backlash. Environmental groups highlight the devastating hits to clean air standards, while civil liberties advocates warn of eroded protections for marginalized communities. And as the shutdown drags on, Trump's use of it to fast-track agency purges feels like a power grab, testing legal boundaries with lawsuits already piling up.
These developments raise broader questions about the balance of power in Washington, leaving room for debate on where this conservative vision might lead next.