What Makes “Project 2025” So Dangerous

Will the Right be able to implement these radical plans? Is Trump on board? What happened to traditional conservatism? Let’s tackle some of the key questions surrounding “Project 2025”

Credit: Doug Mills/The New York Times

This is the third part (of four) of my deep dive into “Project 2025” and the plans to establish a more effective, more ruthless rightwing regime. Part I focuses on the ideas, ideologies, and grievances fueling the project – the radicalizing siege mentality on the Right. Part II offers a detailed dissection of the concrete policy agenda and strategies to impose a reactionary vision on the country. This Part III contextualizes “Project 2025” by comparing it to what other rightwing factions, including Trump himself, are planning, situates these plans in the broader context of the Right’s history since the 1930s, and explores why a second Trump presidency would be operating under completely different conditions from the first – conditions that make it much more likely for these radical plans to succeed. Finally, in Part IV,  I dove deeper into Trump’s relationship to Project 2025 and why these radical plans represent the self-mobilization of a “conservative” establishment that is fundamentally in agreement with the extremist Right.

There is a nervous energy on the Right. A volatile mix of desperation and enthusiasm, delusions of grandeur and a feeling of impending doom – all of it being channeled into a feverish effort to devise detailed plans and strategies, policy agendas, personnel databases, and emergency “playbooks” for a return to power.

“Project 2025,” launched in April 2022 under the leadership of the Heritage Foundation, stands out among these planning efforts because it unites much of the conservative movement and the machine of think tanks as well as activist and lobbying groups behind the goal of installing a more effective, more ruthless rightwing regime.

As the broader public turns its attention to these plans, and most people rightfully react with a mixture of horror and concern, a lot of skepticism remains. What is the role of Trump in all of this: Isn’t it more likely that he is going to mess things up, as he has never shown any interest in meticulous planning nor the necessary discipline to enact an ambitious agenda? The Right may try to present a unified front now, but there are so many groups and factions here, and they don’t all share the same ideas about what America should look like: Shouldn’t we expect a lot of infighting and self-sabotage rather than a well-oiled regime? And most importantly, perhaps, haven’t we been through this once before: Isn’t it more likely we get a repeat of the kind of chaos that was so characteristic of the first Trump presidency?

These questions are important. But too strong a focus on Trump’s erratic nature and the many rivalries on the Right obscures the fact that reactionaries are actually united by the desire to punish their enemies, “take back” the country, and restore the “natural order” of unquestioned white Christian patriarchal rule – a unity that is indicative of a broader realignment on the Right towards an aggressive embrace of state authoritarianism. And those who expect merely more of the same chaos that defined Trump’s presidency tend to overlook the fact that the Right would be operating under much more favorable conditions this time: With a fully Trumpified GOP, a reactionary super-majority on the Supreme Court, and with the omnipresent threat of escalating political violence intimidating anyone who dares to dissent.

Different factions, varying plans – similar goals

Trump world wasn’t ready in 2016. The American Right more generally wasn’t ready – they didn’t have the know-how, the plans, or the personnel to get anywhere close to remaking the nation in accordance with their reactionary vision.

They are determined to not make that mistake again. “Project 2025” is evidence that the Right has concrete plans to take over and transform American government into a machine that serves only two purposes: Exacting revenge on the “woke” enemy – and imposing a minoritarian reactionary vision on society. Four weeks ago, in Part I of my analysis of “Project 2025,” I wrote about the worldview of the people behind these plans who see themselves as noble defenders of “real America” against a totalitarian “woke,” “globalist” assault. “Project 2025” is their declaration of war on multiracial pluralism. Three weeks ago, in Part II, I dove deep into the policy agenda “Project 2025” has produced and the concrete strategies to implement it. As a whole, “Project 2025” is a plan to execute what amounts to a comprehensive authoritarian takeover of American government. It envisions a vast expansion of presidential power over the executive branch. Moreover, “Project 2025” seeks to dismantle certain parts of government, the administrative state, and federal agencies – while simultaneously mobilizing and weaponizing others. Finally, “Project 2025” is a promise to purge from government anyone who is not all in on the Trumpist project and replace them with loyalists and ideological conformists.

There is no doubt “Project 2025” would transform America into a much nastier, much more dangerous, much more hostile place for anyone who dares to deviate from the white Christian patriarchal order. And mainstream America has definitely started to take note. The reporting on the planning operations currently underway on the Right is now extending beyond “Project 2025” itself, reflecting the fact that a variety of rightwing groups and organizations are in the process of channeling their vision for America’s future into blueprints for a second Trump presidency. There is not only what Trump is threatening to do in his deranged speeches, but also the more formalized “Agenda 47” his campaign is working on. There is the “America First Institute,” another decidedly Trumpian outfit that was founded in 2021 by Trump administration alumni: They are working on what they call “Pathway to 2025.” Meanwhile, the “Center for Renewing America,” a conservative think tank founded by Russell Vought, who served as Trump’s director of the Office of Management and Budget, officially hides behind a maybe somewhat innocuously sounding mission “to renew a consensus of America as a nation under God with unique interests worthy of defending that flow from its people, institutions, and history, where individuals’ enjoyment of freedom is predicated on just laws and healthy communities.” But this Center is actually an aggressively Christian nationalist operation that dreams of entrenching its vision of a white Christian America by an extremely restrictive immigration policy and staunchly authoritarian measures, including the invocation of the Insurrection Act, to suppress protest and dissent. All of these groups, just like “Project 2025,” are operating out in the open. But there is also a lot going on below the surface. In early March, for instance, Talking Points Memo reported on the so-called “Society for American Civic Renewal” – a secret society of white male theocrats who hope to use their combined political influence and financial power to overthrow pluralistic democracy and take the country back to at least the late nineteenth century, to before the Progressive Era supposedly alienated America from the natural order of wealthy white male Christian domination.

It is unequivocally a good thing that mainstream media and, as a result, the broader public, have started to pay attention to what the Right is planning, as this is, in a very direct sense, what is actually on the ballot in November. However, while most people in the (small-d) democratic camp can agree that there is something scary about these plans, there is also uncertainty about the exact place and relative importance of these proposals, and a hefty dose of skepticism as to whether or not they would actually serve as a blueprint for a second Trump presidency. Broadly speaking, I have encountered three questions that capture this uncertainty:

1) Trump is not interested in plans and policy agendas, and certainly only does what he wants – aren’t these plans, therefore, mostly just grandstanding pipe dreams?

2) These plans seem to be shaped by two very different ideas: Dismantling the state vs weaponizing government – aren’t those opposing principles that are ultimately going to get into open conflict with each other and largely cancel each other out?

3) Trump came in with a bunch of ugly-grandiose proclamations in 2016/17 too (“Build the Wall and have Mexico pay for it,” anyone?) – why should we expect any different the second time around? Isn’t this mostly hot air, followed by more “malevolence hampered by incompetence”?

It is worth grappling with all of these questions, as they will help us unpack what has been happening on the Right and what that projects for America going forward. It is only in this context that the full significance of “Project 2025” – and the acute danger it constitutes for a pluralistic society – becomes clear.

Why would anyone trust Trump to implement a comprehensive policy agenda?

As “Project 2025” has been getting a lot public attention over the past few months, Trump world has felt the need to remind everyone that there is only one Dark Lord on the Right, and he is not willing to share power. In mid-November, for instance, the Trump campaign tried to mark its territory by releasing a statement that, while acknowledging that “efforts by various non-profit groups are certainly appreciated and can be enormously helpful,” emphasized the fact that “none of these groups or individuals speak for President Trump or his campaign.” Clearly referring to “Project 2025,” the statement made it clear that “these reports about personnel and policies that are specific to a second Trump Administration are purely speculative and theoretical. Any personnel lists, policy agendas, or government plans published anywhere are merely suggestions.”

There is, undoubtedly, real friction on the Right – there are factions competing over turf and influence, different groups and individuals jockeying for power. But the idea that these rivalries are destined to doom the whole operation seems overblown to me. For one thing, there is also quite a bit of overlap between them – not just in substance but also in terms of personnel. “Project 2025” is shaped by Trump administration alumni, many of which the Heritage Foundation brought on board precisely for this purpose. The same is true for many of the contributing and collaborating groups and organizations. There is, for instance, the Claremont Institute, which is listed as a member of the “Project 2025” Advisory Board. If the aggressively pro-Trumpian reactionary Right has an institutional home, it is Claremont. Remember John Eastman, the constitutional lawyer who was one of the key conspirators in Trump’s scheme to nullify the 2020 election? Because of his involvement in the January 6 coup attempt, a lot of institutions won’t touch him anymore. He is very much still welcome in the Claremont orbit, however: He still serves on its board of directors, is a senior fellow at the institute, and is the founding director of the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, which is closely affiliated with Claremont. And as we now know, leading Claremont figures are also part of the secretive white nationalist “Society for American Civic Renewal.” Or take Russell Vought, another Trump administration alumni who is, by all accounts, still in close contact with Trump. He served as a contributor to the “Project 2025” policy agenda, and he is also the founder of the “Center for Renewing America,” hoping to infuse his Christian nationalism that way.  

Does Trump himself actually care about any of this? Who knows. In some ways, he seems like a less than ideal vessel for the kinds of ambitious, comprehensive plans that are emanating on the Right. Trump is erratic, lazy, volatile, and he is certainly not sitting down to read extensive policy memos. And yet, in another way, he is especially suited to lead the kind of crusade “Project 2025” envisions. Trump is animated by a spirit of vengefulness and grievance. He is extreme, he isn’t restrained by norms or forbearance. That is precisely why the Right united behind Trump in 2016: They didn’t want a “normal” Republican, but someone who would take the gloves off, be willing to do whatever it takes. They wanted someone who would certainly not reject “Project 2025” because he thought it was going too far or because he had qualms about questions of legality and precedent. It takes a radical president in the White House to implement extremist plans. That’s Trump.

Most importantly, perhaps, if we compare the emerging universe of plans on the Right with what Trump himself says he wants to do, it certainly seems like there is a lot of overlap – the general thrust of “Project 2025” is entirely in line with what Trump wants to do with power. Purge dissenters from government, replace them with loyalists; expand presidential power and make the executive into a tool for whatever the regime wants to do: It doesn’t take much sophisticated analysis to explain why such plans appeal to Trump. He wants power, impunity, and the ability to plunder. He will certainly not sit down and read through all 920 pages of “Mandate for Leadership,” the policy agenda report “Project 2025” has produced. But Donald Trump, someone with aggressively autocratic instincts and sensibilities, will also certainly not object to such a vision.

Let’s look at the role the Department of Justice and loyalist lawyers more generally play in these rightwing plans. Trump himself is apparently frustrated that the people around him talked him out of using the Insurrection Act to deploy troops against the George Floyd protests in the summer of 2020. He is now looking for lawyers who, the next time around, will be fully on board and provide pseudo-legal justifications for whatever the regime leader wants to do. And “Project 2025” very much agrees: According to these plans, there would be no more autonomy for the Department of Justice, which they envision as directly subservient to the president. “Project 2025” imagines a DoJ that is not committed to upholding the rule of law, but to enacting the regime’s agenda – and they want a law enforcement apparatus for the exact same purpose, a tool in the hands of the rightwing regime.

To the extent Trump has announced anything close to concrete policy proposals, a very similar dynamic emerges. In a speech at the annual meeting of the National Religious Broadcasters (NRB) in Nashville in late February, for instance, Trump promised to create “a new federal task force on fighting anti-Christian bias”; to take “historic action to defeat the toxic poison of gender ideology and restore the timeless truth that God created two genders, male and female”; and to sign an executive order to “cut federal funding for any school pushing critical race theory, transgender insanity, and other inappropriate racial, sexual, or political content onto our children” (Robert P. Jones provide an excellent write-up and contextualization of the speech in his newsletter this week). All of that sounds like it could be coming straight out of “Project 2025.”

In that same speech, Trump also framed his vision for America and his personal mission in aggressively Christian nationalist terms, presenting himself as a Christ-like figure who was sacrificing himself in this struggle against “the radical left Democrats, Marxists, communist, and fascists.” Against those evil forces who “want to tear down crosses where they can and cover them up with social justice flags,” Trump promised to mobilize the enormous power of the American government: “I get in there, you’re gonna be using that power at a level that you’ve never used it before.” The people behind “Project 2025,” the “Center for Renewing America,” and the “Society for American Civil Renewal” will hear this and rejoice.

Dismantle the state – or mobilize and weaponize government?

Take a step back and forget all the specific people and factions involved for a minute: The fact remains that there is, at a macro or maybe philosophical level, an inherent tension between two opposing principles in the vision “Project 2025” outlines – there is the proclamation to dismantle the “deep state,” but there is also the desire to use it, to mobilize and weaponize it in service of the reactionary agenda. The former reflects the preferences of the conservative legal movement and the libertarian, market-fundamentalist strand of the Right: get rid of regulations, the administrative state, of modern government in general. The letter is a manifestation of not only Trump’s overriding desire, to use government as a tool for revenge, but also the power fantasies among radicalizing reactionaries and religious authoritarians.   

This tension has actually always been a constitutive feature of modern conservatism. What emerged as the modern conservative political project in the middle decades of the twentieth century was in many ways defined by an alliance between two distinct factions. One the one hand, there were reactionary traditionalists and, especially from the 1970s onwards, a newly mobilized Religious Right. On the other, there were market-fundamentalist libertarian factions, staunchly opposed to the New Deal state and the reformulation of liberalism into a governing philosophy that embraced an active role for the state in creating the kinds of conditions in which individuals would be protected from the worst excesses of capitalism and be enabled to thrive as equal citizens.

This alliance has never been static, and in recent years, the contours of a broader realignment on the Right have emerged. Increasingly, leading figures on the traditionalist wing want out of that alliance – because they believe they have not gotten what the initial bargain promised. In this interpretation, there has been a lot of small government, deregulation, and free market – while the destructive forces of secular humanism and “woke” liberalism were allowed to advance almost unchecked.

These frustrated reactionary traditionalists believe the future of the Right lies in “National Conservatism,” which is the umbrella under which some influential elected officials and intellectuals on the Right have come together to share and further their vision. The political project of the NatCons combines a euphoric embrace of nationalism with an unabashed commitment to mobilizing state power in order to impose what they see as the natural and/or divinely ordained order on the entire country.

They do explicitly acknowledge and embrace the fact that such a project goes against many of the principles that have supposedly defined conservatism since the 1950s – and it cannot be adequately captured in the terms in which conservatives themselves have presented their cause. But ultimately, I think we should not overestimate the effects this friction is likely to produce. From the beginning, what united the different factions of the newly formed “modern conservative” alliance was the fight against “communism,” and more specifically: against any attempt at leveling traditional hierarchies of wealth, race, gender, and religion. In the context of this broader struggle, they have always been comfortable with “big government” in certain areas, if it served to uphold the “natural order” and traditional hierarchies. This has found its most obvious expression in the drastic expansion of the law enforcement apparatus as part of a “law and order” politics since the 1970s.

This tendency to embrace the coercive powers of the state as long as they were deployed in service of the rightwing agenda has escalated in the more recent past, as the sense of being under siege as a persecuted minority in their own country has radicalized on the Right. Conservative elites have always cultivated a sense of (self-)victimization, have displayed a remarkable persecution complex even while holding disproportionate power, at least politically and economically, often focused on the cultural sphere they didn’t manage to dominate. Until quite recently, this overall feeling among conservatives of being victimized was accompanied by a sense of representing the majority will of the people – of having the infamous “silent majority” on their side. The “silent majority” idea was obviously based on a racialized conception of America’s true volk. It was the majority of only those who *really* counted the Right claimed or cared to represent – a group that was predominantly white, Christian, and espoused certain conservative values and sensibilities that were coded as authentically American. And yet, the “silent majority” chimera at least paid lip service to some notion of majoritarian government and therefore, at least rhetorically, recognized democratic principles. That’s completely gone, in theory and practice. Conservatives have basically moved from criticizing “big government” and “activist judges” for going against the will of the “silent majority” to declaring the majority illegitimate and accusing it of assaulting the natural order as justification for their attempts to entrench minoritarian rule by whatever means.

As the self-proclaimed virtuous minority is under siege – and with it the laws of God and/or nature as they supposedly manifest in traditional hierarchies of race, gender, religion, and wealth – moderation and restraint are no longer an option. Instead, a radical counter-mobilization is desperately needed, even if that entails storming the Capitol or aggressively feuding with private business. The general sentiment that “Conservatism is no longer enough” is being echoed over and over again within the reactionary intellectual and pundit sphere. People at the center of conservative politics, or at least close to it in terms of their ideas and agenda, are now rejecting the label “conservatism” outright.

Shortly before the 2022 midterms, for instance, The Federalist – one of those supposedly / formerly “conservative” outlets that provide a useful window into what is happening in the rightwing pundit and pseudo-intellectual scene – published a really instructive piece by John Daniel Davidson, one of its senior editors. It was titled: “We need to stop calling ourselves conservatives.” According to the author, conservatism, a political project that was all about conserving and preserving the existing order of traditional American norms and values, had failed and was entirely unequipped to handle “our revolutionary moment.” There was no point in trying to preserve and maintain what had actually long been destroyed – America, in this view, has been turned into a “woke dystopia,” something traditional conservatism has failed to prevent. Instead of continuing on a path that has led to destruction, those who used to see themselves as conservatives need to “claim the mantle of revolutionaries” – commit themselves to a (counter-)revolutionary, radical fight against “Un-American” leftist forces.

The idea that traditional conservatism needs to be replaced by a much more radical form of politics has become a key theme in rightwing thinking. In November 2022, Glen Ellmers, one of the most outspoken reactionaries in the Claremont sphere, published a piece titled “Hard Truths and Radical Possibilities,” which came out in American Greatness. Ellmers reacted to the midterm results by rejecting the legitimacy of elections altogether: “Elections – and therefore consent and popular sovereignty – are no longer meaningful.” His issue was not that the midterms had been fraudulently stolen; it was actually much worse: “even if conducted legitimately, elections no longer reflect the will of the people.” There certainly isn’t much of a conserving spirit to be found here. Ellmers railed against the “woke oligarchy” which, based on a massive state bureaucracy that is entirely dominated by “the Left” and unresponsive to the will of the real people, had already completely destroyed the constitutional republic. There was, in this view, very little time to stand up to the “left-wing masters.”

This emerging counter-revolutionary consensus on the Right entails a striking renunciation of the supposed pillars of modern conservative thought. This manifests most clearly in the open rejection of “small government” principles: Reactionaries don’t fear the authoritarian state. The goal is to forcefully mobilize its coercive powers to impose a return of the traditional order onto the country and defeat those enemies within. In the words of The Federalist: “The left will only stop when conservatives stop them, which means conservatives will have to discard outdated notions about ‘small government.’ The government will have to become, in the hands of conservatives, an instrument of renewal in American life – and in some cases, a blunt instrument indeed.”

“Project 2025” oozes exactly this kind of embrace of radicalism. There is, in this worldview, no more room for moderation, compromise, or retreat. Extreme measures are not just legitimate, they are acutely necessary. As The Federalist put it: “If all that sounds radical, fine. … Radicalism is precisely the approach needed now because the necessary task is nothing less than radical and revolutionary.”

“Project 2025” channels this exact spirit it into a concrete policy agenda that actually manages to appease both the “dismantle government” and the “mobilize the state” factions by recentering their alliance around the *actual* principle that brought them together in the first place: This was always, at its core, an anti-left project, an attempt to prevent any leveling of established discriminatory hierarchies. There are, among the people behind these plans, certainly still those who think of themselves as “constitutional conservatives” who would be, under “normal” circumstances, uncomfortable with the kind of authoritarian state that is envisioned here (or at least like to tell themselves they would be). But every influential figure on today’s Right agrees that ours are decidedly not “normal” times, that America is no longer a “healthy” society that respects the laws of nature. In their interpretation, as the “natural order” is under assault, “constitutional conservatism” now calls for something very different, for a mobilization of the coercive powers of the state in defense of a particular kind of “freedom”: the freedom to live in accordance with the “natural order.”

On the basis of this interpretation, much of the conflict that might exist in theory and principle resolves in practice. They still want to dismantle the parts of the state that could be used as a tool to advance egalitarian goals – while at the same time mobilizing others that will help them stem the tide of “woke” Leftism and impose their vision. The Right is not a monolithic bloc. There are different factions, different camps vying for supremacy. But no matter how much they may dislike or despise each other, they hate “the Left” – and the “leftist” egalitarian, pluralist idea of America – more.

A second Trump term would be something entirely different

What about, finally, the argument that the most likely outcome would be a second Trump presidency in the mold of the first: Quite bad, certainly, but also nowhere near the transformative experience these grandiose reactionary plans desire? This seems like an interpretation to me that is only plausible if we pretend the circumstances are basically the same as in January 2017, when Trump took office. But things would be fundamentally different.

The Right was not ready in 2017. They didn’t have any plans or strategies, Trump world didn’t have a clue how government worked, the extremists didn’t have the personnel to bend the state to their will and harness its powers. This will not hinder them this time.

And with all their plans, preparations, and personnel ready, the Right would be operating under conditions that are vastly more favorable to their cause, in at least three ways:

First of all, the Right could count on a reactionary supermajority on the Supreme Court. Let’s remember this was not the case until Amy Coney Barrett’s ascension to the Court in late October 2020, towards the very end of the Trump presidency. The 6-3 Court is a game changer.

Secondly, this would not be the same Right that came to power in 2017. That starts with Trump himself. The idea that he has always been the same, just Trump being Trump, is massively misleading and obscures the rather drastic radicalization of the Right’s undisputed leader. Beyond Trump, the Right more generally has significantly radicalized. The idea that more drastic action is urgently needed has been spreading fast into the center of conservative politics. The summer of 2020, specifically, escalated this perception of imminent threat: It has become a key element of rightwing political identity to view the protests that erupted after the murder of George Floyd as supposedly irrefutable proof that “the Left” has started its full-on assault, justifying calls for ever more extreme action in response. This radicalization has found its manifestation in the Republican Party. Elected leaders like Liz Cheney or Mitt Romney who publicly held the line that nullifying the results of a democratic election and engaging in a violent insurrection was one step too far have been ostracized. Starting in 2025, the rightwing regime could count on a fully Trumpified party.

Finally, resistance to the rightwing regime – not just coming from liberals or the Left, but also potentially fueled by whatever skepticism still remains among Republicans – would face a level of violent threat that is far beyond anything the country experienced during the first Trump presidency. The percentage of people on the Right who see political violence as necessary has drastically increased; violent threat against lawmakers generally and any Republican who dares to defy Trump specifically has exploded; all strands of the Right – Republican elected officials, the media machine, the reactionary intellectual sphere, the conservative base – are embracing rightwing vigilante violence in an increasingly open and aggressive fashion. The majority of Americans may want to resist. But it would be far harder and far more dangerous this time.  

The best approach to understanding the Right has always been to take seriously and actually grapple with their vision for American society. In that sense, “Project 2025” is tremendously helpful. Rightwing leaders could not possibly be clearer about the reactionary vision they want to impose on the country. They are telling us that they do not accept this egalitarian, pluralistic idea of a society in which the individual’s status is no longer determined by race, gender, religion, and wealth. They feel justified in taking truly radical, extreme measures to prevent that society from ever becoming a reality because they believe they are defending “real America” in service of a higher purpose: To restore and entrench what they see as the natural order and divine will, as it manifests in strict, discriminatory hierarchies.

The reactionary mobilization against democratic multiracial pluralism won’t stop because the people behind it have some sort of epiphany that they shouldn’t go *that* far. It will either *be stopped* or succeed in entrenching white Christian patriarchal rule – and install a system in which only they and those who reflect their image back at them are entitled to rule and be recognized as equal.

Please find Part I of my three-part series on Project 2025 (titled “Project 2025 Promises Revenge, Oppression, and Autocratic Rule”) here, Part II (titled “What Project 2025 Would Do to America”) here, and Part IV (titled: “Allies Against Democracy”) here.