President Donald Trump has articulated skepticism towards Project 2025, an ambitious conservative policy framework developed by the Heritage Foundation, throughout his campaign. However, just days into his second term, many of Trump’s early actions appear to resonate strongly with the Project 2025 agenda.
A recent analysis by TIME indicates that nearly two-thirds of the executive actions Trump has taken so far align, either fully or partially, with the proposals outlined in the extensive 900-page document. These initiatives span a range of issues, including substantial deregulation and strict immigration reforms.
During the campaign, Democrats were quick to emphasize Trump’s connections to Project 2025, pointing out that many of its contributors had previously collaborated with him or were part of his inner circle. Despite claiming ignorance about the origins of the conservative framework and labeling some of its suggestions as “absolutely ridiculous and abysmal,” Trump’s tone softened after the election. He told TIME in November, “I don’t disagree with everything in Project 2025, but I disagree with some things.”
Even with his past disavowals, several individuals who played key roles in formulating Project 2025, such as Russell Vought and Brendan Carr, have been appointed to prominent positions in his administration. Vought was nominated to lead the Office of Management and Budget, while Carr was selected to head the Federal Communications Commission. The Heritage Foundation declined to comment for this article.
A White House spokesperson asserted to TIME that Trump “had nothing to do with Project 2025” and emphasized that his initial executive orders “fulfilled the promises that earned him a decisive mandate from the American people—securing the border, restoring common sense, reducing inflation, and unleashing American energy.”
When Project 2025 was launched in April 2023, it served as a strategic framework for a prospective Republican presidential administration, aimed at reorganizing the federal government according to conservative, market-driven principles. The agenda includes aggressive deregulation, heightened immigration enforcement, challenges to civil rights protections, and a significant reduction in the federal workforce, all designed to minimize government size and reassert executive authority.
While many of Trump’s executive measures echo Project 2025’s recommendations, not all are completely in alignment with the document. For example, some initiatives, such as declaring an energy emergency and questioning birthright citizenship, are absent from the blueprint. Nonetheless, a number of executive actions introduced by the new administration reflect the core goals of Project 2025, especially in areas like immigration reform, governmental restructuring, and deregulation.
“I suspect many liberal think tanks are envious that a conservative think tank wields this much influence over the policy agenda,” remarks Bill Galston, chair of the Brookings Institution’s Governance Studies program and a former advisor to President Bill Clinton. He adds that while think tanks have considerable sway, their influence “is likely to diminish once the President and the Republican majority in Congress begin working together on legislation.”
Regardless, by integrating elements from the Heritage Foundation’s framework, Trump’s second term appears to be shaped by a vision established prior to his return to the White House. Skye Perryman, CEO of Democracy Forward—a legal organization that recently launched Democracy 2025, a resource center monitoring the new administration’s actions—states, “This is a familiar playbook we expected to see implemented. The real disappointment is that during the campaign, Trump did not level with the American public. He didn’t make an effort to persuade them that this was his agenda, instead acting as if he had no connection to Project 2025, even though it’s clear he’s trying to expedite that agenda.”
Let’s take a closer look at some of the parallels between Trump’s executive actions and Project 2025.
Immigration and Border Security
Trump’s early actions on immigration and border security align closely with Project 2025’s vision for a more forceful and militarized immigration enforcement approach. For example, the framework suggests deploying active-duty military personnel and National Guardsmen to support border security operations, including arrests. Trump acted quickly by signing an executive order on his first day in office, directing the deployment of National Guard troops to the southern border.
Furthermore, Trump issued an executive order suspending the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program, mirroring Project 2025’s recommendation for an “indefinite curtailment” of refugee admissions. He has also sought to extend restrictions on asylum seekers and halt certain immigration pathways—policies that resonate with Project 2025’s calls to limit refugee and asylum programs as part of a broader immigration control strategy.
Environment and Energy Policy
Trump’s early actions regarding environmental regulations and energy policy also resonate with Project 2025’s recommendations, particularly its opposition to climate change initiatives that some Republicans view as overly restrictive for American businesses.
On his first day back in office, Trump signed an executive order aimed at promoting the use of Alaska’s abundant energy resources, aligning with Project 2025’s call for increased oil and gas drilling in the region. The framework advocates for exploring Alaska’s energy potential to bolster national security, emphasizing the need to tap into natural resources “as a counter to growing Russian and Chinese interests in Antarctic resources.” Trump’s executive order established a policy for resource extraction in Alaska and instructed federal agencies to fast-track permitting, leasing, and development, particularly for liquefied natural gas (LNG) projects.
Moreover, Trump reinstated an executive order withdrawing the U.S. from the Paris Climate Agreement—a signature action from his first term that directly aligns with Project 2025’s position. The framework posits that exiting international climate agreements enhances national sovereignty and economic competitiveness by lifting restrictions on industries. “The next conservative Administration should rescind all climate policies from its foreign aid programs (specifically USAID’s Climate Strategy 2022–2030); shut down the agency’s offices, programs, and directives designed to support the Paris Climate Agreement; and narrowly limit funding to traditional climate mitigation efforts,” Project 2025 states.
Read More: What Happened the Last Time Trump Withdrew From the Paris Agreement
Additionally, Trump has sought to limit offshore wind development, which Project 2025 identifies as part of an initiative to restrict significant portions of the ocean from commercial activities.
Government Reform and Bureaucratic Restructuring
A key objective of Project 2025 is to reshape the federal bureaucracy, minimizing its size and influence while empowering the executive branch. Trump initiated several executive orders on his first day in office that reflect these ambitions.
He reintroduced the Schedule F executive order—a policy first suggested in 2020 that aims to reclassify certain federal employees as political appointees, making it easier to terminate them. Project 2025 had advocated for the revival of this policy. This move has raised alarms among Democrats and civil service advocates, who view it as an attack on the independence of the federal workforce. Trump defends it as essential to eradicating political bias and inefficiency within government agencies, a point central to both his own agenda and the broader objectives of Project 2025.
Project 2025 also calls for significant reductions in the federal workforce, focusing on eliminating regulations and dismantling agencies deemed unnecessary or counterproductive. Trump’s initial actions suggest he is taking steps in this direction, such as streamlining government functions, instituting a hiring freeze for all federal civilian employees, and aiming to reduce the size and scope of regulatory agencies. While these moves do not precisely align with Project 2025’s specific proposals—like abolishing the Departments of Homeland Security and Education—they reflect the overarching philosophy of minimizing government presence.
Cultural Issues
Trump has also adopted several social policy changes that align with Project 2025’s stance, especially concerning gender identity and diversity initiatives. One of his first executive orders reversed protections established during the Biden administration for transgender individuals in the military, reinstating a ban on transgender service members. This aligns with Project 2025’s recommendation to “proudly state that men and women are biological realities” and to eliminate policies that conflate gender identity with biological sex.
Moreover, Trump has moved to dismantle diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives within the federal government. One executive order nullified policies requiring federal contractors to promote affirmative action and diversity programs, consistent with Project 2025’s call to abolish initiatives advocating for racial or gender-based quotas.
Foreign Relations
Trump’s early actions signal a return to a more isolationist and unilateral foreign policy approach, mirroring Project 2025’s perspectives on international agreements and alliances. He signed an executive order to withdraw the U.S. from the World Health Organization, reflecting the foreign policy positions that characterized much of his first term. Project 2025 explicitly called for this action, characterizing the WHO as an ineffective and politically biased organization that undermines American sovereignty.
In addition to his withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, Trump has taken steps to distance the U.S. from other international collaborations, in line with the isolationist philosophy outlined in Project 2025. One executive order states, “no further United States foreign assistance shall be disbursed in a manner that is not fully aligned with the foreign policy of the President of the United States,” asserting that the “foreign aid industry and bureaucracy are not aligned with American interests and, in many cases, are contrary to American values.”
