How Project 2025 Turned into Trump’s Worst Nightmare

In recent times, “Project 2025” has become a contentious term among staffers involved in Donald Trump’s campaign for a third presidential run. Following months filled with negative narratives and criticism from Democrats, Trump and his campaign leaders are keen on distancing the former president from the initiative. This effort became particularly intense this summer when top campaign officials Chris LaCivita and Susie Wiles celebrated the resignation of a key operative from Project 2025, asserting that the affiliated groups were speaking for Trump without his endorsement.

This dynamic raises an important question: How did organizations like the Heritage Foundation manage to misstep so dramatically with Project 2025?

The answer might seem straightforward: Donald Trump himself. However, for those involved in the project, this connection was not as clear at the outset.

Trump has made a concerted effort to create distance between himself and a plan that was designed by his close allies to facilitate a potential second term. This plan includes significant changes aimed at empowering the Justice Department and other agencies, with the intent of advancing Trump’s long-anticipated campaign against Joe Biden and his family.

Yet, therein lies the issue. Trump’s public persona has become synonymous with controversial decisions, brought to light through numerous interviews, books, and testimonies by former aides. The political landscape is well aware of Trump’s more audacious demands and actions during his presidency, notably his attempts to replace high-ranking officials at the Justice Department to support unfounded claims of voter fraud in 2020.

According to Norm Eisen from the Brookings Institution, the project has only reinforced existing perceptions about Trump. Eisen remarks that Trump has made it clear he intends to operate without checks from the moment he assumes office, describing Project 2025 as a significant miscalculation for the MAGA-affiliated right.

Eisen attributes some of this overconfidence to the presence of Joe Biden on the ballot, suggesting that Republican strategists felt invulnerable. There was a belief that Trump could easily overshadow Biden, leading to a disregard for subtlety.

However, this mindset has pivotal flaws. Trump has spent the past two and a half years reiterating his claims of being the rightful victor of the 2020 election and threatening to leverage the DOJ against rivals. His casual mention of wanting to be a dictator for just one day only amplified the negative image he cultivated after the January 6, 2021, insurrection. As a result, it casts a long shadow over his aspirations for a return to power.

The implications of Project 2025 were inherently reflective of Trump’s style, yet it markedly failed once subjected to scrutiny. Many saw it as insincere from the start, given that no credible candidate, aside from Trump, would likely follow such a transformational plan for the federal government. The project was essentially a roadmap for placing loyalists in key positions, a direct response to the purported “deep state” undermining Trump’s agenda.

The initiative aimed to rectify perceived failures of Trump’s first term by dismantling institutional checks, creating a governance strategy focusing on loyalty. Many conservatives viewed Trump as their advocate for reversing left-leaning trends in American politics, allowing Project 2025’s authors to propose sweeping changes without direct oversight from Trump.

This improvisation granted policy advocates from various sectors a chance to mobilize against it. Environmental advocates, for instance, alarmingly noted that Project 2025 sets the stage for replacing established civil servants and scientists with politically loyal appointees, potentially undermining climate initiatives.

Moreover, the project raises red flags for civil ethics and justice advocates, endangering the integrity of American governmental systems. Climate Power’s Pete Jones pointed out that Trump’s plans through Project 2025 would exacerbate costs, threaten clean energy jobs, and bestow significant tax advantages on the oil and gas sector, thereby stifling competition.

Project 2025 also extends to reproductive rights, where advocates emphasize that its proposals align with conservative beliefs opposing abortion. These suggestions revolve around granting personhood rights to unborn fetuses, effectively setting the stage for a nationwide abortion ban if embraced by the Supreme Court.

Observers from various organizations have denounced the project’s extensive implications. Jessica Mackler, president of EMILYs List, underscored the relationship between Trump, JD Vance, and the project’s extreme policy objectives, asserting that the public is not fooled by attempts to downplay the project’s dark agenda regarding reproductive freedoms.

Additionally, Project 2025 features provisions supporting aggressive immigration policies and efforts to dismantle the Affordable Care Act, which would leave millions potentially without healthcare. Yet, the complexity of the project—filled with contentious proposals on diverse issues—has spurred wide-ranging pushback from established advocacy groups across the ideological spectrum.

It’s not uncommon for Republican candidates to face backlash from specific advocacy groups, but it’s rare for a singular project to provoke a widespread negative reaction among such a multitude of factions. The coordinated challenge posed by Project 2025 has prompted discontent across a broad range of organizations, from reproductive rights to environmental protections.

Eisen noted the Heritage Foundation’s failure in executing this initiative, contrasting it with more cohesive policy strategies pursued by previous Republican administrations. Despite varied opinions on past policies, those initiatives tended to prioritize government structure in favor of the populace.

As Democrats ramp up their criticisms of Trump’s attempts to distance himself from Project 2025—originally crafted as a plan for his potential second term—they are energizing opposition based on increasing public awareness. Polls indicate that a significant proportion of Americans are apprehensive about Project 2025 and its underlying premises. In fact, a UMass-Amherst survey revealed that 53% of Americans and two-thirds of Democrats had encountered Project 2025 and largely disapproved of its policy proposals.

The challenge ahead for Trump lies in navigating the fallout from a plan that seems intricately designed around his prior presidency and adjustments made in response to criticism. He faces the daunting task of pivoting from these issues either by framing an even less popular policy tied to his opponent or by articulating a more appealing vision for a potential second term.