Project 2025: Heritage Foundation Playbook
Introduction
"Project 2025" refers to a set of policy proposals developed primarily by the Heritage Foundation and roughly eighty allied conservative organisations under the umbrella title Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise. The full text — approximately 900 pages — was published and freely downloadable from the Heritage Foundation website beginning in 2023. It is, by design, a public document. The "conspiracy" framing this page examines is not the document itself, but the claim that Project 2025 represents a covert, coordinated shadow-government implementation plan being executed in secret by a hidden cabal. That framing misrepresents the documentary reality.
What the Document Actually Is
Mandate for Leadership is a quadrennial Heritage Foundation tradition dating back to 1981, when Heritage published its first edition to influence the incoming Reagan administration. The 2025 edition was produced by approximately 400 contributors across many think tanks, advocacy groups, and former government officials. The editorial director was Paul Dans, a former Trump administration official at the Office of Personnel Management.
The 2025 document is divided into sections covering every major federal executive department and agency. Each section is authored by named policy specialists and proposes specific structural and policy changes: reducing the size of the federal civil service, restructuring the FBI and DOJ, revising environmental regulations, changing Title IX enforcement, and rolling back diversity programmes, among many others. The proposals are explicit, attributed, and public.
The Campaign Distance and Post-Inaugural Reality
During the 2024 presidential campaign, Donald Trump publicly stated on multiple occasions that he had not read Project 2025 and that it was not his plan. Campaign spokespeople issued similar statements. Mainstream media fact-checkers (AP, PolitiFact, Washington Post) documented both the denials and the factual overlap between Trump's stated platform and many Project 2025 proposals.
After January 20, 2025, several named Project 2025 contributors and Heritage Foundation-connected figures took positions in the administration. Russell Vought, one of the document's key architects, was confirmed as Director of the Office of Management and Budget. Within the first months of the administration, several executive orders and administrative actions aligned substantively with proposals outlined in Mandate for Leadership. The extent of adoption remains contested and evolving.
What Is Documented vs. What Is Claimed
What is documented and confirmed:
- Mandate for Leadership is a real, publicly available 900-page policy document published by Heritage in 2023.
- Named contributors include former Trump administration officials and policy veterans from identified think tanks.
- Several contributors joined the administration after January 2025.
- Specific executive actions after January 2025 track specific proposals in the document.
- The document openly proposes restructuring federal agencies, reducing civil-service independence, and reorienting federal agencies toward executive-branch priorities.
What the more conspiratorial framings claim but the record does not support:
- That implementation is covert or secret (the document is public).
- That Trump was not aware of or involved in any way (he publicly distanced himself, but contributors were clearly in contact with campaign and transition staff).
- That it constitutes a coup or dictatorial takeover plan (it is a policy memo, not a legal instrument; implementation requires congressional and institutional process).
- Conversely, some right-leaning framings claim media coverage of Project 2025 is itself a conspiracy to discredit conservatism — that characterisation is also not supported.
The Staffing and Spoils System Question
The section of Mandate for Leadership that generated the most specific controversy was the "Schedule F" proposal: reclassifying a substantial tier of career civil servants as Schedule F employees removable at will by the executive. Trump had issued an executive order creating Schedule F near the end of his first term; Biden revoked it; Trump re-issued it early in his second term. Whether this constitutes a legitimate restructuring of the executive branch or an improper politicisation of the civil service is a live policy and legal debate; it is not a secret.
Harm Framing
The harm level is assessed as moderate. The document has circulated in distorted form in viral social media posts that mischaracterised its proposals or fabricated quotes. These distortions have generated genuine public misinformation. The document itself, read in full, is a conventional (if sweeping) conservative policy programme; the distorted versions circulating online are not.
Why the Verdict Is "Partially True"
The document is real. Its proposals are sweeping and explicitly aim to restructure the federal executive branch. Named contributors did join the administration. Specific policy actions after January 2025 did track specific proposals. The "secret shadow-government implementation playbook" framing, however, misrepresents a publicly available document as covert. Both the conspiracy-left framing (secret cabal) and the conspiracy-right dismissal (hoax amplified by media) fall short of the documented reality.
What Would Change Our Verdict
- Evidence of undisclosed coordination between Heritage Foundation editorial staff and the Trump transition team that was hidden from public record at the time.
- Judicial findings that specific executive actions were unconstitutional implementations of the document.
- Substantial divergence from document proposals in a manner that falsifies the "implementation playbook" characterisation.
Evidence Filters10
Mandate for Leadership published openly by Heritage Foundation
DebunkingStrongThe full ~900-page document was published on the Heritage Foundation website in 2023, freely downloadable. The document is explicitly attributed, comprehensively sourced to named policy contributors, and has been widely cited in mainstream journalism. It is not a leaked or covert document.
Named Project 2025 contributors joined the 2025 Trump administration
SupportingStrongMultiple named contributors to the document took positions in the administration after January 20, 2025. Russell Vought (OMB Director), a key architect of the document, is the most prominent example. This is publicly documented by ProPublica, AP, and congressional confirmation records.
Specific executive actions tracked document proposals
SupportingAP, Washington Post, and Politico documented parallels between specific Trump executive orders issued after January 2025 and proposals in the document, including Schedule F reclassification of civil servants, rollback of diversity programmes, and DOJ restructuring proposals.
Trump publicly distanced himself from Project 2025 during campaign
DebunkingIn multiple July 2024 statements and social media posts, Trump stated he had not read Project 2025 and it was not his plan. Campaign spokespeople issued similar statements. This distancing is documented and public.
Rebuttal
The campaign distancing and the post-inaugural participation of document contributors are both documented facts. The distancing does not prove no coordination; the participation does not prove the distancing was dishonest. Both pieces of evidence are real; their interpretation is contested.
Document is a conventional Heritage Foundation quadrennial tradition since 1981
DebunkingStrongHeritage has published "Mandate for Leadership" editions before every Republican presidential transition since Reagan. The 2025 edition is notably longer and more detailed than prior editions, but the tradition of publishing detailed transition policy guidance is not new or covert.
Document proposes reducing civil-service independence via Schedule F
SupportingStrongThe Schedule F proposal is one of the most concretely documented proposals in the text: reclassifying a substantial tier of career federal employees as at-will political appointees. Trump re-issued the Schedule F executive order in January 2025, directly tracking the document proposal. This is a real policy action with real civil-service implications.
Viral social media posts circulated fabricated quotes attributed to the document
DebunkingStrongMultiple viral social-media posts attributed quotes to Project 2025 that do not appear in the actual document. AP, PolitiFact, and the Washington Post documented several rounds of fabricated or out-of-context quotes. The distorted versions contributed to misinformation about what the document actually says.
Congressional records document committee hearings on document proposals
SupportingMultiple House and Senate committees held hearings in 2024 and 2025 referencing specific Project 2025 proposals, including on Schedule F, DOJ restructuring, and civil-service reform. The public legislative record documents both the proposals and the political opposition to them.
"Shadow government" framing overclaims what is already public
DebunkingStrongThe "secret shadow government playbook" characterisation that circulated in some Democratic Party and progressive media framings misrepresents an openly available document as covert. The document's authors did not hide their identities or their intentions.
Extent of actual adoption is contested and evolving
DebunkingResearchers at Brookings, ProPublica, and the Partnership for Public Service have tracked which Project 2025 proposals have been adopted, partially adopted, or ignored. Full adoption is not documented; selective adoption is. The picture is nuanced and does not support either "total implementation" or "complete irrelevance" framings.
Evidence Cited by Believers4
Named Project 2025 contributors joined the 2025 Trump administration
SupportingStrongMultiple named contributors to the document took positions in the administration after January 20, 2025. Russell Vought (OMB Director), a key architect of the document, is the most prominent example. This is publicly documented by ProPublica, AP, and congressional confirmation records.
Specific executive actions tracked document proposals
SupportingAP, Washington Post, and Politico documented parallels between specific Trump executive orders issued after January 2025 and proposals in the document, including Schedule F reclassification of civil servants, rollback of diversity programmes, and DOJ restructuring proposals.
Document proposes reducing civil-service independence via Schedule F
SupportingStrongThe Schedule F proposal is one of the most concretely documented proposals in the text: reclassifying a substantial tier of career federal employees as at-will political appointees. Trump re-issued the Schedule F executive order in January 2025, directly tracking the document proposal. This is a real policy action with real civil-service implications.
Congressional records document committee hearings on document proposals
SupportingMultiple House and Senate committees held hearings in 2024 and 2025 referencing specific Project 2025 proposals, including on Schedule F, DOJ restructuring, and civil-service reform. The public legislative record documents both the proposals and the political opposition to them.
Counter-Evidence6
Mandate for Leadership published openly by Heritage Foundation
DebunkingStrongThe full ~900-page document was published on the Heritage Foundation website in 2023, freely downloadable. The document is explicitly attributed, comprehensively sourced to named policy contributors, and has been widely cited in mainstream journalism. It is not a leaked or covert document.
Trump publicly distanced himself from Project 2025 during campaign
DebunkingIn multiple July 2024 statements and social media posts, Trump stated he had not read Project 2025 and it was not his plan. Campaign spokespeople issued similar statements. This distancing is documented and public.
Rebuttal
The campaign distancing and the post-inaugural participation of document contributors are both documented facts. The distancing does not prove no coordination; the participation does not prove the distancing was dishonest. Both pieces of evidence are real; their interpretation is contested.
Document is a conventional Heritage Foundation quadrennial tradition since 1981
DebunkingStrongHeritage has published "Mandate for Leadership" editions before every Republican presidential transition since Reagan. The 2025 edition is notably longer and more detailed than prior editions, but the tradition of publishing detailed transition policy guidance is not new or covert.
Viral social media posts circulated fabricated quotes attributed to the document
DebunkingStrongMultiple viral social-media posts attributed quotes to Project 2025 that do not appear in the actual document. AP, PolitiFact, and the Washington Post documented several rounds of fabricated or out-of-context quotes. The distorted versions contributed to misinformation about what the document actually says.
"Shadow government" framing overclaims what is already public
DebunkingStrongThe "secret shadow government playbook" characterisation that circulated in some Democratic Party and progressive media framings misrepresents an openly available document as covert. The document's authors did not hide their identities or their intentions.
Extent of actual adoption is contested and evolving
DebunkingResearchers at Brookings, ProPublica, and the Partnership for Public Service have tracked which Project 2025 proposals have been adopted, partially adopted, or ignored. Full adoption is not documented; selective adoption is. The picture is nuanced and does not support either "total implementation" or "complete irrelevance" framings.
Timeline
Heritage Foundation publishes Mandate for Leadership 2025
The Heritage Foundation publishes the full ~900-page "Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise" on its website, freely downloadable. The document is produced by approximately 400 named contributors across dozens of conservative organisations and is explicitly framed as a policy roadmap for a prospective Republican administration.
Source →Trump publicly distances himself from Project 2025
In multiple social media posts and public statements, Trump says he has not read Project 2025 and that it is not his plan. Campaign spokespeople issue similar denials. Mainstream media fact-checkers begin documenting overlap between Trump's stated platform and document proposals.
Trump re-issues Schedule F executive order on first day
Trump re-issues the Schedule F executive order on January 20, 2025, directly tracking one of the most specific proposals in Mandate for Leadership. The order reclassifies a tier of career federal employees as at-will political appointees. Biden had revoked the original Schedule F order in January 2021.
Source →Russell Vought confirmed as OMB Director
Russell Vought, a primary architect of the Project 2025 document and its sections on OMB and the administrative state, is confirmed by the Senate as Director of the Office of Management and Budget. ProPublica and AP document his central role in the document.
Verdict
Project 2025 / Mandate for Leadership is a real, publicly available 900-page Heritage Foundation policy document. Named contributors did join the 2025 Trump administration, and specific post-January 2025 executive actions tracked document proposals. The "secret shadow-government playbook" framing misrepresents what is already openly published. The extent of adoption is real and documented; the "covert implementation" framing is not accurate.
Frequently Asked Questions
What exactly is Project 2025?
Project 2025 is the informal name for the Heritage Foundation's "Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise," a ~900-page policy document published in 2023. It was produced by approximately 400 named contributors from Heritage and roughly 80 allied organisations. The document proposes specific restructuring of federal executive agencies, civil-service reform via Schedule F, changes to DOJ and FBI, and a range of other policy changes. It is freely available on the Heritage Foundation website.
Did Trump follow Project 2025?
Trump publicly distanced himself from the document during the 2024 campaign. After January 20, 2025, several named contributors joined the administration, and specific executive actions — notably Schedule F reclassification — tracked specific document proposals. The relationship is real but contested: not a case of covert secret implementation (the document is public) nor complete irrelevance (contributors joined and proposals were adopted).
Is Project 2025 a secret document?
No. It is publicly available on the Heritage Foundation website, was published in 2023, and has been widely covered in mainstream media. The "secret playbook" characterisation that circulated in some online and progressive-media framings is factually inaccurate; the document is openly authored, attributed, and downloadable.
What is Schedule F and why does it matter?
Schedule F is an executive order classification that would reclassify a substantial tier of career federal civil servants as at-will employees removable by the executive branch. It was first issued late in Trump's first term, revoked by Biden, and re-issued by Trump on January 20, 2025. Critics argue it politicises the civil service; supporters argue it restores executive accountability. The proposal appears in Mandate for Leadership and was adopted as one of the earliest post-inaugural executive actions.
Sources
Show 7 more sources
Further Reading
- bookMandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise (full text) — Heritage Foundation editors (2023)
- articleTracking Project 2025 proposals in Trump executive orders — Washington Post staff (2025)
- articleHow Project 2025 contributors filled the Trump administration — ProPublica staff (2025)
- paperPartnership for Public Service: civil-service impact analysis of Project 2025 proposals — Partnership for Public Service (2024)