Part One — What Exactly Are We Watching?
TRUTH IN FOCUS
By Steven Bullcoming Haworth
I had heard about Project 2025, but I did not think much about it at first. I assumed it was another political project—a nonprofit or conservative organization putting together ideas that might or might not ever become government policy. Then I recently watched an older YouTube video in which someone was asking artificial intelligence to predict what Donald Trump might do based on Project 2025. At first, I thought the video was describing what is happening now. Then I realized something: the video was about a year old.
That changed the question for me. Instead of simply asking what the Trump administration is doing today, I began asking: How much of what we are watching was already written down before the election? That does not automatically mean President Trump is simply following orders from Project 2025. Some of these policies were already part of his own political agenda. But the overlap is significant enough that Americans should understand exactly what Project 2025 is.
More Than a Policy Book
Project 2025 was organized by the Heritage Foundation with a coalition of conservative organizations. Its major policy document, Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise, is more than 900 pages long. But Project 2025 was never just a book. Heritage described four major components: a policy agenda, a database of potential administration personnel, training for future government officials, and a 180-day implementation playbook. The goal was to have a conservative administration prepared to govern immediately after taking office. [1][2]
That distinction matters. There is a difference between publishing political ideas and deliberately preparing policies, personnel, training, and an implementation strategy for a future presidential administration. None of that is automatically illegal or improper. Political organizations across the ideological spectrum attempt to influence government. The important question is: How much influence did this particular project ultimately have?
Did Voters Understand Project 2025?
I do not think many Americans understood the details, and polling gives us a reason to ask whether they did. In July 2024, YouGov found that only 20 percent of U.S. adults said they had heard “a lot” about Project 2025, while 42 percent said they had heard nothing at all. After the election, an Ipsos survey found that 57 percent of Americans said they had not heard, read, or seen much about Project 2025 before voting. [3][4]
Those numbers cannot tell us what every individual voter knew. They do tell us that a large portion of the country was not closely familiar with the project. That raises a legitimate question: If portions of Project 2025 later became government policy, did voters understand the full direction those policies might take?
Immigration: One of the Clearest Overlaps
Immigration is probably the easiest place to see why this issue is complicated. Project 2025 recommended stronger immigration enforcement, expanded detention capacity, additional ICE personnel, restrictions on parole, changes to asylum policy, and restoration of Trump-era policies such as “Remain in Mexico.” The Trump administration has pursued significantly tougher immigration and border policies since returning to office. [5][6]
But fairness matters here. Donald Trump did not need Project 2025 to tell him to strengthen immigration enforcement; he campaigned on it. The 2024 Republican Party platform promised stronger border enforcement, increased ICE activity, restoration of “Remain in Mexico,” and a large-scale deportation operation. [7] So we should not automatically say, “Project 2025 caused this.” The more accurate conclusion is that Project 2025, Trump’s campaign platform, and several administration policies substantially overlap.
Personally, I believe there are parts of Trump’s border-security approach that respond to legitimate problems. Immigration has been a problem for years, and both Congress and multiple presidents have struggled to create a system that works. Where I disagree strongly is with how people can be treated during enforcement. You can support border security and still demand humane treatment. Those positions are not contradictory.
Education and the States
Education provides another major example. Project 2025 says: “Federal education policy should be limited and, ultimately, the federal Department of Education should be eliminated.” [8] On March 20, 2025, President Trump signed Executive Order 14242, directing the Secretary of Education, within existing law, to facilitate closing the Department of Education and returning authority to states and local communities. The order also states that services and benefits Americans rely upon should continue without interruption. [9]
That part is important. I can understand the argument for returning greater education authority to the states, but transitions affect real people. Students depend on financial aid. Students with disabilities rely on federal protections. Tribal communities, rural schools, teachers, and families depend upon programs that cannot simply disappear overnight. If government decides that responsibilities should move from Washington to the states, there must be a workable transition. Changing who controls a program is not enough. Government must also protect the people who depend upon it.
EPA, Energy, and Environmental Protections
Environmental policy is another area worth examining. Project 2025 recommended a smaller and differently focused Environmental Protection Agency, increased reliance on states, reduced federal regulatory reach, and significant changes to climate and energy regulation. In March 2025, EPA announced 31 deregulatory actions involving vehicle-emissions rules, greenhouse-gas reporting, air-pollution requirements, and other environmental regulations. In February 2026, EPA finalized the rescission of the 2009 Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Finding for motor vehicles and repealed related federal greenhouse-gas standards. [10][11][12]
The administration argues these changes reduce regulatory costs and expand consumer choice. Critics argue they weaken environmental and climate protections. This is where we need a serious policy discussion rather than another political shouting match. Energy transitions matter. Workers matter. Reliability matters. Prices matter. But clean water matters too. Clean air matters. Our land matters. And climate change does not care which political party someone belongs to.
I also believe that moving toward cleaner energy requires a realistic transition. You cannot simply eliminate one source of energy without having enough reliable replacement capacity available. The real question is how we balance environmental protection, affordability, reliability, and transition.
SNAP, Medicaid, and Health Care
There are other current policies that concern me, including changes involving SNAP, Medicaid, and the Affordable Care Act. But we need to be especially careful here. Not every policy pursued by the Trump administration should automatically be labeled a “Project 2025 policy.” The 2025 law commonly called the One Big Beautiful Bill Act changed SNAP eligibility and work requirements. CMS is also implementing statutory Medicaid community-engagement requirements and has changed ACA Marketplace rules. [13][14][15]
These policies deserve examination on their own merits. Some may overlap philosophically with Project 2025, but Truth in Focus should not attribute a policy directly to Project 2025 unless the documents support that conclusion. We should not begin with a conclusion and search for evidence to justify it. We should begin with the evidence.
Is Outside Planning the Problem?
Political movements have always prepared ideas for incoming presidents. A new administration should have a plan. I would probably be more concerned if a president entered office with no idea what he intended to do. The existence of planning is not the problem. The important questions are: Who developed the plan? Who benefits from it? How transparent was it? How much did voters understand? How much power does it place in the presidency? What happens to people who rely upon programs being changed?
And ultimately: Does the plan improve people’s lives—or hurt them? Policies look different on paper than they do when they reach a family trying to buy groceries, a farmer trying to stay in business, a teacher working with students, a tribal nation protecting treaty rights, someone unable to work, or a family trying to obtain health care. That is where “We the People” matters. Government ultimately exists to serve people.
To Trump Supporters: Look at the Record
If you voted for Donald Trump, this article is not calling you stupid. It is not accusing you of being selfish, and it is not demanding that you agree with me. I am asking something much simpler: Look at the documents yourself. Ask questions. Compare what Project 2025 proposed before the election with what has happened since. Look at where Project 2025 and Trump’s campaign platform agree. Look at where they differ. Then decide for yourself.
Project 2025 and Donald Trump are not identical. Reporting before and after the election found substantial overlap among Project 2025, Trump’s Agenda47, and the Republican Party platform—but also important differences. [16][17] Calling Project 2025 simply “Trump’s secret plan” would therefore be too simplistic. But pretending there is no meaningful relationship between the ideas would also ignore the evidence. The truth is more complicated—and more important—than either slogan.
The Question We Should Be Asking
Project 2025 was published before Americans voted in the 2024 presidential election. Its organizers openly wanted their ideas considered by the next conservative administration. They published hundreds of pages of policy recommendations, created personnel resources, trained prospective officials, and developed an implementation strategy. Some proposals now resemble policies that have actually been pursued. Some overlap with promises Donald Trump made independently. Some have not been implemented. Others may never be.
That brings me back to the question I cannot ignore: Did voters understand what they were voting for? And perhaps an even larger question: Are we simply watching an elected president carry out the platform he openly campaigned on—or are we also watching portions of a previously published governing roadmap become federal policy in real time?
That question deserves more than a political slogan. It deserves evidence.
In Part Two, we will look at that roadmap directly—what has happened, what has only partially happened, and what Project 2025 proposed that may still be ahead.
Sources & Authorities
[1] The Heritage Foundation. Project 2025 coalition and four-pillar structure: policy agenda, personnel, training, and 180-day playbook.
[2] Project 2025 / Heritage Foundation. Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise, 2023.
[3] YouGov. “What Americans Think About Project 2025,” July 12, 2024.
[4] Ipsos. Post-election national polling regarding public awareness of Project 2025, November 2024.
[5] Project 2025. Mandate for Leadership, Department of Homeland Security chapter.
[6] The White House. Immigration and border presidential actions beginning in 2025.
[7] Republican National Committee. 2024 Republican Party Platform.
[8] Project 2025. Mandate for Leadership, Department of Education chapter.
[9] The White House. Executive Order 14242, “Improving Education Outcomes by Empowering Parents, States, and Communities,” March 20, 2025.
[10] Project 2025. Mandate for Leadership, Environmental Protection Agency chapter.
[11] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. March 12, 2025 deregulatory announcement.
[12] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Final rule concerning the 2009 Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Finding, February 2026.
[13] U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. SNAP implementation information for 2025 legislation.
[14] Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Medicaid Community Engagement Requirement materials.
[15] Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Marketplace Integrity and Affordability Final Rule.
[16] Associated Press. Analysis comparing Project 2025, Agenda47, and Trump’s platform.
[17] Reuters. Analysis of early Trump administration actions and Project 2025 proposals.
Hashtags
#TruthInFocus #Project2025 #TrumpAdministration #AmericanGovernment #PublicPolicy #GovernmentAccountability #WeThePeople #ImmigrationPolicy #EducationPolicy #EnvironmentalPolicy #Federalism #Voting #Medicaid #SNAP #AffordableCareAct #PoliticalAnalysis #FollowTheFacts #QuestionTheRhetoric #KnowTheRecord