The Great Conservative Exodus from Project 2025

Project 2025 is a far-right plan by the Heritage Foundation to create an ideal America by depriving certain groups of their rights. It has the support of over 100 organizations, but some conservative groups have distanced themselves from it. Former Republican governor Larry Hogan warns that Project 2025 threatens American values and criticizes its proposed changes to the federal workforce and the Justice Department. This exodus of conservative organizations raises questions about the future of the project and the conservative movement. Project 2025 is a 920-page plan spearheaded by the powerful and extreme far-right Heritage Foundation. More than 100 organizations support this blueprint for autocracy. Their stated goal is to create an ideal America that would see women, LGBTQ plus people, immigrants, people of color, and others deprived of their hard-won constitutional rights and the erosion of environmental and education protections. It also advocates for a frightening centralization of power in the executive branch. Rooted in hate and Christian nationalism, the plan promises to rescue the country. Read Gbaje's full analysis of Project 2025 and the groups behind it. Gbaje tracks the activities of those behind Project 2025, and their plans for an authoritarian and Christian nationalist America, no matter who is president, and the groups in this extremist movement are relentlessly implementing initiatives at local, state, and federal levels. This week we look at seven conservative organizations who have disassociated themselves from Project 2025, and one Republican governor's rebuke of the conservative agenda. We'll also delve into the powerful and influential Project 2025 supporter the Conservative Partnership Institute, why Project 2025 has scientific American concerned, and how Project 2025 threatens the safety of Americans. Finally, we'll hear from Sebastian Gorka and Kevin Roberts, as well as Alex Jones predicting globalist violence on Charlie Kirk's podcast. The Great Conservative Exodus, Project 2025's dwindling coalition. In the tapestry of American conservative politics, few initiatives have garnered as much attention or controversy as the Heritage Foundation's Project 2025. Billed as a comprehensive roadmap for a potential Republican administration, this 900-page manifesto has become both a rallying cry and a point of contention within conservative circles. Yet, as the political winds shift, a curious phenomenon is unfolding, the very coalition that gave birth to this grand vision is slowly unraveling. Kevin Roberts, the Heritage Foundation's president, recently likened Project 2025 to the sprawling menu of the cheesecake factory a smorgasbord of conservative policy options catering to every palate. It's every possible thing that somebody might want to take on, Roberts mused at a Heritage event on the sidelines of the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee. But as it turns out, not every diner at this ideological feast is finding the offerings to their taste. The Intercept reported on July 17, 2024, that Project 2025's current advisory board reveals a pattern of quiet departures. Seven conservative organizations, once proudly listed as coalition members, have vanished from the project's roster. This exodus, while not a mass migration, is nonetheless significant, representing cracks in what was meant to be a united conservative front. Among the departed are influential think tanks and advocacy groups that have long been stalwarts of the conservative movement. The Competitive Enterprise Institute, CEI, a bastion of libertarian thought, is perhaps the most notable defector. CEI's involvement was deep, with its president and CEO, Kent Lassman, contributing an entire chapter to the Project 2025 playbook. Other CEI staffers, including senior fellows and strategists, also lent their expertise to the effort. Yet, by March 2024, CEI's logo had quietly disappeared from the Project 2025 website. This silent exit came mere weeks after CEI staff had publicly celebrated their contributions to the project. The abrupt about-face raises questions about the internal deliberations that led to this decision. FreedomWorks, another libertarian heavyweight, was among the first to abandon ship, sunk by the rise of Trumpism. Its departure from Project 2025 in February 2024 preceded the organization's very public dissolution in May, adding a layer of intrigue to its exit from Project 2025. The Foundation for Defense of Democracies, FDD, also distanced itself from the project claiming its inclusion was a mistake a curious oversight for an organization typically attuned to the minutiae of policy debates. FDD was included in error, an FDD spokesperson told The Intercept. This was quickly corrected once known to us. More recent departures include Americans United for Life and the Mackinac Center for Public Policy. Americans United for Life has always sought to maintain a nonpartisan stance, John Mize, chief executive officer at Americans United for Life told The Intercept. Going forward into the heart of this election season, we believe we can be most effective in our mission if we maintain this posture. Of course, we will continue to partner with the Heritage Foundation as opportunity allows, knowing they share our profound commitment to the life issue. The Mackinac Center's explanation for leaving that being listed implied an endorsement of the entire project hints at the broader challenge facing Project 2025. In trying to be all things to all conservatives, the initiative may have overreached, creating a document so expansive that even its contributors struggle to fully endorse it. Jason Hayes, Mackinac's director of energy and environmental policy, is listed as a Project 2025 contributor. The Heritage Foundation asked the Mackinac Center to contribute expertise to a project and we sent over some of our policy ideas. We are happy to work with diverse groups on public policy, we've collaborated in the past with everyone from the Heritage Foundation to the ACLU, Mackinac spokesperson Holly Wetzel told the Michigan Advance in a statement. We offered ideas on labor and energy policy, which are publicly available on our website. Project 2025 contains some idea, sick, we do not endorse and others outside of our scope. We do not sign our names to things we do not fully endorse and requested that our name be removed from this project, which it has been. The Heritage Foundation's response to this slow-motion exodus has been telling. In March, they added a disclaimer to the Project 2025 website, stating that the opinions expressed do not necessarily represent those of every advisory board partner. This caveat, however, seems to have done little to stem the tide of departures. What does this mean for the future of Project 2025 and, by extension, the conservative movement? On one level, it reflects the inherent challenge of crafting a unified conservative vision in an era of increasing ideological diversity within the right. The departures suggest that even among self-identified conservatives, there are limits to how far some organizations are willing to go in endorsing a comprehensive political agenda. More broadly, this exodus raises questions about the viability of grand, all-encompassing political manifestos in today's fractured political landscape. In an age where nuance is often sacrificed on the altar of ideological purity, Project 2025's ambitious scope may be both its greatest strength and its Achilles' heel. The ultimate impact of these departures remains to be seen. Will they represent a minor setback in an otherwise triumphant march toward a new conservative consensus? Or are they harbingers of deeper fissures within the movement? As the political calendar turns and the stakes grow ever higher, all eyes will be on Project 2025 and the shrinking circle of organizations willing to stake their reputations on its vision of America's future. Project 2025 shreds American values, warns Republican ex-governor. In a scathing opinion piece, Larry Hogan, former Republican governor of Maryland, sounds the alarm on Project 2025. Hogan's critique, published as a Washington Post opinion piece on July 19, 2024, pulls no punches in describing the dangers he perceives in this 900-plus-page proposal from the Heritage Foundation. Hogan, known for his moderate Republican stance, frames Project 2025 as an unprecedented threat to core American principles. He argues that while both political extremes have caused damage, this initiative represents a particularly alarming assault on traditional values such as the rule of law, separation of church and state, and respect for civil service. The former governor reserves his most biting criticism for the project's proposed overhaul of the federal workforce. He writes, Project 2025 proposes to eliminate civil service protections for most of these workers, instead creating more political appointees chosen by the president. This move, Hogan warns, would replace nonpartisan civil servants with presidential loyalists, fundamentally altering the nature of government employment. Hogan takes aim at the project's designs on the Justice Department. He states bluntly, Project 2025 would undermine the Justice Department by weakening its independence from the president, eliminating the norm that the White House does not intervene in federal investigations. This erosion of judicial independence, Hogan argues, flies in the face of longstanding American traditions of impartial justice. The article doesn't shy away from inflammatory language, with Hogan describing some of Project 2025's proposals as absurd and dangerous. He specifically calls out plans for mass deportations, disbanding the Education Department, potentially abolishing the Federal Reserve, and withdrawing the abortion medication Mifpristone from the market as examples of the project's radical approach. In one of the piece's most provocative statements, Hogan declares, Project 2025 takes many of the principles that have made this nation great and shreds them. This stark assessment encapsulates Hogan's view that the initiative represents not just a policy disagreement, but a fundamental threat to American values. Hogan's critique is particularly notable coming from within Republican ranks, highlighting growing tensions within the party. His warning that Republicans who believe this power grab will benefit them in the short term will ultimately regret empowering a Democratic president with this level of control serves as a cautionary tale to his fellow party members. The former governor concludes with a call for bipartisanship and a return to core American values, positioning himself as a voice of moderation in an increasingly polarized political landscape. Whether his warnings about Project 2025 will resonate within his party remains to be seen, but Hogan's forceful critique ensures that the debate over the initiative's merits will continue to rage. The Conservative Partnership Institute and Project 2025, Blueprinting a New Conservative Order Project 2025 advisory board member The Conservative Partnership Institute, CPI, a relatively young but increasingly influential organization, has become a nexus of far-right policy formation and personnel development, The New Yorker reports. CPI was founded in 2017 by former Senator Jim DeMint after a four-year stint heading up the Heritage Foundation ended with him being fired. Jim DeMint's ouster from the Heritage Foundation came as a shock to the hundreds of scholars and staffers who've seen the organization's political influence grow thanks to DeMint's controversial decision to align a leading conservative think tank closely with Donald Trump, Politico wrote at the time. Former Trump chief of staff and election-denying insurrectionist Mark Meadows serves as CPI's senior partner and in 2022 was paid nearly $900,000 in compensation. DeMint as chairman earned just shy of $670,000. In just seven years, CPI has rapidly evolved from a modest training ground for congressional staffers into a sprawling ecosystem of conservative influence, a so-called White House in waiting, in line with DeMint's Trumpist political outlook. Since 2021, CPI has launched the American Accountability Foundation, a Project 2025 supporter, Project 2025 supporter and virulent defender, the American Main Street Initiative, Stephen Miller's America First Legal, Russell Vaught's Center for Renewing America, a Project 2025 member, Ben Carson's American Cornerstone Institute, a Project 2025 supporter, the American Moment, a Project 2025 supporter, where J.D. Vance is a board member, Emeritus, 2022's Personnel Policy Operations, a Project 2025 member, the Vast State Freedom Caucus Network whose president Andrew Roth is a former Claremont Institute fellow, and the Election Integrity Network, where Project 2025 contributor and election denier Cleta Mitchell chairs the board of directors. With nearly $36.4 million raised in 2022 and significant real estate investments in Washington, D.C. and elsewhere, CPI has positioned itself as both a physical and ideological hub for a new generation of conservative operatives. CPI owns $41 million in real estate along Pennsylvania Avenue, a conservative campus referred to as Patriot's Row. In late 2021 CPI also purchased a 2,200-acre compound on Maryland's eastern shore dubbed Camper Din, a retreat and lodge where CPI guests and operatives can hunt, play tennis, and conspire. As the New York Times reported, the property, a 90-mile drive from Washington, serves as a conference center and guest lodge for conservative members of Congress and their staffers, who according to ethics rules cannot accept travel within 50 miles from the Capitol. The Institute's central role in Project 2025 reflects its growing sway within the broader conservative movement. Key CPI figures, including Russell Vaught of the Center for Renewing America and Stephen Miller of America First Legal, have played pivotal roles in shaping the project's vision and policy suggestions, although Miller has recently sought to disassociate himself from the project. Project 2025's proposals, informed by CPI's network, paint a picture of potentially radical changes to federal governance. These include plans to challenge longstanding norms of bureaucratic independence, dramatically expand certain enforcement capabilities, and restructure key government agencies. Central to these ambitions is the planned reinstatement of Schedule F, an executive order that would strip job protections from thousands of career civil servants, many of whom Project 2025 proposes firing. CPI's involvement in Project 2025 extends to personnel vetting as well. Affiliated groups have engaged in extensive research into the backgrounds of current government employees, ostensibly to assess their ideological alignment with the project's objectives. This effort dovetails with Project 2025's aim to create a database of vetted personnel ready to staff key positions in a future administration. The ambitious scope of Project 2025, coupled with CPI's extensive preparations, suggests a concerted attempt to create a more cohesive and effective conservative governing philosophy. For conservatives, this represents a long-awaited opportunity to enact sweeping changes across the bureaucracy and policy landscape. Funding for Project 2025 and CPI's related efforts comes from a diverse array of sources, reflecting the project's broad appeal within conservative circles. Financial backers like Mike Radin, who provided a $25 million windfall to CPI in 2021, Camp Radin is named for him, have played a crucial role in financing these preparations. Radin is also a major donor to Turning Point USA, which is part of Project 2025. Additionally, established conservative funding networks, including institutions like the Bradley Impact Fund and Donors Trust, have lent their support to the initiative. As Project 2025 continues to take shape, its potential impact on American governance cannot be overstated. The project represents a comprehensive attempt to translate conservative ideals into concrete policy actions, touching on every aspect of the federal government. The involvement of CPI and its network in Project 2025 also highlights a shift in conservative politics towards a more activist, confrontational approach to governance. Rather than working within existing institutional frameworks, the project seeks to fundamentally challenge and reshape these institutions to align with a particular conservative vision. Ultimately, Project 2025 and CPI's role in its development illustrate the ongoing evolution of American conservatism. As the political landscape continues to shift, initiatives like this will likely play an increasingly significant role in shaping the ideological and practical contours of governance and the future of American democracy itself. Project 2025 – A Seismic Shift in American Science Policy The Heritage Foundation's Project 2025 seeks to redefine the role of government in scientific endeavors, advocating for a smaller federal footprint and increased presidential control over traditionally nonpartisan agencies. This shift, if implemented, would have profound consequences for climate science, environmental protection, healthcare and numerous other fields that rely on objective, evidence-based research and policymaking, the lauded magazine Scientific American, which has published articles by more than 200 Nobel Prize recipients, reports. One of the aspects of Project 2025 that concerns scientists is its approach to climate change. The plan would significantly curtail federal climate science programs, dismissing them as climate alarmism. This move would not only hinder researchers' ability to understand and mitigate the impacts of global warming but could also impede efforts to adapt to already observable changes in weather patterns and ecosystems. By proposing to eliminate the National Weather Service's forecasting role and reduce the scope of agencies like NOAA, the plan risks dismantling critical infrastructure for predicting and responding to extreme weather events. The Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, would face substantial restructuring under Project 2025. The plan calls for the installation of a science advisor reporting directly to the presidential administration, along with multiple new senior political appointees. This change could potentially compromise the agency's scientific integrity and independence. Furthermore, the proposal to revisit the designation of perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, PFASs, as hazardous chemicals ignores mounting evidence of their persistent environmental impact and associated health risks. The plan's approach to education is equally transformative. By proposing to dismantle the Department of Education and end student loan forgiveness programs, Project 2025 could dramatically alter the landscape of higher education in the United States. Moreover, the suggested changes to visa programs for international students and workers could impact the nation's ability to attract and retain top global talent in STEM fields, potentially weakening America's position as a leader in scientific innovation. Project 2025's vision for federal scientific institutions represents a departure from the longstanding principle of maintaining a degree of separation between political ideology and scientific research. By advocating for increased political control over agencies like the EPA and NOAA, the plan risks undermining the objectivity and credibility of government-produced scientific data and analysis. Project 2025 could spark a brain drain in federal agencies, as career scientists may opt to leave government service rather than work under conditions they perceive as hostile to scientific integrity. This exodus of expertise could have long-lasting impacts on the quality and continuity of scientific research and policymaking at the federal level. The implications of Project 2025 extend beyond domestic policy. The United States has long been a global leader in scientific research and innovation, and changes to federal scientific institutions could have ripple effects on international collaborations and the global scientific community's perception of American research. Project 2025 underscores the increasingly contentious relationship between science and politics in the United States. The plan raises fundamental questions about the role of scientific expertise in policymaking, the balance between political ideology and evidence-based governance, and the long-term consequences of reshaping federal scientific institutions to align with particular political viewpoints. Its proposed changes to climate science programs, environmental regulations, and educational institutions could have far-reaching consequences for scientific research and policy in the United States. As the nation grapples with complex challenges that demand robust scientific understanding and innovation, the debate over Project 2025 serves as a critical flashpoint in the ongoing dialogue about the role of science in American society and governance. The Quiet Thread to American Safety Project 2025's Vision for Homeland Security Project 2025 threatens to dismantle key pillars of American security. At the heart of this controversial plan lies a proposal to drastically restructure the Department of Homeland Security DHS, with far-reaching consequences that could leave the nation vulnerable. Perhaps most alarming is the project's apparent disregard for the Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers, FLETC, the largest school for law enforcement officers. This oversight is not merely a bureaucratic reshuffling, it's a potential blow to the foundation of America's law enforcement capabilities. Former Trump administration official Ken Cuccinelli, in his Project 2025 chapter on DHS, advocates for the total breakup of the department. He recommends sending some components to other agencies and dismantling the rest. FLETC apparently does not make Cuccinelli's cut, as he does not recommend moving or consolidating it, the Center for American Progress reports. FLETC, responsible for training over 20,000 officers annually from federal, state, local, and tribal agencies, offers more than 300 specialized programs. These range from basic training to advanced courses in counterterrorism, cybercrime, and critical skills like de-escalation techniques. By providing consistent, high-quality training across various agencies, FLETC plays a crucial role in maintaining law enforcement standards nationwide. The closure of FLETC, as described in Project 2025's mandate for leadership, would create a dangerous void in law enforcement education. It would disrupt the training of thousands of officers, potentially compromising public safety and national security. Moreover, it would eliminate a central hub for developing and disseminating best practices in modern policing, including vital areas such as use of force protocols and community relations. As America grapples with complex challenges in law enforcement and national security, the need for well-trained, professional officers has never been greater. Project 2025's short-sighted approach to restructuring DHS risks undermining this critical need, potentially setting back years of progress in law enforcement training and coordination and gambles with the safety and security of all Americans. In their own words, she's a DEI hire, right? She's a woman. She's colored. Turning Point USA Honorary Board Member Sebastian Gorka commenting on Vice President Kamala Harris on Newsmax, July 10, 2024. Never before has the American conservative movement been this unified around a set of possible policy prescriptions. As I mentioned to one media fellow yesterday, it's like the menu at Cheesecake Factory, which my wife says is the most overwhelming thing she's ever experienced in her life. Yes. And so, yes, it's 922 pages, but the much larger point, you can only really realize when you step back from all of this, this new cycle and to say, man, the conservative movement's getting its act together. And a lot of people deserve credit for that, chiefly Donald J. Trump. Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts describing Project 2025 on his podcast from the Republican National Convention, July 18, 2024. The deep state is totally desperate on their last legs and their death throes. We're in a literal death rattle right now. So this is the time of maximum effort. We don't just have the hundred and so days to the election, we have the 79 days of what I'm gonna call hell. Uh, when he president elect, the globalists have already said they're gonna trigger mass riots, civil unrest, bill it as racial, uh, and then try to put so much pressure on the country in those 79 days that somehow Trump will not make it into office on January 21, 2025. Conspiracist Alex Jones being interviewed by Charlie Kirk of Project 2025, partner Turning Point USA on July 21, 2024.