From Blueprint to Action: Project 2025's Role in Shaping Trump's America

A Founders\’ First Freedom Publication

A Work-in-Progress – Reporting as of March 31, 2025.

During his 2024 presidential campaign, Donald Trump publicly distanced h

imself from Project 2025, a comprehensive policy blueprint developed by the Heritage Foundation. He stated, \”I have nothing to do with Project 2025,\” emphasizing that he had neither read nor intended to read the document.

Despite these campaign statements, President Trump\’s early actions in his second term have closely mirrored many of Project 2025\’s recommendations. For instance, within days of returning to office, he issued executive orders reclassifying thousands of federal employees, effectively reinstating Schedule F, which aligns with Project 2025\’s goal of reshaping the federal workforce . Additionally, his administration has pursued policies such as imposing new tariffs, restructuring federal agencies, and enacting aggressive immigration reforms, all of which reflect the blueprint\’s proposals.

This alignment suggests that, despite initial disavowals, Project 2025 has significantly influenced the policy direction of President Trump\’s second term.​

In the most sweeping analysis of its kind to date, this article offers a comprehensive examination of how the Trump administration in 2025 is translating the Project 2025 blueprint into federal policy. Across every major sphere—education, civil service, immigration, energy, foreign affairs, social issues, and beyond—the administration has consistently drawn from Heritage Foundation’s 920-page roadmap as if it were a governing manual. In many areas, its actions align precisely with the think tank’s recommendations; in others, the administration has advanced even further in pursuit of an \”America First\” conservative agenda. While some deviations or silences remain—such as a measured approach to entitlement reform—the broader pattern is unmistakable: Project 2025 has become the intellectual engine behind the administration’s second term, shaping decisions with a level of fidelity and urgency that exceeds even its architects\’ expectations.

Project 2025 Blueprint: Heritage’s Project 2025: Mandate for Leadership devoted significant attention to overhauling the federal bureaucracy. The blueprint proposed reasserting presidential control over the “deep state” by reinstating Schedule F (a Trump-era order that reclassifies policy-making civil servants to make them easier to fire), implementing a hiring freeze, and reassigning or removing senior executives not aligned with the President’s agenda . It recommended rescinding longstanding civil-service protections (even calling for revoking President Lyndon Johnson’s 1965 order on federal contractor nondiscrimination) to dismantle diversity offices and empower political appointees . In short, Project 2025 outlined a sweeping “personnel is policy” strategy to shrink and politicize the federal workforce, echoing the Trump campaign’s pledge to “drain the swamp.”

2025 Trump Administration Actions: During the first months of 2025, President Trump moved swiftly to implement these recommendations. On Day One, he reinstated Schedule F by executive order , once again allowing agencies to reclassify potentially thousands of civil servants as at-will employees who can be fired more easily. He simultaneously imposed a federal hiring freeze across executive agencies , pausing new hires as the blueprint urged. Trump also signed an order directing that Senior Executive Service (SES) officials be “optimally aligned to implement [his] agenda,” effectively ordering mass reassignments of SES personnel to sideline or remove those deemed unfaithful to his program . These steps directly mirror Project 2025’s prescriptions for taming the bureaucracy. Notably, Trump’s January 24 order on Schedule F explicitly cited and reinstated his October 2020 order in toto, just as Heritage’s plan had called for .

In line with these policies, the administration began aggressively downsizing agencies. For example, the Department of Education (see below) announced layoffs of nearly 50% of its staff, and the Department of Veterans Affairs drew up plans to cut about 15% of its workforce (over 80,000 jobs) . A new White House‐level entity – jokingly dubbed the “Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)” – was created to audit and slash agency payrolls. Elon Musk was spotlighted as an outside adviser heading this effort, even appearing at Trump’s March 4 joint address to Congress. Musk publicly urged privatizing the U.S. Postal Service and Amtrak, indicating the administration’s openness to such moves . (Project 2025 did recommend exploring privatization of federal services like USPS.)

Trump also tested the limits of executive power in personnel matters. In late January, he fired a sitting Democratic member of the National Labor Relations Board (whose term ran until 2028) in an unprecedented maneuver . This move – now being litigated in court – signaled Trump’s willingness to challenge the independence of quasi-judicial agencies to accelerate the policy turnarounds envisioned by Heritage. The administration’s legal argument is that the President can remove such officials at will, a theory consistent with Project 2025’s unitary executive bent.

Overall, the early 2025 actions on civil service reform faithfully executed the Project 2025 game plan. The “deep state” purge is underway: Trump’s team has taken “appropriate action to correct past misconduct” and to remove or marginalize officials viewed as resistant . Unions and career staff have protested these mass firings and reassignments, but Trump officials emphasize they are “restoring accountability” as the Heritage blueprint envisioned . In short, the Trump administration has adopted Project 2025’s civil service reforms almost to the letter, tightening control over federal personnel and dismantling institutional protections in pursuit of an obedient bureaucracy.

Education Policy

Project 2025 Blueprint: The Heritage blueprint’s education chapter (authored by Lindsey Burke) called for a dramatic rollback of federal involvement in K–12 schooling and the promotion of school choice. It proposed shuttering the U.S. Department of Education and returning power to states and local communities . Project 2025 emphasized expanding “education freedom” – e.g. empowering families to choose charter, private, or homeschool options – and suggested that even without new federal programs, Washington could incentivize choice (for instance, by leveraging education funds for military families, D.C., and tribal schools) . The blueprint also urged excising “woke” content from schools: enforce civil rights laws to stop “illegal and discriminatory…indoctrination” based on critical race theory or gender ideology . In higher education, it recommended eliminating diversity/equity offices and using funding levers to curb campus extremism. Overall, Heritage sketched a vision of eliminating the federal education department, bolstering parental rights and school choice, and stamping out progressive curricula.

2025 Trump Administration Actions: President Trump wasted no time acting on these recommendations. In March 2025, he signed an executive order directing the dismantling of the Department of Education – an unprecedented step toward a long-held conservative goal . The order instructs Education Secretary Linda McMahon to “take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure of the Education Department” to the maximum extent allowed by law . While Congress would ultimately have to abolish the department, Trump touted this as the “first step to eliminate” it . Immediately, the department moved to lay off nearly half its staff . At the signing ceremony, Trump stood flanked by young students and state flags, declaring “We’re going to be returning education back to the states where it belongs” . This unmistakably aligns with Project 2025’s mandate to decentralize education governance.

Simultaneously, the administration advanced school choice initiatives. Trump’s “Expanding Educational Freedom” executive order directed the Education Department to make “education freedom” (school choice) a priority in its grant programs . It also ordered the Pentagon to, within 90 days, find ways for military families to use Department of Defense funds to send their children to schools of their choice (including private or faith-based schools) . This reflects Project 2025’s idea that Congress has a special responsibility to provide school choice for military-connected children and others under unique federal jurisdiction . In addition, Trump has voiced support for education tax credit scholarships and signaled he would sign a bill if Congress passes one. (By contrast, the previous administration opposed federally funded private school options.) In short, parental choice in education has been elevated as a policy priority in keeping with the Heritage blueprint.

The Trump team also moved aggressively to “de-woke-ify” curricula and policies. In February, President Trump issued an order on “Ending Radical Indoctrination in K-12 Schooling,” which instructed that federal education funds be withheld from any programs or schools engaging in discriminatory “critical race theory” practices . The order cited Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and other laws, making clear that enforcing civil rights means prohibiting compelled belief in gender or racial ideologies . For example, any school receiving federal funds must not force students to adopt ideologies like gender fluidity or collective guilt for past racism. This essentially implements Project 2025’s recommendation to use the Civil Rights Act to protect students and parents from “progressive” indoctrination . Likewise, the Education Department has begun reviewing grant criteria and guidance to excise Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) requirements, mirroring Heritage’s call to “eliminate Federal support for…discriminatory equity ideology.”

Another immediate reversal was on Title IX and gender policy in schools. In late January, Trump rescinded the Biden-era Title IX regulations that had expanded the definition of sex to include gender identity. He then issued an executive order defining “sex” as only male or female at birth for purposes of federal education policy . The order declares it is U.S. policy to recognize only two immutable sexes, and directs agencies to ensure that bathrooms, sports teams, and other sex-specific spaces or programs be based on biological sex, not gender identity . This is word-for-word aligned with a section of Project 2025 which said the HHS Secretary “should never conflate sex with gender identity” and should “proudly state that men and women are biological realities.” . In the education context, that means rolling back transgender inclusion policies in schools – exactly what Trump’s order did by commencing a new Title IX rulemaking to restore the definition of sex to biological terms. Heritage’s Burke had explicitly urged the next administration to “restore the rights of women and girls” by protecting single-sex sports, bathrooms, etc., and Trump acted on that on Day One .

Higher education policy has also seen decisive action. The administration has targeted university DEI programs and campus protests that it views as disruptive. In mid-March, the Department of Education temporarily suspended a $400 million federal grant to Columbia University over concerns about an incident of campus unrest . The department gave Columbia an ultimatum to tighten restrictions on campus protests (reportedly in response to anti-Israel demonstrations) as a condition for restoring the funds . This highly unusual move sent a signal to academia nationwide that federal dollars will be leveraged to enforce order and discourage activist campus climates. It dovetails with Project 2025’s theme that federal funding should not bankroll universities that tolerate anarchy or ideological monocultures. Furthermore, Trump has echoed the blueprint’s skepticism of university DEI bureaucracy: his administration is exploring withholding research and training grants from colleges that mandate DEI statements or practices, which fulfills the blueprint’s call to “re-engineer higher education” by eliminating federally subsidized “diversity” programs .

In sum, the Trump administration’s 2025 education agenda is highly consistent with Project 2025. It is working to abolish the Department of Education (a direct adoption of the Heritage recommendation) , aggressively promote school choice , and eradicate progressive ideology from schools using federal leverage . Where the blueprint provided a roadmap – from Title IX reversals to cutting the department’s staff – the administration has followed it closely. The result is a marked divergence from the previous administration’s policies: Trump is undoing Biden-era initiatives on gender and racial equity in education and pursuing an historic devolution of authority to states, exactly as outlined in Project 2025.

Religious Liberty Initiatives

Project 2025 Blueprint: Protecting religious liberty – both domestically and internationally – was a recurring theme in the Heritage blueprint. Although Project 2025 emphasizes “a more secular set of culture war issues over the religious” in some areas , it nonetheless calls for robust safeguards for people of faith. For example, the blueprint urged the next administration to vigorously enforce federal conscience protections for healthcare workers and others with moral objections to procedures like abortion or gender-transition interventions . It also recommended reversing Biden-era policies seen as hostile to religious groups (such as any limitations on faith-based social service providers) and reestablishing initiatives from Trump’s first term – e.g. a White House Faith and Opportunity office and a DOJ task force on religious freedom. Project 2025 endorses making religious freedom a foreign policy priority as well, continuing efforts like President Trump’s 2020 executive order on international religious freedom . In short, the blueprint laid out a comprehensive agenda to “champion the core American value of religious freedom” at home and abroad , undoing what it saw as the prior administration’s infringements on those rights.

The content below was originally paywalled.

2025 Trump Administration Actions: The new administration has moved assertively to implement these religious liberty recommendations. In early February, President Trump announced the creation of a White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, essentially reviving and elevating the faith-based office model from prior administrations . He used the National Prayer Breakfast on Feb. 6 to unveil a related initiative: directing Attorney General Pam Bondi to lead a DOJ Task Force on “anti-Christian bias” in the federal government . This task force’s mission is to “immediately halt all forms of anti-Christian targeting and discrimination within the federal government”, including at agencies like DOJ, IRS, FBI, and others . Trump explicitly tied this to alleged abuses under the previous administration, claiming Biden officials had targeted people of faith. By executive order, Trump established the task force and charged it with rooting out policies or officials that exhibit religious hostility . This is a direct realization of Project 2025’s goal of correcting the “politicization and weaponization” of government against believers . The administration also stood up a new Commission on Religious Liberty, an advisory panel of faith leaders to recommend broader steps to protect faith-based institutions (a move the President mentioned alongside the task force) .

Attorney General Bondi has signaled a sharp pivot at the Department of Justice in favor of religious claimants. She vowed DOJ will prosecute anti-Christian hate crimes and vandalism (such as attacks on churches or pregnancy centers) vigorously . She also rescinded or modified internal DOJ guidance that the prior administration had issued on LGBTQ discrimination, to ensure it doesn’t infringe on religious liberty rights. In her remarks at the prayer breakfast, Bondi – echoing Trump – said they would “move heaven and earth to defend the rights of Christians and religious believers nationwide.” This represents a dramatic change in tone at DOJ, essentially aligning enforcement priorities with the concerns of religious conservatives. It aligns with the Project 2025 narrative that under Biden, federal agencies were biased against traditional religious values, and that needed to be reversed immediately .

Crucially, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has taken steps to restore conscience protections for healthcare workers. On January 27, HHS Acting Secretary Dorothy Fink, M.D. announced that HHS “will reevaluate its regulations and guidance pertaining to Federal laws on conscience and religious exercise” . She declared that “it shall be a priority of the Department to strengthen enforcement of these laws.” . In practice, this means HHS plans to revive a Trump-era provider conscience rule (from 2019) that had given doctors and nurses broad rights to refuse participation in abortions, sterilizations, or gender-transition procedures on moral or religious grounds . (The Biden administration had repealed much of that rule; now the Trump team is on course to reinstate it.) The Office for Civil Rights (OCR) at HHS, which is responsible for enforcing conscience statutes, has already reestablished a Conscience and Religious Freedom Division and begun outreach to entities covered by these laws to encourage complaints. This follows the Project 2025 directive that HHS “respect the sacred rights of conscience” and make that a top priority in health policy .

In tandem, President Trump took executive action to roll back federal support for abortion (often framed as a religious liberty and moral issue). On January 24, he issued an order “Enforcing the Hyde Amendment”, which instructed all agencies to ensure no federal funds are being used to pay for or promote abortion, domestically or abroad . This order rescinded two Biden executive orders that had directed agencies to expand abortion access in the wake of Roe’s overturning . Trump’s directive argued those Biden orders violated the Hyde Amendment (the longstanding law barring federal abortion funding) . As a result, HHS and USAID immediately began reviewing all programs to cut off any implicit subsidies for abortion providers . This led, for instance, to the Department of Labor revoking guidance that allowed federal health plans to cover travel for abortions, and to HHS notifying states that Medicaid waivers expanding abortion access would be withdrawn. These steps fulfill Project 2025’s recommendation that the next HHS “withdraw…guidance” that had tried to work around the Hyde Amendment .

The administration also reinstated the “Mexico City Policy” (also known as Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance) via presidential memorandum on January 24 . This policy bars U.S. global health funds from going to any foreign NGOs that perform or promote abortions. Trump’s memo not only restored his 2017 policy but expanded it to all foreign assistance, per Heritage’s suggestion that it be drafted “broadly” . (It simultaneously revoked a 2021 Biden memorandum that had ended the Mexico City restrictions .) Pro-life and religious groups praised these moves: “With this action the president is getting American taxpayers out of the abortion business…reflect[ing] the will of the majority of Americans,” said Marjorie Dannenfelser of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America . The Heritage blueprint’s pro-life plank – which views opposition to abortion as a matter of fundamental moral principle – is clearly being implemented as a facet of the administration’s religious liberty agenda.

In addition, President Trump has followed through on making international religious freedom a focus. He appointed an outspoken advocate as Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom and resumed high-profile annual ministerials (conferences) on religious persecution abroad, which the Biden team had quietly deemphasized. The administration also reversed course at the United Nations: it withdrew U.S. support for certain UN resolutions that it argued conflicted with religious values (such as those endorsing abortion or expansive LGBTQ rights), and instead started rallying a coalition of countries to promote family and religious rights at the UN – a concept mentioned in Project 2025’s foreign policy recommendations . For example, USAID under Trump has refocused aid to support persecuted religious minorities, reversing a trend under the previous administration that prioritized other demographic categories . All of this underscores a return to the “religious freedom as a pillar” approach that Heritage advocated.

Taken together, the Trump administration’s first-quarter actions amount to a full-throated embrace of Project 2025’s religious liberty agenda. They created a high-level infrastructure (White House office, DOJ task force, HHS OCR focus) to defend religious freedom, adopted policies protecting conscience rights in health care , and rolled back measures seen as infringing on faith-based groups. This marks a significant divergence from 2021–2024, when the federal government prioritized LGBTQ rights and access to abortion – often to the chagrin of religious conservatives. Now, under Trump, the federal stance has flipped: religious liberty (especially for conservative Christians) is being elevated and aggressively protected, just as the Heritage blueprint envisioned .

Immigration and Border Security

Project 2025 Blueprint: Immigration and border security were centerpiece issues in the Heritage blueprint (the relevant chapter was authored by Ken Cuccinelli, Trump’s former USCIS Director). Project 2025 painted the situation at the southern border as a “crisis” and urged hard-line measures to regain control. Key recommendations included: deploying the U.S. military to the border to assist in blocking and apprehending illegal crossings; ending “catch-and-release” by mandating detention of all undocumented migrants pending removal (changing the legal wording from immigrants “may be detained” to “shall be detained”) ; empowering and pressuring state and local police to enforce federal immigration law ; sanctioning countries (via visa denials or tariffs) that refuse to accept their nationals back for deportation ; punishing “sanctuary” jurisdictions by withholding federal funds ; and severely curtailing refugee admissions, possibly down to zero, until the border is under control . The blueprint even floated novel ideas like invoking war powers against drug cartels and treating mass migration as an “invasion.” Overall, Heritage’s roadmap called for a massive escalation of enforcement – essentially a “zero tolerance” approach – to achieve border security and large-scale deportations.

2025 Trump Administration Actions: This is one area where the Trump administration’s actions so far heavily align with Project 2025’s hard-line stance. Immediately upon taking office on January 20, President Trump declared a national emergency at the southern border and invoked extraordinary powers to address what he termed an “invasion” . In his first hours, he ordered the deployment of thousands of U.S. troops and National Guard units to the Mexican border to support the Border Patrol . This directly mirrors Project 2025’s proposal to use active-duty military and the Guard for border enforcement operations . By March, the Defense Department reported that military engineering units had completed new sections of border wall and fencing using reprogrammed funds, and troops were surveilling and interdicting between ports of entry – effectively acting on the blueprint’s call to “participate actively in the defense of America’s borders” and build additional barriers . Trump highlighted that illegal crossings in February fell to their lowest level on record, crediting the aggressive military-backed stance .

The administration also moved to end catch-and-release once and for all. President Trump issued an executive order to detain all asylum-seekers and illegal entrants to the maximum extent of the law, with no discretionary releases . This implements Heritage’s recommendation to change “may detain” to “shall detain” – effectively requiring mandatory detention . Since detention capacity is limited, the administration has sought additional funding from Congress for more ICE beds, and is expanding the use of temporary tent facilities. Concurrently, DOJ and DHS rolled out a stricter asylum rule disqualifying migrants who passed through third countries (reviving a Trump-era “transit ban”), which Heritage had implicitly supported. They also quietly restarted the “Remain in Mexico” program in coordination with Mexico, forcing many asylum applicants to wait in Mexico again – a policy Heritage lauded in 2020 and likely assumed in Project 2025’s strategy of stemming the influx. As a result of these moves, the number of migrants being quickly removed or returned shot up, and the number released into the U.S. interior plummeted. These outcomes match exactly the blueprint’s goal of 100% detention or immediate removal.

To further discourage illegal migration, Trump’s Day 1 border security order also invoked state and local cooperation authorities. It directs DHS to deputize willing state law enforcement under 287(g) partnerships and even calls on Congress to explicitly authorize states to enforce federal immigration law . While waiting on Congress, the administration has leaned on existing law: Texas, Florida, and Arizona have all signed new agreements with ICE to permit their police to act as immigration agents in certain capacities – a direct realization of Project 2025’s push for “Federal-State partnerships to enforce Federal immigration priorities.” Several states (like Texas) are also receiving federal support to deploy their National Guard to the border. In essence, Trump is building an immigration enforcement force multiplier by co-opting state resources, just as the Heritage plan envisioned.

Another early action was aimed at so-called “sanctuary cities.” In late January, President Trump signed an order on “Protecting the American People Against Invasion” that, among other things, instructs DOJ and DHS to ensure jurisdictions that refuse to honor ICE detainers or impede immigration enforcement do not receive federal grant funds . Attorney General Bondi and DHS Secretary Mayorkas (who stayed on temporarily at Trump’s request) announced reviews of Justice Department and Homeland Security grants to cut off certain funding streams to California, New York City, and other sanctuary jurisdictions. This fulfills a key Project 2025 item – to set “financial disincentives” for sanctuary policies . Legal challenges are expected (Trump attempted similar defunding in 2017 and was largely blocked by courts), but the administration is trying a new approach by tying it to specific programs (e.g. denying law-enforcement grants to cities that refuse to share immigration information, under a condition Congress has authorized). Regardless of outcome, the policy direction is squarely in line with the Heritage blueprint’s strict stance on sanctuaries.

The Trump administration also tackled “recalcitrant” foreign countries that hinder U.S. deportations – another Project 2025 priority. In February, the State Department, at Trump’s behest, began implementing visa sanctions against countries that refuse to take back their citizens who have been ordered removed from the U.S. The President publicly warned that countries not cooperating with U.S. deportations would face “stiff sanctions” . Shortly thereafter, visa issuance was suspended for certain categories of travelers from Nicaragua and Cameroon, which have been slow to accept deportees. DHS officials noted this was done under Section 243(d) of the INA – precisely the tool Heritage flagged for punishing uncooperative countries . Within weeks, both countries began accelerating the repatriation of their nationals. This mirrored the tactic the Trump administration used in 2020 and is explicitly outlined in Project 2025 (which devoted attention to “Recalcitrant Countries” and ensuring use of sanctions authority) . The quick resort to visa sanctions again demonstrates how Trump’s team is using the blueprint as a playbook.

Perhaps most strikingly, President Trump essentially shut down the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) for the time being – a direct adoption of one of Project 2025’s boldest proposals. On January 23, he signed an order “Realigning the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program” that suspended all refugee resettlements indefinitely, stating that resources were needed to deal with the border crisis . The Heritage blueprint had explicitly argued that handling the southern influx would require “an indefinite curtailment” of refugee admissions . Trump’s order implements this by halting refugee entries until “such time as their further entry…aligns with the interests of the United States” . In practical terms, the FY2025 refugee cap of 50,000 set by Biden is now moot; only a few hundred refugees already in transit have been admitted. The U.S. has never before suspended refugee admissions without a statutory bar, making this a dramatic policy reversal – one straight from the Project 2025 agenda. The administration justifies it by pointing to the tens of thousands of asylum-seekers at the border, arguing the U.S. must prioritize those claims first. Critics note that refugees (who apply from abroad) are an entirely separate pool, but the suspension remains in effect and is a clear convergence with the Heritage plan.

In summary, Trump’s immigration policies in 2025 so far are almost a point-by-point implementation of Project 2025. He has effectively militarized the border , ended catch-and-release through mandatory detention, revived strict asylum barriers, empowered states to aid in enforcement, punished sanctuary cities , slashed refugee entries to zero, and even floated treating the cartels as foreign threats – all reflecting the blueprint’s hard-line approach. The administration has diverged from the prior administration’s more humanitarian posture in exactly the ways Heritage prescribed. As a result, illegal crossings have indeed dropped (though the humanitarian implications are hotly debated). From the perspective of Project 2025’s authors, the Trump team’s actions to date represent a full embrace of their immigration platform, aimed at nothing less than ending the mass migration crisis by any means necessary.

Foreign Policy and Defense

Project 2025 Blueprint: In foreign policy, the Heritage blueprint advocated an “America First” realignment of U.S. strategy. It urged focusing on great-power adversaries (especially China), demanding more from allies, and being unafraid to disrupt the status quo in international institutions. Key themes included: reducing U.S. involvement in protracted conflicts like Ukraine unless core interests demand it, pressuring NATO allies to shoulder defenses, and avoiding open-ended foreign aid or nation-building. The blueprint authors (e.g. Kiron Skinner for State, Christopher Miller for Defense) also stressed exiting international agreements seen as constraining U.S. sovereignty – such as the Paris Climate Accord and World Health Organization – and taking a harder line against perceived biased or ineffective multilateral bodies (like the U.N. Human Rights Council) . In defense, Project 2025 called for strengthening U.S. deterrence (e.g. investing in next-gen missile defense and nuclear modernization) while eliminating “wokeness” in the ranks and possibly trimming missions not geared toward high-intensity conflict . Overall, the blueprint’s foreign policy was confidently unilateralist and transactional, aiming to “put America first in international agreements” and adjust alliances to new realities .

2025 Trump Administration Actions: President Trump’s early foreign-policy moves show a strong fidelity to the Project 2025 approach – in some cases going even further. Most dramatically, Trump shifted U.S. policy on the Russia-Ukraine war. Citing a personal letter from President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Trump announced that Ukraine was “ready to come to the negotiating table as soon as possible to bring lasting peace.” He also claimed to have received “strong signals” from Moscow of readiness for peace . Acting on this, in early March the administration paused all U.S. military aid to Ukraine . Trump openly acknowledged he was using the aid freeze to push both Kyiv and Moscow toward a negotiated settlement. “It’s time to stop this madness…If you want to end wars you have to talk to both sides,” he told Congress on March 4 . This marked a sharp break from the previous administration’s unwavering support for Ukraine. It hews closely to sentiments expressed by some Project 2025 contributors: that Europe must take primary responsibility for regional conflicts, and that the U.S. should avoid a long war that distracts from the China threat. Indeed, Heritage had signaled skepticism about a “blank check” for Ukraine, and Trump’s actions reflect that skepticism. The halt in aid – which included holding up billions in weapons shipments – startled allies but was coupled with intense U.S. diplomatic efforts to broker talks. By pressuring Ukraine to consider concessions (and implicitly signaling less U.S. backing), Trump is essentially implementing an “end the endless war” approach consistent with his campaign and not contradicted by the Heritage blueprint’s general priorities.

This new stance has pressured European allies to fill the gap. Trump pointedly told NATO countries that the U.S. would not continue footing the bill and that “it’s time for Europe to step up.” Behind closed doors, he even mentioned the possibility of “re-evaluating” U.S. force posture in Europe if allies do not contribute more – echoing the Project 2025 view that allies should carry their own weight. European reactions have been anxious, but some have increased commitments to Ukraine in response. Politically, Trump’s policy represents a divergence from the bipartisan consensus of 2022–24, yet it aligns with the Heritage mindset that U.S. resources are finite and should be redirected toward the Indo-Pacific and rebuilding America’s military readiness. As one Reuters analysis put it, “European allies [are] pressured as U.S. shifts stance,” marking a fundamental change in transatlantic strategy .

Beyond Ukraine, the Trump administration has reoriented U.S. foreign policy to reclaim what it views as American sovereignty in global forums. In January, President Trump followed through on vows to withdraw from several international agreements: He formally pulled the U.S. out of the Paris Climate Agreement and the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) , and he withdrew from the World Health Organization (WHO) . (The U.S. had rejoined those under Biden; Trump wasted no time reversing that.) These moves were explicitly called for in the Heritage blueprint . Likewise, in February Trump terminated U.S. participation in the U.N. Human Rights Council – from which the U.S. had already been absent but was set to re-engage – blasting it as “anti-American” and biased . At the same time, he endorsed Israel’s stance against the U.N.’s Palestinian refugee agency (UNRWA). The administration extended a freeze on U.S. funding to UNRWA, which Congress had put in place after allegations of Hamas infiltration . In fact, with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s visit in February, Trump signaled he might permanently cut U.S. ties with UNRWA and similar bodies . All of this aligns perfectly with Project 2025’s recommendation that the U.S. withdraw support from international organizations that “act against U.S. interests” . Heritage cheered Trump’s earlier term withdrawals from UNHRC and UNRWA funding, and now those are being reinstated. The common thread is a reassertion of U.S. independence on the world stage, a rejection of what Trump calls “globalist” entanglements – a stance thoroughly reflected in the Heritage blueprint.

Foreign aid policy has undergone a similar overhaul. In late January, President Trump ordered a 90-day suspension of all foreign aid programs (with limited emergency exceptions) pending a top-to-bottom review . This broad freeze was astonishing in scope: it affected everything from development grants to U.N. contributions. Almost immediately, U.S.-funded international aid operations began feeling the pinch; for example, some U.N. agencies cut back humanitarian programs due to the funding hold . The rationale given was to ensure that U.S. foreign assistance “is fully aligned with the President’s foreign policy” . This language comes straight from Project 2025’s section on reforming foreign aid, which lamented that “U.S. foreign aid is too often disconnected from…U.S. foreign policy” . In March, Trump signed an executive order on “Reevaluating and Realigning U.S. Foreign Aid” that set new criteria: aid will be resumed only to countries and programs that advance U.S. strategic interests . Aid deemed wasteful or contrary to American values will be redirected or eliminated. A concrete example is the ongoing freeze of about $239 million appropriated for the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) – a nonprofit that promotes democracy abroad . The State Department refused to release those Congressionally-approved funds, prompting NED to file a lawsuit in March . Trump officials argue that groups like NED must prove alignment with U.S. interests (implicitly, they view some democracy-promotion efforts as misguided or too favorable to opponents of populist movements). This unprecedented step matches the Heritage blueprint’s skepticism of the “democracy bureaucracy” and its call to bring such programs under tighter White House control .

On alliances, the Trump administration has doubled down on burden-sharing demands. In his first calls with NATO leaders, President Trump reminded them of NATO’s 2% GDP defense spending target and hinted the U.S. might “reconsider” deployments if allies do not accelerate their defense investments. This tough line is in keeping with Project 2025’s stance that U.S. alliances must be “transactional” and reciprocal, not open-ended commitments. Officials have also intimated that U.S. support in places like Ukraine could be contingent on Europe taking the lead – which we already see happening. While Trump has not outright threatened to withdraw from NATO (something not explicitly advocated by Heritage and politically very explosive), he has revived his first-term rhetoric that NATO is “unfair to the U.S.” and needs reform. So far, this has resulted in greater defense pledges from European allies (e.g. Germany accelerating its military spending plan) and a more robust European diplomatic initiative toward Russia and Ukraine. Again, this outcome aligns with the Heritage worldview: America’s allies should share the security load, and under Trump’s prodding, they are moving in that direction .

In the Middle East, Trump has closely aligned U.S. policy with Israel’s interests, as Heritage recommended. He welcomed Netanyahu to the White House early and endorsed Israel’s hard line on U.N. bodies (as noted with UNRWA and UNHRC) . The administration has also given full backing to Israel’s actions against Iranian proxies. In line with Project 2025’s call for confronting Iran, Trump quickly reimposed and expanded sanctions on Iran, wiping out the small sanctions relief and diplomatic outreach that had occurred in late 2024. By February, Iran’s oil exports dropped again under tightened enforcement. Furthermore, there are signs the administration might endorse Israeli sovereignty measures in parts of the West Bank (something Heritage’s contributors have been sympathetic to), though no formal policy has been announced on that yet. The U.S. did, however, cut the last tranche of aid to the Palestinian Authority and Gaza that the prior administration had restored, citing terrorism concerns – another move consistent with Trump’s first-term policy and the hawkish tenor of the Heritage blueprint.

On China, the administration has so far taken a two-pronged approach consistent with Heritage’s emphasis on treating China as the top threat. Economically (as discussed in the next section), Trump has escalated trade pressure on Beijing, which Project 2025 explicitly encouraged. Diplomatically and militarily, Trump has maintained a tough posture: freedom-of-navigation naval patrols in the South China Sea have increased, and high-level contacts with Taiwan have been upgraded (a U.S. cabinet official visited Taipei in March, prompting Chinese protests). The administration is also reviewing China’s status in international organizations – for example, pushing to remove Chinese officials from leadership positions in certain U.N. agencies and hinting at quitting organizations that China “coopts” (the blueprint criticized China’s influence in bodies like the WHO, which Trump has now quit ). All of this matches Heritage’s counsel to confront Chinese influence globally and strengthen Taiwan’s position. Notably, Trump has not yet fully resolved trade negotiations with China and is reportedly considering bans on Chinese tech platforms (like a revived TikTok ban) and further investment restrictions, which would fit the blueprint’s hard decoupling philosophy.

In the defense realm, President Trump has initiated a significant new missile defense program evocative of Project 2025’s “Strengthen deterrence” recommendations. On February 15, he signed an executive order nicknamed “Iron Dome for America”, ordering the Pentagon to produce a comprehensive plan for a next-generation missile defense shield . The order specifically mandates accelerating deployment of space-based sensors to track hypersonic and ballistic missiles, and developing intercept capabilities for new missile threats . This is almost verbatim from the Heritage blueprint, which urged investment in space-based missile defense and modern interceptors to protect the U.S. homeland . By April, the Defense Department delivered an initial architecture plan as required. In tandem, Trump’s defense budget outline called for increases in funding for nuclear forces and missile defense, while seeking cuts to legacy programs and non-combat functions – again aligning with Heritage’s priorities. The administration has also rooted out what it calls “woke” policies in the Pentagon: for instance, it abolished the Chief Diversity Officer positions and DEI training programs in DOD by executive order , fulfilling the blueprint/Chris Miller recommendation to eliminate those offices. Military leaders have been instructed to refocus on warfighting and avoid divisive social experiments, a clear reflection of Project 2025’s tone.

In summary, the Trump administration’s foreign policy in 2025 has largely adopted the Project 2025 blueprint’s recommendations – asserting U.S. interests more unilaterally, reshaping alliances to be more reciprocal, exiting global agreements that don’t benefit the U.S., and reallocating defense efforts toward great-power competition. The most notable “divergence” might be how quickly and forcefully Trump moved on Ukraine; Heritage’s blueprint did not explicitly say to halt aid, but it did emphasize prioritizing China and avoiding endless war. Trump has done just that, arguably exceeding Heritage’s suggestions by orchestrating a potential peace push in Eastern Europe . Otherwise, from the U.N. withdrawals to the foreign aid freeze to the Iron Dome initiative, Trump’s actions track closely with the Heritage/Project 2025 vision of a bold, America-centric foreign policy that breaks with the consensual multilateralism of the past. Critics worry about damage to U.S. credibility, but Trump and his advisers (many of whom contributed to the blueprint) see these moves as “making good on our promise to put America first – exactly as outlined in Project 2025.”

Energy and Environmental Policy

Project 2025 Blueprint: The Heritage blueprint called for a dramatic reversal of the prior administration’s climate and energy policies – effectively prioritizing energy independence and economic growth over climate goals. It proposed aggressively expanding domestic fossil fuel production (oil, gas, coal, and critical minerals), rolling back environmental regulations deemed onerous, and withdrawing from international climate commitments. For example, Project 2025 urged exploiting Alaska’s resources (ANWR oil drilling, mining) as a matter of national security . It explicitly recommended leaving the Paris Climate Accord and even the underlying UN Climate Convention . It also advised rescinding President Biden’s executive orders on climate, such as EO 14008 (“Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad”), which included the “30×30” land conservation initiative . The blueprint took aim at Biden-era “green energy” policies: it advocated ending what it called the electric vehicle (EV) “mandate” and halting subsidies for wind and solar . Additionally, Heritage’s plan discussed repealing or easing many EPA regulations – for instance, loosen efficiency standards on appliances and reject the calculation of a “social cost of carbon” in rulemaking. The overarching aim was to “unleash American energy” production, reduce costs for consumers, and nullify what it saw as federal overreach in the name of climate change.

2025 Trump Administration Actions: President Trump has moved swiftly to implement nearly every major energy policy recommendation from Project 2025. On January 20, within hours of taking office, he signed an executive order titled “Unleashing American Energy”, which encapsulated the blueprint’s goals. One of its first provisions was to promote oil and gas drilling in Alaska – including on federal lands and waters that had been off-limits . The order explicitly cites “fully [availing] itself of Alaska’s vast lands and resources” as U.S. policy . It directs the Department of the Interior to expedite permits and leasing in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) and National Petroleum Reserve, and it overturns the late-2024 DOI rule that had blocked new drilling in large parts of Alaska. This move directly fulfilled Project 2025’s call to prioritize development in Alaska for energy security . By March, Interior had already held a lease sale in ANWR (quickly generating legal challenges, but the signal was sent). “Drill, baby, drill” is visibly back: U.S. crude oil production is on track to hit record highs in 2025, and Alaska’s governor thanked Trump for “giving our state’s economy new life”.

The administration also quickly reversed course on climate regulations and green energy programs. On Day 1, President Trump issued a directive cancelling President Biden’s so-called EV mandate . Biden had set ambitious targets via executive action for shifting federal vehicle purchases (and implicitly the market) to electric vehicles. Trump’s order rescinded those directives, stating that the federal government will not favor EVs over combustion vehicles and that consumers should have freedom of choice. In the same vein, Trump’s team froze implementation of stringent EPA tailpipe emissions standards that effectively required increasing EV sales – they plan to rewrite these standards on more industry-friendly terms. This aligns exactly with Project 2025’s critique that Biden’s policies “force an Electric Vehicle future” and its recommendation to undo federal pressure on automakers to electrify .

Another immediate action: Trump paused all new offshore wind energy leasing and projects in federal waters . He issued a memorandum citing concerns (often raised by Republicans) about offshore wind’s impact on marine ecosystems and fishing. This directly implements Project 2025’s suggestion to halt or repeal Biden’s offshore wind executive order . For context, Biden’s EO 14008 had set a goal for massive offshore wind development by 2030; Heritage argued this was being used to “advance an agenda to close vast areas of the ocean to commercial activities” . Trump’s pause on offshore wind was cheered by the fishing industry and criticized by renewable energy advocates, but it clearly adheres to the blueprint’s guidance.

Perhaps most consequential, the administration moved to dismantle Biden’s climate change policy architecture. In late January, Trump revoked Executive Order 14008 (“Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad”) entirely . This Obama/Biden-era sweeping order had established the 30×30 conservation goal (to preserve 30% of U.S. lands and waters by 2030) and integrated climate considerations into virtually all agencies’ actions. Project 2025 explicitly recommended withdrawing the 30×30 order and associated initiatives , and Trump did just that. By revoking EO 14008, he also abolished the White House National Climate Task Force, ended the requirement that agencies elevate climate in domestic and foreign policymaking, and halted the “America the Beautiful” conservation campaign . In Trump’s words, he “terminated the ridiculous Green New Scam.” In line with this, the administration halted or reversed numerous climate regulations: the EPA stopped work on proposed greenhouse gas rules for power plants and withdrew a draft rule on requiring climate disclosures from federal contractors. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) also removed “climate change” from its list of priorities under NEPA. All these moves align with Heritage’s view that such regulations were costly and of dubious benefit.

Internationally, as noted earlier, Trump withdrew the U.S. from the Paris Climate Agreement again . On January 20 he signed the letter to the U.N. giving one-year notice of U.S. withdrawal from both the Paris accord and the underlying UNFCCC treaty – a more drastic step that goes even beyond what he did in 2017. (Withdrawing from the UNFCCC would require Senate advice and consent, so this may set up a fight with Congress.) Nonetheless, this is exactly what Project 2025 had urged: “The next conservative Administration should withdraw the U.S. from the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Paris Agreement.” . Trump loudly touted this in his March address to Congress: “I withdrew from the unfair Paris Climate Accord, which was costing us trillions…other countries were not paying.” . These actions make the U.S. an outlier on climate policy once again, pleasing Heritage and fossil-fuel proponents while alarming environmentalists.

On the regulatory front, the administration is targeting numerous Obama/Biden environmental rules. A prime example: the Department of Energy, at Trump’s behest, rescinded or delayed a slew of energy efficiency standards for appliances – from dishwashers and gas stoves to light bulbs. Trump’s executive order on energy specifically stated that it aims to “safeguard the American people’s freedom to choose…appliances” and not let efficiency rules raise costs or reduce performance . This reflects Heritage’s gripe that DOE standards “reduce consumer choice” and neglect qualities like performance and affordability . In February, DOE issued a proposed rule to roll back the ban on incandescent light bulbs (which had been re-imposed under Biden) – something Trump had championed in his first term as well. Similarly, the administration put Biden’s new rules on gas furnaces and gas stoves on hold pending review, aligning with the blueprint’s position that those rules were examples of overreach driven by Green ideology .

One of the most sweeping moves came on the budgetary front: Trump effectively froze spending from the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law that was earmarked for climate and clean energy projects . By executive order, he instructed all agencies to pause disbursement of any unspent funds from those laws’ climate-related programs . This has stalled billions in grants for electric school buses, grid modernization, EV chargers, etc. The Project 2025 blueprint had bluntly said a conservative administration should “support rescinding all [IRA] funds not already spent” on green subsidies . In effect, Trump is achieving that rescission unilaterally by refusing to spend the money – even if formally appropriated. For instance, DOE had been rolling out $7.5 billion for EV charging stations; that program is now suspended. The White House argues that these programs distort markets and reward “special interests,” echoing Heritage’s critique that the IRA showered subsidies on politically favored green industries . The freeze has already had tangible impact: some companies that were preparing new EV battery factories or wind farms based on IRA tax credits have put projects on hold, awaiting clarity. Trump’s message is that the green subsidy spree is over, in line with the Project 2025 view that the federal government should not pick energy winners and losers .

Meanwhile, domestic oil, gas, and mining activity is being boosted through administrative decisions. The EPA and Interior Department have started fast-tracking permits for drilling and for pipelines (for example, the Keystone XL pipeline, canceled in 2021, was re-authorized – though it may take years to build). The Army Corps of Engineers, under new leadership, quickly approved remaining permits for an LNG export terminal in Louisiana that had been slowed by environmental reviews. And in a nod to another Project 2025 priority, the administration launched an initiative to spur domestic mining of critical minerals (like lithium, cobalt, and rare earths) needed for industry and defense. Trump’s “Unleashing American Energy” order directed agencies to identify and roll back any regulations that “impose undue burdens” on mining and mineral processing . By April, the Interior and Agriculture Departments had listed several Obama/Biden-era rules – such as limits on uranium mining near the Grand Canyon and a pending mining royalty increase – to be revised or revoked in order to encourage rare-earth and battery-metal extraction in the U.S. . This follows Heritage’s recommendation that America must “develop domestic critical material sources” and not leave itself dependent on China . The administration also signaled that federal support (loans, purchase agreements) would be considered for critical mineral projects, again heeding Project 2025’s advice to use federal tools to bolster minerals supply chains .

In sum, the Trump administration’s energy and environmental actions are a wholesale adoption of Project 2025’s blueprint. They have expanded oil and gas leasing (Alaska and beyond) , gutted climate initiatives (Paris, 30×30, IRA spending) , relaxed green regulations (appliance standards, emissions rules) , and promoted fossil fuels and mining at every turn. This is a 180-degree turn from the prior administration’s climate-focused agenda. While environmental groups decry these steps as dangerous and backward, Heritage and conservative lawmakers have applauded the President for “following through on freeing America’s energy dominance”. From a policy standpoint, Trump has so far executed the Heritage energy blueprint nearly point by point, essentially resurrecting and amplifying the energy policies of his first term, exactly as Project 2025 urged the next conservative president to do .

Economic and Trade Policy

Project 2025 Blueprint: On economics, the Heritage blueprint promoted a pro-growth, deregulatory, and nationalist agenda. It called for making the Trump 2017 tax cuts permanent and enacting further tax relief (especially tax cuts benefiting investment and families) . It also recommended deep spending cuts to domestic programs to reduce deficits – roughly in line with House GOP proposals to cut $2 trillion+ over a decade . Project 2025 envisioned curbing the administrative state through regulatory budget caps (reviving Trump’s “2-for-1” rule on new regs) and opposing new financial regulations like climate-related rules on banks. A major theme was confronting China on trade and industrial policy. The blueprint endorsed tariffs to protect supply chains and specifically flagged the idea of closing the “de minimis” import loophole that lets Chinese e-commerce sellers ship goods under $800 to evade tariffs . It also suggested imposing across-the-board tariffs if needed – an idea associated with Trump adviser Peter Navarro . Additionally, Heritage’s plan urged withdrawal from international frameworks seen as constraining U.S. tax or economic sovereignty, such as the OECD global minimum tax deal brokered by the Biden administration . Another plank was stopping any move toward a Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC), which the blueprint opposed as a threat to financial privacy . In short, Project 2025’s economic vision was tax cuts, spending restraint, “America First” trade, and preventing what it viewed as leftist activism in finance (like ESG investing mandates or CBDCs).

2025 Trump Administration Actions: Thus far, the Trump administration has largely embraced the Heritage economic playbook, especially on trade and financial policy, while working with Congress on the fiscal pieces. Perhaps the most headline-grabbing move was President Trump’s decision to impose sweeping new tariffs on China. In February, he signed an executive order levying a 10% tariff on virtually all imports from the People’s Republic of China, and explicitly ending the de minimis duty exemption for Chinese goods under $800 . This policy – sometimes dubbed the “universal tariff” – is almost identical to what Project 2025 (via Peter Navarro’s contribution) argued for: “stop Communist China’s abuse of the de minimis exemption…[by] an additional 10% tariff” on all Chinese products . The executive order stated that henceforth, no Chinese-origin package, no matter how low-valued, would enter the U.S. duty-free . It cites national security and the need to protect American industry from unfair competition. This move is a direct adoption of a Project 2025 proposal, and it closes a loophole that Heritage and U.S. manufacturers complained China was exploiting to flood the market with cheap goods. As expected, Beijing protested and trade analysts warned of higher consumer prices, but Trump officials countered that the cost of relying on China is higher. They point to early outcomes: some Chinese e-commerce sellers are already relocating distribution to third countries or U.S. warehouses (to avoid the tariff), which the administration sees as a win for decoupling.

The Trump administration also swiftly targeted the OECD global minimum tax agreement. In late January, Treasury Secretary Stephen Moore notified the OECD that the United States withdraws any support for the global corporate tax deal and will not implement it . This deal, championed by the Biden administration, would impose a 15% minimum tax on multinational corporations and alter how tech companies are taxed globally. Project 2025 argued the U.S. should “end its financial support and withdraw from the OECD” over this issue , seeing it as a loss of U.S. fiscal sovereignty. Trump’s action stopped short of quitting the OECD entirely (the U.S. remains a member for now), but it categorically rejected the tax pact. An executive order made clear that “any commitments made by the prior administration on the Global Tax Deal have no force or effect.” This effectively nullifies the agreement, since without U.S. participation it cannot function as intended. Heritage analysts applauded this as preventing a “global tax cartel.” It also aligns with Trump’s general skepticism of multilateral economic agreements.

On the domestic economy, Trump has been working with the Republican Congress on a major tax and budget package that would mirror Heritage’s ideas. In his joint address to Congress, he urged lawmakers to send him a bill making the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act permanent (those individual tax cuts are set to expire in 2025) and further expanding tax relief for middle-class families and small businesses. House GOP leaders, many of whom consulted the Project 2025 “Economy” section, introduced a framework for roughly $4.5 trillion in tax cuts over 10 years (including permanence for the 2017 cuts and a new deduction for families) . At the same time, they proposed slashing domestic spending by over $2 trillion, for example by capping discretionary spending growth well below inflation and reforming entitlements – again echoing Heritage’s calls for fiscal responsibility . Trump has publicly backed these efforts, framing them as necessary course corrections after Biden’s spending. While the exact numbers are under negotiation, it’s clear the budget direction is aligned with Project 2025: tax cuts and spending cuts. One early fiscal action Trump did take unilaterally was rescinding or repurposing roughly $50 billion of unspent COVID relief funds for deficit reduction, something Heritage had recommended (and Congress authorized in late 2024).

On the regulatory front, President Trump reinstated his famous “2-for-1” regulatory mandate via executive order in January. This order requires agencies to identify at least two existing regulations for elimination for every new significant regulation they want to issue. It is essentially the same policy he instituted in 2017, which Project 2025 credited with slowing regulatory growth and which it advised reinstating. Additionally, Trump’s OMB froze the implementation of hundreds of late-stage Biden regulations across agencies on Day 1 (a regulatory freeze pending review order) , consistent with standard practice and the blueprint’s guidance to halt Biden’s regulatory onslaught. One notable example: the Department of Labor’s gig worker rule (which would have made classifying workers as employees easier) was paused and is expected to be withdrawn, aligning with Heritage’s free-market labor stance.

The administration has also taken action to prevent a Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC), as Heritage urged. In March, President Trump signed an executive order titled “Strengthening American Leadership in Digital Financial Technology” that explicitly prohibits federal agencies from pursuing or implementing any central bank digital currency . The order states that, absent an act of Congress, no agency may develop or adopt a U.S. digital dollar, and it directs the Fed to focus on improving the existing banking system instead. This is exactly in line with Project 2025’s warning that a CBDC could lead to government surveillance of private transactions and must be stopped . By banning work on a CBDC, Trump has made the U.S. an outlier among major economies (many of which are exploring digital currencies), but it won praise from conservative economists and privacy advocates.

In financial regulation more broadly, Trump has replaced key regulators with individuals more aligned with the Heritage outlook. For instance, a new SEC Chairman has been nominated to succeed Gary Gensler (whose term was not up, but he resigned under pressure). The nominee is expected to roll back Gensler’s aggressive agenda, such as the proposed climate risk disclosure rule for companies, which Heritage criticized. Similarly, Trump fired the CFPB (Consumer Financial Protection Bureau) Director Rohit Chopra – citing the ongoing legal uncertainty about the CFPB’s constitutionality – and appointed an acting director who immediately halted the Bureau’s push on equitable lending rules. These moves, while not high-profile, carry out Project 2025’s intention to restrain independent agencies that were, in Heritage’s view, pursuing progressive goals (like ESG, disparate impact, etc.) at the expense of free markets . Now, the SEC has shelved the climate disclosure rule and the CFPB has paused rulemaking on bank overdraft fees and data collection – shifts welcomed by industry and urged by conservative think tanks.

In trade beyond China, the administration is reviewing other tariffs and trade deals with an eye toward the “fair trade” emphasis in Project 2025. Trump has hinted at possibly raising tariffs on countries that manipulate their currencies or run large trade surpluses with the U.S. (echoing Navarro’s arguments). He also announced a review of the U.S.–South Korea trade agreement (KORUS) and even mused about reintroducing some form of the TPPlike arrangement minus certain provisions, but these are in early stages. More concretely, the administration is enforcing the USMCA (NAFTA replacement) vigorously, launching complaints against Mexico for energy policies and against Canada for dairy quotas – showing the nationalist trade enforcement bent that Heritage supports.

Another noteworthy development: President Trump has taken steps to support American industrial supply chains in critical sectors. For example, he invoked the Defense Production Act to fund expansion of semiconductor manufacturing equipment production, building on the CHIPS Act but redirecting some funds away from R&D collaborations with foreign entities to strictly U.S.-based manufacturing. This aligns with Project 2025’s recommendation to strengthen domestic manufacturing in strategically important areas (like chips, critical minerals, pharmaceuticals) as a national security imperative.

In summary, on economic policy the Trump administration is marching in lockstep with Project 2025 on most issues. The approach is a mix of classic conservative economics (tax cuts, deregulation, spending restraint) and populist-nationalist measures (tariffs, industrial policy tweaks) – precisely the blend reflected in the Heritage blueprint. We see robust trade action against China (Heritage’s tough line made reality) , rejection of global tax and climate deals , and preemption of left-leaning financial initiatives like a CBDC . In areas requiring Congress – taxes and spending – Trump is working hand in glove with GOP leaders to draft legislation that implements the blueprint’s vision (though those will take more time and negotiation to materialize). Notably, even some ideas Trump distanced himself from during the 2024 campaign (like Navarro’s universal tariff plan, which he called “interesting”) are now being put into practice, demonstrating the influence Project 2025’s detailed proposals have on policy. As one Heritage economist put it, “The administration’s economic agenda is beyond our wildest dreams” – a telling quote indicating that Trump’s policies are making Project 2025’s vision a reality .

Abortion and Pro-Life Policies

Project 2025 Blueprint: The Heritage blueprint outlined a sweeping pro-life agenda aimed at severely restricting abortion nationwide in the post-Roe environment. It urged the next administration to use every lever to protect unborn life. Key recommendations included invoking the dormant Comstock Act of 1873 – an anti-vice law – to ban abortion medications and contraceptive devices from being sent through the mail . Project 2025 argued the Comstock Act could be used to halt mail-order abortion pills and even some contraceptives, thereby dramatically limiting medication abortions (now a majority of abortions). The blueprint also advised the FDA to rescind its 2000 approval of the abortion drug mifepristone, or at least re-impose the strict pre-2016 rules (in-person dispensing, 7-week limit) . Additionally, Heritage’s plan called on HHS to support state efforts to exclude Planned Parenthood from Medicaid and other funding – effectively “defund Planned Parenthood” at the federal level . It recommended that DOJ aggressively enforce existing laws protecting unborn children (like the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban and the Unborn Victims of Violence Act) and to prosecute violations. In sum, Project 2025 envisioned the administration using executive powers, agency rulemaking, and litigation positions to further curtail abortion access, even with Roe v. Wade gone, aiming to “foster a culture of life” across America.

2025 Trump Administration Actions: The Trump administration – stocked with committed pro-life officials – has been systematically implementing this agenda. Some actions have been high-profile, like funding restrictions (discussed under Religious Liberty), while others have been procedural yet potentially far-reaching. A major development is the administration’s quiet but momentous shift in legal strategy regarding abortion medication. Under Biden, DOJ was defending the FDA’s approval of mifepristone in ongoing lawsuits. Under Trump, the DOJ has changed course. In a lawsuit in Texas seeking to reimpose tougher FDA restrictions on mifepristone, Trump’s DOJ requested a stay/extension and indicated it is re-evaluating the government’s position . Observers interpret this as preparation for a possible reversal of the FDA’s stance – meaning DOJ could stop defending the current easy availability of the pill and perhaps support the plaintiffs’ case for tighter limits . Notably, a coalition of state attorneys general have intervened in that case arguing (as Heritage suggested) that Comstock Act prohibits mailing abortion drugs . Judge Kacsmaryk granted DOJ’s requested delay, giving the new administration time until May to state its position . This strongly suggests Trump’s FDA and DOJ may concede that mailing abortion pills is illegal under Comstock – which would be a radical change. Such a position aligns exactly with Project 2025’s recommendation to revive the Comstock Act to stop chemical abortions by mail . In parallel, the new FDA Commissioner (Dr. Marty Makary) has suspended the previous FDA’s move to allow retail pharmacies to dispense mifepristone. At his confirmation hearing, Dr. Makary sidestepped questions about rolling back mifepristone’s approval but hinted he would “follow the science and the law” – language pro-life groups took as openness to stricter rules . In short, the administration appears to be laying groundwork to significantly restrict abortion pills, using both regulatory and legal avenues, just as the Heritage blueprint urged.

The administration has also moved to support states in cutting off Planned Parenthood from funding. In February, the Department of Justice filed a brief with the U.S. Supreme Court on the side of South Carolina in a case about whether states can ban abortion providers from their Medicaid programs . Under Biden, DOJ likely would have opposed South Carolina; under Trump, DOJ actually requested to join oral arguments in defense of the state’s law . South Carolina is seeking to bar any clinic that performs abortions from receiving Medicaid reimbursement for other services (like contraception or cancer screenings). The case (Kerr vs. Planned Parenthood) will be heard on April 2, and Trump’s DOJ participation is a clear sign it endorses the state’s position that “taxpayer funds to abortion clinics, for any purpose, subsidize abortion” . If the Supreme Court rules for South Carolina, it could pave the way for many red states to exclude Planned Parenthood from Medicaid, a long-sought goal. This is explicitly mentioned in Project 2025: HHS should “encourage states” to exclude abortion providers from Medicaid and go further if possible . The Trump administration’s stance here is a direct carryover from that playbook. Planned Parenthood and allied groups are alarmed, noting the administration is “weaponizing Medicaid to decimate people’s access” to services. But pro-life leaders applaud Trump for doing via courts what couldn’t pass Congress.

In terms of executive action, beyond reinstating the Mexico City Policy and enforcing the Hyde Amendment (covered earlier), the administration is considering invoking the Comstock Act more directly. The 150-year-old Comstock law prohibits mailing “any drug or medicine…for producing abortion.” Under Biden, the DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel had issued an opinion in late 2022 saying Comstock doesn’t apply to mailing FDA-approved abortion drugs in certain circumstances. It is expected that Trump’s DOJ will withdraw or replace that OLC opinion, taking the position that Comstock does forbid mailing abortion pills . If and when DOJ does so, it could instruct USPS to stop delivering abortion pill packages. This hasn’t been publicly announced yet, likely because the mifepristone litigation is the first step. But all signs (and Heritage’s blueprint) point to the administration embracing Comstock. In fact, Project 2025 explicitly listed revival of the Comstock Act as a priority (to “ban abortion medications” by mail) , and key officials like AG Bondi are known to support that interpretation.

Another area is federal abortion prosecution. The Justice Department under Bondi is reviewing why there have been few prosecutions under the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act and the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act. DOJ has signaled it will enforce these laws more strictly than its predecessor. For instance, there are reports that DOJ has opened investigations into late-term abortion providers to ensure none are violating the partial-birth ban. This fulfills the blueprint’s call for the DOJ to “do everything possible to obtain finality” for those on federal death row (which included convicted murderers of pregnant women, etc.) and to enforce abortion-related criminal laws on the books.

On the legislative front, while Project 2025 floated ideas like federal fetal heartbeat legislation or pain-capable abortion bans, the reality of a still-divided Congress makes those unlikely in 2025. President Trump has not yet pushed for a specific federal gestational limit (he mentioned 15 weeks on the campaign trail as a possibility). Instead, his administration is focusing on what can be done through executive action and litigation – which is substantial. By tightening the availability of abortion pills and enabling states to choke off funding for abortion providers, the administration is effectively implementing a national abortion reduction strategy without needing new laws.

One more subtle but significant policy: HHS is revising Title X family planning grant rules to reimpose the “Protect Life Rule” from 2019, which barred Title X funds from going to clinics that refer for abortions. Biden had reversed that, but now HHS is preparing to publish a new rule restoring it, as Project 2025 recommended. This will likely force Planned Parenthood clinics either to stop participating in Title X or to stop any abortion counseling – either outcome consistent with pro-life goals.

Overall, the Trump administration’s actions so far demonstrate an unwavering commitment to Project 2025’s pro-life blueprint. They have tightened abortion funding restrictions (Hyde, Mexico City) , are moving toward restricting abortion pills by mail (via Comstock and FDA) , and are bolstering states’ abilities to restrict abortion providers (via the Medicaid case) . These steps go even beyond what was possible under Trump’s first term, thanks to the post-Dobbs landscape. Importantly, they align with every specific Heritage blueprint recommendation in this realm. As the ACLU noted with alarm, “Project 2025 calls for gutting abortion access” and the second Trump administration is indeed taking “swift and unrelenting” steps to do so . To proponents of Project 2025, this is a feature, not a bug. The administration is on track to be the most pro-life in modern history, fulfilling a core promise of the conservative blueprint.

Gender Ideology and LGBTQ Policy

Project 2025 Blueprint: The Heritage blueprint strongly criticized the previous administration’s expansion of LGBTQ rights, especially transgender policies, and laid out a plan to restore traditional definitions of sex and gender in federal law. It recommended that the next administration explicitly affirm binary biological sex in all policies – for example, defining “sex” as male or female at birth for purposes of Title IX and other civil rights laws . Project 2025 called for reversing the inclusion of gender identity in nondiscrimination rules (like healthcare Section 1557 and education Title IX). It urged banning gender-transition procedures for minors, possibly by leveraging HHS regulations, and characterized such treatments as “chemical and surgical mutilation” that should be legally restricted . The blueprint also advocated removing Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives related to sexual orientation and gender identity across the federal workforce and education . In the military, it explicitly said to ban transgender service members and purge “woke” training, restoring the policy from Trump’s first term . Essentially, Project 2025 proposed a wholesale rollback of LGBTQ-inclusive policies in favor of what it calls “biological truth.”

2025 Trump Administration Actions: The Trump administration has moved rapidly to implement a hard-line “traditionalist” gender policy, closely mirroring the Heritage blueprint. On January 20, President Trump signed an executive order titled “Defending Women’s Sports, Spaces, and Rights from Gender Ideology”, which made recognition of only two sexes (male and female) the official policy of the U.S. government . The order declares that sex is “grounded in fundamental and incontrovertible reality”, not a spectrum or self-declared identity . It instructs all federal agencies to revise any rules, regulations, or guidance that equated gender identity with sex. This means, for instance, the Department of Education immediately halted enforcement of Biden’s 2021 Title IX guidance that extended sex protections to gender identity. It also means agencies like HUD and HHS are stripping “sexual orientation and gender identity” language from regulations and reinstating “sex means biological sex.” This is exactly what Project 2025 urged: it said the HHS Secretary “should proudly state that men and women are biological realities” and never conflate sex with gender identity . The executive order’s language was notably lifted almost verbatim from the Heritage blueprint, demonstrating the administration’s alignment .

One of the immediate effects of this policy was on Title IX in education. The Department of Education, following Trump’s order, formally withdrew the proposed regulation that would have allowed transgender students to compete in sports according to gender identity. Instead, ED is drafting a new rule to ensure school sports teams are separated strictly by biological sex, with the order noting this is necessary to “restore the rights of women and girls” in athletics . The administration also issued guidance to federally funded schools that bathrooms and locker rooms must be designated by biological sex, not gender identity – effectively overruling policies in some districts that allowed transgender students to use facilities matching their identity. These moves implement Project 2025’s call to protect female-only spaces and opportunities from what it views as unfair competition or intrusion .

In the U.S. military, President Trump swiftly reinstated a ban on transgender service members. On January 25, he signed an order titled “Prioritizing Military Readiness and Lethality,” which revoked the Biden-era policy that had allowed transgender persons to serve openly and receive transition care in the military . Trump’s order states that having individuals with “gender dysphoria” in the armed forces is incompatible with the requirements of military service and instructs DOD to expel those who are transitioning or require treatment for gender dysphoria . This directly mirrors the Project 2025 stance, which said “those with gender dysphoria should be expelled from military service” and exceptions for them should be removed . Former Defense Secretary (and blueprint contributor) Chris Miller had written that such policies were needed to “restore standards of lethality and excellence”, and indeed Trump’s order uses similar phrasing about high standards and cohesion . Consequently, recruitment and retention policies reverted to the pre-2017 rules, and Pentagon health coverage will no longer cover gender transition surgeries or hormones. This marks a significant divergence from 2021–2024, and fulfills a major Heritage goal in the social policy arena.

Across the federal bureaucracy, the administration has undertaken a broad purge of “DEI” programs related to sexual orientation or gender. On his first day, Trump revoked Executive Order 14020, which had established the White House Gender Policy Council . By doing so, he eliminated that high-level body and its mandate to advance gender equity (including LGBTQ equality) across government. Project 2025 had explicitly recommended repealing EO 14020 , and Trump followed through within hours of being sworn in. Furthermore, he issued a government-wide memo directing agencies to *“terminate all…illegal DEI and ‘Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility’ mandates, policies, programs, preferences, and activities…under whatever name they appear.” . This was pursuant to his executive order on ending “Radical and Wasteful” DEI programs, which took direct aim at training or employee groups focused on sexual orientation and gender identity as well as race. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) quickly disbanded its “Pride Alliance” employee group and canceled planned LGBTQ pride events for June, in compliance with the new policy. Additionally, agency heads have removed “SOGI (sexual orientation & gender identity)” nondiscrimination statements from websites and rules where not required by law . This fulfills Kevin Roberts’ foreword instruction in Project 2025 to “delete the terms ‘sexual orientation’ and ‘gender identity’… and any other term used to deprive Americans of their First Amendment rights” from federal documents . The administration’s position is that sexual orientation discrimination is still prohibited by law (per the 2020 Bostock Supreme Court decision interpreting “sex” in Title VII), but it is not actively promoting LGBTQ-specific initiatives internally. Many career staff have objected, but Trump officials defend the move as “restoring merit-based opportunity” free of identity politics .

At the Department of Health and Human Services, the administration moved to roll back transgender-inclusive health regulations. On Day One, HHS froze the implementation of a Biden-proposed rule that would have enforced nondiscrimination on the basis of gender identity in healthcare (under Section 1557 of the ACA). Instead, HHS is crafting a rule that expressly clarifies that “sex” in healthcare means biological sex and that providers cannot be forced to perform gender-transition procedures contrary to their conscience . This aligns with Project 2025 (Roger Severino’s chapter), which said HHS should “remove all guidance issued under Biden concerning sexual orientation and gender identity under Section 1557” . In fact, Trump’s HHS has gone a step further – seizing on state-level actions, it issued guidance supporting state laws that ban gender transition procedures for minors and signaled HHS will interpret federal law to allow such bans. Trump’s “Protecting Children From Chemical and Surgical Mutilation” order directed HHS to “take all appropriate actions to end the chemical and surgical mutilation of children,” citing authority under various programs . Concretely, HHS announced it may withhold certain grants from hospitals that provide gender-affirming care to minors, pending legal review. While this pushes boundaries, it demonstrates Trump’s commitment to ending gender transitions for youth, just as Heritage urged. DOJ, for its part, has dropped the prior administration’s legal challenges to state transgender bans – for example, DOJ withdrew from litigation challenging Alabama’s ban on gender-affirming care for minors, effectively allowing that law to proceed. These measures align perfectly with the blueprint’s characterization of such treatments as harmful and the need to support states in prohibiting them .

Additionally, the State Department reversed course on some symbolic but meaningful policies: It stopped allowing “X” (unspecified) gender markers on U.S. passports – a policy that had been introduced under Biden. Now passport applicants must choose either “M” or “F”, consistent with Project 2025’s insistence on binary sex recognition. The administration is also reviewing whether to cease funding any foreign aid programs that promote LGBTQ advocacy abroad, aligning with its broader realignment of foreign aid with conservative values (as discussed earlier).

In summary, the Trump administration has enthusiastically adopted Project 2025’s recommendations on gender and LGBTQ policy. It swiftly redefined “sex” in federal law to mean biological sex only , banned transgender service in the military , shut down federal LGBTQ+ initiatives and DEI offices , and is working to legitimize restrictions on gender transitions (especially for minors) . These represent a wholesale reversal of the prior administration’s civil-rights policies and a return to positions similar to 2017–2020, now often taken even further. Notably, President Trump’s early executive orders on these issues often quoted verbatim language from the Heritage blueprint, underscoring how tightly aligned the administration is with Project 2025’s social policy vision . While LGBTQ advocacy groups are uniformly condemning these actions (accusing the administration of erasing protections and endangering lives), social conservatives are hailing them as the fulfillment of a conservative “mandate” in the culture war. In effect, Trump’s policies have made the federal government an active participant in opposing the modern LGBTQ rights movement – just as Project 2025 outlined in detail.

Law Enforcement and Justice Department

Project 2025 Blueprint: The Heritage blueprint’s vision for the Justice Department and law enforcement was to “end the weaponization” of federal police powers and refocus on crime and security. The DOJ chapter (by Gene Hamilton) lambasted what it saw as the Biden DOJ’s politicization – e.g. treating parents at school board meetings as terrorists, pushing progressive agendas in civil rights enforcement, and failing to uphold laws like federal marijuana prohibitions or immigration offenses. Project 2025 called for a “comprehensive response” to root out bias at DOJ . This included reviewing high-profile cases and investigations from prior years (such as the FBI’s handling of the Hunter Biden laptop and 2020 election issues) and holding officials accountable for any misconduct. The blueprint also urged DOJ to vigorously enforce laws on the books: for instance, resuming federal capital punishment (after Biden’s moratorium) to carry out death sentences for all death-row inmates , and prosecuting violent crime, drug trafficking, and rioting with zero tolerance. Additionally, Heritage advocated withdrawing DOJ from “political” voting rights cases that it deemed baseless and ending the DOJ Civil Rights Division’s focus on “equity” and police reform. There was also a recommendation to impose stricter controls on intelligence and law enforcement officials engaging in politics – e.g. disciplining those (like former FBI officials) who interfered in elections . In essence, Project 2025 wanted a DOJ that it perceives as depoliticized, crime-focused, and aligned with conservative law-and-order values.

2025 Trump Administration Actions: Under Attorney General Pam Bondi, the DOJ has undergone a dramatic shift that very closely tracks the Heritage blueprint. One of Bondi’s first acts was to initiate a comprehensive internal review of politically sensitive cases from the past few years – a step fulfilling Trump’s campaign promise to probe the “weaponization” of federal law enforcement. By late January, President Trump signed an executive order on “Ending the Weaponization of the Federal Government”, which set up a special task force in DOJ to “identify and take appropriate action to correct past misconduct” by law enforcement or intelligence officials . This means DOJ is reviewing matters like the FBI’s treatment of the Hunter Biden laptop story in 2020, the origins of the 2016–17 Russia probe, and the DOJ/FBI interactions regarding social media censorship. It’s noteworthy that Project 2025 explicitly urged such a review, citing the need to restore DOJ’s credibility . Already, AG Bondi released the full report of Special Counsel John Durham (from 2023) to all DOJ employees, framing it as lessons in what not to do. She also reportedly opened a disciplinary investigation into several current DOJ lawyers mentioned in that report. This aligns with Heritage’s demand to “hold accountable” those who misused DOJ for political ends.

DOJ has also made an about-face in civil rights and policing. Under Bondi, the department dropped or settled a number of high-profile lawsuits that the previous DOJ had pursued against state or local authorities. For example, the DOJ withdrew its lawsuit against Georgia’s Election Integrity Act (SB 202), which alleged that Georgia’s voting law was racially discriminatory . Georgia’s Secretary of State had formally petitioned for this after Bondi took office, and DOJ’s withdrawal indicates it no longer sees that case as justified . This comports with Project 2025’s critique that Biden’s DOJ was engaging in partisan voting rights litigation and its suggestion that such cases be reevaluated (or dropped) to let states enforce their own election laws . Additionally, DOJ is reviewing ongoing “pattern or practice” investigations into police departments (like Minneapolis and Louisville). While not officially confirmed, it is expected that Bondi’s DOJ will seek to conclude or scale back these investigations and avoid imposing federal consent decrees on local police – a priority signaled in the Heritage blueprint, which argued DOJ had unfairly burdened police in the name of civil rights. In fact, President Trump explicitly said in his campaign that he’d end these “witch hunts” against police departments. True to form, DOJ in March announced it had closed the civil rights investigation into Phoenix’s police (launched under Biden) without taking action, a clear sign of the new approach.

Another action taken in line with Project 2025 is reinvigorating federal death penalty enforcement. In early February, President Trump issued an executive order “Restoring the Federal Death Penalty and Protecting Public Safety.” This order explicitly rescinds the 2021 DOJ moratorium on executions and instructs the Attorney General to “pursue the death penalty for all crimes…demanding its use.” Bondi swiftly followed up by scheduling execution dates for at least four inmates on federal death row whose legal appeals were exhausted. This aligns exactly with the Heritage blueprint’s recommendation that the DOJ “obtain finality for the 44 prisoners currently on federal death row” and not allow endless delays . The first federal execution since 2020 is now set for May 2025. Additionally, Bondi directed prosecutors to seek the death penalty in appropriate new cases, reversing a trend under the previous administration where DOJ often opted not to seek capital punishment (e.g., in the NYC bike path terrorist case, which drew criticism). Now, U.S. Attorneys have been told to apply the federal death penalty statutes as written, another clear implementation of Project 2025.

The Trump DOJ has also aggressively targeted violent crime and unrest. Following the uptick in violent crime in some cities, Bondi announced a “Back to Basics” initiative: surging federal task forces into high-crime urban areas, bringing more firearms charges (under Project Safe Neighborhoods), and using statutes like Operation Legend (revived from 2020) to charge repeat violent offenders federally. This is in line with Heritage’s law-and-order emphasis. On the flip side, DOJ has deprioritized enforcement of “politically motivated” civil rights probes. For instance, it scrapped the FBI’s controversial domestic terrorism tag for school board threats, which Project 2025 had lambasted as an abuse. And it dissolved the DOJ “Environmental Justice” Office that Biden’s DOJ had formed, again reflecting a Project 2025 view that such offices were beyond DOJ’s core mission.

One subtle but significant reform: President Trump issued an executive order to restrict partisan political activities by individuals holding security clearances . Spurred by Dustin Carmack’s intelligence chapter in the blueprint, this order – “Holding Former Officials Accountable for Election Interference” – declares it U.S. policy that the Intelligence Community must not be involved in electioneering . It instructs that current clearance holders who sign partisan political letters or engage in election influence (like the 51 ex-officials who signed the 2020 letter about the Hunter laptop) may face administrative sanctions, including loss of clearance . The order also sets up a DOJ review of past incidents, effectively warning former officials against such actions. This is a direct response to Heritage’s point that former intel leaders meddled in politics and damaged trust . While the enforcement of this remains to be seen, the policy alone sends a strong signal – and indeed a few former officials resigned their advisory posts preemptively to avoid potential clearance issues.

A noteworthy divergence from the prior administration is how DOJ deals with issues of First Amendment and censorship (though this overlaps with “Free Speech” below). The Trump DOJ fully embraced the Missouri v. Biden court ruling that barred federal officials from colluding with social media to censor content. Under Biden, the DOJ had fought that ruling; under Trump, they dropped the appeal. Furthermore, Trump’s “Restoring Freedom of Speech” executive order explicitly forbids any federal agent from engaging in social media censorship activities . DOJ has incorporated that into guidance to all its components (including FBI), which is a direct follow-through of Project 2025’s admonition that the government must stop infringing on citizens’ speech under the guise of combating “misinformation” .

Another element: The administration has signaled support for robust prosecution of left-wing violence. After incidents in early 2025 of unrest (for example, a flare-up of Antifa protests in Portland in February), Bondi ordered federal prosecutors to use every applicable federal statute – rioting, arson, firearm offenses – to charge participants. This echoes Trump’s June 2020 approach and responds to Heritage’s call to crack down on violent protest groups (the ACLU had fretted Project 2025 would “unleash undue force on protesters” , and indeed the administration has taken a zero-tolerance stance). Concurrently, DOJ has dropped some civil litigation considered politicized – for example, it settled several cases where DOJ was suing states over transgender athlete bans or abortion restrictions, essentially conceding those state laws (deferring to states as Project 2025 posited should happen).

In summary, the Justice Department under Trump 2025 is doing almost exactly what Project 2025 outlined. It has launched a thorough house-cleaning of perceived political bias (through the Weaponization task force) , re-energized core law enforcement functions like crime and capital punishment , and pulled back DOJ from progressive activism in areas like voting rights and police oversight . Moreover, it implemented structural changes to prevent future politicization (e.g., the clearance/partisan order) . Each of these moves has a direct analog in the Heritage recommendations. Where the prior DOJ embraced concepts of “equity” and was aggressive on progressive civil rights causes, the current DOJ has reverted firmly to a law-and-order, by-the-book approach consistent with conservative principles. To quote the Attorney General: “Lady Justice is blindfolded again.” This rhetorical flourish underscores the administration’s narrative that it is depoliticizing DOJ – which was exactly the mandate of Project 2025 for the Justice Department .

Free Speech and Censorship

Project 2025 Blueprint: The Heritage blueprint was acutely concerned with what it described as a pattern of government-induced censorship during the prior administration. It highlighted revelations (from the “Twitter Files” and similar disclosures) that federal agencies like the FBI and DHS had worked with social media companies to flag and remove content – ostensibly to combat misinformation – but in ways that Heritage and others deemed a violation of First Amendment rights . Project 2025 called for halting any such government involvement in online speech moderation. It recommended issuing an executive order to prohibit federal officials from pressuring or coordinating with tech platforms to suppress lawful speech . Another related element was the blueprint’s push to dismantle left-leaning influence in public media: Heritage suggested reevaluating taxpayer funding for NPR, PBS, and other outlets if they are seen as partisan. The independent agencies chapter hinted that a new administration could direct the FCC to hold public broadcasters accountable to their standards. Additionally, some contributors advocated for making English the official language of the U.S. to unify the country (this was a more minor point, but one present in conservative platforms). In sum, Project 2025 on this front prioritized protecting free speech from government interference and scrutinizing media organizations that, in conservatives’ view, advance one-sided narratives on the public dime.

2025 Trump Administration Actions: President Trump has repeatedly declared that “free speech is back” in America, and his administration has taken several concrete steps to ensure that the federal government is no longer – in their words – “censoring the views of Americans.” On February 1, he signed a landmark executive order titled “Restoring Freedom of Speech and Preventing Federal Censorship.” This order is sweeping: it “prohibits any federal officer or agency from engaging in or facilitating any action that would unconstitutionally abridge the free speech of American citizens.” In practice, it means agencies are banned from flagging content to social media companies or urging them to remove posts, except in cases of crime (e.g., genuine threats or child exploitation material). This directly implements the Project 2025 recommendation to stop federal policing of “misinformation” . The order cites the Missouri v. Biden case and explicitly adopts its reasoning that such coordination likely violates the First Amendment. The FBI, DHS, CDC, and other agencies that previously interfaced with tech platforms have now dissolved or repurposed their “social media task forces.” For instance, the DHS “Disinformation Governance Board,” which had been put on hold in 2022 after controversy, is now permanently terminated by this order. President Trump touted this in his address to Congress, stating proudly: “I have stopped all government censorship and brought back free speech in America. It’s back.” . This statement drew applause from his party and was a clear marker of divergence from the prior administration.

To enforce the new policy, AG Bondi set up a DOJ Office of First Amendment Protection to field any reports of government censorship attempts. So far, none have surfaced—likely because agencies have internalized the new directive. Employees were warned they could face termination or legal consequences for colluding with tech platforms on content moderation. This is a sea change at agencies like the FBI, which under Biden had regular meetings with Twitter, Facebook, etc. Now, those meetings are off the table, fulfilling Heritage’s call to end such practices .

Another bold move: The administration turned its attention to public broadcasting and media bias. In line with the Heritage blueprint’s critique that NPR and PBS often exhibit a liberal slant despite taxpayer funding, President Trump and his FCC appointees have taken steps to hold these outlets accountable. In March, the new FCC Chairman (appointed by Trump) announced an investigation into NPR and PBS sponsorship practices, after complaints that they were running corporate underwriting spots that blur the line into political advocacy . This unusual action – essentially putting public broadcasters under the microscope – actually stems from a Project 2025 idea that suggested reviewing public media for compliance and possibly cutting funding . A Politico analysis noted that “there have also been other Trump administration moves…such as directing the FCC to investigate NPR and PBS for alleged violations” seemingly straight from Project 2025 . Indeed, this is an unprecedented step; in the past, FCC rarely intervenes with editorial aspects of public media. The probe is ongoing, but it has already had a chilling effect: PBS reportedly cancelled a planned documentary series on systemic racism, fearing it could be construed as political messaging outside their educational remit. Moreover, the administration’s proposed budget (just sent to Congress) eliminates all federal funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) by 2026, phasing it out on grounds that taxpayers shouldn’t subsidize media content. While budgets may change in Congress, this shows alignment with Heritage voices like Mike Gonzalez (a Project 2025 contributor) who argued that CPB was no longer serving an unbiased public interest .

The administration also embraced a longstanding conservative goal by quietly implementing “English as official language” policies. In his March 4 speech, Trump threw in a line: “two days ago, I signed an order making English the official language of the United States.” This got somewhat lost amid bigger news, but it is true: he signed an executive order requiring all federal government business to be conducted in English (with exceptions for public safety and certain services). Federal websites and forms will phase out multilingual versions (except where required by law or critical need). This was not explicitly in Project 2025, but making English official has been in the Republican platform and it fits the administration’s nationalist theme. The Heritage blueprint didn’t prioritize it, but certainly many Heritage-aligned conservatives support it. Now it’s a reality in the executive branch – though it doesn’t override laws that require language accommodation (like Voting Rights Act provisions). Still, it is symbolically significant and popular with Trump’s base.

On the tech front, beyond stopping government-induced censorship, the Trump administration has signaled sympathy to conservatives’ grievances about social media platforms’ biases. However, rather than pursuing heavy-handed regulation of tech (which Heritage’s free-market wing is cautious about), Trump is taking a different route: jawboning and moral suasion. He hosted a White House roundtable with friendly tech entrepreneurs to promote alternatives to Big Tech (like Truth Social, Rumble, etc.), and he publicly praised Twitter’s new owner Elon Musk for releasing internal files on past censorship. This is more atmospherics than policy, but it sets a tone that the administration stands against “Silicon Valley censorship.” There was talk during the campaign of trying to reinterpret Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (which shields platforms from liability) via FTC or FCC action. So far, no concrete action on Section 230 has occurred – likely recognizing that needs legislation, and Heritage’s blueprint was somewhat quiet on it due to division among conservatives. Instead, Trump is content with removing government pressure on platforms and encouraging competition.

One can’t overlook the ripple effect: With the federal government no longer pushing content moderation, social media companies have been less aggressive in policing speech. Facebook, for example, reinstated Trump’s account in February (as did Twitter last year). Even YouTube announced it would stop removing content falsely claiming fraud in the 2020 election, citing “changed environment” – arguably a result of both public pressure and the absence of government disinfo initiatives. In that sense, the Trump administration’s approach has contributed to a broader opening of online discourse, which is exactly what Heritage’s free speech advocates wanted. The ACLU – despite opposing many Trump policies – cautiously welcomed the Missouri v. Biden decision, showing this crosses usual lines.

In summary, the Trump administration has vigorously acted to protect free speech and fight censorship, directly fulfilling key Project 2025 goals. It prohibited federal censorship collusion in no uncertain terms , and Trump proudly takes credit for “bringing free speech back.” It’s actively scrutinizing institutions (like NPR/PBS) that conservatives feel have escaped accountability despite taxpayer funding . And it even implemented the symbolic measure of official-English, underscoring a philosophy of cultural integration that many on the right support . All these actions represent a stark departure from 2021–2024 practices, aligning with the Heritage blueprint’s First Amendment absolutism. The result, as Project 2025’s authors hoped, is that the federal government is out of the speech-policing business, and a robust, if messy, free marketplace of ideas is largely left to flourish online and elsewhere without Uncle Sam’s thumb on the scale.

Conclusion: Across every major policy sphere – from education and civil service to foreign affairs, social issues, and beyond – the Trump administration in 2025 has been working from the Project 2025 blueprint as if it were a playbook. In case after case, the administration’s actions either adopt the blueprint’s recommendations wholesale or at least steer in that direction. In areas like immigration, energy, and deregulation, Trump’s moves have virtually mirrored Heritage’s roadmap . In a few instances, the administration has gone even further than Project 2025 envisioned (for example, the aggressive push on Ukraine peace, or the rapid defunding of CPB) – but these are generally in spirit with the blueprint’s America First, conservative ethos. There are also areas of slight divergence or silence: for instance, while Heritage emphasized fiscal restraint, Trump has been less vocal about entitlement reform; but even there, he’s aligned on cutting discretionary spending. What’s unmistakable is that Project 2025 has provided the intellectual and policy framework for the second Trump term, and the administration is executing on it diligently, point by point. Heritage’s president called the early policies “beyond my wildest dreams” – an indication that the think-tank’s 920-page manifesto is indeed being translated into governance.

As of 2025 so far, this comprehensive alignment means the Heritage Foundation’s vision is effectively becoming U.S. federal policy. Education choice is expanding while DEI is excised ; religious liberty protections are strengthened and abortion access is being rolled back ; at the border, tough enforcement reigns ; in foreign policy, America has retrenched from globalist entanglements ; the administrative state is being curbed via Schedule F and mass firings ; and the federal government is out of the business of policing “misinformation.” All these developments were predicted – and indeed, prescribed – by Mandate for Leadership 2025. Thus, the Trump administration’s record in 2025 to date can rightly be described as the embodiment of Project 2025’s blueprint, making that Heritage document one of the most successful “roadmaps” ever published by an outside group for a new administration.

…