In the opening months of his new term, U.S. President Donald Trump issued an astonishing 92 executive orders—an unprecedented volume that has drawn sharp scrutiny for its extraordinary resemblance to the contents of Project 2025, a comprehensive and radical conservative policy agenda developed by the Heritage Foundation. Although Trump has repeatedly and publicly denied any direct association with the 922-page document, the detailed content of his executive actions reveals an unmistakable ideological and programmatic overlap with its recommendations. These developments, as reported and analyzed by Eliza Collins in The Wall Street Journal, signal a rapid-fire effort to reshape the U.S. federal government in accordance with a hardline conservative vision of reduced bureaucracy, reasserted executive power, cultural retrenchment, and aggressive immigration enforcement.
In fact, in the initial months of Trump’s second term alone, his administration issued the bulk of those 92 executive orders within just the first sixty days—a pace not seen in modern presidential history. Despite Trump’s repeated claims during the 2024 campaign—“I have nothing to do with Project 2025. I’ve never read it and I never will”—the policy orientation of these orders makes clear that the administration is moving in tandem with the blueprint’s primary directives. While his disavowal may serve a political function, the congruence between Trump’s executive decisions and the Heritage Foundation’s conservative playbook strongly suggests a deliberate policy architecture aimed at reengineering the federal government along radically different lines.
A central tenet of Project 2025 is the dismantling of the federal bureaucracy, a goal with deep roots in conservative political thought dating back decades. This objective has now taken concrete shape in Trump’s second administration. Over 25% of his executive orders to date have targeted the structure and staffing of the federal government. This includes the reinstatement of Schedule F—a classification introduced at the end of Trump’s previous term but reversed by the Biden administration—intended to facilitate the removal of policy-influencing civil servants. Trump’s immediate reinstatement of this classification upon returning to office is a clear fulfillment of Project 2025’s directive to empower the presidency to directly control and purge the federal bureaucracy.
In addition to Schedule F, Trump has issued orders asserting direct executive authority over independent regulatory bodies such as the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), which Project 2025 specifically recommends be stripped of their quasi-autonomous status. These moves represent a significant reconfiguration of the traditional balance between executive oversight and institutional independence, with broad implications for how financial and antitrust regulations are administered in the coming years.
Among the most aggressive of Trump’s early moves was his restructuring of key government functions through the creation of the so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), a rebranding of the United States Digital Service, to be led, controversially, by Elon Musk. Though not explicitly mentioned in Project 2025, this new agency’s functional mandate—approving hiring, consulting on regulations, auditing agency expenditures, and facilitating workforce reductions—mirrors the blueprint’s call for eliminating redundancies, capping bureaucratic influence, and enforcing fiscal discipline. In fact, in some instances, DOGE has reportedly gone beyond Project 2025’s own proposals, including initiating the complete dismantling of USAID, the U.S. Agency for International Development. While Heritage’s document never suggested establishing such a department, the operational role of DOGE aligns closely with the conservative think tank’s ambition to impose political accountability and cost-efficiency on the federal administrative apparatus.
In the realm of immigration, President Trump’s policies exhibit significant congruence with Project 2025’s proposals. He signed eight executive orders addressing immigration enforcement, including the deployment of military personnel to the southern border, the declaration of a national emergency to circumvent congressional delay, and the application of sanctions on foreign nations refusing to cooperate in deportation operations. These actions precisely reflect the project’s recommendation for a stringent, enforcement-first immigration regime.
Further intensifying this agenda, Trump signed an executive order seeking to abolish birthright citizenship for children born to undocumented immigrants—an unprecedented legal move that pushes constitutional boundaries. While this policy was not explicitly advocated in Project 2025, it nonetheless fits the larger ideological framework of restricting legal pathways to citizenship and redefining the contours of American nationality. The expansion of executive authority in this context is emblematic of Trump’s broader approach: pursuing maximalist interpretations of presidential power in order to unilaterally implement the most controversial aspects of his agenda.
Cultural policy has also emerged as a key battleground in Trump’s early executive actions, particularly his campaign against what he and his allies call “woke” ideology. Approximately 10% of his executive orders have targeted Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives across the federal government and its associated institutions. These orders echo Project 2025’s emphasis on purging DEI programs, recognizing only male and female biological sex categories, and enforcing merit-based hiring without regard to race, gender, or religion.
The rhetoric surrounding these initiatives casts DEI policies as an extension of liberal cultural dominance within the federal government—a view that resonates strongly with the ideological core of Project 2025. Executive Order 14151, entitled “Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing”, mandated the full termination of DEI mandates and activities across all federal departments. This measure exemplifies how Trump’s executive governance attempts to institutionalize a right-wing cultural restoration, effectively neutralizing what conservatives regard as entrenched leftist influence within public administration.
In this ideological campaign, education policy has not been exempt: Trump’s executive actions have also sought to extend anti-DEI measures into schools and, where possible, into the private sector. The scope of the cultural counteroffensive is not limited to governance structures, but extends to public institutions and national identity itself, signaling a broader moral project to redefine the values enshrined in federal practices.
These policies have drawn both fierce criticism and enthusiastic support. On the one hand, Trump’s defenders argue that his administration is simply fulfilling the promises of his campaign platform—laid out most prominently in his Agenda 47 manifesto—by swiftly implementing reforms designed to “stop the weaponized government,” “dismantle the deep state,” and “reclaim democracy” from entrenched elites. On the other hand, Democrats and progressive analysts have noted that the rapidity and content of Trump’s actions correspond too closely with the goals of Project 2025 to be dismissed as mere coincidence.
They point to the fact that several of the Project’s key architects, including individuals who served in Trump’s first term, have been appointed to prominent roles in the current administration. The former director of Project 2025, Paul Dans—who was ousted from the Heritage Foundation during the 2024 campaign—told Politico that Trump’s policy agenda has gone “beyond [his] wildest dreams,” affirming the administration’s deep resonance with the blueprint. This alignment has fueled a growing narrative among critics that Trump’s disavowals are tactical, and that his administration’s structural reforms represent Project 2025 by another name.
Even though Trump has not embraced the entire scope of Project 2025, particularly on issues like national abortion restrictions, where he has demonstrated greater political caution, the pattern of alignment in key areas of governance, immigration, and cultural policy suggests a high degree of receptivity to the document’s more aggressive proposals. In effect, Project 2025 functions not merely as a background policy document, but as an ideological playbook that the Trump administration appears to be executing—whether or not it is officially acknowledged as such.
This deliberate and high-velocity strategy has made it difficult for critics to mount effective resistance in real time. By pushing through sweeping changes in the early phase of his administration, Trump has created a political climate in which executive dominance, cultural confrontation, and institutional disruption are not only possible, but normalized. The long-term implications of this approach could be profound, reshaping the nature of the federal government, the scope of executive power, and the ideological identity of the American administrative state.
In this context, the overlapping agenda of Trump’s executive orders and Project 2025 is more than a matter of policy coordination; it is a reflection of a transformative political strategy to reforge the American state in the image of a consolidated, assertive, and deeply conservative vision. Whether through the reshaping of civil service protections, the militarization of immigration enforcement, or the eradication of DEI programs from federal agencies, Trump’s administration has positioned itself not as a continuation of the status quo, but as a revolutionary vehicle for the implementation of an ideologically driven, technocratically executed conservative future.
Gros News 
Leave a comment