This week, Republicans are convening in Milwaukee to officially elect former President Donald Trump as the party’s nominee. But what would a second Trump administration actually look like? The answer may very well lie in a lengthy document of conservative priorities called Project 2025. To unpack this document, we’re talking to Rachel Leingang who reports on democracy and misinformation for The Guardian. Rachel walks us through the particulars of Project 2025 and how it’s what she calls “the meat on the bones” for conservative causes nationwide.
Listen or subscribe on Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music | YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts.
On today’s episode
Our host
Errin Haines is The 19th’s editor-at-large and writer of The Amendment newsletter. An award-winning journalist with nearly two decades of experience, Errin was previously a national writer on race for the Associated Press. She’s also worked at the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post.
Follow Errin on Instagram @emarvelous and X @errinhaines.
Today’s guest
Rachel Leingang is a democracy reporter focused on misinformation for Guardian US. She is based in Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Follow The Guardian on Instagram @Guardian_US and X @Guardian.
Episode transcript
The Amendment podcast transcripts are automatically generated by a third-party website and may contain typos or other errors. Please consider the official record for The Amendment podcast to be the audio publicly available wherever you listen to podcasts.
Rachel Leingang:
So I have two Gen Z sisters. My barometer for when something has, like, crossed the mainstream is whenever they start talking about it. ‘Cause they’re like, you know, they’re living their lives. They’re not, like, paying close attention to politics. And one of them, like, shared an infographic about Project 2025 yesterday, and I’m like, “Oh, we’re in a new moment.”
Errin Haines:
Hey y’all, welcome to The Amendment, a weekly conversation about gender, politics and power from the 19th News and Wonder Media Network. I’m your host, Errin Haines. So this week, Republicans around the nation are gathering in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, for the Republican National Convention. Party conventions are vital moments in elections. Not only is it when they’ll officially nominate their candidate for president, it’s when the party coalesces around what they believe, what they’re campaigning on and what they want the future of their party to look and sound like. And a major document guiding the new conservative movement is Project 2025. Now, if you haven’t heard of Project 2025, it is an enormous document, co-signed by a coalition of conservative organizations and outlining their conservative vision for America. Basically, it’s a blueprint for what they would like the Trump administration to do — if Trump was elected in November. Now, Trump has distanced himself from this document, which is to say that not everything in this plan would necessarily happen in a second Trump presidency, but some of the policy is in line with policy in his agenda. And Project 2025 also has ties to people who are likely to be in Trump’s White House. So this is a really important document to understand, and part of understanding how the conservative movement wants to shape America is understanding what Project 2025 is. So today I’m joined by Rachel Leingang. She’s a journalist at The Guardian who covers misinformation and democracy, and who has written multiple excellent stories about Project 2025. Welcome, Rachel.
Rachel:
I’m so glad to be here.
Errin:
So glad to have you to unpack all this. So let’s begin. Okay, to start, so the actual PDF that lays out the entirety of Project 2025 — which you all can read, but — it is over 900 pages long. So Rachel, I mean, have you read all 900 pages of this document?
Rachel:
Not yet. So I’ve been going through it slowly as I’m reporting, and I’ve about probably made it through like 400, 500 pages at this point. As I’m sitting here at my desk, I’m surrounded by it. I printed it out, so I have just stacks of paper all over.
Errin:
Wow.
Rachel:
Um, yeah, it’s gonna take a little bit longer to finish. But it’s been…it’s been a trek.
Errin:
Making your way through it. I mean, is there an audiobook version of this? Uh, I would welcome that, actually.
Rachel:
I wish, right?
Errin:
Exactly.
Rachel:
Someone should do it.
Errin:
Where’s AI when you really need it? So, uh, what was your major takeaway, out of the, you know, 400, 500 or so pages that you have already read? Why did you decide that it was even important to report on this?
Rachel:
So, a few months ago, it became clear to us that this outlines where the conservative movement is headed. It’s a very different view of America as it is today and America as they want it than what we are currently living in. So we have a Democratic president. He has done some things in office. They wanna essentially get rid of, you know, near-everything that he’s done, but then also take the conservative movement a step further. The belief is that in 2016 when Trump won, he was unprepared to do a lot of policy things. This is the preparation. So Trump 2.0 would have, you know, on day one, a playbook to get started on advancing the conservative movement.
Errin:
Yeah, and I mean, this is something…it sounds like you pretty much recognized fairly quickly that this was kind of an important and potentially consequential document, both in this election and depending on what happens on the other side of November. But at the same time, it seemed like this is something that is kind of really just coming on to the broader American electorate’s radar. Why do you think that this is something that is catching on now? And, uh, what do you think that that means for this election now that more people are becoming aware of Project 2025?
Rachel:
I would say that that’s two different things happening: One, you know, people don’t pay attention to elections until they get closer. So this has been out since last year, but some of them probably watched the debate and we’re like, “Oh, oh no, this doesn’t look like it’s going well. What could be ahead for us?” The other thing that is happening is Democrats and the Biden campaign have been really deliberate in recent weeks in tying Trump to Project 2025. So they have been putting out, um, they put out a website on it. Biden’s campaign Twitter has been tweeting about it. They want you to look up Project 2025 so that, you know if Trump wins this is what could happen. The presidential contest right now has been really focused on, you know, Biden’s health and stuff like that, but so they’re trying to change the narrative to looking at policies and what Trump could do. And so I think the, like, increase in search, increase in social media on this, is because of that deliberate effort.
Errin:
Yeah. And certainly with the Republican National Convention happening, there could be absolutely even increased, uh, Project 2025 could increasingly be kind of in the spotlight. You know, before we get into all the details of Project 2025, it is worth noting recently that Trump has tried to distance himself from this document. So if the Republican nominee is trying to convince voters that he doesn’t want anything to do with this project, or that he doesn’t really know anything about it or anybody associated with it, do our listeners need to care about this? And, if so, why do they need to care?
Rachel:
For several reasons, I think it is really worth paying attention to. The first being the people who wrote it are from Trump world. They’re his former officials in his administration. They’re his allies. They’re heavyweights in the conservative movement — the people that will help push his policy forward if he wins. He has said he doesn’t know who’s behind it. The Heritage Foundation is behind it. This is not a shadowy group, right?
Errin:
Right.
Rachel:
They are a prominent think-tank in D.C.. They’ve been around for decades. They have a track record.
Errin:
And they have a relationship with him! Yes?
Rachel:
Absolutely. He’s spoken at their events. He knows who the Heritage Foundation is. To say, “I don’t know who’s behind it,” you do. He also, I think, recognizes that this is a liability to him. You know, the fact that it’s an effective campaign tactic by Biden is I think why he is saying these things. And the fact that it’s a different group gives him some plausible deniability. In our reporting, we’ve been very deliberate to tie, you know, when we’re reporting on Project 2025, we tie in what Trump has said on those topics as well. So in a lot of cases, the policies are essentially the same. We’ve kind of referred to Project 2025 as the meat on the bones of Trump’s, you know, fairly bare-bones campaign promises that are on his website. His is called Agenda 47. There are different things.
Rachel:
The overlap is very significant. The people involved are from his world. They are his allies. They would help him do these things in office. The other reason I think people should pay attention is: this is a playbook for the conservative movement beyond Trump. So Trump’s presidency is one part of it, but a lot of these plans in here are very far-ranging and would take, you know, multiple terms in office from any conservative to really be fully enacted. So if you wanna know where the conservative movement is headed with Trump or without him, I think this is what you need to look at.
Errin:
Yeah. All really good points. You know, you mentioned some overlap between, um, kind of, uh, former President Trump’s platform and Project 2025. Last week we saw the Republican National Committee releasing their platform, adopting, kind of, a slate of policy positions that — including, you know, not calling for, necessarily, a federal legislation abortion ban, but — opening the door to establishing fetal personhood. So I’m wondering if, you know, looking at that Republican National Committee platform, if you saw similarities or influences from Project 2025.
Rachel:
I think Trump’s platform, the RNC platform and Project 2025 mostly overlap. On issues like abortion specifically, Trump and the RNC are trying to be a little bit softer — at least in their tone about it — than Project 2025 is. Throughout Project 2025, prioritizing, you know,
a culture of life” is what they kind of call it…
Errin:
Yeah.
Rachel:
…is a priority. Um, so the RNC platform, not as far as they’re going. Trump’s platform, not as far, I think because the potency of abortion as an issue for voters this year. But beyond, like, a couple of these key issues, they have the same sort of broad vision for what comes next.
Errin:
Yeah. And just in line with, as folks are kind of familiarizing themselves with Project 2025, a lot of this document is focused on, kind of, demonizing these political elites that are trying to…
Rachel:
Yeah.
Errin:
…Take over the government. But as you’ve noted in your reporting, the authors of Project 2025 could very well be referred to as political elites, right? Who are these people?
Rachel:
Yeah.
Errin:
How, if at all, are they connected to Trump and the Republican Party?
Rachel:
So, like I said, this is a DC think tank. Few groups more elite than DC think tank operators. The president of the Heritage Foundation — his name is Kevin Roberts — he comes from an academic background. He has a PhD. He previously led a college in — a Catholic college in Wyoming — and then, uh, the Texas Public Policy Foundation. And then, you know, now he’s moved into this D.C.. role. He’s kind of been referred to as, like, a cowboy Catholic, very, um, conservative, very Christian. That’s the worldview he’s bringing to Project 2025. In previous interviews he’s done with other people, he said that he’s met Trump. They’ve been friendly, like they’re aware of each other. I don’t think they’re like best friends or anything like that. But these are two people who are very much in the conservative orbit. And I should note, like, Roberts has been on Steve Bannon’s show.
Rachel:
Like he’s got a podcast of his own that a lot of conservatives go on. Like, he’s very much like a known quantity in conservative circles. And then Paul Dans and Steven Groves were the co-editors of the project. And, you know, they both had roles in the Trump administration — multiple roles in the Trump administration — the first time around. Another big contributor to the project is Ross Vaught, and he was a Trump-appointed director of the Office of Management and Budget. And then really throughout, there are different people who held roles in the Trump administration who wrote, you know, specific chapters based on whatever role they had before. So if they were like a leader of, you know, in Homeland Security, they wrote the chapter on that, that kind of thing. So if you go through — and several journalists have — and go, you know, line by line, “Who is this person? How are they aligned?” You’ll find like most, with very few exceptions, held some sort of role in the Trump administration, his transition, you know, something like that. They’re from his world.
Errin:
Yeah. It sounds like definitely six degrees of Trump world…
Rachel:
Yeah.
Errin:
In the Project 2025 document. So, I mean, you know, we’re talking about this document. This is, you know, kind of this blueprint that they want to happen. What are the odds that the policy proposed in Project 2025 actually becomes reality?
Rachel:
So I’ll give two examples of the past when they’ve tried this same sort of thing. So the very first time they did — the name of this Project 2025, the document itself is called “Mandate for Leadership” — the first time they did a mandate for leadership was when Reagan took office in his first term. He, like, brought that book to his policy advisors as like, “This is what we’re doing.” And, uh, more than 60 percent of the policies that were outlined became law under Reagan. And then also during the first Trump administration, they made a similar mandate for leadership. This one is far splashier than the last one. So keep in mind that this is like an advancement of this idea of mandate for leadership. The first Trump administration took at least 60 percent of the policies outlined in “Mandate for Leadership” and put them into place. So, uh, you know, my guess is more than half of what’s in here is stuff that the conservative movement is incredibly aligned on, that is non-controversial to a conservative and will be something that the Trump administration wants to try. At least half, conservatively, could go into effect.
Errin:
Yeah. You mentioned Kevin Roberts. Project 2025 starts with a foreword from Kevin Roberts, Heritage Foundation President. The foreword is titled “A Promise to America.” And so in this promise to America, Roberts lays out four broad fronts of the modern conservative movement. These are the four promises the conservative movement is making to the American people. Those four promises, just to quote the document here, restore the family as the centerpiece of American life and protect our children; dismantle the administrative state and return self-governance to the American people; defend our nation’s sovereignty, borders, and bounty against global threats; and secure our God-given individual rights to live freely — what our Constitution calls the “blessings of liberty.” So as we start talking about all these specific policy recommendations this document outlines, I think it’s important to keep those promises in mind, too. So let’s just start with the promise of restoring the family and protecting children. What does that look like in policy form to the authors of Project 2025?
Rachel:
In many ways, it looks like schools that can’t discuss LGBTQ issues, um, or diversity issues at all. There, especially in the foreword — but kind of throughout the document — the use of the word “woke” to stand in for policies they don’t like is, um, it’s rampant. I mean, I feel like I’ve never seen the word “woke” so many times in my life. So, you know, running whatever is considered “woke” out of schools, out of government, any initiatives to increase diversity. They want all of those gone. It also wants to change the Department of Health and Human Services to the Department of Life and advance policies that would disincentivize abortion. They don’t call for, like, a nationwide ban, but they do call for, like, there can be no federal funding related to abortion, no promotion of abortion as an option. And, um, you know, other ways that make it less feasible to get an abortion. And we should really note, too, when they’re talking about the family, they’re talking about a nuclear family that is a man, a woman. They don’t want gay marriage throughout this. It’s not really contemplated that, like, the family can look a lot different, you know?
Errin:
Yeah. I was literally gonna ask you: which families and which children are we talking about? Right?
Rachel:
Yes.
Errin:
At the centerpiece of American life.
Rachel:
Yes. We’re talking about, like, the worldview advanced through this, you know — I think by many who’ve read it have said it’s a Christian nationalist worldview. So it is looking to restore the church at the center of the family life and family as, like, the main priority. But again, “family,” which is a man, a woman, probably two kids, however many the average is, you know?
Errin:
Yeah.
Rachel:
It’s a very traditional view of what a family is.
Errin:
Yeah. And I’m also thinking about what these policymakers vision might be for the future of public education.
Rachel:
Part of the plan calls for dismantling The Department of Education. That’s not a new conservative goal, that is, like, a goal for as long as the department has been around. But it also calls — for over time, over the course of 10 years — getting rid of funding for Title One schools. So that’s schools for low income children. It calls for basically an unfettered use of vouchers. So like those, the system where you can use public funding to go to a private school, even including a faith-based school. This is something that they’re doing in Arizona for the past few years. They kind of wanna nationalize this idea. Their vision for public education is far less public, to say the least.
Errin:
Yeah.
Rachel:
And then, uh, like I’d mentioned throughout, they really want to get rid of policies related to diversity and LGBTQ issues. And in schools that would include, you know, a kid would not be able to use, um, a pronoun unless their parents have approved it, if it differs from what’s on their birth certificate. They couldn’t be called a different name, that kind of thing.
Errin:
Yeah. Okay. So let’s move on to promise number two: The promise of dismantling the administrative state. Talk about the author’s push to move from kind of civil service workers to political appointees. Why is that relevant and what would really be the consequences of that kind of shift?
Rachel:
I think this is such a consequential issue that sounds so dry that I fear people don’t quite understand what it would mean. So to put it as plainly as possible, the checks and balances of expertise in the government, so somebody whose job they have because they know how to do that job, is effectively not important or not as important. So there’d be a lot more people who are given those roles, not because of an expertise they have, but because of their willingness to go with the politics of the executive, of the president. So far more political lackies, if you will. That erodes our checks and balances. So the way civil service is supposed to work, there are people who can provide that expertise. And when we’re putting together regulations, when we’re putting together different policies of how the federal government operates — and we all interact with the government on a daily basis — like those are the people whose expertise form how we go to, you know, a government agency and access services. That would be dramatically lessened. And what that then does is consolidate power for the president. So then he has the ability to do pretty much whatever he wants with, with very little pushback. That is the intention of dismantling civil service.
Errin:
Yeah. And it also strikes me that, you know, if there was a shift from civil service workers to political appointees, that could really affect, you know, just…I’m thinking about in terms of representation and…
Rachel:
Mm-Hmm.
Errin:
…And, you know, that’s also another way to kind of strike a blow at diversity in the administrative state as well.
Rachel:
Yeah. And, throughout it, you know, whenever diversity initiatives are mentioned, they’re like, “This should go on a merit-based…” You know, “This should be a merit based system solely,” you know, predicated on the belief that people who are there from diverse backgrounds did not earn their jobs or, like, don’t deserve to be there.
Errin:
Right.
Rachel:
So there’s a lot of discussion of, like, “People should be there solely because their expertise,” but unless they’re a political appointee in that case, like, you know, well, they can be there for whatever reason to advance the president’s, you know, initiatives.
Errin:
So let’s move now to the promise of defending America’s sovereignty against global threats. What are their policy recommendations here? What do they mean for immigrants in the United States, both documented and undocumented?
Rachel:
This is one area where, like Trump and Project 2025 are definitely aligned. This involves mass deportations. To be very clear, this would involve, like, going essentially…like finding people who are not here with proper documents and kicking them outta the U.S.
Errin:
Mm-Hmm.
Rachel:
That is a big part of the conservative platform right now. How that’s carried out, I think, a lot of people have questions. I don’t know if that includes, like, going door-to-door or what. Carrying out something like that would be huge. A huge undertaking. That’s contemplated in Project 2025. They also have very strict ideas for the border, like, um, who can come in and who cannot. And at times when there are backlogs — which happens a lot in government —when there are backlogs for different immigration programs, so different visas, um, you know, anything like that. Whenever there’s a backlog, ‘Project 2025” suggests stopping — like not allowing more applications for certain things. So that would be a huge change. I’m looking now at my list here. There would be big changes to visas. So the goal of legal immigration would solely be focused on, like, high-wage competitive workers, if you will. Like the ones who are coming in with a specific expertise.
Errin:
Right. That’s kind of skilled labor prioritizing.
Rachel:
Yeah.
Errin:
Like…
Rachel:
High-skilled, yeah. More professional. And then the other thing with visas, too, is that they would allow people to pay for premium processing. So if you had enough money, you could jump the line. There are also big changes that would affect universities. So, for instance, one thing they say is, like, not allowing student visas for people from, like, what they call an “enemy nation,” but that could be construed pretty largely. I mean, do we consider China an “enemy nation?” Because they’re one of the biggest centers of U.S. university students. So if they could be cut off, that would be really consequential for colleges and for the U.S.. So those are some of the smaller changes that they put out that are definitely more detailed than what Trump has said. deportations for sure is part of it. Very strict border control. And then a big part of how they envision our security is seeing China as like a sole — near sole — threat.
Errin:
Yeah. I wanna, I wanna ask you about that, I mean, ’cause there is this kind of particular focus on China in this document.
Rachel:
Yeah.
Errin:
What do they want our foreign policy on China to be, and why do you think they’re so focused on China?
Rachel:
It seems like the view is generally that we should view China as the threat, right? That their rise as a nation and their influence over other countries is unparalleled when we look at what other countries are doing, because, you know, they send more people here who could be engaging in espionage or patent theft or different things like that. And then also, you know, the Chinese Communist Party, the belief that their influence on other countries could lead to issues for democracy in the U.S. and other countries. So the idea is basically aligning behind that China is a threat. So not doing business with them, not necessarily approaching it diplomatically, but seeing them more from a threat perspective, if that makes sense.
Errin:
An adversarial kind of posture.
Rachel:
Yes:
Errin:
Yeah. Okay. So the final promise: Securing our God-given individual rights to live freely. How are the authors of Project 2025 imagining freedom? Like, what does a free society look like to them?
Rachel:
The specifics of what that means are really not there.
Errin:
Mmm-Hmm.
Rachel:
Like one example that they’ve brought up is the ability to speak freely on a college campus, for instance, predicated on the idea that on college campuses nobody is allowed to speak if they have conservative viewpoints. Or they’re shouted down or things like that. But this also includes freedom of religion, which is a huge part, you know, and that freedom is really taken, you know, further than a freedom of religion, freedom to express religion, but also, you know, allowing government funds to go to religious schools like I mentioned, things like that. So, you know, extending that out a bit more. The hindrances to LGBTQ right and diversity rights and things like that. I think when we’re talking about living freely, that doesn’t seem to be part of it, right? I mean, there are not as many specific policies that relate to, like, what does living freely mean? It’s more of like this, like, belief in a worldview where I can do what I want, but I don’t necessarily like when other people do what they want if it doesn’t align with my worldview. Right?
Errin:
It’s about “whose freedom,” right? And also just not even necessarily the, like, defining what freedom is, but absolutely defining, kind of, what it is not, right?
Rachel:
Yes.
Errin:
In the eyes of these authors. So, um, the promise also invokes, like, a lot of allusions to Christianity. You mentioned that this is, you know, largely a Christian nationalist kind of worldview document. Do you think the authors of Project 2025 are really working to build a more Christian nation? And, if so, how? And what does that, uh, you know, what would that so-called Christian nation look like to them?
Rachel:
It’s a good question, and certainly some people when they’re reading this, they’re walking away thinking that that is the goal. It is not explicitly laid out, but certainly moving in that direction by like, the kinds of policies that are advanced, and a belief in a “traditional” family. The exact policies… it’s never gonna be as explicit in here as, like, “here’s how we build a Christian nation,” right? But, you know, there’s really less belief in a separation of church and state in the conservative movement today than there has been in the past.
Errin:
Okay. So one interesting thing, too, that I noticed is that when talking about that fourth promise, Kevin Roberts actually advocates for antitrust enforcement against corporate monopolies, which sounds like a progressive policy that those advocates are often pushing. What do you make of that? Are there other moments in this document where both parties seem to be aligned?
Rachel:
I had an eyebrow raise at that, too. I mean, I think some of these things are just like populist ideas, right? I do think, like, the public writ large would love to have a check on corporate power, especially through enforcement of monopoly laws. It’s not something that has happened during the previous Trump administration. There are other moments, too, where it talks about how Congress has basically, like, abdicated its duties. You know, “Congress does not really play a check on the presidency. They don’t really advance laws the way they should.” I think many people can agree with that, right? I think you can look at what Congress does and be, like, “Not a whole lot of work happening on the regular that fulfills what Congress should be doing now.” I think where it diverges, then, is what the belief is that Congress should be doing, on the right and left. So there are some moments like that where it’s like a benign policy or you know, even, like, some of the things where it talks about, like restoring benefits for families. So like, you know, different ways to help people afford having children. I think that, on the left, people agree with that, too. It’s just that there’s not a belief that you should be required to have children if you don’t want to, right? So yeah, there’s definitely moments where this is striking a more populous tone overall.
Errin:
So, in terms of continuing to think about, you know, the viability of this, the possibility of this, I wanna kind of take a look back for a little while. So let’s kind of get into kind of the political actors in the 2024 of it all. In terms of the Heritage Foundation, like how has the Heritage Foundation really influenced American government and American policy in the past? Both thinking about Trump’s first administration, but even going further back during the Reagan administration.
Rachel:
Yeah, I mean, the Heritage Foundation is a heavyweight in conservative politics. Depending on who you ask, they might be the most influential think tank on the right. They’re certainly in like the top three no matter who you ask. During the Reagan administration, Reagan essentially brought in that year’s version of “Mandate for Leadership” and said, “We’re doing this.” And it became like a guidebook for his presidency. And from there, Heritage’s, you know, role in conservative politics is really cemented. They become like a Reaganesque think tank that has a reputation for policy papers, convening, like, panels of influential people to discuss these ideas. Very free-market, free-enterprise focused at that time. In the modern era here, they’re attempting to — well, I mean, Kevin Roberts has said — Project 2025 is an attempt to institutionalize Trumpism. So there are some who see this move that they’ve made with Project 2025 and some of the ideas that they’ve laid out in it as kind of going away from the roots of the Heritage Foundation being focused less on free markets and focusing more on like culture warrior issues, which is certainly like the world that Kevin Roberts came from.
Rachel:
He is seen as, like, more of a culture warrior. And so there are some in the conservative movement who believe that that is the wrong move. That, like, they’re tying themselves too much to Trump in a way that diminishes the history and the viewpoint of the think tank writ large beyond Trump. And then there are others, you know, who are like, “Yeah, this is great.” I mean, I think Steve Bannon, I think he called it the Bible at one point. This is the Bible for the conservative movement right now. Like it has a lot of allies — far more allies than detractors — in the conservative movement right now. But there’s definitely, like, a jockeying happening among think tanks for which one is gonna be the one that Trump, like, relies upon should he win again.
Errin:
Yeah. Would that be the case? And, like you said, I mean, just even President Reagan’s embrace of the Heritage Foundation and making them even more influential…Do you think that the Heritage Foundation has the power to kind of have that kind of influence again?
Rachel:
The thing that’s tough is, right now, I think — and always, right? — Trump has been the kind of person who doesn’t wanna be seen as, like, told to do anything by anyone. So you’re confronting an ego, obviously. And I think his comments in the last few days where he’s like,
“I don’t know these guys,” you know, have shown that he doesn’t wanna be seen as “I’m going into office and explicitly taking this and saying, ‘This is what we’re doing.’” It will never be that direct. He wants to be seen as his own man. He doesn’t wanna be seen as influenced or bought or anything like that. So that certainly plays a role here. But I think that that doesn’t mean we, like, discount the whole document.
Errin:
Yeah.
Rachel:
You know, it just warrants, like, paying close attention to the ideas that you might implement, where they came from and their underpinning.
Errin:
Yeah. And I think you’re making such a good point here. I mean, Project 2025 really does feel like more of a document for governing, but not necessarily a strategy to campaign on, right? Especially if you’re trying…
Rachel:
One-hundred percent.
Errin:
…To appeal to, you know, really the broader American electorate, uh, beyond, you know, the base that got him through a primary. But now that we’re in general election mode, Project 2025 not really necessarily feeling like a general election document. How do you think that this document is gonna continue to influence the 2024 election?
Rachel:
I think that the Biden administration is not gonna let it go, right? The Biden campaign’s gonna bring this up every attempt they have. They will do ads on it. Should there be a second debate, that will be probably brought up? I think it was probably intended to be brought up the first time.
Errin:
Yeah, absolutely.
Rachel:
Missed opportunity there for their campaign. And then, I mean, I’m not sure if this is just because I’m looking for it on social media, but all over social media, I feel like I’m seeing infographic after infographic about this right now. Like, I feel like now that the public is paying closer attention to the election, they’re looking at what happens after the election. They’re looking at, “Okay, well, like what’s the danger if I don’t vote?” Or “What’s the danger if I’m, you know, choosing one candidate over the other? What am I looking at for the next four years?” And they’re paying attention, then, to what this looks like. I think the Biden campaign strategically will just not let this go. There’s no way they’re gonna, like, tamp down on it no matter what Trump says to try to deny that it’s not his.
Errin:
This feels very consequential. And like you said, regardless of whether he gets reelected or not, like this is in the water now, right? Like this is in…
Rachel:
Yeah.
Errin:
…our politics. And so who knows who decides to pick this up and run with it if, if he can’t get across the finish line.
Rachel:
Yeah, that’s the thing. I think people get really too narrowly focused on Trump. Like, this is not just about Trump. This is about so much more.
Errin:
Who knows what people at the local level are gonna do with this? Like, every person, every Republican running, needs to be asked about Project 2025.
Rachel:
Yeah, I think, like, this will probably be one of the biggest storylines of this election.
Errin:
Hello? And beyond. Well, Rachel Leingang: perfect person to really help us understand how conservatives are potentially trying to amend our democracy through this document — Project 2025. I will continue to be reading and learning from you, so thank you.
Rachel:
Thank you so much. I really appreciate the opportunity. It’s a great conversation.
Errin:
The Amendment is a co-production of the 19th News and Wonder Media Network. It is executive produced by Jenny Kaplan, Emily Rudder, Terri Rupar and Faith Smith. Julia B. Chan is the 19th’s editor-in-chief. The Amendment is edited by Jenny Kaplan, Grace Lynch and Emily Rudder, and was produced by Adesuwa Agbonile, Grace Lynch, Brittany Martinez and Taylor Williamson with production assistance from Luci Jones. Our theme music was composed by JLin.
