By John Q. Hosedrinker 
As 2025 concludes, Project 2025 stands as the definitive policy plan of Trump’s second term, a blueprint largely crafted by veterans of his first administration. The plan, which Trump initially distanced himself from, has been systematically implemented, with roughly half of its goals achieved by mid-December. However, while the Heritage Foundation’s ideas now shape federal policy, the institution faces internal conflict and fracture. The administration’s actions regarding the press and public broadcasting directly reflect the project’s proposals, mirroring its strategies to consolidate executive power. Despite the success of Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation faces internal turmoil.
Read the original article here
The assertion that “Project 2025 has been a success – with the help of the press” is a complex one, and it starts with the media’s role in the initial perception of the project. A significant aspect of this is the claim that mainstream media outlets, while not necessarily endorsing Project 2025, largely dismissed the extent of Trump’s involvement, which is a key point to understand the situation. The initial framing of Project 2025 as a fringe idea, or a project disconnected from the Trump campaign, created a foundation upon which its implementation could be built with less scrutiny.
The media’s response during the 2024 election cycle is cited as an example of this dynamic in play. Some outlets were more focused on fact-checking claims, such as whether Project 2025 was an official campaign document, rather than delving into the deeper connections and potential implications. This approach, while technically accurate, created a narrative that downplayed the project’s significance and its potential to be implemented. This led to a situation where the more important aspects of this agenda didn’t get discussed.
This perceived downplaying, or perhaps a lack of emphasis, allowed Project 2025 to evolve out of the shadow of its inception. The project’s detailed plans for dismantling the government, particularly within the executive branch, weren’t discussed with the severity they deserved. This allowed it to gradually seep into the discourse and start being implemented. It’s suggested that by focusing on technicalities rather than the broader implications, the media inadvertently created a space for the project to flourish, enabling its goals to be introduced in the early days.
The media’s reliance on ratings, in the age of constant news cycles, may have also played a role. The constant coverage of any and every action, comment, and event relating to former president Trump has been mentioned. This reliance may have led to a focus on sensationalism and conflict, potentially overshadowing the more nuanced, long-term concerns surrounding Project 2025. This focus on immediate reactions likely decreased the depth of reporting in favor of headlines.
The implications of all this are grave. It’s noted that, within a year of the current presidency, a significant portion of Project 2025’s agenda has been put in motion. This rapid progress, driven by the media’s framing and potential oversight, is the very definition of a success that’s been made possible by a lack of oversight. The long-term effects of this, from changes in the structure of government to potential limitations on individual freedoms, are not fully felt, and may not be immediately obvious, but they are very present.
Looking at the current situation, there’s a growing awareness of the dangers that Project 2025 represents, with greater scrutiny being applied. Now, the cracks are beginning to show. From legal challenges to increased public awareness campaigns, there’s a growing sense of urgency to counteract its influence.
The call for counter-projects and increased engagement of the public is echoed, with the necessity of an active and informed citizenry. The need for a cohesive effort, that involves media, political actors, and citizens alike, is becoming apparent in order to stand against the agenda that has been put into place.