It’s likely you’ve heard about a conservative political movement called “Project 2025—The Presidential Transition Project” over the last two years. It’s also likely that most of what you’ve heard is either exaggerated, twisted, or just plain wrong.  

What is Project 2025? Where did it come from? What will it mean for the United States of America if Project 2025 is implemented? 

We’ve received a lot of conflicting information as we approach election day for the 47th President of the United States. This leaves the public confused and afraid, wondering who is telling the truth and feeling paralyzed about their upcoming voting decisions. We wanted to research Project 2025 on our own to find out what it’s all about. 

While our mission is tightly woven around one of our nation’s most highly charged political issues—abortion—PreBorn! is a ministry and not a political organization. Our mission is to save babies and souls.  

Who Wrote Project 2025? 

Project 2025 was created and written by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative policy solution provider. According to their website, Heritage.org, their mission is to “formulate and promote public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.” 

In doing so, they hope to build “an America where freedom, opportunity, prosperity, and civil society flourish.” They conduct their work through a three-step process: researching, developing, and promoting innovative solutions, mobilizing the conservative movement to work together, and training future leaders.  

Heritage consists of over one hundred organizations represented by approximately four hundred experts and researchers in business, government, and communications “who are invited to testify before Congress nearly 40 times a year.”  

The team presented their first handbook of recommendations to then President-Elect Ronald Reagan in 1980. President Reagan implemented many of the recommendations. Since then, the Heritage Foundation has been recognized as an active, reliable resource and advocate for conservative politics aligned with the spirit and intent of our Founding Fathers.  

What is Project 2025? 

Project 2025 is a comprehensive blueprint of conservative policy recommendations, how to implement them, and who may be best qualified to do so.  

In its entirety, Project 2025 consists of four main pieces, one of which is the center of the debate, a published document titled A Mandate for Leadership, A Conservative Promise. However, the policies in Project 2025 are neither required nor guaranteed by any political party. Rather it is a mandate of instructions that the Heritage Foundation believes holds the promise of potential and possibilities.  

The document begins by stating that “The 2025 Presidential Transition Project is the conservative movement’s unified effort to be ready for the next conservative Administration” (pg xiii). It consists of thirty chapters of “clear and concrete policy recommendations for White House offices, Cabinet departments, Congress, and agencies, commissions, and boards” (pg. 2). 

Is Project 2025 Trump’s Plan as President? 

No. Neither former President Trump or Vice President Kamala Harris wrote or had anything to do with the creation of Project 2025.  

Just like President Reagan and many others since then, the Trump administration also relied on the research and recommendations of the Heritage Foundation. Some of Trumps trusted advisors contributed to Project 2025, and many of the recommendations align with Trump’s platform.  

However, Project 2025 is not his pledge if elected, nor is it a directive for his intended administration. Trump neither wrote nor informed it, and because over 400 experts contributed to the document, he is truthful when he says he doesn’t know who specifically wrote it. It’s a team collaboration, so there is no singular author.  

We stress this point because others have assigned the entire handbook as the details of Trump’s plans if he serves as the next president, but this is not true. Therefore, voting decisions should not be made based on policy recommendations in Project 2025.   

Breaking Down Project 2025  

Project 2025 consists of four pieces referred to as “pillars:”  

  • Pillar I—is the publication, A Mandate for Leadership, A Conservative Promise, and therefore, the focus of this article.  
  • Pillar II—is a personnel database of recommended candidates who may be best to implement the policies outlined in Pillar I.  
  • Pillar III—is the Presidential Administration Academy, an online reference and information system.  
  • Pillar IV—is a detailed transition plan for forming agency teams ready to get to work as soon as the new president takes office. 

 Four Promises of Pillar I 

The policy recommendations are organized around four goals. The verbiage of each of the four goals below is taken directly from pages 4-16 of the Mandate for Leadership, The Conservative Promise. 

Promise #1: 

“Restore the family as the centerpiece of American life and protect our children.” 

Promise #2 

“Dismantle the administrative state and return self-governance to the American people. 

Stand up for American ideals, American families, and American culture.” 

Promise #3 

“Defend our nation’s sovereignty, borders, and bounty against global threats. Reset the nation’s role in the world.” 

Promise #4 

“Secure our God-given individual rights to live freely—what our Constitution calls ‘the Blessings of Liberty.’”  

What Does Project 2025 Say about Abortion?  

“From the moment of conception, every human being possesses inherent dignity and worth, and our humanity does not depend on our age, stage of development, race, or abilities.”

—Roger Severino, Mandate for Leadership, A Conservative Promise 

A keyword search for the word “abortion” within the 900-page document resulted in 199 results between pages 5 and 644. 

The sections in Mandate for Leadership are categorized not by issue, but by legislative purpose and relevant agencies. There are abortion-related policy recommendations for the Agency of International Development, the White House Office, and everything in between.  

The Language of Abortion: 

“Death and life are in the power of the tongue, and those who love it will eat its fruit.”

—Proverbs 18:21 (NKJV) 

Problem: Promotion as Health Care 

References to abortion with terms such as health services, comprehensive sexuality education, sexual health, reproductive health, reproductive rights, and gender equality, not only disregard the sanctity of life, but they villainize and censor people of conservative values, thereby suffocating their First Amendment rights. We all have a right to speak our opinion, but not at the expense of gaslighting anyone who disagree. 

But the culture of the abortion industry doesn’t stop at our borders. The purpose of the United Stated Agency for International Development (USAID) is to prevent the impact of threats such as violence, hunger, and disease abroad by implementing American prosperity initiatives. Like many other organizations designed to serve the greater good, USAID’s mission has become diluted and metastasized into infecting Asia, Africa, and Latin America with “American culture wars” (p 187). 

Policies proposed in Project 2025 focus on eradicating all terms and references to abortion as health care from all speech and publication, especially legislative professional rules, regulations, contracts, and grants. 

The Business of Abortion: 

For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

—Matthew 6:21 (NKJV) 

Problem: Tax-funded abortion 

Title X was a Trump Administration regulation that required grant recipients to maintain strict physical and financial separation between abortion services and health care for pregnancy, infertility, and sexually transmitted infections. Title X also protected employees from requirements to refer clients to abortion services.  

In 2021, the Department of Health and Human Services reversed Title X specifically to accommodate Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood receives government grant money annually to provide critical health care services to underserved populations, such as testing and treatment for sexually transmitted infections and wellness and preventive care services, including cancer, cholesterol, and diabetes screenings.  

Since Title X was reversed, funds intended for legitimate health care are now co-mingled with money used to provide abortion services. In addition, employees must refer women for an abortion and simply lead them down the hall, regardless of their personal moral or religious beliefs.  

It gets even worse.  

Whether you like it or not, taxpayers such as yourself may be funding the abortion industry through your state. Many states require Medicaid, as well as health insurance carriers to pay for abortions.  

Taxpayer money is also used to pay for abortions for military service members and to subsidize interstate travel for abortions, also known as “abortion vacations.” 

Fiscal discrimination against life and incentives to promote abortion are rampant through other parts of society as well, especially in the pharmaceutical industry, foreign policy, and nonprofits that serve either at home or abroad.   

Pregnancy is not a disease, so abortion does not belong in taxpayer-funded initiatives created for health-related services. A few of the policy changes proposed within Project 2025 are as follows:  

  • End foreign and domestic aid for abortion buried within the scope of things like global health assistance, COVID-19, economic assistance, and humanitarian aid. 
  • Discontinue the use of taxpayer funds for all abortion-related services, including abortions for service members, interstate travel, and overseas abortions.   
  • End taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood and all other abortion providers and redirect funding to health centers that provide real health care for women. 
  • Remove any requirement to perform or promote abortions as a condition of receiving any type of tax-funded support.  
  • Reinstate Title X to separate taxpayer funds used for health care versus abortion referral and services. This includes the formation and enforcement of separation of funding for Planned Parenthood. Tax-funded Medicaid should never pay to end a child’s life.  
  • Keep anti-life insurance coverage out of insurance plans. Laws must demand equal or greater benefits for pro-life support for mothers.  
  • Establish external agencies responsible for monitoring, reporting, accountability, and enforcement of life-giving laws.  
  • Per federal law, striking down the industry mandate against pharmacies and acknowledging that pharmacies and pharmacists have the right not to participate in abortions, including pill-induced abortions, if doing so would violate their sincere moral or religious objections.  
  • Focus attention and resources on women and children’s health instead of death. 

The Risks of Abortion 

“For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil, for which some have strayed from the faith in their greediness, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.” 

—1 Timothy 6:10 (NKJV) 

Problem: Public Health and Safety 

Mifepristone was the method of choice in over 60% of abortions in 2023. While the abortion industry insists the drug is practically as safe as a multivitamin, the fact is that thousands of women have suffered adverse effects, including death, during a chemical abortion. This is about four times the rate of complications for surgical abortion.  

The FDA acknowledged the risks of mifepristone in 2019 when the drug was added to a list of only 73 medications subject to a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS). The very purpose of a REMS is to require that the drug be taken only under a physician’s care to ensure the safety of the patient.  

Not only does the FDA ignore its own policy, but it failed to prioritize public safety when mifepristone was approved.  

During the approval process, the FDA “never studied the safety of the drugs under the labeled conditions of use, ignored the potential impacts of the hormone-blocking regimen on the developing bodies of adolescent girls, disregarded the substantial evidence that chemical abortion drugs cause more complications than surgical abortions, and eliminated necessary safeguards for pregnant girls and women who undergo this dangerous drug regimen” (p. 458). 

The FDA exists to guarantee the safety and efficacy of drugs against a risk vs benefit criteria where profit and politics are not part of the formula. Yet many women have ordered the abortion pill online without seeing a physician.  

The policy recommendations in Project 2025 seek to restore safety, accountability, and transparency for the American people by:  

  • Reversing its approval of mifepristone and any other chemical abortifacients.  
  • Immediately restoring the REMS for mifepristone, thereby requiring a prescription and in-person oversight by a licensed physician for all abortions.  
  • Enforcing the spirit and the letter of existing laws that prohibit the sale, distribution, or use of abortion-inducing pills without prescription and supervision of a trained medical professional. 
  • Publishing and promoting corrected information regarding the comparative health and psychological benefits of childbirth versus the risks of abortion. 

“And you, fathers, do not provoke your children to wrath, but bring them up in the training and admonition of the Lord.” 

—Ephesians 6:4 (NKJV) 

Problem: Forced Compliance and Biased Persecution 

Both government agencies and the abortion industry systematically discriminate against and even persecute pro-life advocates well beyond their actions.  

The Department of Justice has “consistently threatened that any conduct not aligning with their agenda ‘could’ violate federal law—without actually taking a position that the conduct in question is illegal—using the prospect of protracted litigation and federal sanctions to chill disfavored behavior such as with state efforts to restrict abortion or prevent genital mutilation of children” (p. 546). 

Such drastic disparity in enforcement also exists in our medical field and even our schools. Medical students must petition to opt-out of abortion training and physicians who refuse to perform abortions face discrimination in loss of income and opportunity. 

As Project 2025 contributor Gene Hamilton wrote in Chapter 17, “the DOJ has needlessly undermined its credibility with law-abiding people of faith” (p. 558). It’s possible that sentiment rings true for other areas of government as well.  

Here are just a few policy recommendations intended to make every effort to uphold equal protection of the law and avoid politically motivated and viewpoint-based prosecutions:  

  • Conduct a review of all relevant DOJ activities and procedures to ensure fair and equitable enforcement and prosecution according to the offense rather than opinion. 
  • Ensure that training programs for medical professionals comply with restrictions on abortion funding and conscience-protection laws. 
  • Require that any abortion-related training for physicians is offered on an opt-in basis.  
  • Prohibit schools from teaching curriculum in a way that violates the rights of children and parents, especially if it requires minors to disclose information about their religious or traditional beliefs. Such moral teachings are up to the parents.  

What Does Project 2025 Mean for the Future? 

“If My people who are called by My name will humble themselves, and pray and seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land.” 

—2 Chronicles 7:14 (NKJV) 

The secular definition of freedom is to do anything you want; however, in 2024, freedom means the power of some to silence, oppress, and kill the innocent. Such freedom is at the expense of those who refuse to compromise their consciences and at the sacrifice of the lives of preborn souls whose misfortune is being conceived into human form upon another’s inconvenience.  

Project 2025 is not a radical effort to turn back the clock to 1825 or 1925, but a return to foundational, unalienable rights that are self-evident to all mankind.  

Their goal is to stand up for a government that will defend our sacred First Amendment rights by restoring and protecting freedom of religion, speech, and assembly from censorship, harassment, and intimidation in all forms. 

The spirit of Project 2025 is this part of the Declaration of Independence:  

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. —That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.” 

Conclusion 

The goal of Project 2025 is to protect the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and to restore the United States to one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.