Project 2025: Conservative Organizations Distance Themselves from Controversial Manifesto
The controversial Project 2025 has been making waves in political circles, with more and more organizations distancing themselves from the effort. The Trump and Vance campaign, in particular, have been trying to distance themselves from the project, with former Trump adviser Stephen Miller claiming he had no involvement despite appearing in a promotional video for the initiative. Additionally, two conservative groups, including a national anti-abortion organization, have quietly backed out of the 900-page manifesto.
America First Legal Foundation, led by Miller, was one of the first organizations to jump ship from the Project 2025 advisory board. The organization had been involved in the project since at least June 2022 when the Heritage Foundation first announced the formation of the advisory board. America First Legal staff played a significant role in writing and editing the Project 2025 playbook, with its vice president and general counsel drafting a chapter proposing criminalizing mailing abortion pills.
The vast coalition of conservative groups that came together to craft Project 2025 was highlighted by Gene Hamilton, who praised the collaboration in a podcast with Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts. The list of contributors to the playbook includes several other America First attorneys who were actively involved in the initiative.
As of Tuesday afternoon, Americans United for Life and the Mackinac Center for Public Policy were among the groups listed on the Project 2025 website as part of its advisory board. However, by Wednesday, both organizations had vanished from the list. Americans United for Life, an anti-abortion group, cited a desire to maintain a non-partisan stance as the reason for its departure. The group thanked J.D. Vance for his contributions to the pro-life movement but emphasized the importance of maintaining a non-partisan posture during the election season.
The Mackinac Center had offered recommendations on energy and labor issues to Project 2025 but decided to distance itself from the initiative due to some ideas it did not endorse and others outside its scope. The Heritage Foundation did not respond to inquiries about these defections from Project 2025.
The growing number of organizations distancing themselves from Project 2025 underscores the controversial nature of the initiative and its potential political toxicity. As more conservative groups withdraw their support, questions remain about the future of the project and its impact on conservative politics moving forward.
In conclusion, Project 2025 continues to face backlash and opposition from conservative organizations, raising concerns about its viability and long-term implications. The decision by key groups to distance themselves from the initiative highlights the challenges and controversies surrounding the manifesto. As the political landscape evolves, it remains to be seen how Project 2025 will shape conservative policies and agendas in the years to come.