Project 2025: A Blueprint For MAGA Authoritarianism?

By Henry De Groot

The Heritage Foundations’ “Project 2025: Mandate For Leadership” gives us insight into the policies Trump may carry out if elected to a second term.

The Danger Of A Trump Re-election

According to the Democratic Party, Donald Trump is an existential threat to the liberal democratic order, the Constitution, and the rule of law. In order to protect democracy, they say, we must unite behind Joe Biden. As Biden’s failure in the recent debate and the failed assassination attempt on Trump increases the chances of a Trump victory, and the recent Supreme Court ruling Trump vs United States provides almost complete immunity to the president, these fears have dramatically increased.

That the threat of an authoritarian second Trump administration is a Democratic Party talking point does not make it untrue. Although we, as revolutionary socialists, are no defenders of the constitutional order or the administrative state, that does not mean we want it falling into the hands of right-wing populists. It is crucial that the left take seriously and think through what it would mean if Trump won re-election.

That the threat of an authoritarian second Trump administration is a Democratic Party talking point does not make it untrue.

Although Trump’s first term was terrible for working people, immigrants, women, and people of color, it would not be accurate to label his first administration as a fascist or authoritarian regime. His ban on immigrants from Muslim countries, brutal policies on “border security,” and wanton use of federal prison personnel in Washington DC to suppress protests are all escalatory far right policies. But this course of action was not exceptional in terms of recent American administrations. President Bush’s policies following the 9/11 attacks – which included the use of torture, the indefinite detention of American citizens, expansion of the security state, widespread spying on private persons, and the invasion of two countries resulting in over 600,000 civilian deaths – were actually far worse and more authoritarian than any of the policies Trump enacted. President Obama executed an American citizen by drone strike without a trial, and President Biden has continued to hold child migrants in detention centers.

However, the January 6th riots were obviously a turning point for Donald Trump, showing his willingness to attack the foundations of constitutional order, with his MAGA supporters and a sizable chunk of the larger Republican Party happy to follow along. Since January 6th, Trump has only consolidated his influence over the Republican Party, silencing critics and bullying a large number of establishment Republicans to parrot obvious lies about stolen elections.

Trump is now a convicted felon and faces a large number of outstanding legal cases. These cases threaten not only his reputation, but also his personal wealth and his individual liberty. The pressure from these cases may increase Trump’s willingness to break with the constitutional order in order to avoid accountability for his crimes. Although the recent Supreme Court ruling in Trump v. United States gives Trump some protection from prosecution and therefore may relieve some of these pressures, it also further frees him to take unilateral action without fear of accountability. 

Making an educated prediction about the likelihood of increased authoritarianism during a second Trump term requires consideration of the the general interests of the American capitalist class within the macro-economic prospects for the next period, Trump’s personal interests, and the potential of both anti-Trump protestors and pro-Trump MAGA masses to intervene in and influence events.

The capitalist class would benefit from a revival of the aggressive pro-corporate, anti-worker agenda which Trump took on in his first term. But that does not mean they prefer a Trump dictatorship; rather, in their ideal situation these capitalists would prefer to maintain the current bourgeois-democratic order, which provides them substantial stability and outlets for venting the frustrations of ordinary working people. We should remember that these forces originally preferred Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, and Ted Cruz over Trump; however, like the rest of us they have to make do with the options at hand. 

It is possible, however, that dramatic changes in the economic and political outlook could push the American capitalist class towards more enthusiastic support of more extreme measures.

It is possible, however, that dramatic changes in the economic and political outlook could push the American capitalist class towards more enthusiastic support of more extreme measures. For example, if a new recession led to mass unemployment, this could help fuel widespread unrest among the working class; in this situation, capitalists might acquiesce to mass deportations in order to stabilize the situation. Similarly, if a hot conflict with China does erupt, capitalists might support authoritarian crackdowns on anti-war protestors in order to strengthen the war effort.

Trump himself is much more of a wildcard. While he does have direct material interests, like a desire to minimize his personal taxes, which overlap with the other billionaires, he also has interests which are unique to his situation as a political leader. It would be reductive to assume Trump will do what is directly best for his personal financial situation. We must also consider his desire for power, ego, personal beliefs, and legal situation — all multiplied by the ever-present factor of his irrational behavior — could lead him to make decisions which are not in direct accord with the material interests of his fellow billionaires. 

Beginning with this framework, we can then more tangibly investigate the potential of an authoritarian Trump regime by reviewing the plans which the conservative movement close to Trump is already signaling and preparing for.

Project 2025: Mandate For Leadership – The Conservative Promise

The Heritage Foundations’ Project 2025 is a right-wing preparation for a second Trump term. The ideology and policy of the effort is laid out in its 900-page 2025 Mandate For Leadership: The Conservative Promise. Additionally, Project 2025 is preparing a database of potential conservatives to hire, an online program to train them, and a guidebook for forming these teams.

The Heritage Foundation is one of the central organizers of the neoliberal and neoconservative movements, acting as the mothership of a large network of right-wing think tanks, non-profits, membership organizations, and other billionaire-funded right-wing projects. Founded in 1973 by right-wing activists Paul Weyrich and Edwin Feulner, as well as billionaire Joseph Coors of Coors Brewing, the foundation sought to implement the conservative strategy laid out in the notorious Powell Memo. Heritage first produced a Mandate For Leadership proposal in 1979 in preparation for Ronald Reagan’s 1980 election victory. Within the first year of the Reagan administration more than 60 percent of the Mandate’s policies had been enacted.

The Project 2025 team includes many senior members of Trump’s first administration, including 6 former cabinet members and more than 140 former Trump administration employees.

However, Trump himself shared on Truth Social that he knew “nothing about Project 2025. I disagree with some of the things they’re saying and some of the things they’re saying are absolutely ridiculous and abysmal.” It makes sense for Trump to put some distance between Project 2025 and himself. But it is an obvious lie that Trump doesn’t know anything about Project 2025 when it is run by many of former advisors and appointees, including the men pictured above.

And Project 2025 actually closely parallels the themes and proposals of the 2024 Republican Party Platform, which was drafted more directly by Trump’s team. The major difference between the two is not in policy, but that the platform is designed for widespread public consumption while The Conservative Promise is more of a technical document focused on enacting this policy within the executive state.

The rhetoric of Mandate For Leadership: The Conservative Promise centers on four ideological themes, which are laid out in its introduction:

1. Restore the family as the centerpiece of American life and protect our children.
2. Dismantle the administrative state and return self-governance to the American people.
3. Defend our nation’s sovereignty, borders, and bounty against global threats.
4. Secure our God-given individual rights to live freely—what our Constitution calls ‘the Blessings of Liberty’

The above four principles are the ideological-rhetorical bridge between the political ideas of the MAGA mass movement and the technical decisions which Trump officials will need to make for his administration to enact this program. It shouldn’t be taken for granted that these principles will be pursued in earnest, since they serve the dual purpose of a guide to action and propaganda to engage the base. Some of the proposals are deadly serious, but others are likely superfluous.

The principle of “restoring the family” is directed at connecting Project 2025 with the ongoing culture war. It is tied to anti-queer rhetoric, anti-abortion rhetoric, and calls to cut welfare. Probably the most significant rhetorical innovation is the call for schools to serve parents; the mobilization of parents since COVID has been a key strategy for MAGA to build support in the suburbs and among middle-class parents. In contrast, it is unlikely that policies like the call to ban pornography would actually be taken up.

The principle of dismantling the administrative state is the most serious of the four principles. It entails both a massive reduction in government regulations of corporations, as well as the liquidation of ‘independent’ sections of the executive branch. Project 2025 calls for the closing of regulatory agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Education, as well as the dissolution of the Department of Homeland Security, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Justice Department. Dismantling the first of these sets of federal agencies will mean a bonanza for big business. On the dismantling of the second set, we should be clear that the MAGA movement has no intention to actually get rid of border patrol, government prosecutors, or the federal police force. Rather, the dissolution of these agencies is a call to dissolve them insofar as they are independent and can act as checks on the White House; their work will instead be taken up under even greater personal control by Donald Trump.

The proposal on defending national sovereignty draws on rhetoric which pitches “the ‘enlightened,’ highly educated managerial elite” who are globalists against “the humble, patriotic working families who make up the majority of what the elites contemptuously ‘call “fly-over country.’”

“Today, nearly every top-tier U.S. university president or Wall Street hedge fund manager has more in common with a socialist, European head of state than with the parents at a high school football game in Waco, Texas.”

This section is the orientation of Trump to the working-class elements of his base who have been failed by decades of neoliberal industrial policy. Against this “globalist elite,” Project 2025 calls for the defense of fossil fuels, a rebuilding of the American industrial base to compete with China, and an abandonment of all “international organizations and agreements that erode our Constitution.”

The final section on individual liberties is perhaps the most misleading. The section discusses defense of individual liberties only insofar as government intervention in the market would curtail liberties, and liberty should be secured by rolling back government control. 

These four principles unite the ideologies of Christian nationalism, personal fealty to Trump, economic nationalism, and neoliberal economics. From these four ideologies extend major policy thrusts including cuts to the welfare state, removal of any government support for diversity, equity, and inclusion, rollbacks on women’s and trans rights, deregulation of corporations, strengthening of the president’s control of the executive, mass deportations, withdrawal from some international treaties, and moderate economic protectionism.

These four principles unite the ideologies of Christian nationalism, personal fealty to Trump, economic nationalism, and neoliberal economics.

This unity at first appears as a contradiction, especially since the economic theories of economic nationalism and neoliberalism are formally antagonistic. One calls for closed borders, the other welcomes cheap immigrant labor; one calls for investment in national industry, the other calls for laissez-faire economics and free trade. However, Project 2025 proposes a sort of “nationalist neoliberalism” with a division of labor between the two approaches; we could, for example, expect tariffs on Chinese industry but not the repatriation of American manufacturing which has moved to Mexico. In fact, neoliberalism has usually not been applied “purely,” but has always been paired with a semi-protectionist model rooted in conservatism, which was the model promoted by the very first Mandate For Leadership.

The balancing between these two ideologies – reflecting the MAGA base and the business establishment – will largely be at the personal discretion of Trump. Trump’s pick of J.D. Vance as his running mate and his welcoming of Teamsters president Sean O’Brien shows how he is increasingly leaning on economic nationalism. Many in the business establishment do not want to win over the Teamsters union, but rather eliminate their rights entirely. And on the question of immigration, fear mongering of a mass deportation might help employers drive down wages, but actually carrying through the deportation of tens of millions of undocumented migrants would dramatically drive up labor costs.

The Politicization of the Executive

On the question of the potential for the development of authoritarianism, perhaps most important is Project 2025’s call to “dismantle the administrative state,” which is actually a call to stack it with Trump appointees and remove any semblance of an independent civil service.

There are currently around 4,000 “schedule f” employees of the federal government – political civil servants appointed by the president. Project 2025 lays out a program for the dismissal of a large number of federal employees, and those involved in its development have called for a ten fold increase in the number of “schedule f” employees to some 40,000 political appointments. 

Project 2025’s Presidential Administration Academy is preparing the forces which would be necessary to actually carry through this expanded politicization of the executive. The online training courses will help Trump’s movement prepare tens of thousands of MAGA activists to fill the various civil service roles. It is also possible that the expansion of “schedule f” employees could include political appointments of human resources roles who make general hiring decisions, which could give MAGA forces the ability to stack the civil service far beyond the initial 40,000 appointments.

Combined with the ruling in Trump v. United States and the removal of independent elements of the Justice Department and FBI, this politicization of the state bureaucracy would give Trump unprecedented control over the executive, stacking it with officials personally loyal and accountable to him.

Trump has flirted with rhetoric of “retribution,” while Steve Bannon, who surrendered himself to federal custody on July 1, has called for investigations into “former FBI Directors Andrew McCabe and James Comey, former Secretary of Defense Mark Esper, former Attorney General Bill Barr and former Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley.” And a short line on page 20 of the Trump vs. United States ruling states that “the President may discuss potential investigations and prosecutions with his Attorney General and other Justice Department officials,” giving Trump legal cover to direct his Justice Department to pursue political reprisals.

Project 2025 also calls for the mobilization of the national guards and the deputization of local police in order to bolster immigration enforcement. These forces would be necessary if Trump intends to carry out the “largest deportation ever.”

Action, Resistance, and Reaction

The Trump administration’s path towards authoritarianism will not develop linearly through policy changes alone, but rather will develop in relation to the mass mobilizations which would inevitably emerge in resistance to his policies. 

Although a Trump victory would be demoralizing for wide sectors of society, it could also be profoundly energizing. If Trump does take authoritarian action, like launching an aggressive mass-deportation campaign, he will almost certainly be met with mass mobilizations which can be led by left-wing forces like DSA. The establishment Democrats will likely fail to provide leadership. It is likely that such mass-movements will be larger, more consistent, and more militant than under his first term. A larger layer of the Democratic Party, concerned by Trump’s continued radicalization since losing the 2020 election, is likely to participate in mass demonstrations. Furthermore, the mass radicalization of youth which has continued to grow but remained relatively dormant under the Biden administration will find eager expression in protests against Trump.

The 2024 Republican Party Platform directly states Trump plans to “deport pro-Hamas radicals” on campus. Carrying out such political purges targeted at a left-wing minority on campuses or in wider society would be a revival of McCarthyite tactics. We have already seen Zionist billionaires aggressively clamor for political purges of anti-Zionists from campus, with campus administrators and local authorities responding with often brutal tactics, but only a limited number of suspensions or expulsions. Widespread purges and even deportations would be a dramatic escalation. And such tactics would not be foreign to Trump. His own political mentor Roy Cohn was chief counsel for Joseph McCarthy and directly ran much of McCarthy’s investigations.

It is also more likely that there will be dramatic confrontations between the forces of the resistance to Trump and his MAGA supporters. The mobilized section of the MAGA base continued to grow through COVID protests, counter-protests to BLM, and in the far right school board protests, and they would also draw on broader layers of the MAGA base in a politically charged environment. An even more dangerous layer, including the Proud Boys and Patriot Front, have also grown and gained experience over the last period. MAGA forces would likely seek to help Trump’s administration carry out policy, counter-mobilizing against anti-Trump protestors who try to block the rollout of the MAGA program.

If there are violent confrontations, this could be an opening for Trump to increase the repression of his dissidents. The right-wing reaction to the BLM uprising which followed the police murder of George Floyd shows that Trump would likely have a sizable base of support in a crackdown on “rioters.” Previously the government has usually not pursued the majority of protestors who engage in illegal actions like blocking highways, especially after protests have dispersed. But an aggressive approach to enforcement could mean that those participating in street actions find themselves arrested days later, based on charges built through surveillance. Additionally, it would not be inconceivable for Trump to pursue RICO charges against entire organizations if their members plan illegal civil disobedience actions, even if these actions are entirely non-violent. And there is also the possibility that a Trump administration could persecute dissidents with no legal basis at all.

In the face of all of these serious threats, a correct socialist orientation will be crucial. Our movement must seek to expand any street protests to the larger working class, gaining support from labor institutions. We must also be careful to avoid provocations, and take more seriously the threat of suppression by the state. Above all, it is necessary that the resistance to a second Trump term develops into support for a socialist alternative.