This site provides research and analysis that draws on Project 2025, specifically its 900+ page document, “Mandate for Leadership,” alongside news reports about Trump’s stated policy positions.
To determine which potential changes to personnel, structure, or policy implementations deserved inclusion in an evaluation of political and economic risk scenarios, our team of policy experts, lawyers, investors, issue experts, foreign policy civil servants, and corporate executives assessed potential priorities of the next “conservative” president and then scored combinations of those priorities, what we term “risk scenarios” that could threaten political, economic, and/or civil society stability, by evaluating each for feasibility and then for likelihood.
To gauge feasibility, our team traced the constitutional authorities, statutory requirements, and precedents. In considering the likelihood of potential changes, our team evaluated the degree to which core right-wing organizations including The Heritage Foundation, Conservative Partnership Institute, and America First Policy Institute each call for a given potential change. We then considered the extent to which Trump or his inner circle has repeatedly called for that same change many times over time (i.e., forcibly deporting millions of immigrants), and then factor in feasibility and legislative momentum (previous or current) or judicial support for the proposed change. For most scenarios, we assign a total of 50 possible points and then categorize changes specified in our risk scenarios as being “low,” “medium-low,” “medium,” “medium-high,” or “high” likelihood.
Where risk scenarios include changes Project 2025 does not specify, Trump has either repeatedly called for the change directly when speaking on the record, or the given change has already occurred and is relevant taken in combination with the other proposed changes slated for a second Trump term (e.g., Supreme Court rulings that increase feasibility, and in turn, the likelihood of proposed changes).
All of the risk scenarios on this site score as medium to high likelihood and none rely on the Supreme Court overturning existing precedents, with the exception of the Project 2025’s call for overturning Humphrey’s Executor–although even there the plan envisions the administration acting unilaterally to disregard its limits on firing appointees to independent agencies.
In selecting the personnel this site profiles, our team evaluated former Trump administration officials, major donors, credible media coverage of potential appointees, and Project 2025-affiliated people as potential future appointees. For each person profiled, our team focused its analysis on primary source documents and statements, and media coverage of those documents and statements, to understand each person’s qualifications, past experiences, ideological positions, allegations of wrong-doing, and January 6th and election denial involvement, as well as potential conflicts of interest.