Project 2025: LGBTQ+ Analysis and Fact Check

Part 1

The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank that was founded in 1973, has been making waves because of its 920-page Mandate for Leadership 2025: The Conservative Promise, better known simply as 'Project 2025.' This document, which is intended to be used as a playbook for the next conservative president, outlines policies from immigration to women's healthcare, military recruitment, economic policies, and much more. While the think tank often tries to paint their policies as that of the 'average American,' the extreme stances taken within the document have caused Project 2025 to go viral on social media, in the news, and has become a focal point of the Biden campaign. 

When Heritage Foundation President, Kevin Roberts said, "We are in the process of the second American Revolution, which will remain bloodless ― if the left allows it to be." It further raised flags for many Americans who don't feel the same way. 

In fact, likely due to the negative press, former President Donald Trump took to Truth Social on July 5 to try to distance himself from Project 2025 and the Heritage Foundation. He posted, "I know nothing about Project 2025. I have no idea who is behind it. I disagree with some of the things they're saying and some of the things they're saying are absolutely ridiculous and abysmal. Anything they do, I wish them luck, but I have nothing to do with them."

However, Trump's claim that he doesn't know who is behind the organization is false as he was a keynote speaker at a Heritage Foundation dinner, saying, "This is a great group, and they're going to lay the groundwork and detailed plans for exactly what our movement will do." Additionally, 140 people who worked in the Trump administration were directly involved in the creation of Project 2025. 

The Heritage Foundation has regularly released mandates since 1981 and the seventh mandate was released in November of 2016. This document called Mandate for Leadership: Blueprint for Reform, claims that nearly 2/3rds of their policies laid out were enacted within Trump’s first year as president. As reported by the New York Times, “The results, Heritage found in its review, exceeded even the first year of Ronald Reagan’s presidency, whose tenure has long been the conservative gold standard.” 

While social media has been abuzz, others may think that the policies laid out in Project 2025 have little chance of being enacted. However, in addition to Trump already enacting almost 2/3rds of the Heritage Foundation policies during his term, other mandates have had similar impacts. In fact, in January 1981, the month President Ronald Reagan was sworn into office, they published their first Mandate for Leadership. As Project 2025 states, "By the end of that year, more than 60 percent of its recommendations had become policy." The fact that their mandate has been implemented before indicates that there is a real chance this could happen again, and the American people need to consider if this is something they want to have happen. 

I read Project 2025 this month and found that much of the document is factually incorrect or misleading. Today, I want to focus on the LGBTQ+ issues explored within the document, examining the policies they plan to enact and exploring the inaccuracies in each claim. Because there is so much covered in this document, I want to give each point the attention it deserves. This will be the first in a series of three articles going through this document. 

Page 16 of the documents states: 

“Ultimately, the Left does not believe that all men are created equal—they think they are special. They certainly don’t think all people have an unalienable right to pursue the good life. They think only they themselves have such a right along with a moral responsibility to make decisions for everyone else.” 

This statement is especially odd given that what the Heritage Foundation is accusing the left of is what they appear to be doing with this document. As I lay out various statements from the mandate, you will see that the Heritage Foundation seems to believe that “all people have an unalienable right to pursue the good life” as long as that good life matches their idea of what a good American should be. If someone is transgender, if they care about social justice, if they seek to teach the history of racism in this country, if they are a drag queen, if someone cares about gender equity, or any number of other things The Heritage Foundation doesn’t appear to believe that the freedoms they loudly say all should have apply to them. 

Project 2025 lays out four broad points that their mandate focuses on. This includes: 

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.” 

Focusing on the first promise to ‘restore the family as the centerpiece of American life and protect our children.’ The document states:

“The next conservative President must make the institutions of American civil society hard targets for woke culture warriors. This starts with deleting the terms sexual orientation and gender identity (“SOGI”), diversity, equity, and inclusion (“DEI”), gender, gender equality, gender equity, gender awareness, gender-sensitive, abortion, reproductive health, reproductive rights, and any other term used to deprive Americans of their First Amendment rights out of every federal rule, agency regulation, contract, grant, regulation, and piece of legislation that exists.”

Before jumping too far into this statement, it's essential to define diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). Diversity is "the range of human differences, including but not limited to race, ethnicity, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, age, social class, physical ability or attributes, religious or ethical values system, national origin, and political beliefs." Equity is defined as, "fair and just practices that ensure access, resources, and opportunities are provided for all to succeed and grow." Lastly, inclusion is, "involvement and empowerment, where the inherent worth and dignity of all people are recognized."

As the Declaration of Independence states and Project 2025 also states, "all men are created equal." The definition of diversity, equity, and inclusion seems to align with this equality that should be central to American politics, ensuring that all people have a seat at the table. 

Furthermore, studies have found that inclusive language like what the Heritage Foundation wants removed from many documents, is beneficial. For example, a 2021 study by the Institute for Public Relations and The Wakeman Agency found that "Ninety-seven percent of communicators agreed that language or words could influence or reinforce power dynamics in the workplace." It also found, "A significant majority (87%) said it is important for workplace discussions to focus on how language can evolve to be more equitable or inclusive."

YouGov polling data shows that the plan to eliminate federal funding for programs related to diversity, equity, and inclusion is strongly or somewhat opposed by 47% of those surveyed, while 36% strongly or somewhat support it. Additionally, their data shows that the Heritage Foundation’s plan to remove legal protections against discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity is strongly or somewhat opposed by 59% of those surveyed, while 24% strongly or somewhat support it. Most of the policies that respondents were surveyed on were not popular, according to YouGov’s polling data. 

Another interesting point that is mentioned in the statement from Project 2025 is the claim that the words "sexual orientation and gender identity ("SOGI"), diversity, equity, and inclusion ("DEI"), gender, gender equality, gender equity, gender awareness, gender-sensitive, abortion, reproductive health, reproductive rights," need to be removed from "every federal rule, agency regulation, contract, grant, regulation, and piece of legislation that exists." The reason for this, they claim, is because the words are used "to deprive Americans of their First Amendment rights." However, as the First Amendment states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." 

Freedom of speech refers to American's right to articulate their opinions, thoughts, and ideas freely without retaliation. To propose removing these words from "every federal rule, agency regulation, contract, grant, regulation, and piece of legislation that exists" seems to be entirely against the basic principles of the First Amendment. Instead, it takes the beliefs of one group and puts those beliefs onto all people. Plus, the Heritage Foundation claims this is related to their First Amendment rights, but what about the First Amendment rights of the people who have already drafted documents using these terms or all of the people that it would impact? 

“These are the mediating institutions that serve as the building blocks of any healthy society. Marriage. Family. Work. Church. School. Volunteering.”

From this statement and the document as a whole, it appears that the folks at the Heritage Foundation only see one way to create a healthy society. It’s widely agreed that things like volunteering, family, and work are important. However, it is also dangerous to have only one view of what a healthy society can look like. Furthermore, their version of family is that of a family with two parents, a mother and a father. 

As Project 2025 states, “Forty percent of all children are born to unmarried mothers, including more than 70 percent of black children. There is no government program that can replace the hole in a child’s soul cut out by the absence of a father.” So, while the importance of family that the Heritage Foundation mentions is understandable, it also discounts many families who don’t fit the bill of what they deem a family should look like. Additionally, while Project 2025 claims that all children need a father, a study published in BMJ Global Health synthesized the findings and data from 34 studies and found that in families with LGBTQ+ parents “Most of the family outcomes are similar between sexual minority and heterosexual families, and sexual minority families have even better outcomes in some domains.” The areas where sexual minority families had better outcomes than their heterosexual counterparts include psychological adjustment and parent-child relationships. 

Additionally, given that this is a political mandate for leadership intended for the next conservative president to follow, the mention of the church seems unwise. After all, the first clause of the Bill of Rights, the Establishment Clause, states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” The Establishment Clause has been often referred to regarding the importance and necessity of separating church and state.

“Pornography, manifested today in the omnipresent propagation of transgender ideology and sexualization of children, for instance, is not a political Gordian knot inextricably binding up disparate claims about free speech, property rights, sexual liberation, and child welfare.” 

Project 2025, as a whole, talks extensively regarding transgender people, both children and adults. This is notable for many reasons, one being that despite the immense amount of focus on transgender people, transgender adults make up just .5% of the population, and only 1.4% of youth identify as transgender. 

Additionally, the very idea of ‘transgender ideology’ is an interesting one because being transgender isn’t something new. Even before there was language to describe being transgender, transgender folks have existed. In fact, around 5000 to 3000 B.C., there are records of an androgynous trans priestess. Many other countries and groups of people also recognize multiple genders outside the typical gender binary of male and female. For example, in the 18th century, the Itelmens of Siberia recognized a third gender, and throughout history in South Asia, there have been at least eight gender-expansive identities. 

The document also claims that this is inherently sexualizing children, which is a false assertion as sex and gender dysphoria are two separate things. Gender dysphoria “involves a conflict between a person’s physical or assigned gender and the gender with which he/she/they identify.” A 2020 study also notes that not all people with gender dysphoria choose to have surgery; some choose to only socially transition. 

“Allowing parents or physicians to “reassign” the sex of a minor is child abuse and must end.”

It seems there is a common misconception in politics, media, and society as a whole that many children are having life-altering sexual reassignment surgeries. However, that is not the case. A trans child will make all care decisions with their parents, as well as medical providers (including mental health professionals), and they won’t have permanent medical interventions until the individual is old enough to give consent. 

Protecting children is incredibly important, and it’s also necessary to note that according to a 2020 study, “It has been suggested that up to 41% of transgender people attempt suicide compared to 5% in the general population.” Because of this, to protect children, it is necessary to find the best way to support transgender kids so they don’t become another statistic. 

Because so much of this ‘debate’ plays out in politics and debates, it’s vital to look to those who are experts, and the experts have made their stance quite clear. Every major medical organization including the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Psychiatric Association, and the American Medical Association support age-appropriate, gender-affirming care. If people truly care about protecting children, they would listen to the experts—the medical professionals, the mental healthcare providers, the researchers, the parents, and the children themselves—rather than trying to make it harder for already vulnerable kids to access healthcare. 

It’s also worth noting that, as the Human Rights Campaign states, “Transgender and non-binary people typically do not have gender-affirming surgeries before the age of 18. In some rare exceptions, 16 or 17 year-olds have received gender-affirming surgeries in order to reduce the impacts of significant gender dysphoria, including anxiety, depression, and suicidality. However, this is limited to those for whom the surgery is deemed clinically necessary after discussions with both their parents and doctors, and who have been consistent and persistent in their gender identity for years, have been taking gender-affirming hormones for some time, who have undergone informed consent discussions and have approvals from both their parents and doctors, and who otherwise meet standards of care criteria (such as those laid out by WPATH).” 

Building off the above pg. 259 states: 

“In the past, the word “gender” was a polite alternative to the word “sex” or term “biological sex.” The Left has commandeered the term “gender,” which used to mean either “male” or “female,” to include a spectrum of others who are seeking to alter biological and societal sexual norms.”

This statement is false, and while some people may equate gender and sex as the same thing, they have never been the same; that’s why we have different words for gender and sex. As a 2020 study said, “In this context, it is important to highlight the difference between sex and gender – two terms which are commonly used interchangeably and yet mean very different things. The biological sex of an individual refers to a person being either male or female based on their chromosomal makeup and their genitalia.2 It is used in a social, medical and legal context to “categorize” people under the two sexes, as men or women. This term is assigned at birth and often stays with a person for the rest of their life. The term gender is harder to define, as it is to do with how someone identifies, how a person fits in with the social norms, activities and attributes that are commonly associated with men and women.3 Whilst for many people sex and gender go in unison, for some, there is an imbalance between anatomical body structure and self-perception. A collective term for these individuals is “transgender.””

---

The above is just a small fraction of the statements and policies laid out in Project 2025 regarding the LGBTQ+ community. If you haven't already, be sure to subscribe for free so you’ll be notified next month when the second part of this analysis is published.

Special thanks to Noah Kolenda for assisting in editing and research.