The Transformation of American Conservatism: Project 2025 and the Rise of National Conservatism in 2025

 

Executive Summary

As of December 2025, the American conservative movement has undergone a fundamental transformation from the Reagan-era coalition of fiscal conservatives, social traditionalists, and foreign policy hawks into a National Conservative movement prioritizing national sovereignty, economic protectionism, and cultural traditionalism. This shift, embodied in the implementation of Project 2025 and exemplified by the second Trump administration, represents not merely a change in political leadership but a structural reconfiguration of American governance and conservative ideology. This analysis examines the documented implementation of Project 2025, the emergence of National Conservatism as a dominant ideological force, and the implications for American politics and global order.

 

I. Project 2025: From Blueprint to Implementation

I.i. Origins and Structure

Project 2025, formally known as the "Presidential Transition Project," was developed by the Heritage Foundation beginning in 2022 as a comprehensive plan to reshape the federal government under a conservative administration. The initiative comprises four interconnected pillars: a 920-page policy document titled "Mandate for Leadership," a personnel database, the Presidential Administration Academy for training future appointees, and a confidential implementation playbook.

The project involves more than 100 partner organizations from across the conservative movement, with contributions from over 350 conservative policy experts. While the Trump campaign repeatedly distanced itself from Project 2025 during the 2024 election, claiming no connection to the initiative, the subsequent implementation pattern tells a different story.

I.ii. Schedule F: The Administrative Revolution

The centerpiece of Project 2025's restructuring agenda is the reinstatement of Schedule F (now renamed "Schedule Policy/Career"), which represents the most significant change to the federal civil service since the Pendleton Act of 1883. On January 20, 2025, President Trump's first day in office, he signed Executive Order 14171 reinstating this controversial classification system.

Schedule F/Policy-Career reclassifies federal employees in "policy-influencing positions" from protected civil service positions to at-will employees who can be dismissed without the due process protections typically afforded to career civil servants. Initial estimates suggest this could affect approximately 50,000 federal employees, though legal scholars warn the number could extend into hundreds of thousands depending on how broadly "policy-influencing" is interpreted.

The stated rationale for Schedule F is to increase accountability and ensure that federal employees faithfully implement presidential directives. However, critics argue it represents a fundamental politicization of the civil service, replacing merit-based expertise with political loyalty. The Biden administration had finalized regulations in April 2024 specifically designed to prevent Schedule F's revival, but the Trump administration bypassed the standard rulemaking process by claiming constitutional authority to directly nullify these regulations—a move that has triggered multiple lawsuits from federal employee unions.

By April 2025, the Office of Personnel Management had reclassified approximately 50,000 positions under the new system. OPM Director Scott Kupor estimated the federal workforce would shrink by approximately 300,000 employees in 2025 through a combination of voluntary resignations, buyouts, and layoffs, representing roughly 10% of the total federal civilian workforce.

I.iii. Personnel Implementation

Despite Trump's repeated denials of connection to Project 2025 during the campaign, the personnel overlap between the project and his administration is substantial and well-documented. As of December 2025, more than a dozen high-profile administration officials directly participated in creating Project 2025:

• Russell Vought: Author of Project 2025's chapter on the Executive Office of the President, now serving as Director of the Office of Management and Budget. Vought has been explicit about his intentions, stating the administration would "destroy the administrative state and fire and traumatize federal workers."

• Stephen Miller: His organization, America First Legal, served as a bridge between the Heritage Foundation and the Trump administration, helping craft Project 2025's blueprint for expanding executive power and immigration crackdown.

• Tom Homan: Designated as "Border Czar," Homan was a leading adviser on Project 2025 and contributed to its immigration policy recommendations.

• Brendan Carr: Now chairing the Federal Communications Commission, Carr contributed to Project 2025's media and communications strategy.

In mid-December 2025, the Heritage Foundation sent an email to members explicitly stating it was planning to "work with the Trump administration" to enact its latest proposals. Paul Dans, a chief architect of Project 2025, told Politico in March 2025 that he was "delighted" Trump was implementing "his agenda after all," adding that the president's policies were beyond his "wildest dreams."

I.iv. Policy Alignment Analysis

A comprehensive review of Trump administration actions reveals extensive alignment with Project 2025 recommendations across multiple policy domains:

Immigration: Project 2025 called for mass deportations, ending birthright citizenship, family separation policies, and dismantling the asylum system. The Trump administration has pursued all these objectives, with ICE conducting increased raids and deportations.

Gender Policy: Project 2025 recommended abolishing the Gender Policy Council established by Biden. On January 20, 2025, Trump issued an executive order rescinding the council. The administration has systematically removed references to "gender equality," "diversity, equity, and inclusion," and related terms from federal regulations and programs.

Reproductive Rights: Project 2025 advocates allowing hospitals to refuse emergency abortion care and implementing government tracking of births and abortions. Multiple Trump appointees with strong anti-abortion records, including officials from organizations designated as Project 2025 advisers, now hold key health policy positions.

Environmental Policy: The administration has rolled back Biden-era climate regulations and environmental protections in line with Project 2025's recommendations to reduce federal environmental oversight.

I.v. Legal Challenges and Implementation Obstacles

The implementation of Schedule F and other Project 2025 initiatives faces substantial legal resistance. The National Treasury Employees Union filed suit on January 21, 2025, the day after Schedule F's reinstatement. Multiple other unions and civil rights organizations have challenged various administration actions in federal court.

A federal judge in late October 2025 indefinitely barred the administration from firing federal employees during a government shutdown. However, the administration's strategy of claiming constitutional authority to bypass the Administrative Procedure Act represents a novel legal theory that will likely require Supreme Court resolution.

II. The Emergence of National Conservatism

II.i. Ideological Foundations

National Conservatism represents a coherent alternative to both the libertarian-leaning conservatism that dominated Republican thought from the 1980s through the early 2000s and to progressive liberalism. The Edmund Burke Foundation, which organizes the annual National Conservatism Conference (NatCon), defines the movement as prioritizing "the idea of the nation, the principle of national independence, and the revival of unique national traditions."

National Conservatism departs fundamentally from classical liberal conservatism in several key respects:

Economic Philosophy: Rather than emphasizing free markets and deregulation, National Conservatives advocate for economic protectionism, breaking up monopolies, supporting unions, protecting workers (including gig workers), and using state power to rebuild manufacturing. This represents a significant departure from Reaganomics toward an approach closer to Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal.

Social Policy: National Conservatives oppose what they view as excessive individualism and believe in a "common good" defined by traditional values. They argue politics should actively guide citizens toward correct choices rather than maximizing individual freedom.

Religious Integration: Religion, particularly Catholicism, plays a central role in National Conservative thought. While not all National Conservatives agree on the extent of religious authority in government, all advocate for religion playing a more central role in politics and public life.

Political Strategy: Traditional conservatives often sought to change culture first, hoping politics would follow. National Conservatives explicitly reject this approach, arguing that political power must be seized and wielded to reshape society.

II.ii. Institutional Development

The National Conservatism movement has developed substantial institutional infrastructure since its emergence:

Annual Conferences: The National Conservatism Conference has held five major gatherings since 2019 in Washington (2019, 2025), Orlando (2021), Miami (2022), and London (2023), with additional conferences in Brussels and Rome. The July 2025 Washington conference featured prominent speakers including Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts and numerous Trump administration officials.

Think Tanks and Publications: Organizations like the Edmund Burke Foundation, the Claremont Institute, and segments of the Heritage Foundation now explicitly advocate National Conservative positions. The movement has spawned dedicated podcasts (NatCon Squad), publications, and academic journals.

Academic Legitimacy: Scholarly attention to National Conservatism has increased dramatically, with the Journal of Political Ideologies publishing comprehensive analyses describing it as "a novel hegemonic paradigm and transnational phenomenon of the Right" that represents "one of the best recent examples of the so-called conservative backlash."

Government Integration: Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard addressed the September 2025 National Conservatism Conference, signaling the movement's acceptance within the highest levels of the Trump administration.

II.iii. Key Figures and Intellectual Influences

Vice President JD Vance has emerged as the movement's most prominent political figure. Vance explicitly identifies as part of the "post-liberal right" and has been influenced by Catholic social teaching, Silicon Valley tech leaders (particularly Peter Thiel), and writers including Patrick Deneen, Curtis Yarvin, René Girard, Sohrab Ahmari, and Rod Dreher.

Vance wrote the foreword to Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts's book "Dawn's Early Light," praising Roberts for attempting to communicate "a genuinely new future for conservatism" and calling his proposals "an essential weapon" for political transformation. The Heritage Foundation privately advocated for Vance to be Trump's running mate, and prominent Silicon Valley figures including Peter Thiel ($15 million to a pro-Vance super PAC) and Elon Musk actively lobbied for his selection.

As Vice President, Vance has assumed an unusually influential role. In March 2025, he became finance chair of the Republican National Committee—the first sitting vice president to hold this fundraising position, a move widely interpreted as positioning him for a 2028 presidential run. He has been described as "America's most influential vice president since Dick Cheney," though with dramatically different ideological orientations.

Vance's policy positions reflect National Conservative priorities: skepticism of overseas military commitments, support for protective tariffs and industrial policy, opposition to "neoliberal economics," emphasis on family policy and natalism, and willingness to use state power to achieve conservative social objectives. His statement that "the kingdom of God must be defended like any other kingdom" captures the National Conservative belief that cultural and religious values require active political protection rather than mere advocacy.

III. The Tragedy of Charlie Kirk and Its Political Implications

III.i. The Assassination

On September 10, 2025, Charlie Kirk, the 31-year-old co-founder and leader of Turning Point USA, was assassinated while speaking at Utah Valley University in Orem, Utah. Kirk was fatally shot in the neck by a gunman positioned on a building roof approximately 142 yards away during an outdoor campus debate event attended by approximately 3,000 people. The shooter, Tyler James Robinson, a 22-year-old from Washington, Utah, surrendered to authorities the following day. Prosecutors charged Robinson with aggravated murder on September 16 and announced they would seek the death penalty, alleging a politically motivated attack.

Kirk's assassination occurred during a period of escalating political violence in America, following incidents including the June 2025 shootings of two Democratic Minnesota legislators and their spouses, the May 2025 killing of two Israeli embassy staffers in Washington D.C., the April 2025 arson attack on Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro's residence, the December 2024 killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson, and assassination attempts on Trump in July and September 2024.

III.ii. Political Impact

Kirk's death sent shockwaves through the conservative movement and American politics more broadly. A September 19 Associated Press-NORC poll found a dramatic shift in public sentiment following the assassination: only 49% of Republican voters said the country was headed in the right direction, down from 70% in June 2025. Among Democrats, sentiment fell from 12% to 8%, and among independents from 23% to 14%.

President Trump attended Kirk's memorial service on September 21, 2025, in Glendale, Arizona, where he praised Kirk as a personal friend who had been instrumental in mobilizing youth voters. Kirk's widow, Erika Kirk, assumed leadership of Turning Point USA following her husband's death. Trump awarded Kirk a posthumous Presidential Medal of Freedom.

The assassination sparked intense debates about free speech, political violence, and the boundaries of acceptable discourse. Some individuals who celebrated or made offensive comments about Kirk's death online faced firing or suspension from employers. This led to constitutional debates, with legal experts across the political spectrum emphasizing that the First Amendment protects even offensive speech celebrating a death, though private employers retain the right to terminate employees for such speech.

The incident highlighted escalating left-wing political violence. A Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) report found that 2025 was on pace to be "the left's most violent year in more than three decades," with left-wing attacks and plots outnumbering far-right incidents for the first time in over 30 years in the database tracking 750 terrorist incidents between 1994 and July 2025.

III.iii. AmericaFest 2025 as Memorial and Movement Gathering

AmericaFest 2025, scheduled for December 18-21, 2025, at the Phoenix Convention Center, has taken on additional significance as both a memorial to Charlie Kirk and a celebration of the movement's political success. While previous AmericaFests focused on youth outreach and "culture war" rhetoric, the 2025 event serves as validation of the movement's capture of federal power and institutionalization through Project 2025 implementation.

The event represents the transition of MAGA from a personality-driven insurgency to an institutionalized governing philosophy with operational infrastructure designed to outlast individual leaders—a transition tragically accelerated by Kirk's death but ultimately validated by the movement's structural embedding in federal governance.

IV. The Republican Party Transformation

IV.i. Departure from Reaganism

The contemporary Republican Party bears minimal resemblance to the Reagan-era "three-legged stool" of fiscal conservatism, social traditionalism, and hawkish internationalism. This transformation reflects several fundamental shifts:

Economic Policy: The GOP has largely abandoned free trade orthodoxy in favor of protectionism. Trump's extensive use of tariffs, including those against traditional allies, represents a complete reversal of Republican trade policy from the 1980s-2000s. The administration argues these tariffs protect American workers and incentivize reshoring of manufacturing, though many economists contend they contribute to inflation.

Foreign Policy: The movement has shifted from promoting American global leadership and the "liberal international order" to "America First" transactional relationships. NATO is increasingly treated as a cost-sharing arrangement rather than a cornerstone alliance based on shared values. This represents what the 2025 Munich Security Report describes as "selective engagement" replacing America's role as "guarantor" of European security.

Social Issues: While Republicans have long emphasized traditional social values, the contemporary movement's approach is more aggressive and state-centered. Rather than relying on cultural persuasion and limiting government intervention, National Conservatives advocate using state power to actively promote traditional family structures, restrict what they view as harmful social movements (particularly regarding gender identity), and integrate religious values into governance.

Populist Economics: The party has moved toward positions historically associated with the political left, including skepticism of large corporations, support for certain worker protections, and willingness to use government intervention in markets. Vice President Vance has explicitly criticized the "globalist economy" and advocates for what he calls "common good capitalism."

IV.ii. Coalition Restructuring

Research from the Manhattan Institute (December 2025) documents the emergence of a "New GOP" coalition that is younger and more racially diverse than traditional Republican constituencies. However, these new voters often hold "ideologically unstable" positions—combining progressive views on some economic issues with strong opposition to liberal cultural positions and the "establishment."

What binds this coalition is less traditional conservative ideology than shared antagonism toward elite institutions, skepticism of expertise and credentialism, and cultural grievance. This creates both opportunities and challenges for Republican governance, as the coalition's economic interests sometimes conflict with traditional Republican donor priorities.

The movement has demonstrated ability to thrive on grievance and persecution narratives. Charlie Kirk's assassination, while tragic, has been incorporated into this narrative framework, strengthening rather than destabilizing the movement's cohesion.

IV.iii. Internal Tensions

Despite consolidation around National Conservative themes, significant tensions persist within the Republican coalition:

Silicon Valley vs. Traditional Business: Peter Thiel, Elon Musk, and other tech figures who supported Vance represent a "New Right" faction comfortable with using state power to reshape markets and break up competitors. This sometimes conflicts with traditional business conservatives and the Chamber of Commerce wing of the party.

Isolationism vs. Israel Support: The movement's general isolationism and skepticism of foreign interventions creates tension with strong Republican support for Israel. Vance's October 2025 condemnation of Israeli settlement expansion in the West Bank as a "very stupid political stunt" illustrates this tension.

Populist Economics vs. Donor Interests: The National Conservative embrace of worker protections, skepticism of free trade, and willingness to regulate large corporations conflicts with traditional Republican donor preferences for limited regulation and free markets.

Institutional Disruption vs. Governance: Figures like Marjorie Taylor Greene represent a disruptive faction that sometimes conflicts with the administration's attempts at systematic implementation of its agenda. The tension between performance politics and functional governance remains unresolved.

V. Democratic Party Response and Polarization

V.i. Abandonment of Neoliberal Consensus

The Democratic Party has been forced to significantly restructure its coalition and messaging in response to MAGA's populist challenge. By 2025, Democrats have largely abandoned the "Third Way" neoliberal consensus of the 1990s-2000s:

Economic Populism: Democrats have moved substantially left on labor rights, anti-monopoly enforcement, and economic inequality. This represents a return to New Deal-style economics and a competing populism to the Republicans' nationalist economic message.

Cultural Positioning: Democrats have intensified their emphasis on diversity, equity, and inclusion, creating what some political scientists describe as a "sharp binary" with the Republican cultural traditionalism. This represents a calculated decision to mobilize their coalition through cultural issues rather than compromise on them.

Electoral Strategy: The party faces a fundamental dilemma: maintaining support from college-educated professionals and urban constituencies while competing for working-class voters increasingly attracted to Republican economic nationalism.

V.ii. Mirrored Radicalization

A disturbing trend documented in 2025 is what analysts term "mirrored radicalization"—the escalation of extreme tactics and rhetoric on both sides of the political divide. For the first time in decades, left-wing extremist incidents have risen significantly, with participants often framing their actions as "necessary defense" against what they perceive as neofascism.

This dynamic creates a self-reinforcing cycle: right-wing movements point to left-wing violence to justify their own aggressive tactics and rhetoric, while left-wing actors cite right-wing authoritarianism to rationalize their escalation. Both sides increasingly view political violence and extra-parliamentary activism as legitimate tools of "national preservation."

The assassination of Charlie Kirk, regardless of the specific motivations of the perpetrator, has been incorporated into this narrative framework by both sides—Republicans viewing it as evidence of left-wing violence necessitating stronger responses, and some on the left viewing it as an unfortunate but understandable response to perceived threats to democracy.

VI. Global Implications and the Liberal International Order

VI.i. Managed Decline of Post-1945 Order

The National Conservative ascendance in the United States represents a fundamental challenge to the "liberal international order" established after World War II. This system, based on multilateral institutions, rules-based trade, collective security alliances, and promotion of democracy and human rights, depended critically on American leadership and commitment.

The Trump administration's approach treats international institutions as optional and alliances as transactional. NATO is viewed not as a moral commitment to collective defense but as a cost-sharing arrangement that must demonstrate value. The United Nations, World Trade Organization, and other multilateral bodies are seen as constraining American sovereignty rather than amplifying American influence.

VI.ii. Emboldening Illiberal Democracies

The American shift toward National Conservatism has emboldened similar movements globally. In the 2020s, national conservatism has been described as causing a "new global divide" in the Western world. The 2024 U.S. presidential election (Trump defeating Harris by 1.5%) and the 2025 Polish presidential election (Karol Nawrocki defeating Rafał Trzaskowski by 1.8%) represent victories for national conservative candidates, though the 2025 Romanian presidential election saw centrist Nicușor Dan defeat far-right national conservative George Simion.

Viktor Orbán's Hungary, Giorgia Meloni's Italy, and emerging nationalist parties across Europe view the American National Conservative movement as validating their approach. This has created an international network of nationalist parties that explicitly reject the authority of supranational bodies in favor of bilateral, strength-based diplomacy.

VI.iii. China and Multipolarity

The National Conservative framing redefines global competition not as "Democracy vs. Autocracy" but as nationalist competition between sovereign powers, with China as the primary rival. This represents a significant conceptual shift from the post-Cold War "end of history" optimism toward acceptance of permanent great power competition.

This shift has practical implications: fragmentation of global supply chains, weakening of international human rights frameworks, and reduced American willingness to intervene abroad for humanitarian or democracy-promotion purposes. Vice President Vance's explicit embrace of foreign policy "restraint" and skepticism of American military interventions signals a long-term reorientation away from the American security umbrella that has characterized the post-1945 order.

VII. Future Trajectories and Critical Questions

VII.i. Movement Durability

A central question for political scientists is whether National Conservatism represents a durable realignment or a temporary phenomenon tied to specific personalities and circumstances. Evidence as of late 2025 suggests structural durability:

Institutional Infrastructure: Organizations like the Edmund Burke Foundation, Center for Renewing America, Claremont Institute, and segments of the Heritage Foundation provide personnel, policy development, and intellectual legitimacy independent of any individual leader.

Generational Appeal: The movement has successfully recruited younger conservatives who lack attachment to Reagan-era ideology and are more comfortable with government activism for conservative purposes.

Federal Embedding: Through Schedule F and related reforms, the movement has embedded itself structurally in federal governance in ways designed to persist beyond individual administrations.

However, significant vulnerabilities remain: the movement's populist economic promises (particularly on cost of living) have proven difficult to deliver; internal tensions between different factions could fracture the coalition; and legal challenges to Schedule F and other reforms could force significant retreats.

VII.ii. Constitutional and Democratic Implications

The National Conservative governance approach raises fundamental questions about American constitutional democracy:

Separation of Powers: The Schedule F reforms and related changes to federal workforce management concentrate power in the executive branch at the expense of both Congress (which created the civil service merit system) and the judiciary (whose interpretation the administration explicitly challenges).

Rule of Law: The administration's claim of constitutional authority to bypass the Administrative Procedure Act represents a novel legal theory that, if accepted by courts, would dramatically expand presidential power to unilaterally reshape federal governance.

Democratic Norms: Vice President Vance's statement that he would not have certified the 2020 election results had he been Vice President, combined with his criticism of judges who rule against executive actions ("judges aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate power"), signals comfort with pushing or breaking democratic norms.

Civil Service Protections: The dismantling of civil service protections threatens the expertise and institutional memory that enable effective governance while increasing risks of corruption and incompetence through politicized hiring.

VII.iii. Economic Sustainability

The movement's economic agenda faces significant tests in 2025 and beyond:

Inflation and Tariffs: Despite Trump claiming to have engineered lower inflation, the inflation rate in September 2025 stood at 3.0% year-on-year—the same level he inherited from Biden. Many economists argue that extensive tariffs contribute to inflationary pressure, potentially undermining the movement's core economic promise of affordability.

Manufacturing Revival: While the administration claims success in reshoring manufacturing, actual job creation data remains mixed. Reversing decades of deindustrialization proves more challenging than campaign rhetoric suggested.

Cost of Living Crisis: Late 2025 local elections showed some erosion of Republican support, which analysts attribute to persistent affordability challenges. If the movement cannot deliver tangible improvements in living standards for its working-class base, political sustainability becomes questionable.

Fiscal Pressures: The movement's embrace of some economically interventionist policies (industrial subsidies, family support programs) combined with traditional Republican tax cuts creates fiscal tensions, particularly given the 2025 debt ceiling debates.

VIII. Conclusion

The transformation of American conservatism from Reagan-era fusionism to National Conservatism represents a fundamental realignment with implications extending far beyond partisan politics. Through Project 2025's systematic implementation, the movement has embedded itself structurally in federal governance in ways designed to persist regardless of future electoral outcomes.

The tragedy of Charlie Kirk's assassination in September 2025 has intensified rather than diminished the movement's cohesion, demonstrating its evolution from personality-driven insurgency to institutionalized political force. AmericaFest 2025 serves as both memorial and celebration—marking the movement's capture of federal power while mourning the loss of one of its architects.

Vice President JD Vance's emergence as the intellectual and strategic leader of the post-liberal right positions him as the movement's likely standard-bearer beyond the Trump era. His explicit rejection of both classical liberalism and traditional Reaganism in favor of state-directed common good conservatism represents a coherent governing philosophy, whether one agrees with it or not.

The movement's success has forced a comprehensive restructuring of the Democratic Party, created an international network of nationalist movements challenging the liberal international order, and raised fundamental questions about American constitutional democracy, civil service professionalism, and the proper role of state power in promoting cultural and social objectives.

Whether National Conservatism can successfully navigate the practical challenges of governance—delivering economic improvements for its working-class base, managing internal factional tensions, surviving legal challenges to its administrative reforms, and avoiding democratic backsliding—remains the central question for American politics entering 2026. The ideological transformation appears durable; whether the policy implementation can deliver on its promises will determine the movement's long-term political viability.

What is clear is that the Republican Party of 2025 bears minimal resemblance to the party of Reagan, Bush, or McCain. The post-Cold War conservative consensus of free markets, democratic internationalism, and limited government has been replaced by a nationalism emphasizing sovereignty over multilateralism, protectionism over free trade, and active use of state power to promote traditional social arrangements. This transformation, embodied in Project 2025's systematic implementation and the National Conservative movement's institutional development, represents a fundamental reorientation of American conservatism for the 21st century.