Despite the outcry, Project 2025 remains committed to its nonpartisan and good-government roots, as established in the 1980s.

The Heritage Foundation's latest Mandate for Leadership and Project 2025 have been misrepresented by Democrats as a right-wing "boogeyman," but the organization's founders and leaders insist that their work speaks for itself.

Last month, President Donald Trump expressed his disagreement with certain aspects of the latest iteration and denied any involvement in its creation, stating, "Some of the things they’re saying are absolutely ridiculous and abysmal."

Since the Reagan administration, the Heritage Foundation has consistently published its Mandate for Leadership series before every election.

The former Attorney General Edwin Meese III, now considered a conservative movement's "elder statesman," argues that the project is not radical.

In a Wednesday interview, Meese stated that the primary distinction between 1980 and 2024 is the evolution of the project's mechanics.

He stated that in 1981, the document was more focused on organizational structure and norms, while in 1989, it shifted to individual policy issues.

Meese was invited to a dinner with conservatives and members of the Heritage Foundation after being named director of Reagan's transition team, and was offered early proofs of the 1981 Mandate for Leadership.

On Thursday, Charles Heatherly, who worked on the first project during the 1980 cycle, stated that the Carter crew had been approached to discuss the initiative, suggesting that present-day claims about the projects being one-sided partisan affairs may not be entirely accurate.

The Reagan campaign was invited to send a representative to the dinner, but the Carter campaign did not respond.

The 1981 project was "particularly helpful" during the Reagan years as it was the first time something of that kind had been done in a long time, according to Meese.

"During the Johnson administration, there was a coalition. This was several years before 1980. Therefore, it was time for this project."

"The Heritage effort was truly impressive. They successfully recruited authors with expertise in policy topics because they had practical experience in those departments or related areas, enabling them to gain insight into the functioning of the entire government."

"The book contained a chapter for each department or agency, totaling approximately 500 pages. I was deeply impressed by the events depicted."

Reagan was immediately eager to view the final product of the new project that Meese had told him about.

"Reagan held a meeting of his cabinet prior to his inauguration and placed a copy of the book on each of their desks."

Meese instructed each secretary to locate their respective chapter during the meeting, which took place in the State Department's conference center.

The meeting of conservative experts initially had a negative impact on the efficiency and policymaking within the new conservative White House, but over time it began to have a positive effect.

The UPI recommended against affirmative action, stating that the new 1981 administration should base its civil rights policy on the belief that every person has an inherent right to obtain economic or other rewards based on merit, and that it is wrong to penalize those who have earned their rewards by giving preferential treatment and benefits to those who have not.

The Reagan administration utilized the first project's work, but Heatherly stated that the then-president's political appointees were a "mixed bag," resulting in differences in consideration.

"Some agencies took it more seriously than others," he said.

Heatherly defended the project in his recent Wall Street Journal column.

He stated that he had enlisted 20 teams of experts from previous White Houses, academic institutions, and within the then-emerging Heritage.

He noted that the 1980 cycle's book project made the Washington Post's bestseller list for three weeks.

While the president was under investigation by former FBI Director Bob Mueller, Steve Groves worked as an assistant special counsel in the Trump administration.

He is also a co-editor of the policy book portion of Project 2025, which is the term's Mandate for Leadership.

Groves rejected the notion that Project 2025 or its corresponding book were purposefully aimed at Trump.

"He remarked, "It’s just a lot of sloppy journalism." He added, "Most journalists don’t chase the facts to get them right.""

After Biden's political collapse in the June debate, the media mentions of Project 2025 increased significantly.

Groves stated that the media-liberal-political coalition required a new narrative, which involved portraying the Mandate for Leadership as an "insane document." He emphasized that many of the accusations, such as calls for the next president to ban abortion and revoke birthright citizenship, were entirely baseless.

"They just wanted to change the subject," he said.

Groves stated that the idea that the anthology is Trump's project is a lie, as it was published in 2023 and was created in 2022 during the presidential election when the outcome was uncertain.

Kevin Roberts, President of both the Groves and Heritage Foundation, agreed with each other that the chapters in this year's work do not present a unified ideological perspective.

Conservatives have differing opinions on trade policy, which fall under the broad spectrum of views on the right.

The chapter on fair trade was co-written by Peter Navarro, a Trump ally and a proponent of "fair trade," and Kent Lassman, the CEO of the pro-"free-trade" Competitive Enterprise Institute.

Heritage's longstanding platform is more closely aligned with Lassman's perspective, but Navarro's inclusion further undermines allegations that the project is a pro-Trump, far-right piece of propaganda.

Roberts proposed that Heritage and Project 2025 differ from typical partisan policy initiatives due to circumstances like the one mentioned above.

In the 2024 cycle, Heritage offered Project 2025 materials to every candidate or prospective candidate in the 2022-2023 timeframe, including Biden, Trump, former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

If President Biden had responded, I would have visited the White House with a positive attitude and presented him with a briefing, without being sarcastic, according to Roberts.

"We have always offered the mandate to any presidential candidate who is interested in a briefing. We provide congressional briefings to Democrats, but fewer and fewer have accepted our offer in recent years. However, we hope that one day we can see an increase in interest again."

Roberts stated that the belief that Heritage consistently issues the same type of "project" during every election cycle is incorrect. He pointed out two flaws in this claim.

In the 2004 elections, there was no need to revise the conservative manual for either George W. Bush or Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., as a Bush re-election would have maintained policy continuity.

Spencer Chretien, a Project 2025 associate director, stated at the project's inception that conservatism has evolved since the 1980 election. Conservatives previously opposed the 1975 "Church Committee," a congressional panel led by then-Sen. Frank Church, D-Idaho, investigating the intelligence community's inner workings and "abuses."

Conservatives may now welcome Church's committee, as they have grown tired of the left's support for the "government's vast power." No longer do many conservatives view the Church Committee as a "kooky leftist attack" against brave public servants, as they now seek accountability for the actions of unelected bureaucrats themselves.

Roberts stated that Project 2025 shares similarities with the 1980-81 iteration in that it encompasses a range of perspectives, albeit within the conservative spectrum, rather than being a Heritage-centric policy blueprint.

Roberts addressed right-wing concerns about the project, including Trump's high-profile condemnation, as many of the authors of Project 2025 were former administration officials, while others were not.

"Roberts stated that the project's heart is reflected in the commentary, which ranges from 'This is Trump-specific' to 'It's not Trump-specific enough.'"

"Our IRS designation and ethical considerations underscore our commitment to being candidate-agnostic, especially given Mr. Trump's campaign's distance from it."

The media has portrayed Project 2025 as a "boogeyman," but when Americans are informed about its contents, they are more open to it than critics suggest.

Roberts stated that the July departure of co-editor Dans was not related to Trump's comments or the media's criticisms. Dans had completed his work and had shifted his focus to other endeavors, according to Roberts.

As Heritage did when presenting the first project to Meese and Reagan, there is no presumption that a candidate, whether conservative or not, will implement it.

Heritage regularly performs this type of work. We are pleased to see that Trump's reaction to it has decreased.

"This project aims to achieve the goal of waking up in a country where the American dream is still thriving."