Heritage Foundation using judicial data tracking to push Project 2025 agenda

September 17, 2024 Robert Abruzzese, Courthouse Editor

Former President Donald Trump, impeached twice, convicted on 34 felony charges, and found liable for sexual abuse, denies association with the Heritage Foundation's Project 2025, distancing himself from the conservative blueprint as political debate intensifies. Photo: Alex Brandon/AP

Share this:

The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, has placed the courts at the center of its strategy to implement Project 2025, a sweeping plan that aims to reshape the federal government. A key element of this strategy involves the use of their Judicial Appointment Tracker, a tool designed to monitor every step of the federal judicial nomination process.

Project 2025 is a 900-page blueprint that proposes radical changes to the structure and functions of the federal government, with a strong emphasis on rolling back what its authors view as judicial overreach. Developed by the Heritage Foundation and its network of more than 100 conservative groups, the plan envisions a government where judges adhere strictly to the original intent of the Constitution and statutes, leaving little room for interpretation based on evolving societal norms.

The Judicial Appointment Tracker plays a crucial role in advancing this agenda. It provides real-time data on judicial vacancies, nominations, hearings and confirmations, allowing conservatives to monitor and influence the appointment process. The tracker also provides historical data for comparison, offering insights into how the current administration’s appointments align with those of past presidencies. According to Heritage Foundation Senior Legal Fellow Tom Jipping, who created the tracker, having “reliable, accurate and current information” is vital to understanding the judiciary’s composition and the potential for shifting its ideological balance.

Heritage’s focus on judicial appointments aligns with a long-standing conflict over the proper role of judges. While America’s founders designed the judiciary to interpret the law impartially, tensions over the scope of judicial power have been growing since the 1930s. The Heritage Foundation argues that judges today have strayed from their intended role, instead making decisions based on personal views or political interests. Project 2025 seeks to correct this by appointing judges who will limit their interpretations to the original meanings of statutes and the Constitution.

The Judicial Appointment Tracker also serves to highlight “judicial emergencies” — vacancies that have remained unfilled for extended periods, resulting in an increased caseload for other judges. By focusing attention on these vacancies, the Heritage Foundation can advocate for the swift appointment of judges who align with their conservative ideology. In the broader context of Project 2025, this approach is seen as a means of transforming the federal judiciary into a body that enforces the project’s vision of limited government and executive authority.

Experts warn that Project 2025 goes beyond traditional conservative calls for judicial restraint. University of Connecticut Professor Manisha Sinha described it as an effort to “kneecap the U.S. government,” by reclassifying thousands of civil servants as political appointees and giving the president unprecedented power over federal agencies. Wesley Renfro, a professor at Quinnipiac University, characterized the plan as a “radical transformation of American political life,” noting that it would undermine the system of checks and balances within the executive branch.

The Heritage Foundation’s Judicial Appointment Tracker is more than a data tool; it is a strategic resource in the larger effort to push through the changes outlined in Project 2025. By closely tracking judicial appointments, the foundation aims to fill the courts with judges who will adhere to its vision of the Constitution and limit judicial intervention in government policies. This focus on the judiciary underscores the foundation’s belief that lasting change depends on the courts’ alignment with their conservative agenda.

While Project 2025 has been met with criticism, particularly from those who view it as a threat to judicial independence and democracy, the Heritage Foundation continues to use its tracker to advance its agenda. With judicial confirmations now a priority in the Senate, the battle over the future of the courts — and, by extension, the implementation of Project 2025 — is likely to intensify in the coming months.

Former President Donald Trump initially seemed to support the principles behind Project 2025. Speaking at the Heritage Foundation’s annual leadership conference in April 2022, he referred to a plan that “will lay the groundwork and detail plans for exactly what our movement will do… when the American people give us a colossal mandate to save America.” However, as the project gained public attention and controversy, Trump distanced himself from it.

By July 2024, Trump took to his social media platform, Truth Social, to claim he had “nothing to do with Project 2025.” He further criticized some of the proposals in the plan, describing them as “absolutely ridiculous and abysmal.” Throughout multiple statements in July, Trump continued to reject any association with Project 2025, calling efforts by Democrats to tie him to it “pure disinformation.” During a speech in Michigan, he referred to the authors of the plan as “very, very conservative” and stressed that the project did not reflect his policies.

Trump’s campaign went a step further in late July, releasing a statement on “Project 2025’s Demise” after the project’s director, Paul Dans, stepped down. The statement reiterated that Project 2025 had no connection with Trump or his campaign, warning groups against misrepresenting their influence with him.

Despite his distancing, Trump’s critics argue that many elements of Project 2025 align with his past positions. The Heritage Foundation has also maintained that the project is meant as a tool for any future conservative administration, not exclusively for Trump.