Talk:The Heritage Foundation

Description of "early years"
The early years section of the article says "The Heritage Foundation advocated for pro-business policies, anti-communism, and neoconservatism in its early years, but distinguished itself from the conservative American Enterprise Institute (AEI) by also advocating for the Christian right. But throughout the 1970s, the Heritage Foundation remained small relative to Brookings and AEI." The link is to this book. The description of the book that you can see if you don't have the book doesn't describe the organization in any of those ways. Whether those adjectives could be seen as friendly to the organization and accurate, or the reverse, they come across as loaded one way or the other so I wonder if there's some RS that supports them. Novellasyes (talk) 15:22, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Added here by
 * There are page numbers. What does it say on those pages about The Heritage Foundation? --Hipal (talk) 18:51, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The relevant pages can be accessed here. It's unclear which parts of those sentences you dispute. If it's the Christian right stuff, page 78 says: "Heritage’s focus on so- called social issues important to the emergent Christian conservative grass roots of the 1970s is particularly noteworthy in that other conservative think tanks like AEI did not focus on such issues at all... Heritage, throughout the 1970s and especially into the 1980s catered to all of these AEI positions but also never neglected Christian conservatism." The other pages in the ref should substantiate the other parts. Thenightaway (talk) 19:21, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the information. I had missed this link and thanks for pointing that out. When I click on it, just to make sure I'm understanding what I am seeing there, what I'm seeing are seven one-paragraph-each summaries of the introduction, five chapters, and the book's conclusion. Is that what we are supposed to be looking at to substantiate the way it is summarized on our article? Novellasyes (talk) 21:59, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that you're unable to access the actual pages cited? --Hipal (talk) 22:02, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * That is what I'm saying. I might be doing it wrong but when I click on that link, what I am seeing are paragraphs like this, which is represented as a summary of Chapter 1 of the book: "Before turning to the question of the post–World War II conservative think tank and its usefulness as an institutional basis for conservative organizing, the pre–World War II think tank must be considered. Although the term “think tank” did not come into wide circulation until the 1960s, there most certainly existed such structures before World War II. Before the war, the Brookings Institution, still the largest think tank in existence, provided the preeminent institutional model. While in the postwar period, especially by the late 1960s and early 1970s, Brookings came to occupy a position as the bête noire of..." There are statements on that link that if I had JSTOR access, I'd be able to see the actual full text. But I don't have JSTOR access. Novellasyes (talk) 22:22, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * So you are withdrawing your initial statement that the book "doesn't describe the organization in any of those ways"? --Hipal (talk) 22:31, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No, because the text summaries that I can see on this link don't talk about Heritage as anti-communist or neo-conservative. They also don't describe it as being pro-business (the text summaries do describe it as advocating for supply side economics). I have no idea whether the actual lengthy text of the chapters from this book do characterize Heritage as anti-communist and neoconservative (and pro business) because I don't have access to that material. Novellasyes (talk) 12:54, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * If you can't verify it yourself, don't say that there is a problem. Just say you can't access it and would like verification. That's been done for one example. That's good enough for me, assuming good faith that the same level of care was made to all content in the edit under question. --Hipal (talk) 03:32, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for engaging on this. I'm interested enough in whether this description of the early years quite captures the gist that I've ordered the book. What jumped out at me initially as surprising is the idea that Heritage would have been described as neo-conservative. Novellasyes (talk) 12:39, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Having gotten the book, I think it would be right to remove "neo-conservative" as a descriptor of the early Heritage. Much of the book compares-and-contrasts the early Heritage to the American Enterprise Institute as it was then. The term neo-conservatism shows up in the index as occurring on pages 66, 82-83, 95, 176, and 177-80. On those pages, it is AEI (not Heritage) that is characterized as being neo-conservative. Page 66: "Baroody [of AEI]...promoted a new political identity with AEI as its primary institutional promoter. At this point in time, in 1973, it is probably best to define this identity as 'sensible conservatism'--although as will be seen, it would take on the moniker 'neoconservatism' later on in the 1970s." Page 82: "In this light, it was around 1975-76 that AEI became a key marketer of the identity 'neoconservative'". More like that on page 83, all about AEI. Page 95: "Second, AEI's cultivation of the 'neoconservative' identity led many conservatives to the suspicion that AEI cared little about the grassroots conservative movement." More like this about AEI (not Heritage) on pp. 177-80. I looked on all the pages cited in the original footnote and find none of them using the word 'neoconservative' to describe Heritage, but may have missed it. Interestingly, the first policy topic the nascent Heritage got involved with was the Supersonic transport. And, the early stirrings of what became Heritage was because, according to this book, founders Feulner and Weyrich were aggravated that AEI didn't even put out a policy paper in that battle until after the congressional vote on the matter, because they didn't want to be seen as political in that sense. Feulner/Weyrich said to their early donors that they would be "designed to influence the policy debate as it was occurring in Congress--before decisions were made.Novellasyes (talk) 22:24, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not all the way through the book but it has not so far used the phrase "Christian right" to describe what Heritage was up to in the early years. It uses phrases like "popular conservatism", grassroots conservatives, Christian conservatism and cultural issues that grassroots conservatives had an affinity for. Looking at Christian right, especially starting in the third paragraph, that seems to have emerged more as a specific type of identity in the 80s. Could we change "by also advocating for the Christian right" to "by also advocating for cultural issues that were important to grassroots Christian conservatives"? FWIW, what Jason Stahl seems to primarily find of interest is that Heritage was trying to loop in or talk to the grassroots at all (as opposed to just Washington insiders) -- he thinks it was a big tactical innovation in the think tank industry. Novellasyes (talk) 14:38, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Revert concerning Trumpism
A recent edit of mine was reverted (not Line 82 and 80, those edits were not mine). The reasoning for the revert was "rv PROMO, SOAP." I do not believe the words of the current President of Heritage about what he says the mission of Heritage is PROMO or SOAP (especially when they come from an interview he did with The New York Times Magazine). If this was referring to the edit in the middle of the page that was unrelated to my addition, then this is understandable. Also, if the issue with the edit was including some content in the lead, then I would ask that the information in the body of the page be kept as is. BootsED (talk) 20:16, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It's an interview. Without independent coverage, it's just him promoting his organization, using the interview as a soapbox. --Hipal (talk) 20:40, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Strong disagree. The president of an organization telling a reporter the purpose of their organization is not self-promotion, and provides important context for the reader of the page. It is also attributed to the leader of the organization in quotations, and not stated in Wikivoice. Saying "we are a global leader in the field and are at the cutting-edge of innovation" would count as being an advertisement and self-promotion. BootsED (talk) 13:36, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I believe policies (NOT, POV, NOR) say otherwise. --Hipal (talk) 19:44, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with BootsED. Reputable news sources talking about Heritage's plans based on quotes from their leader seems relevant and not against any Wikipedia policies. I also believe it belongs in the lead because supporting Trump marks a departure from Heritage's long-standing support of traditional conservatism. –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 22:00, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Getting coverage in the Guardian also. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:12, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Policy is what it is. This article is under multiple sanctions. I don't see what the Guardian article has to do with the removed content, but let's remember that news orgs have different priorities than us, especially with the developing interest in Project 2025. --Hipal (talk) 23:19, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The Guardian article talks about how Roberts wants to align the right behind Trumpism, and also mentions how he said the goal of the organization is "institutionalizing Trumpism." So now there are at least two sources describing Heritage as being for Trumpism. BootsED (talk) 02:14, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I've struck out some of my comment.

Again, RECENTISM. (Apologies, I've been looking at this in the context of the recent, far worse, problems. I may strike out more of my comments.) I'd be very careful with any content, especially in the lede, that puts how they want to be perceived over what they are actually doing. Best summarize what the secondary sources say. They're getting a lot more coverage now due to their Project 2025 plan. --Hipal (talk) 18:18, 13 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Oh no, I wasn't talking about putting anything in the lead at all. I was referring to putting a sentence in under the Biden administration section right after it mentions how Roberts was hired. I will add it in seeing as how several others have spoken in support of it. I also agree with you regarding Project 2025 and am not sure it deserves a mention in the lead at all. BootsED (talk) 23:05, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you! That addresses most of my concerns. Still, it would be better with a description of what he's done, if one can be found. --Hipal (talk) 00:27, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Bush administration
It currently says "According to a 2004 International Security study, the Heritage Foundation confused public debate by challenging widespread opposition to the Iraq War by international relations scholars and experts by contradicting them "with experts of apparently equal authority... this undermined the possibility that any criticisms (of the war) might be seen as authoritative or have much persuasive effect." The citation goes here. There's something off about this. The cited publication is not in International Security (journal) but is rather a different Cambridge publication ("Ethics and International Affairs"). The publication that is actually cited doesn't say anything about Heritage causing confusion and doesn't have a sentence in it about "experts of apparently equal authority". etc. Novellasyes (talk) 19:27, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * You've checked both? --Hipal (talk) 03:00, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I tracked down, downloaded, and read [this article which is where the footnote goes. I didn't track down and read a "2004 International Security study", because that's too vague to go on. [[International Security (journal)]]. They published a lot of articles in 2004. Not at all clear which one this sentence may have intended to allude to. Novellasyes (talk) 13:02, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Added here by.
 * Maybe Thenightaway copied in the wrong reference, because it's identical to the first. --Hipal (talk) 16:56, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * This is the missing source (p. 45-46): https://www.jstor.org/stable/4137546. Thenightaway (talk) 16:58, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm looking forward to reading https://www.jstor.org/stable/4137546. Novellasyes (talk) 20:56, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * In the meantime, I recommend removing this footnote. About Heritage, that article says this: "The conservative Heritage Foundation, which had since the mid-1990s warned that bin Laden and the Taliban would prove a toxic mix, provided steady and optimistic support to the Bush administration for both the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. Commentaries such as “Radical Islam vs. Islam” and “U.S. Functions as World's Strongest Defender of Islam” championed the United States as a heroic figure fighting to save not only itself but Islamic civilization as well. The Foundation's unfaltering defense of the practices at Guantánamo Bay further painted the United States as a flawless combatant pitted against an evil embodied by the detainees. In the first days of the Obama administration, Heritage Foundation commentaries suggested the organization's intention to continue treating the war on terror as the ongoing story of a war declared by al-Qaeda against the United States." While those are interesting observations, unless I am missing something, they are not on point with the claim in the sentence to which the article has been appended as a citation. Novellasyes (talk) 21:01, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Having now read the Threat" article that is being used to support the existing write-up in the article to the effect that Heritage scholars "confused public debate by challenging widespread opposition to the Iraq War by international relations scholars and experts by contradicting them 'with experts of apparently equal authority...this undermined the possibility that any criticisms (of the war) might be seen as authoritative or have much persuasive effect.'" I don't think this works, so I advocate removing the claim. It's a (to my eyes) terrific piece of scholarship that's been frequently cited by other scholars. The article starts out by posing a quandary: Mature democracies are supposed to be better at making foreign policy decisions than other regime types. This is supposed to be partly true because in mature democracies, there is or ought to be a marketplace of ideas that allows sifting and winnowing to occur in order to "weed out unfounded, mendacious, or self-serving foreign policy arguments because their proponents cannot avoid wide-ranging debate in which their reasoning and evidence are subject to public scrutiny". This failed, the article says, with respect to the decision to engage in war with Iraq. Why did it fail? That's what the article analyses in 40-some pages with 164 footnotes. Heritage is mentioned once in the article in a basically throw-away line with no footnotes. The overwhelming burden of the carefully-laid out argument in 99.99% of the article has to do with how the White House (so the article claims) managed to prevent the sifting and winnowing that needed to occur, through four different mechanisms. Subsequent to the publication of this scholarly article, others have been written on the same topic: Why was the threat assessment wrong, wrong, wrong? Reading through them, I didn't see any references to Heritage and any role it did or didn't play (of course I may have missed one). I'd also note that additional scholarship such as Origins of Regime Change: “Ideapolitik” on the Long Road to Baghdad, 1993–2000 contests the thesis of Kaufmann's threat assessment article, and instead claims that "In this essay, I trace the “Ideapolitik” of regime change in the 1990s and show that Bush's post-9/11 rhetoric was firmly embedded in a preexisting foreign policy consensus defining Saddam Hussein as the 'problem 'and his overthrow as its 'solution.' Drawing upon recent research in international relations and public policy, I show how the idea of regime change prevailed in redefining American strategy for Iraq. While the September 11, 2001 attacks had important effects on the Bush administration's willingness to use force, the basic idea that ousting Saddam Hussein would solve the Iraq problem was already embedded in elite discourse." (In other words, this existing elite framework was the problem, not the White House [or way far down the line of importance, the Heritage Foundation] bollixing up information). But other than all this, at the end of the day, the Kaufmann article is just one source. Is it even true that Heritage scholars confused the discourse in a way that enabled the war? If it is true, is it a notable fact about Heritage during the Bush administration that they behaved in this way? It doesn't seem notable, and I say that because I don't see this claim being made elsewhere. Novellasyes (talk) 17:35, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * "Mature democracies are supposed to be better at making foreign policy decisions than other regime types." And where is the empirical data for that? They have blundered their way into wars just as often as any other regime. Dimadick (talk) 18:45, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Truly. I was so surprised to read that opening claim in the "Threats" article. Novellasyes (talk) 18:42, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Revisiting the section in the article on the The Heritage Foundation, three paragraphs in a separate subsection have been added about The Heritage Foundation. With the current state of this overall section on the Bush admin/Heritage, this is WP:UNDUE and beyond that, probably WP:COAT. How many things did Heritage do and say during the eight years of the Bush admin? Apart from the para on their attitude to the war, we know nothing from this section about anything Heritage did during those eight years. Even if this section is ultimately expanded to include a decent executive summary of the key things they did during those eight years, even then the Belle Haven info would most likely deserve at most a sentence and a link to the Belle Haven article. Novellasyes (talk) 14:14, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Trump administration
This section starts out with these sentences: "In the first year of Donald Trump's candidacy for the presidency, the Heritage Foundation did not embrace his candidacy. "Donald Trump's a clown," then Heritage Action leader Michael Needham said on a Fox News panel in July 2015. Once Trump won, however, the Heritage Foundation's position shifted." If they didn't shift their position until he won, then the prior sentence saying that they did not embrace his candidacy during its first year isn't quite right. To be consistent, it would have to say they (at least according to the next sentence) that they never supported his candidacy. Michael Needham is or was from Heritage Action, which is a legally distinct organization from Heritage so whatever he might have said has no bearing on Heritage's position on Trump during his candidacy or thereafter. And Heritage is a 501c3 non-profit which wouldn't have been legally allowed to take a position on his candidacy one way or the other -- they wouldn't have been able to embrace his candidacy. Novellasyes (talk) 19:36, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I think there have been other cases where Heritage Action and the foundation have been confused. I'm not sure we should treat them as independent, but we need to address all cases where we confuse the two. --Hipal (talk) 03:04, 27 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I removed from the Trump section that comment about Michael Needham per the above, and you added it back in, with a reference. I don't think anyone doubts that Michael Needham says that. My issue is that he doesn't or didn't at that time anyway, work for the Heritage Foundation. Please discuss. Here's the diff where you added it back in after I had taken it out. Novellasyes (talk) 19:15, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * He was, according to the reference, not just employed there, but was director of its advocacy arm. BekkerNumbering (talk) 22:43, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * By "advocacy arm", do you mean the organization known as "Heritage Action"? I'm fine with a discussion here about whether statements/claims/positions taken by Heritage Action should be chalked up to the Heritage Foundation. But I think it bears some consideration because while Heritage and Heritage Action have a relationship with each other, they are not identical to each other. One of them is a 501c3 (Heritage Foundation) while Heritage Action is a legally separate 501c4. They have different boards and different staff. Nevertheless, they have some relationship. The Heritage Foundation launched Heritage Action, and on its website Heritage Action describes itself as a "sister organization" to the Heritage Foundation. Because there is some degree of distinction, I am not of the mind that sayings of employees of one organization should be ascribed to the other organization. You are writing as if you think it is obvious that sayings of employees of one organization should be ascribed to the other. It's not obvious to me, so I hope you'll provide more of your thinking on that. I'd also note that this magisterial 2018 article in the New York Times about the Heritage Foundation and the Trump campaign and administration does not suggest anything like the degree of enmity between the two that the Heritage Action employee's "clown" remark suggests. Novellasyes (talk) 23:14, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Level of detail straying from that of an encyclopedia article?
Granted, it is difficult to concisely summarize information, especially when it comes from multiple sources, but many sections in this article only cite a couple of references. The result is that highly noteworthy events are being drowned out by minutiae, a POV problem. For example, the "2016 Trump candidacy" section. --Hipal (talk) 17:38, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Stance on treaties and international agreements
Do we have more information on the Heritage Foundation's stance on treaties and international agreements (probably in the Positions section)?

I say this because I wonder if there is even a single treaty/international agreement that the Heritage Foundation supports. The impression I get is that Heritage is being a reactionary group that opposes any and all treaties reflexively & indiscriminately. Time and time again on Wikipedia articles covering United Nations protocols and other international agreements, I see mentions on how the Heritage opposes that treaty because it degrades US sovereignty (without bothering to even discuss what the substance of that treaty is), sometimes mentioning this as part of how the United States has not joined in (most commonly "signed but not ratified") or opted out of provisions.

If a mention of Heritage is synonymous with opposition in every case, one may wonder if mentioning Heritage on every such article is even notable for Wikipedia. 172.56.233.210 (talk) 17:14, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * We need references that support such statements before we could add content on the topic. --Hipal (talk) 17:32, 9 May 2024 (UTC)


 * In those other articles you're talking about, what are typically the sources for the fact that Heritage is opposed to a given treaty? If it's just some press release or something similar that Heritage wrote, the fact that Heritage opposes some specific treaty doesn't seem notable enough to be mentioned. It's only notable if (for example) the New York Times and/or the Washington Post (etc.) write articles, noting that Heritage opposes the treaty that the article is about. What's an example of such an article? Novellasyes (talk) 20:07, 9 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Some things I found in a quick search:
 * United States and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
 * International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
 * New START
 * Rome Statute (ICC)
 * Arms Trade Treaty
 * FAO (UN agency)
 * Convention on the Rights of the Child
 * From what I see, when you browse through UN/international conventions/protocols/agreements, there's a significant chance of finding under the US section of the article that Heritage opposed it. Opposed... basically because it's a treaty and it binds the US in some agreement.
 * For what it's worth, most of the current results of the pages linked above are from Heritage Foundation itself and not from an article mentioning Heritage. 172.56.233.210 (talk) 23:41, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Without an independent source that verifies the information, it would come across as promoting the foundation's viewpoint on an individual treaty level. Making a statement about their regular opposition to treaties would be synthesis. --Hipal (talk) 00:14, 10 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks for dropping in those links. Although this conversation is taking place here, you might consider going on the talk pages of any of those articles, where the source for the fact that Heritage opposed the treaty is some self-published information from Heritage, and suggest that putting that in the article fails WP:N and invite a conversation on that talk page about that and/or just remove the content if you think it fails WP:N. If I were working on one of those articles, I would think it fails WP:N but that's really up to people working on those articles to have that conversation. Novellasyes (talk) 12:37, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Activist label
The word "activist" was deleted from the intro sentence of the article a few weeks back in this diff and then added back in. Let's talk about it, because what the person who took it out seemed to have in mind in their edit summary is that our article on Activism (which we link to from the Heritage intro sentence) has a perspective/definition of what the word "activism" means ("Forms of activism range from mandate building in a community (including writing letters to newspapers), petitioning elected officials, running or contributing to a political campaign, preferential patronage (or boycott) of businesses, and demonstrative forms of activism like rallies, street marches, strikes, sit-ins, or hunger strikes.") that doesn't seem to fit with Heritage. Separately, if we are going to label them as an activist group that should be because WP:RS describe them that way often enough that it is clearly a notable fact about them. Novellasyes (talk) 15:52, 1 July 2024 (UTC)


 * There was some earlier discussion about this here. I personally think find it unnecessary and think it's meant to impugn them. Sure you can find some sources calling it activist but the vast majority would not specify that in a brief description of the organization. –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 17:12, 1 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Okay thanks. I went and looked through the links over there. (here, here, here, here, and here.) They are respectively from 2023, 2012, 1983, 2013, and 2012. I could nitpick on these as to whether they are RS for the purpose of calling Heritage an activist organization. Two of them are about Heritage Action (the 501c4 that is a sister organization but is not Heritage itself); one of them is by a think tank competitor, etc. However, what I'd say the real issue here is that when anyone talks about Heritage as being an activist organization, they seem to mean "by comparison to the more limited role that older think tanks and some of their competitor think tanks (left and right) took or take in the public dialogue". They aren't saying that Heritage is an activist organization in the sense of how activism is defined in WP's article activism.Novellasyes (talk) 22:26, 1 July 2024 (UTC)


 * The "activist" label in the lede doesn't make sense to me. It's not borne out in the sourcing given above. The Guardian describes Heritage Action for America "as the foundation's activist wing." National Affairs writes "...ushered in the age of more activist think tanks" and "Heritage's new and more activist approach..." I think the most useful part of this source is "...political scientist Donald Abelson has called [the Heritage Foundation] the 'advocacy think tank.'" "Advocacy think tank" makes more sense than "activist think tank" IMO. The Washington Post says "'An activist version of Brookings,' says Heritage president Edwin J. Feulner Jr." This seems like WP:PROMO. The group's president wants to be seen as "activist" and not just another boring old ineffectual think tank sending unread white papers into the abyss. The Wall Street Journal is probably the best source for "activist"; it says "Now, in one of the more significant transformations in the capital's intellectual firmament, it has become an activist political operation trying to alter the course of conservative thinking." This source doesn't appear to offer anything on the matter. Given all this, I would support describing Heritage in the lede as either an "advocacy think tank" or simply a "think tank", and, in either instance, using the above sourcing to flesh out in the body how Heritage was involved in ushering in a new era of more politically focused think tanks. Marquardtika (talk) 16:02, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Political Bias / Insider Contributors
This Wikipedia page needs far more scrutiny by additional Wikipedia editors. It has been written by Heritage Foundation staff and insiders and is a "puff piece." There is little that challenges this organization by pointing out controversy, little that points out the organization's opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment, opposition to Marriage Equality, opposition to protest under First Amendments provisions.

For instance, one of the topics that should be addressed is a 2022 report that says "cultural Marxismm" poses a “far more serious and existential threat to the United States than did Soviet communism.” The far right has used this term to discredit 2024 protestors re the Israel war against Hamas.

Another topic certainly should be an in-depth examination of Project 2025, which would give the president far more power to fire civil servants and give jobs to people who are loyal to the president's (conservative) ideology. Check out this New York Times article (December 2023) about an ongoing application process for government jobs that requires applicants to take a conservative position on immigration, on U.S. membership in the United Nations.

(https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/12/01/us/politics/project2025-heritage-foundation-administration-application-questionnaire.html)

Given that the Heritage Organization is in the spotlight because Project 2025 is said to be part of the 2024 Republican National Convention platform, this page should be updated immediately. The Heritage Foundation should not be allowed to use Wikipedia as a public relations platform.

To Wikipedia Editors already engaged in editing this page: thank you.

Art-Nature2024

Art-Nature2024 (talk) 14:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Trump's disclaimer
If we do mention it, we need to do that in the context of the response of some Republicans to it. See Republicans call Trump’s move to distance himself from Project 2025 ‘preposterous As one of Pence's advisor said, it's not a credible denial. Doug Weller talk 07:09, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how it could be DUE in this article, and what we do include should be based upon reliable, secondary, independent sources. Trump is none of those.
 * The Project 2025 section should include details about how The Heritage Foundation's direct involvement with it (creation, promotion, funding, targeting, etc). --Hipal (talk) 19:51, 12 July 2024 (UTC)