Talk:Project 2025

Project 2025 is inactive.

Project 2025, seems to be, to have largely been a pre-2026 effort, so it may be more accurate to state that Project 2025 was an initiative of the Heritage Foundation. While some goals of Project 2025 might be reflected in the administration, all of the policy development is over (see https://www.mandateforleadership.org/) Yikes9272 (talk) 15:18, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

There is a guideline somewhere that we generally should write in present tense, but if you feel like rewriting the article into past tense, I won't protest. Lova Falk (talk) 17:29, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

MOS:TENSE is perhaps what you're referring to. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:32, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes, thank you! Lova Falk (talk) 05:28, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

This page seems pretty out of date

There's really no mention of whether there have been implementations of Project 2025 after the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. There's also very ambiguous language used when detailing with this matter, such as "By signing the One Big Beautiful Bill Act into law on July 4, 2025, Trump effectively implemented many policies akin to Project 2025." What policies? How many? And why is there so little elaboration on why Trump abandoned some Project 2025 policies (at least 47% were unimplemented according to the Project 2025 tracker), and which policies they are? Perhaps it's my own lack of interest in American politics but I honestly don't think I have heard the words "Project 2025" in over a year and this page looks almost the same it did when I last checked it a year ago.

Considering the media told us the entire 2024 election cycle that Project 2025 was going to create an authoritarian theocracy with Donald Trump as our king, I think people would be interested in why 16 months later, Project 2025 seems to be forgotten about. MountainJew6150 (talk) 17:29, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

I agree please suggest more recent sources for inclusion. Czarking0 (talk) 01:37, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Authoritarian drift during the second Trump administration sidebar

Pinging Just10A, Lova Falk, Alexandraaaacs1989 It seems there is some dispute over this addition to the sidebar. Cheers. DN (talk) 18:44, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Riposte97, who originally removed the sidebar, has been indef blocked, which is why I re-added it.

That leaves me and Lova Falk in favor of including the sidebar, and Just10A against including the sidebar, creating 2 against 1 consensus for inclusion and thus satisfying WP:ONUS.

If Just10A wishes to remove the sidebar, it is this editor's responsibility to build consensus for removal. Because there is consensus for inclusion, I am re-adding the sidebar. Just10A, please do not remove the sidebar again until achieving consensus for removal. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 21:20, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

That’s not how consensus works, nor ONUS. Its concrete implementation and connection to the admin is contested. You should self-rev, otherwise it’s going to be reverted again. Just10A (talk) 21:30, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

WP:EDITCON says An edit has presumed consensus until it is disputed or reverted. Should another editor revise that edit, the new edit will have presumed consensus until it meets with disagreement. I made the initial edit, which had presumed consensus. Then you reverted it, removing its presumed consensus. Then another editor re-implemented my original edit, affirming consensus for my original edit (which has not been met with any further disagreement). So yes, that is how consensus works.

Its concrete implementation and connection to the admin is contested. Per WP:EDITWAR, Claiming "My edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is not a valid defense.

You should self-rev, otherwise it’s going to be reverted again. Please do not edit war. If you would like to contest the standing WP:EDITCON, please build consensus for removing the template. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 21:44, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

What? I invite you to paste that first paragraph into any notice board or village pump, because that’s a bogus interpretation of the rule and would get you laughed at. By your argument I could just revert your edit right now, and then just flip the script and parrot you argument back to you and act like “I have consensus cause that’s the live version now.” That obviously would be dubious.

This edit has been contested since implementation and has never existed without being removed but for a short amount of time. It doesn’t have consensus. If you don’t get the consensus here on talk per WP:ONUS, it’s not gonna remain. That’s like the most basic aspect of policy. Just10A (talk) 21:59, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

"I have consensus cause that’s the live version now." You are now synthesizing claims I never made. I have already explained why the edit has consensus per WP:EDITCON and WP:ONUS, and like I previously explained, an indef-blocked user's preferences do not count towards consensus. I am going to leave this conversation off with what I wrote previously. Please do not remove the sidebar without consensus. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 22:29, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Well, that’s policy. The ONUS is on you, and you haven’t gotten it unless it’s going to get achieved on this talk page. Again, I invite you to ask for input on your analysis, because it’s clearly erroneous. I’m sorry if you think otherwise but that’s just policy. Just10A (talk) 22:46, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Would you explain why this addition to the sidebar is DUE. I am also unclear as to what Just10A's argument is about, but it seems that they may be misinterpreting WP:1AM at the moment, so for now lets just focus on the merits of argument for and against inclusion. Cheers. DN (talk) 23:07, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

In my view, the sidebar about authoritarianism is WP:DUE here because there's a section called Allegations of authoritarianism in this article, as well as allegations of authoritarianism throughout the article. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 23:38, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

If that’s the basis then I moved it to the proper section as it’s the most direct. Perhaps that’s a good compromise. Just10A (talk) 01:32, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Sure, that's fine with me. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 01:38, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't think this template belongs near the top. I won't litigate the onus issue. Consensus is not a vote. Nav templates should be used when most of the bluetext in the nav overlaps with the links in a section/article. I do not think this templates satisfies that standard to the degree that it should be included in the lead. I think moving it down is an improvement and I am less opposed to that. Czarking0 (talk) 01:36, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Works with me! Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 01:38, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

I support the new placement as well, it makes more sense there.

I believe we have local consensus  Done DN (talk) 02:15, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

I was asleep during this discussion, and I am happy to see that consensus has been found. 👍 Lova Falk (talk) 03:28, 27 July 2026 (UTC)