“Project 2025” Is No “Contract With America,” Say GOP “Class of ‘94” Members

Last Friday was the 30th anniversary of the introduction of the Contract With America. At a ceremony in the U.S. Capitol, former and present Republican lawmakers who rode into their first majority in the House in 40 years hailed the document, which promised in simple terms what they would bring to a vote if they won the House in the midterm elections of 1994.

They did. Republicans elected 72 new U.S. representatives, 53 of them capturing previously Democratic seats. Rep. Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., who championed the contract and urged candidates to campaign on it, was elected speaker.

In 2024, liberal Democrats and enemies of Donald Trump in general try to link him to another document: Project 2025, a product of the conservative Heritage Foundation that spells out precisely what a Trump administration would do on issues such as thwarting illegal immigration, lowering tax rates, and returning control over public education to states and localities.

“I have nothing to do with Project 2025,” Trump has said several times, adding that “some of the things they’re saying are absolutely ridiculous and abysmal.” But two of the three key principles in drafting the so-called wish list for a second Trump administration — former Office of Management and Budget Chief of Staff Paul Dans and former OMB Director Russell Vought — are alumni of the first Trump administration.

Several Republican veterans of the “Gingrich Class” of 1994—all of them told Newsmax they agreed with the criticism of Project 2025, that it was nothing like their short-and-to-the point Contract With America.

“The Contract had ten short and simple paragraphs, not 900-pages [the length of Project 2025],” said former Rep. Don Manzullo, R.-Ill., who came to Congress in 1992 and served until 2012, “It was easy to understand and not controversial at all. And it was upbeat. When you give people hope, that’s all you need.”

Former Rep. Tom Davis, R.-VA, a Member of the Gingrich class, agreed, and said of Project 2025: “It is way too prescriptive. You campaign on poetry, you govern in prose.”

Another “Gingrich Class” Member, former Rep, Charles Bass, R.-NH, told us: “I agree with those who say the Contract was simple, but it also pretty much stated the obvious: term limits, a balanced budget amendment to the constitution, audit of the House, books, committee chair term limits, etc.

Bass added that “[n]one of [the points in the Contract] were particularly controversial in the eyes of the public and, in fact, were actions that should have been taken long before. Project 2025 is a completely different document, recommending fundamental changes in the size and relationship between government and the governed.”