What is the Heritage Foundation? 

The Heritage Foundation is a powerful conservative think tank founded in 1973 that writes ready-made policy blueprints for Republican lawmakers and presidents. It promotes Christian conservative social values and aggressive executive power. Though it is a private organization, it has outsized influence in shaping federal policy—most recently as the architect of Project 2025. Its influence during the second Trump presidency has been especially direct; an analysis by DeSmog found that more than 50 high-level Trump administration officials had links to the organization. 

What is Project 2025? 

Project 2025 is a sweeping conservative policy blueprint created by the Heritage Foundation to prepare for a Republican presidency after the 2024 presidential election. The project calls for limiting abortion access, rolling back LGBTQ+ protections, eliminating diversity and equity programs, weakening the Department of Education, and redefining federal policy around a traditional, heterosexual model of family and marriage.

Since Trump took office, significant portions of this agenda have been implemented; in fact, most estimates say more than 50% of the project has been completed. Initiatives proposed by Project 2025 include:

• Issuing a series of executive orders dismantling Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives across federal agencies
• Instructing the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to scale back investigations into race- and sex-based discrimination, weakening federal enforcement of civil rights protections
• Terminating tens of thousands of federal employees, significantly reducing the size and capacity of the federal workforce
• Using law enforcement agencies to aggressively target immigrant communities, expanding surveillance, detention, and deportation efforts
• Barring Planned Parenthood from receiving Medicaid funds, restricting access to reproductive healthcare for low-income individuals
• Eliminating more than $800 million in federal funding dedicated to research on LGBTQ+ health, undermining efforts to understand and address disparities within the community

What Comes Next?

While much attention has focused on how the Trump administration implemented substantial portions of Project 2025, those actions now function primarily as context. The more pressing issue is what comes next.

In Saving America by Saving the Family: A Foundation for the Next 250 Years, published by The Heritage Foundation argues that the restoration of the traditional heterosexual family is essential to national renewal. Framed as a pro-family policy blueprint, the report proposes sweeping reforms to welfare, tax policy, family law, and cultural institutions. The most distressing element of the report is its willingness to restructure social welfare around a single normative vision of marriage.

A New (Old) Understanding of Family

The report situates family support as central to national survival, claiming, “The family is the foundation of civilization, and marriage — the committed union of one man and one woman — is its cornerstone.” By positioning one family model as morally and politically superior, these proposals expand government influence into private life and legitimize intrusive interventions into intimate decisions.

The Heritage Foundation advances a deeply regressive vision of American life by arguing that marriage (not personal growth, education, or professional achievement) should be the primary marker of adult success. The report laments that modern culture encourages young people to delay marriage in favor of career development, complaining that

“For most previous generations, marriage was the foundation of adulthood. In contrast, today’s cultural narrative teaches young people to delay marriage and focus on career and personal achievements first. Many now consider marriage a capstone to adult life, something only to be accomplished once career and other personal goals have been achieved.”

What the report frames as cultural decline is, in reality, the expansion of opportunity, particularly for women, who now have the ability to pursue education and financial independence before entering marriage. By portraying career ambition and self-development as threats to social order, the report romanticizes a past in which economic dependence and rigid gender roles were the norm.

The document goes further, openly villainizing online dating, pornography, sexual freedom, abortion, and no-fault divorce as drivers of family breakdown. It blames the social transformations of the 1960s, arguing that 

“The disruptions to American family life caused by bad public policy in the 1960s were exacerbated by cultural upheavals that radically changed social norms around sex, sexuality, marriage, children, and gender roles. Second-wave feminism and the sexual revolution promoted an individualistic, child-free, marriage-free, sexual ‘liberation’…”

In this telling, feminism and expanded sexual autonomy are not historic advancements in civil rights but catastrophic mistakes. The report treats women’s independence, reproductive choice, and the ability to leave unhappy marriages as social decline rather than progress. By condemning no-fault divorce and abortion alongside “casual sex,” it reveals a broader desire to reinstate moral and legal pressures that would make exiting marriage or avoiding it altogether more difficult.

Perhaps most telling is the report’s hostility toward higher education. It claims that college represents “extended adolescence” and argues that “[m]ore education correlates with later marriage, fewer children.” Rather than acknowledging that economic instability, student debt, and labor market changes shape young adults’ timelines, the report implies that education itself is the problem. In effect, it frames intellectual development and economic mobility as obstacles to the “natural” order of early marriage and childbearing. The logic is clear: independence delays marriage, and delayed marriage is treated as a national crisis.

Welfare and Economic Reform

The report also calls for eliminating marriage penalties in state welfare, arguing that current programs discourage marriage by financially disadvantaging married couples compared with single parents. As the report states:

“All children conceived deserve to be born to their mothers and fathers in a committed marriage who will love, guide, and protect them throughout their lives. Therefore, at a minimum, policies should not discourage or penalize marriage. Policy should instead affirmatively support and privilege marriage as directly and explicitly as possible.”

While framed as a means to promote social and economic stability, this approach distorts the reality of poverty: it reduces support for single parents (disproportionately low-income women) and assumes that marital status is the primary driver of economic insecurity, oversimplifying the systemic issues that contribute to financial hardship. 

Similarly, the report advocates reforming alimony and spousal support by capping payments to the length of the marriage and favoring lump-sum settlements. Though presented as fairness reform, this policy would disproportionately harm stay-at-home spouses, often women, who sacrificed careers to provide caregiving and often face difficulty in re-entering the workforce.

The report also promotes support for stay-at-home parenting through Home Childcare Equalization (HCE) credits, intended to encourage one parent to remain at home. This policy reinforces traditional gender roles and limits flexibility for modern work-family arrangements, potentially pressuring parents into unpaid caregiving to qualify for benefits. Beyond economic incentives, the report seeks to influence reproductive behavior, emphasizing policies that encourage childbearing within marriage and framing declining birth rates as a national problem. As the report asks, “What happens to a nation when its citizens largely stop having children?… These questions are not theoretical,” illustrating its view of fertility as a matter of national urgency.

Taken together, the report constructs a narrative in which sexual freedom, feminism, reproductive rights, educational attainment, and personal autonomy are to blame for social decline. It does not merely advocate for supporting families—it seeks to discipline modern life back into a narrow, heteronormative and marriage-centered model. What it labels “saving America” is, in practice, an attempt to roll back decades of expanded freedom, particularly for women and LGBTQ+ individuals. Rather than addressing structural economic inequality, stagnant wages, childcare costs, or healthcare access, the report chooses to scapegoat cultural progress and personal autonomy. Its vision of restoration depends not on expanding opportunity, but on constraining it.

Why the New Phase Feels Different

The earlier implementation of Project 2025 policies demonstrated the feasibility of large-scale administrative shifts via executive action. That track record amplifies concern about the Heritage Foundation’s new proposals. The central shift is not merely about abortion, LGBTQ+ rights, or DEI programs individually. It is about whether the federal government adopts a singular, officially endorsed definition of family and social order and structures funding, civil rights enforcement and educational policy around that definition.

America is currently experiencing an unprecedented wave of mid-decade redistricting. As of September of 2025, eleven states, including Missouri, have made some progress towards redrawing their electoral boundaries for the 2026 elections, and Missouri joins Texas in having officially signed a new district map into law. Barring the potential of a lawsuit overturning the map, many Missouri voters, particularly those around Kansas City, will find themselves in a new electoral district in 2026, and those changes are likely to force Democratic representative Emanuel Cleaver out of his seat. 

Missouri’s Redistricting Plan and House Bill 1

Missouri’s redistricting effort can be found in Missouri House Bill 1 of the 103^rd General Assembly’s second extraordinary session (HB1). HB1 is a lengthy bill, assigning every voting district and county in the state of Missouri to one of eight electoral districts, but the key changes proposed in the bill can be found by comparing the new district map to the prior map, approved for use in 2022. 

Both maps have eight electoral districts, but the shape of several districts, particularly District 5, have been changed. Where District 5 used to contain most of the Kansas City area and nothing else, it now extends several hundred miles into rural (and reliably Republican) central Missouri. The north and south ends of the city have been placed in districts 6 and 4 respectively, which each also cover an extensive region of rural Missouri. The result is that district 5, currently held by long-serving Democrat Emanuel Cleaver II, will now lean Republican, leaving only one Democrat-leaning district in the state.

Governor Mike Kehoe signed HB1 after it cleared the state legislature, officially enshrining the new electoral map into Missouri law. However, its path forward has become fraught. Four lawsuits (at time of writing) have challenged the bill’s legality, with most emphasis being placed on the compactness (or lack thereof) of the new fifth district and the fact that the state constitution does not permit mid-cycle redistricting. Emanuel Cleaver has also promised a lawsuit if HB1 passes, so it is likely that more lawsuits are still to come.

The fate of HB1’s new electoral map will therefore depend on the decisions of several courts, and it is likely that, whatever the outcome of the initial trials, every verdict will be appealed up through the courts. 

The National Rise of Redistricting

Missouri’s redistricting effort is part of a broader effort by both political parties to create new House seats for their respective party for the upcoming 2026 midterm elections. President Trump has pushed Republican-led states to create more Republican-leaning districts, concerned that midterm election results will swing against Republicans. In the 23 midterm elections since 1934, the president’s party has lost House seats in all but three elections; Republicans currently hold a six-seat majority with three vacant seats, so any lost seats in the midterms may end the Republican Party’s control of the chamber. 

In response to Republican efforts to gain more seats in Texas, Missouri, and elsewhere, Democratic state governments have proposed their own retaliatory redistricting efforts. California Governor Gavin Newsom has taken the lead in this effort, proposing a new map that would likely swap six currently-red seats to Democrats in 2026. California’s proposition 50 is slated to arrive at the polls in November, with California citizens voting directly on whether to approve the map. Current polling indicates that the California public supports the measure, 51% to 34%, but there is still over a month before votes will be cast. Similar “reactive” redistricting has been planned in other Democratic-led states such as Maryland, but has seen somewhat limited success outside of California.

With both political parties pushing partisan redistricting, a grassroots campaign to limit redistricting has gained steam. Groups such as Common Cause have been fighting to prevent partisan redistricting and leading anti-gerrymandering protests, particularly in Republican-led states such as Indiana. Even in California, opinions are split on Proposition 50’s “reactive” redistricting, with 49% of survey respondents believing Prop 50 to be a bad thing, including 13% of those who are voting for it and 96% of those who oppose it.

Polling in Missouri shows that voters are against House Bill 1’s redistricting plan, though the margins in Missouri are significantly narrower. A Democratic Party poll finds that 48% of Missouri voters oppose the redistricting move, while 37% approve of it. Missouri voters have also attempted to force a statewide referendum on the vote (similar to California’s upcoming Prop 50 vote), which is in the early stages of collecting signatures. Even with Governor Kehoe signing HB1 on September 28th, the array of lawsuits and attempts to demand a popular referendum on redistricting leave the future of Missouri’s congressional district lines murky at best. 

For those interested in redistricting, particularly in Missouri, Jewell and Pi Sigma Alpha will be hosting a panel discussion on gerrymandering on October 15^th at 6:30 pm.

It has been an interesting week for U.S. democracy. In the last fourteen days, U.S. lawmakers have averted a government shutdown. Currently, the Biden administration is discussing how it wants to address a surprise attack in Israel from the terrorist organization Hamas.  

All of this, and the U.S. House of Representatives does not have a Speaker to assist. A Speaker of the House has not been ousted in America’s history. So, what happened? 

Budgeting 101

In order to answer this, we must examine the U.S. budget, which is passed by the Congress every year. Congress must pass all federal funding budgets, which are typically valid for a certain length of time. This process is often done yearly. Congress can also pass short-term funding bills, typically called continuing resolutions or CR, which will fund the government for anywhere between a week and a couple months. If a funding bill expires and a new one is not put in place, the government is not being funded. This means the government cannot pay its employees or maintain any federally-controlled lands, although essential employees can continue to work; such a time is often referred to as a government shutdown. 

On Sept. 29, the House of Representatives passed a CR with broad bipartisan support. However, some Republicans, among them Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), had promised to introduce a motion to vacate the office of now-former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) if a CR passed.  

Removal of the Speaker 

On Oct. 2, Gaetz filed his promised motion to vacate. When the motion came to a vote, all Democrats joined eight Republicans in voting to remove McCarthy. Those eight Republicans were Reps. Andy Biggs (Ariz.), Ken Buck (Colo.), Tim Burchett (Tenn.), Elijah Crane (Ariz.), Matt Gaetz (Fla.), Bob Good (Va.), Nancy Mace (S.C.) and Matthew M. Rosendale (Mont.). 

After the motion to vacate succeeded, Gaetz claimed, “Kevin McCarthy is a creature of the swamp. He has risen to power by collecting special interest money and redistributing that money in exchange for favors. We are breaking the fever now.” 

The successful vote means that the House is currently lacking an elected speaker. Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.) has been named interim speaker while the search takes place. 

Implications 

This leaves the Republican party with a leadership crisis. The Republican margin in the House is currently five votes, which means that five Republicans can defeat any measure if all Democrats oppose it. As such, this leaves radical Republicans with an outsized influence.  

Many Republicans are furious with Gaetz, and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich called for Gaetz’s removal from the Republican conference. Joseph Postell, professor of political science at Hillsdale College, said that these legislators sought to gain outside media influence. Postell told the Washington Post that “[House Republicans] are no longer incentivized to bargain with one another. They are incentivized to remain in conflict.” 

What will become of the Republican Party in 2024 and beyond is yet to be seen. But this episode will give us a picture of how Republicans choose to address a leadership crisis, and may show us how they will choose to handle Donald Trump. House Republicans are trying to show America that they can effectively govern in the leadup to the 2024 election; in the days to come, we will see Republicans try to govern their own.

Among the decisions on the ballot this election cycle is the selection of a governor for Missouri. Four candidates are running for the position, Republican Mike Parson, Democrat Nicole Galloway, Libertarian Rik Combs and Jerome Bauer for the Green Party. 

As election day approaches polls show a tightening race for governor in Missouri between incumbent Governor Mike Parson and State Auditor Nicole Galloway. 

Both Galloway and Parson have received support from their respective national party leaders. President Trump endorsed and tweeted about his support for Gov. Parson Sept. 10 while former Vice President and Democratic nominee Joe Biden endorsed Galloway Sept. 14. 

While President Trump is still expected to win Missouri, polls have shown a closer race than his 18.5 point victory in 2016, casting doubt about the length of his coattails potentially impacting the governor’s race. 

While the Real Clear Politics average of polls shows a comfortable nearly twelve point lead for Parson, this lead has been steadily declining in recent polls. This decline has been reflected in the nonpartisan Cook Political Report’s decision to move the race from “Likely Republican” to “Lean Republican.” 

Galloway, the lone state-wide elected Democrat, touts her experience as State Auditor to focus on the nonpartisan issue of eliminating government waste. Eliminating government waste as well as improving Missouri’s medical care are central planks to the Galloway campaign. Beyond this focus, she has also been vocal in castigating Parson for his handling of the state’s coronavirus response. 

Parson, despite personally testing positive for the virus, has maintained support for his position that issues such as mask mandates should be a matter of local control and personal responsibility rather than being imposed by the state. 

Looming over this debate is the spread of the pandemic in the state. Covid-19 cases continue to rise in Missouri. The state reported over 5,066 new cases Oct. 9, more than doubling its previous single day total. 

Analysts have differed in their assessments of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the gubernatorial race. The Cook Political Report cited Parson’s handling of the pandemic as one of the reasons for tightening in the race. Other political observers have argued that the governor’s decision is reflective of voter sentiments in the Republican-leaning state. 

The debate over COVID-19 responses has also sparked a broader healthcare fight between the two candidates. Since Missouri voted to expand Medicaid in August, Galloway has asked for voters to trust her with implementation and contrasted her support for expansion with Parson.  Long a vocal opponent of Medicaid expansion, Parson has publicly wondered about where the state would find the money for such an initiative. 

Leaning into his background as a former sheriff – with rising homicide rates in both Kansas City and St. Louis – and mirroring President Trump, Parson has emphasized law and order in his campaign. The governor convened a special session of the state legislature over the summer focused on anti-crime legislation. The Parson campaign and allies have accused Galloway of supporting the Defund the Police movement and being soft on crime, assertions that Galloway denies. 
All four candidates met for a contentious forum in Columbia Oct. 9. With the backdrop of the pandemic and the budgetary challenges that will confront the next governor, the forum saw clashes on a wide range of economic, social and public health issues.