Illinois Governor Pritzker Launches Project 2029 to Counter Republican Project 2025

Illinois Governor JB Pritzker's call for a Democratic "Project 2029" has become one of the most polarizing proposals in early 2028-cycle politics. But behind the headline-grabbing talk of prosecuting Trump officials lies a more complex story: multiple overlapping efforts, deep intra-party tensions, and fundamental questions about whether either party's transition blueprint can deliver on its promises.

The Two Projects Called "2029"

The phrase "Project 2029" now refers to at least two distinct efforts on the Democratic side, which are frequently conflated in media coverage.

The first is the policy initiative organized by Andrei Cherny, a former Democratic speechwriter and co-founder of Democracy: A Journal of Ideas. Announced in mid-2025, this project assembles Democratic thinkers to produce quarterly policy proposals over two years, culminating in a book meant to guide the 2028 Democratic presidential nominee [1]. Its advisory board includes Jake Sullivan, former National Security Adviser under President Biden; Jim Kessler, founder of the centrist think tank Third Way; Neera Tanden, president of the Center for American Progress; Anne-Marie Slaughter, CEO of New America; Justin Wolfers, a University of Michigan economist; and Felicia Wong, former president of the Roosevelt Institute [2]. On February 1, 2026, Chad Maisel—previously a special assistant to President Biden on the White House Domestic Policy Council—was named to lead the effort [3].

The second is Governor Pritzker's March 2026 proposal, made in a New York Times Magazine interview with reporter Lulu Garcia-Navarro. Pritzker urged Democrats to adopt their own version of the Heritage Foundation's Project 2025, dubbing it "Project 2029" and calling for it to be "quickly implemented to restore the rule of law" [4]. When asked whether this meant criminal prosecution of Trump officials, Pritzker said: "Criminally prosecuted, civilly prosecuted. Whatever it is that we can do" [5].

The two efforts share a name and a general orientation, but differ in emphasis: the Cherny-led initiative focuses on policy development, while Pritzker's framing centers on accountability and legal action against current administration officials.

What Project 2025 Actually Proposed

To understand Project 2029, one must first understand what it is responding to. Project 2025, formally the "2025 Presidential Transition Project," was published in April 2023 by the Heritage Foundation. The 922-page Mandate for Leadership document represented the work of more than 350 contributors and drew support from an advisory board of over 100 conservative organizations [6].

The project was led by Paul Dans, former chief of staff at the Office of Personnel Management, and Spencer Chretien, a former special assistant to President Trump, though Dans stepped down from his role in July 2024 [7]. The Heritage Foundation reported total revenue of $101 million in 2023, with 517 employees [8].

Project 2025 outlined four core objectives: restoring the family as the centerpiece of American life, dismantling what it called the "administrative state," defending national sovereignty and borders, and securing "God-given individual rights to live freely" [6]. Specific proposals included reinstating Schedule F—a Trump-era executive order that would reclassify tens of thousands of federal employees as at-will workers—abolishing the Department of Education, overhauling the Department of Health and Human Services, and expanding the Navy to over 355 ships [9].

Supporters argue these reforms would reduce regulatory burden on businesses and individuals, curb executive overreach by unelected bureaucrats, protect religious liberty, and restore democratic accountability to the federal workforce. Heritage Foundation president Kevin Roberts has described the project as an effort to ensure the next conservative president has "both the personnel and the playbook" to implement the mandate voters gave [10]. Conservative defenders point to the administrative state's growth as a constitutional concern, arguing that elected officials—not career civil servants—should drive policy.

Critics, including the ACLU, have characterized Project 2025 as a plan to "consolidate executive power in favor of right-wing policies" that would undermine the separation of powers and civil liberties [11]. Much of the 2024 election debate centered on whether the document represented mainstream conservatism or an authoritarian turn.

Project 2029's Policy Architecture

The Cherny-led Project 2029 has produced a detailed policy framework. Its published blueprint contains 31 chapters organized across six sections: Restoring Good Governance, The Common Defense, The General Welfare, The Economy, Independent Regulatory Agencies, and Safeguarding Democracy [12]. The document includes more than 150 proposed federal laws with constitutional authority citations, 10 proposed constitutional amendments, and implementation timelines spanning from day one through year four of a prospective Democratic presidency [12].

Its four stated pillars are: Making Government Work, Creating Economic Opportunity, Providing Human Security, and Pursuing Justice and Restoration [3].

On specific policy areas, the contrast with Project 2025 is stark:

Healthcare: Where Project 2025 proposed restructuring HHS and shifting away from the Affordable Care Act framework, Project 2029 calls for expanding access to affordable healthcare through either Medicare for All or a robust public option [12].

Education: Project 2025 would abolish the Department of Education entirely; Project 2029 proposes increased federal investment in public education [12].

Labor: Project 2029 calls for strengthening unions, raising the minimum wage, and investing in affordable housing—positions that directly oppose Project 2025's emphasis on deregulation and at-will employment expansion [12].

Climate: Project 2029 prioritizes clean energy investment and environmental regulation, while Project 2025 would roll back EPA authority and expand fossil fuel production [12].

Voting rights: Project 2029 proposes strengthening voting rights protections and combating gerrymandering, while Project 2025 emphasizes election integrity measures that critics say would restrict ballot access [12].

Pritzker's Accountability Agenda

Pritzker's version of the Project 2029 idea is distinct in its focus on legal consequences. His office identified seven current and former Trump administration officials for potential accountability review: Stephen Miller (White House deputy chief of staff), Tom Homan (Border Czar), Kristi Noem (former DHS Secretary), Tricia McLaughlin (former Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security), Tom Lyons (acting ICE Director), Rodney Scott (CBP Commissioner), and Corey Lewandowski (special government employee for DHS) [5].

In January 2026, Pritzker asked an Illinois commission to expand its review to examine the roles of these officials, accusing them of leading "the escalation of aggressive enforcement tactics" during Operation Midway Blitz, a federal immigration operation in Chicago [4]. This followed Pritzker's late-2025 lawsuit against the Trump administration over the deployment of National Guard troops to Chicago, which a federal judge temporarily blocked and the Supreme Court later upheld [4].

Conservative commentators reacted sharply. The Daily Caller's Mary Rooke described the proposal as a "revenge machine," writing that "the Dem Revenge Machine Is Already Built As GOP Walks Sleepily Into Its Crosshairs" [13]. Legal Insurrection characterized Pritzker as "floats prosecuting Trump officials" under what it called a lawfare campaign [14].

The Funding Question

Neither the Cherny-led nor the Pritzker-driven effort has disclosed detailed financial information. Paul Waldman, writing on Substack, estimated that "a robust Project 2029 effort could be staffed for ten or twenty million dollars over three years," noting that "there are liberal billionaires who could write such a check" [15].

For comparison, the Heritage Foundation's total operating budget in 2023 was $103 million in expenditures, supporting 517 employees across all its programs—not just Project 2025 [8]. The specific budget allocated to Project 2025 within Heritage's broader operations has not been publicly disclosed.

Pritzker himself is one of the wealthiest elected officials in America, with an estimated net worth of $3.7 billion. He largely bankrolled his own gubernatorial campaigns and has funded national abortion-rights initiatives [16]. Whether state taxpayer funds, private donations, or Democratic Party resources would support any accountability-focused Project 2029 work remains unclear.

Source: ProPublica Nonprofit Explorer / Paul Waldman estimate

Data as of Mar 22, 2026CSV

The Presidential Question

Pritzker's Project 2029 rhetoric cannot be separated from persistent speculation about his 2028 presidential ambitions. When pressed repeatedly about his political future, the governor has said his plan is to run for reelection as governor, but he has not ruled out a 2028 presidential bid [16].

The timeline is suggestive: Pritzker's escalating national profile—lawsuits against the Trump administration, high-profile New York Times interviews, the Project 2029 framing—coincides with the early maneuvering period for the 2028 cycle. His willingness to name specific Trump officials for prosecution positions him as a combative alternative to Democrats perceived as insufficiently aggressive.

Yet attributing Project 2029 entirely to presidential ambition oversimplifies the picture. Pritzker's clashes with federal immigration enforcement in Illinois are rooted in specific policy disputes, and his legal challenges have produced real judicial outcomes. The question is whether the Project 2029 label elevates these state-level actions into a national platform—or whether the national platform was the point all along.

Intra-Party Fault Lines

The most revealing aspect of Project 2029 may be the criticism it has drawn from within the Democratic coalition.

The Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) published an analysis titled "Project 2029: Democrats' Missed Populist Opportunity," arguing that while a populist agenda focused on benefits for working people could win elections—as demonstrated by Zohran Mamdani's victory in the New York Democratic mayoral primary—the Project 2029 effort risks being captured by donor interests. "Massive money will be on the other side of any Democrat pushing this sort of populist platform," the analysis warned [17].

Jacobin published a piece headlined "Democrats' Project 2029 Is Doubling Down on Failure," arguing the initiative reflected the same centrist thinking that led to the party's 2024 defeat [18]. Progressive antitrust expert Hal Singer said the agenda "needs way more progressives" [2].

Jake Sullivan's involvement drew particular fire. Critics noted that as Biden's national security adviser, Sullivan was associated with controversial foreign policy decisions. Pollster Celinda Lake raised a different objection: the party lacked "a functioning narrative to communicate" its existing policies, suggesting the problem was messaging, not the absence of a policy book [2].

Andrei Cherny's diagnosis—that Vice President Kamala Harris lost because she "attacked President Trump's ideas rather than promoting her own agenda," and that "the oldest truism in politics is you can't beat something with nothing"—has itself become a point of contention [1]. Progressives counter that Democrats lost not for lack of policy papers but for lack of credibility on economic issues that directly affect voters' lives.

Who Would Be Affected

The populations at stake in these competing visions are substantial. Illinois alone has a population of approximately 12.5 million [19]. If the Project 2029 policy framework were adopted by a coalition of Democratic-led states—California (39 million), New York (19.6 million), Illinois (12.5 million), Massachusetts (7 million), Washington (7.8 million), Maryland (6.2 million), Colorado (5.9 million), Oregon (4.2 million), and Connecticut (3.6 million)—the combined population would exceed 105 million people [19].

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2023

Data as of Mar 22, 2026CSV

On Medicaid alone, the stakes are enormous. Project 2025's proposed restructuring of HHS could affect the roughly 90 million Americans enrolled in Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program. Project 2029's proposed expansion would move in the opposite direction, extending coverage. On public education, the abolition of the Department of Education proposed by Project 2025 would affect federal funding for Title I schools serving approximately 25 million students from low-income families [9].

Union rights represent another major fault line. Project 2025's labor proposals would weaken collective bargaining protections, while Project 2029 calls for strengthening them. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that union members earned median weekly wages of $1,263 in 2024, compared to $1,075 for non-union workers—a gap that both sides cite to support opposing conclusions about the value of organized labor [20].

The Theory of Change Problem

The fundamental strategic question for Project 2029 is: what can it accomplish without controlling the White House?

The Cherny-led policy initiative is explicitly oriented toward a future Democratic presidency—its name references January 20, 2029, the next inauguration day [1]. Its theory of change is straightforward: produce the policy playbook so a Democratic president can hit the ground running, just as Project 2025 did for the current administration.

Pritzker's accountability focus operates on a different timeline. State-level actions—lawsuits, commission investigations, executive orders—can proceed regardless of who holds federal power. But the prosecution of federal officials would require either state jurisdiction over their actions or a future friendly Department of Justice, neither of which is guaranteed.

The deeper question is whether either version of Project 2029 addresses the reason Democrats lost in 2024. As CEPR's analysis noted, popular policies like raising the minimum wage "regularly draw huge support even among Republicans," with ballot initiatives passing in deep-red states like Arkansas [17]. Whether a 31-chapter policy book or a prosecutorial agenda captures that energy remains an open question.

For now, Project 2029 exists as both a substantive policy effort and a political positioning tool—and the tension between those two functions may determine whether it produces lasting policy change or serves primarily as a marker in the 2028 primary contest.