Project 2025: Narrative analysis of the Republican policy agenda
(Maps viewable on desktop only).
Through LLM-based narrative analytics, we’ve mapped 4,589 paragraphs from the 900+ pages of the Republican party's Project 2025. By hovering your cursor over the dots below, you can browse the content within an easy-to-understand narrative map.
Axes of the map: Internal vs external, economy vs society. The 5-cluster level shows the general “shape” of the content. The center cluster is important – revealing that allocation of power is a primary focus of project 2025. None of the clusters or axes are pre-set – they are unique to this dataset and empirically formed, factoring trillions of possible cluster/axis combinations. The is a key feature of narrative analytics: the ability to treat large samples of unstructured language - data that would normally be interpreted subjectively - and understand it empirically.
Now go to the detailed 37-cluster level by moving the slider on the lower right of of the map, and read on.
Move slider to adjust level of detail
Abortion restrictions are a key policy aim, comprising 16% of the paragraphs within the “society and culture” section at the bottom of the map. Hover the dots in the abortion narrative at the bottom of the 37 cluster view. These are forceful policy prescriptions, spanning reporting of possible abortions, restrictions on the day after pill, healthcare plans, and much more. Can you find references to women in these policies? Your chances are less than 1 in 5 in any given text: only 19% of the texts in this narrative mention women.
Where is Russia in the map? China and liberal/intellectual elites are positioned as significant external rivals – each as a distinct cluster. By contrast, there is no Russia cluster. Within the 37-cluster level, note the China cluster on the right, comprising 11% of the higher level “external threats” narrative. To the left is a 'Conservatism vs leftists' cluster, comprising 7%. This means the description of other Americans is narratively framed in a way that is similar to external rivals. The lack of a Russia cluster means that it is not viewed as significant, versus the threat of liberals. This is a function of the math – If there were a significant and clear narrative related to Russia, it would form a cluster.
Defense is external - yet intelligence is internal. National security, and the military are mentioned in the context of external threats and rivals on the right side - by contrast, intelligence is on the left. All matters of national security and defense except intelligence are seen on the right side of the map, narratively positioned as ways to address external challenges. By stark contrast, intelligence far to the left - seen primarily as a reform problem within the inner workings of government: Something to be curtailed and redirected, in the same narrative space as the administrative state.
The adjacent clusters of presidential briefings, executive power, and reforming intelligence comprise 61% of the paragraphs related to the internal functioning of government section on the left of the map. With increased executive power, a push to tame the intelligence apparatus, and more executive say on who attends briefings, what are the implications for the handling of classified information? Is this huge push to change the intelligence apparatus the best use of energy versus other priorities? Why is it being so heavily emphasised?
Abortion touches many separate areas of policy
The map below highlights terms related to abortion. Abortion related policy is a significant narrative cluster at the very bottom of the map. The policy proposals in this cluster make it clear that the party intends to further restrict access, by weaving abortion restrictions into other areas of policy. We can see this stance on abortion touching many different areas of policy - most significantly foreign aid. It also touches fiscal policy and even energy, among others. To read these texts, hover over the red dots. You can also click the legend on the right to select/deselect the red or grey dots.
Where is freedom?
The absence of a cluster regarding freedoms is conspicuous. Further, across the entire document, 1.8% of the paragraphs mention freedom in any context, with the highest concentration of “freedom” mentions within the rhetorical narrative of Conservatives vs leftists. Within that one cluster, it appears in 20% of paragraphs. These paragraphs invoke the idea that freedom is threatened, but offer few specifics on policies that support freedoms.
Putting this one rhetorical cluster aside, freedom mentions in the map are even more rare – comprising 1.5% of the remaining texts.