The Daily: Project 2025’s Other Project

Host: Rachel Abrams
Guest: Katie JM Baker, investigative reporter
Release Date: July 16, 2025

Introduction

In this episode of The Daily, Rachel Abrams delves into a controversial initiative emerging from the Heritage Foundation, termed Project Esther, which appears to extend beyond its purported mission to combat antisemitism. Joining her is investigative reporter Katie JM Baker, who uncovers how this project may be reshaping the political and social landscape on American college campuses.

Background on Project Esther

Rachel Abrams introduces the topic by referencing Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation’s agenda for a second Trump term, and transitions to discuss Project Esther—a lesser-known initiative launched by the same conservative think tank.

Rachel Abrams [01:17]:
"Project Esther didn't get a lot of mainstream coverage at the time Biden was still president. And I think a lot of it maybe seemed far-fetched to people."

Katie JM Baker explains that Project Esther was initially presented as a national strategy to combat antisemitism but quickly revealed intentions to undermine the pro-Palestinian movement and broader progressive causes.

Katie JM Baker [02:31]:
"When you read it, it becomes clear very quickly that what it really is is a plan to dismantle the pro-Palestinian movement in the US... to crush progressive movements more generally."

Unveiling the Origins and Leadership

Baker traces the origins of Project Esther to the aftermath of the October 7, 2023, Hamas attack in Israel, which intensified campus protests and antisemitic incidents. This climate of tension prompted Heritage Foundation officials to form a task force aimed at addressing what they perceived as rampant antisemitism.

Unnamed Committee Member [00:39]:
"Today's hearing marks the next phase of the committee's work, an effort to understand why this wave of antisemitism was able so easily to consume the nation's universities in the first place."

Victoria Coates, Heritage Foundation’s Vice President and the project leader, emerges as a central figure. Her unconventional background in Renaissance art history and shift to national security highlight the project's unique approach.

Katie JM Baker [05:25]:
"She has a really unorthodox background for a national security advisor... She started blogging about missile defense under a pseudonym for a conservative website... ending up in Trump's first administration as a deputy national security advisor."

Victoria Coates [07:46]:
"Note that in the Iranian view of the world, America is the big Satan and Israel is the little Satan... even if the US was to abandon Israel to its fate alone, it wouldn't save us."
(08:03)

The Strategy Behind Project Esther

Project Esther categorizes a broad spectrum of pro-Palestinian and progressive groups as part of a "Hamas support network" (HSN), aiming to associate these organizations and individuals with terrorism.

Katie JM Baker [11:19]:
"Project Esther is this really long, unwieldy document... It starts out by defining who the enemy is... using phrases like Hamas support organization or HSO, and Hamas support network or HSN."

The strategy involves branding critics of Israel and supporters of Palestine not just as antisemitic but as threats to American values and national security.

Katie JM Baker [10:04]:
"Their strategy is to brand a very, very wide group of critics of Israel and pro-Palestinian supporters as being a risk to the very foundations of the United States and the fabric of our society."

Implementation and Government Actions

Baker highlights how the Trump administration and Republican lawmakers have mirrored over half of Project Esther's recommendations, leading to significant policy changes aimed at suppressing dissent.

Katie JM Baker [20:08]:
"Based on our own analysis, the Trump administration and other Republicans have called for actions that appear to mirror over half of the goals outlined in Project Esther."

Examples include withholding federal funds from universities like Columbia and Harvard for allegedly failing to protect Jewish students and cracking down on pro-Palestinian activism.

Unnamed Committee Member [20:29]:
"President... is freezing more than $2 billion in grants to Harvard University, citing what?"

Katie JM Baker [21:35]:
"Project Esther says that members of HSOs should be found in violation of student visa requirements. They can be deported, defunded, sued, fired, expelled, ostracized."

Reactions from Jewish and Progressive Groups

While Heritage Foundation posits that Project Esther is necessary to protect Jewish communities, several established Jewish organizations have expressed concern over the initiative's broader implications.

Katie JM Baker [24:10]:
"A few groups that Heritage assumed would be aligned with their mission didn't actually want to be involved at all."

An open letter from prominent Jewish leaders warns against the politicization of antisemitism and urges resistance against using Jewish safety as a pretext for broader political agendas.

Katie JM Baker [26:10]:
"A range of actors are using a purported concern about Jewish safety as a cudgel to weaken higher education, due process, checks and balances, freedom of speech and the press."

Implications and Future Outlook

Rachel Abrams and Katie JM Baker discuss the potential long-term effects of Project Esther, emphasizing its role in shaping a more polarized and regulated academic environment. The initiative not only targets antisemitism but also aims to suppress a wide range of progressive movements under the guise of national security.

Katie JM Baker [27:34]:
"Project Esther isn't just talking about eliminating threats of our acts of violence against Jews... antisemitism is being used as a tool... to demonize an entire movement and execute a much, much broader agenda."

Despite the lack of direct acknowledgments from the White House, the alignment of governmental actions with Project Esther's objectives suggests a significant influence of Heritage Foundation’s strategy on national policies.

Conclusion

Project Esther represents a significant and controversial shift in how antisemitism and political dissent are being addressed within American institutions. By branding broad progressive movements as security threats, Heritage Foundation’s initiative raises critical questions about freedom of speech, academic freedom, and the true motivations behind combating antisemitism.

Rachel Abrams [28:19]:
"Katie, thank you so much."
(28:19)

Katie JM Baker [28:22]:
"Thank you for having me."

Additional Segment Highlights

• Immigration Policies: The episode also touches on President Trump’s decision to withdraw California National Guard troops from Los Angeles and efforts to release government files related to Jeffrey Epstein.

• Listener Feedback: Susan Lee shares listener stories highlighting systemic issues, emphasizing the podcast’s commitment to addressing critical societal problems.

Notable Quotes:

• Rachel Abrams [10:36]:
  "So in other words, this sudden interest in antisemitism, it's not just about threats against Jewish people. For the Heritage foundation, they're seeing what's happening on campuses and they're reframing the debate as kind of a homegrown threat against America."

• Katie JM Baker [15:28]:
  "Project Esther has lots of ideas of punitive actions that you can take once you deem people part of this Hamas support network."

Timestamps Overview:

• 00:00-05:02: Introduction and overview of the hearing on antisemitism in universities.
• 05:02-09:05: Emergence of Project Esther and leadership under Victoria Coates.
• 09:05-16:19: Strategy and goals of Project Esther to label and eliminate progressive movements.
• 16:19-22:35: Government actions mirroring the project’s recommendations.
• 22:35-27:02: Reactions from Jewish groups and concerns over Heritage Foundation’s agenda.
• 27:02-30:33: Broader implications and concluding remarks.

This comprehensive exploration by The Daily sheds light on the intricate and potentially alarming strategies being employed under the guise of combating antisemitism, urging listeners to critically evaluate the motivations and consequences of such initiatives.