Politics isn't usually this cinematic. But when Kevin Roberts, the president of the Heritage Foundation, went on The War Room and talked about a second American Revolution that would remain bloodless if the left allowed it, people freaked out. It wasn't just a soundbite. It was a moment where the polite mask of D.C. think-tanking slipped, revealing something much more aggressive underneath.
You've probably heard of Project 2025 by now. It’s a 900-page "Mandate for Leadership." It’s basically a massive to-do list for the next conservative administration. But the phrase remain bloodless changed the vibe of the entire conversation. It moved the goalposts from "here are some tax policies" to "we are fundamentally reshaping the country."
People are confused. Some think it’s a threat. Others think it’s just a bold way of saying they want to win big. Honestly, the truth is tucked inside the history of the Heritage Foundation itself, a group that has been around since the 70s but has recently undergone a massive personality transplant.
The Heritage Foundation’s Shift from Policy to Power
For decades, Heritage was the "stodgy" one. They were the guys in suits who wrote white papers that nobody but Senate staffers read. They were the architects of Reaganism. But under Kevin Roberts, they’ve gotten a lot louder. They aren’t just looking for a seat at the table anymore; they want to build a new table.
When Roberts used the term remain bloodless, he was speaking to a specific audience. He was talking to the "New Right." These aren’t your grandfather's Republicans who just want lower capital gains taxes. They’re people who believe the administrative state—the "deep state"—is a literal existential threat to the nation. To them, "bloodless" means a total overhaul of the government without a physical conflict. It’s a revolution of HR departments and executive orders.
It’s kinda wild to think about.
A think tank used to be a place for intellectual debate. Now, Heritage is acting like a government-in-waiting. They’ve spent millions of dollars building a database of thousands of people ready to be plugged into federal jobs on Day One. This isn't just about winning an election. It’s about ensuring that once they win, there is no "deep state" left to slow them down.
What Project 2025 Actually Proposes
To understand why the remain bloodless comment landed like a lead balloon for some and a rallying cry for others, you have to look at the manual itself. Project 2025 isn't just a suggestion. It’s a blueprint.
🔗 Read more: How Did Black Men Vote in 2024: What Really Happened at the Polls
The plan involves something called Schedule F. Basically, it would reclassify tens of thousands of civil service workers—people who usually keep their jobs regardless of who is president—as "at-will" employees. That means a president could fire a scientist at the EPA or an analyst at the State Department just because they don't agree with the administration's vibe.
- It wants to dismantle the Department of Education.
- It suggests a massive expansion of presidential power through "unitary executive theory."
- There’s a heavy focus on using the Department of Justice to go after political enemies.
Roberts and his team argue this is necessary. They say the current system is "woke" and unfixable. If the transition of power is to remain bloodless, they argue, the bureaucracy has to stop resisting the will of the voters. It’s a "my way or the highway" approach to governance that has never really been tried on this scale in the U.S.
Why the "Bloodless" Comment Sparked a Firestorm
Language matters. Especially in a country that feels like a tinderbox.
When you use the word "revolution," people think of 1776. When you add "bloodless if the left allows it," it sounds like an ultimatum. It’s a classic "look what you made me do" framing. Critics, including many historians and former GOP officials, pointed out that this language is a departure from how American leaders usually talk about democracy. Usually, we talk about "peaceful transitions." Roberts talked about a revolution.
The Heritage Foundation defended the remark, saying it was about the legal and political process, not violence. They pointed to the fact that the left has had its own "revolutions" in culture and law. But the imagery stuck. It painted a picture of a Heritage Foundation that no longer believes in the "bipartisan consensus" of Washington.
They want a clean break.
If you look at the contributors to Project 2025, it’s a Who’s Who of the Trump administration. We’re talking about people like Russ Vought and Stephen Miller. These aren’t people interested in compromising with Democrats. They view the current federal government as a captured institution that needs to be liberated. The remain bloodless sentiment is a reflection of that urgency.
💡 You might also like: Great Barrington MA Tornado: What Really Happened That Memorial Day
The Reality of Implementation
Can they actually do it? That’s the multi-billion dollar question.
Writing a 900-page book is one thing. Actually firing 50,000 federal workers is another. The legal challenges would be endless. Unions would sue. Courts would issue injunctions. The "bloodless" revolution would likely spend its first two years stuck in a courtroom in D.C.
But Heritage isn't stupid. They’ve been vetting lawyers too. They are preparing for the legal warfare that follows the political victory. This is a level of preparation we haven't seen in modern politics. In 2016, Trump’s team was caught off guard by their own win. They didn't have the people. In 2025, if they win, Heritage ensures they have the people, the plan, and the legal briefs ready to go.
Misconceptions vs. Reality
People tend to oversimplify this. It’s not just a "Trump plan." In fact, Trump has tried to distance himself from Project 2025 at times, mostly because some of the policies (like those regarding IVF or extreme trade tariffs) are polling poorly. But Heritage is the engine. Whether the candidate acknowledges it or not, the people who would fill his cabinet are the ones who wrote the book.
Another misconception: that this is just about "the swamp." It’s actually more about the "clutch." The goal is to move the levers of power directly into the Oval Office.
Actionable Insights for Navigating the 2025 Landscape
Whatever side of the aisle you’re on, the remain bloodless rhetoric from the Heritage Foundation signals a permanent change in how D.C. operates. The era of the "neutral" think tank is effectively dead.
If you want to stay ahead of how this might actually affect you, here’s what to keep an eye on:
📖 Related: Election Where to Watch: How to Find Real-Time Results Without the Chaos
Watch the Court Rulings on Chevron Deference: The Supreme Court has already started stripping power from federal agencies. This is the legal "softening of the beach" that makes a remain bloodless revolution possible. Without the legal authority of agencies to make rules, the president has more direct control.
Pay Attention to Schedule F: If you see "Schedule F" mentioned in news cycles, pay attention. This is the "on/off" switch for the entire Project 2025 plan. If it gets implemented, the federal government changes overnight.
Follow the Personnel, Not Just the Policy: Policies change, but people are permanent. Look at who Heritage is training. They have an "Academy" specifically designed to teach young conservatives how to run the government. These are the people who will be making decisions on your taxes, your healthcare, and your environment for the next decade.
Localize Your Perspective: A lot of what Heritage wants to do involves "returning power to the states." In reality, that means your local state legislature becomes way more important. If the federal Department of Education disappears, your state’s school board becomes the ultimate authority.
The Heritage Foundation is betting that the American people are tired of a government that feels slow and unresponsive. They are offering a "bloodless" alternative that is fast, responsive, and unapologetically partisan. It’s a high-stakes gamble on the very structure of the United States. Whether it succeeds or fails, the old way of doing business in Washington isn't coming back.
The "revolution" has already started in the offices on Massachusetts Avenue. The only question left is how much of the existing system will survive the encounter.