A Blueprint for Better Government or a Road Map to Authoritarian Rule?

Introduction

During the recently concluded presidential campaign, we heard much about the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025. It was generally discussed as a plan for a conservative restructuring of the government. Donald Trump has repeatedly stated that he knows nothing about the plan or its contents. Given his general lack of interest in policy details during his previous administration, I believe him.

I didn’t know much about it either. In what I now recognize as magical thinking on my part, I assumed there was no way the American people would return him to office, so I didn’t bother learning about it.

The day after the election, I went online to find a copy of the Project 2025 report. I started with the Heritage Foundation’s website, where they described different elements of the plan, but there was no way to order a copy. I checked other online sources, including Amazon, but still could not find the full report. I did discover that it is nearly 900 pages long, so even if I had obtained a copy, I doubt I would have read more than a small portion of it. Ultimately, I decided to purchase two summaries of the project, both claiming to be bipartisan. I believe they are generally balanced, as they present both positive and negative aspects of the program.

What is Project 2025?

The Heritage Foundation describes Project 2025 as a comprehensive initiative aimed at preparing for a conservative presidential administration beginning in January 2025. It is notable that the plan does not explicitly reference a Trump administration, but rather a generic “conservative” one. My interpretation is that this allows the Heritage Foundation to appear supportive of conservatism without explicitly endorsing Donald Trump, protecting their nonprofit status.

The project is structured around four key pillars:

  1. Policy Agenda: Developing a detailed conservative policy guide, titled Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise, which outlines strategies for governing major federal agencies.
  2. Personnel Recruitment: Establishing a database to identify and recommend qualified individuals for presidential appointments, ensuring alignment with conservative principles.
  3. Training: Launching the Presidential Administration Academy, an online educational platform designed to equip prospective appointees with the necessary skills and knowledge for effective governance.
  4. 180-Day Playbook: Crafting a strategic plan to guide the initial actions of the administration during its first 180 days, focusing on implementing conservative policies and reforms.

At first glance, this seems straightforward and unalarming. However, delving into the details reveals a much broader scope. The plan includes discussions about eliminating certain government agencies, overhauling civil service, extending presidential control over independent agencies, and substantially revising (though not eliminating) the Affordable Care Act.

I believe that the ultimate intent of the plan is to fully implement the Unitary Executive Theory. Therefore, understanding Project 2025 requires a basic understanding of this theory.

Unitary Executive Theory

The Unitary Executive Theory is a legal and constitutional doctrine asserting that the President of the United States holds absolute control over the executive branch. Proponents argue that Article II of the Constitution, which vests “the executive power” solely in the President, provides a constitutional basis for this authority. Critics contend it undermines checks and balances and concentrates too much power in the executive.

Key Points of the Theory:

  1. Presidential Control: Advocates claim the President should have direct control over all executive functions, including hiring, firing, and directing agency heads and officials.
  2. Limits on Congressional Power: The theory asserts that Congress cannot infringe on the President’s control over executive agencies by creating independent regulatory bodies or restricting the President’s ability to remove officials.
  3. Judicial Interpretation: The Supreme Court has addressed the concept in cases such as Myers v. United States (1926), Humphrey’s Executor v. United States (1935), and Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (2020). These cases reflect an ongoing debate about the extent of presidential control over the executive branch.

While proponents emphasize the need for a strong, centralized executive, critics warn it could erode the system of checks and balances envisioned by the framers of the Constitution.

Historical Perspective

The roots of the Unitary Executive Theory trace back to debates about the Constitution’s structure of executive power, particularly interpretations of Article II. Key historical examples include:

  1. Alexander Hamilton’s Federalist No. 70: Hamilton argued for a single, vigorous executive, emphasizing unity as essential for accountability and effective governance.
  2. Abraham Lincoln: During the Civil War, Lincoln exercised expansive executive power by suspending habeas corpus and issuing the Emancipation Proclamation.
  3. Franklin D. Roosevelt: FDR used executive orders extensively to implement New Deal programs and manage the war effort during WWII.

The term Unitary Executive Theory gained prominence in the late 20th century, championed by conservative legal scholars and the Federalist Society.

Application to Project 2025

Project 2025 seeks to leverage the Unitary Executive Theory to expand presidential power through the following measures:

  1. Consolidating Control: Bringing the entire federal bureaucracy, including traditionally independent agencies like the Department of Justice, under direct presidential control.
  2. Streamlining Decision-Making: Allowing the President to directly implement policies without interference from career officials or Congress.
  3. Personnel Changes: Proposing the removal of job protections for thousands of federal employees, enabling their replacement with political appointees loyal to the President.
  4. Agency Overhauls: Restructuring agencies such as the FBI, which the plan criticizes as “bloated” and “lawless.”
  5. Eliminating Departments: Proposing the elimination of the Department of Education and restructuring others like the Department of Justice and Homeland Security to increase presidential control.

Concerns Raised by Critics:

  1. Concentration of Power: Critics warn of an unprecedented consolidation of power in the executive branch.
  2. Politicization of Agencies: Traditionally nonpartisan agencies may become tools for advancing political agendas.
  3. Erosion of Checks and Balances: The system designed to prevent excessive power in any one branch could be undermined.
  4. Civil Service Protections: Removing job protections for career civil servants risks creating an unstable and politically driven workforce.

Supporters argue these changes are necessary to combat entrenched bureaucracy and improve efficiency. Critics, however, warn that this could push the U.S. toward authoritarian governance.

Conclusion

I have only touched on a few elements of Project 2025. Other aspects, such as policies on immigration, reproductive rights, and protections for minorities, are also deeply concerning but beyond the scope of this discussion.

Even just within the framework of the Unitary Executive Theory, I see significant risks. Will this plan lead to better government or pave the way to authoritarianism?

While everyone will reach their own conclusions, I find myself deeply distressed by the implications. I am concerned that the restructuring of DOJ, DHS and the FBI may lead to creation of a “Department of Political Vengeance”.

If you share these concerns, I recommend reading my post from September 8th, which reviews On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century by Timothy Snyder.