The Project 2025 Mandate: Implications for the Administrative State and the U.S. Constitution

A Primer on how the Supreme Court’s ruling in Loper Bright Enterprises et al v. Raimondo, Secretary of Commerce, et al abrogating the Chevron Deference Doctrine is advancing the Project 2025 Mandate for Leadership’s goal of dismantling the “Administrative State.”

I. Overview of the goals and impact of the Project 2025 Mandate on Federalism

1. What are the high-level goals of the 2025 Mandate?

The 2025 Mandate states that its primary goals are to: (1) restore the American family; (2) dismantle the administrative state; (3) defend U.S. sovereignty, boarders, and bounty against global threat, and (4) secure individual’s God-given rights.

The high-level goals of the 2025 Mandate include laying down the political infrastructure for the next conservative administration, which its advocates hope will be a second Trump Administration commencing on Jan. 20, 2025. To govern effectively, the 2025 Mandate has articulated a playbook it needs to succeed by: (1) using enhanced executive branch policies to take back the reins of the federal government in order to deconstruct the “Administrative State”; (2) using enhanced labor and employment policies to restore its version of the Judeo-Christian family as the centerpiece of American life; (3) defending the nation’s sovereignty from not only foreign governments, but also internally from immigrants from certain countries; (4) securing for certain members of our society their individual God-given rights to live free from governmental interference; and, (5) achieving its comprehensive governance reorganization plan as outlined in its playbook (pgs. 3 – 17, 657).

2. How does the 2025 Mandate impact the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution regarding the legislative branch?

The 2025 Mandate reinforces Congressional legislative authority but viewed solely through the lens of the courts and not to be interpreted by delegated executive branch subject matter experts or agencies.

The 2025 Mandate emphasizes the need to dismantle the Administrative State it claims is run by the unelected cadre of left-leaning radical civil servants and return any and all of their derivative legislative/rule making powers back to Congress, as per its interpretation of the original intent of the U.S. Constitution’s Article I, which vests all legislative powers in Congress (pgs. 6 - 9). The project proposes significant legislative changes, such as rescinding any Congressionally delegated authorities (pgs. 19 – 21), something already well underway as the result of the SCOTUS decision in Loper, enforcing congressional control over employment authorizations in the Department of Labor and the Department of Defense in order to “eliminate Marxist indoctrination and divisive critical race theory programs and abolish newly established diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) offices and staff” (pg. 103) and affirmative action programs in HUD (pg. 510), something already a fait accompli as the result of the SCOTUS decisions in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc.(SFFA) v. President and Fellows of Harvard College (Harvard) and SFFA v. University of North Carolina (UNC) and mandating immigration reforms the adherents believe the direct result of fraud in the Visa process that currently disfavors American born citizens (pg. 613)

3. How does the 2025 Mandate for Leadership impact the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution regarding the executive branch?

The 2025 Mandate posits that all federal executive power vests solely in the person of the President and accordingly, “it is the President’s agenda that should matter to the [executive branch] departments and agencies, not their own” (pg. 20).

The 2025 Mandate for Leadership project suggests that the next conservative Administration should recognize the constitutional obligation of the executive branch to restrain the excesses of both the legislative and judicial branches, emphasizing the necessity of inter-branch pushback as a positive aspect (pg. 560)

The 2025 Mandate is built on pillars such as forming a unitary federal agency governance consensus mandated and controlled by the President, manned by a pre-trained and pre-committed cadre of already vetted conservative contained in its personnel database who will run the government on day one of the new Trump 2025 Administration in accord with the 2025 Mandate’s comprehensive policy and agency transition plans (pgs. xiv, 3, 615, 665 – 667, 679, 886). It also suggests that the President should uphold the Constitution and enforce laws as written, emphasizing the separation of powers (pg. 559).

The 2025 Mandate also focuses on restoring its version of integrity to the FBI and renewing the DOJ’s emphasis on violent crime and federal interests, which its adherents believe are key to upholding the constitutional republic and its principles (pg. 545, et seq.).

4. What impact does the 2025 Mandate for Leadership project have on the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution in relation to the judicial branch?

The 2025 Mandate for Leadership project calls for the potential overruling of Humphrey’s Executor v. United States that since 1935 has forbad a president from firing a quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial officer, such as an appointed and Senate confirmed member of the Federal Trade Commission, as was Humphrey, for purely political reasons (pgs. 560, 872). And the 2025 Mandate maintains that federal courts have the right and duty to assess the constitutionality of any executive branch rule or regulation in their decisions (pg. 559).

II. The Project 2025 mandate and its proponents’ view with its historical and current functions in the areas needing reform.

The term “Administrative State” is used by proponents of the Project 2025 Mandate to refer to a perceived expansive and unchecked growth of federal agencies that have regulatory powers which the proponents believe go beyond the scope originally envisioned by the U.S. Constitution. They argue that agencies have assumed legislative roles that should be exclusively within the domain of Congress, effectively eroding the principles of separation of powers and federalism. This contrasts with the historical and advocacy perspective of the Administrative State, which is often seen as a necessary evolution of government functions needed in a dynamic society to address complex modern societal needs.

The proponents critique the Administrative State by asserting that regulatory agencies such as the Department of Labor, (Labor) which oversees labor issues and market regulations, have overstepped by imposing extensive regulations that proponents argue stifle business innovation and economic freedom. They state that the only way to encourage and strengthen policies that promote family-sustaining jobs is by eliminating the policies that promote diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI). Instead, the proponent push for policies that support a pro-life, pro-family life agenda that includes expanding available apprenticeship programs including by encouraging the role of religious organizations in government sponsored apprenticeships, making family-sustaining jobs accessible by simplifying employment requirements, and allowing employers to prefer American citizens when making hiring decisions, among the other policy recommendations discussed (pgs. 581, et seq.). The proponents’ view contrasts from what many believe are Labor’s core historical function, which has been to protect workers’ rights and promote fair labor standards, with an agency they see as increasingly bureaucratic and interventionist.

In education, administered by the Department of Education, the debate centers around the quality and substance of education standards and curricula. Project 2025 Mandate adherents advocating for the dismantling the Administrative State believe that local control of education should be paramount, and that federal oversight has led to a homogenization of education, a departure from the department’s original purpose to ensure equal access to education and enforce federal educational laws. As such, Project 2025 Mandate adherents state that federal education policy should be limited now and, ultimately, that the Department of Education should be totally eliminated (pgs. 319, et seq.).

Transportation safety, regulated by the Department of Transportation (Transportation), is another area of contention. While the historical function is to ensure the nation’s transportation systems are safe, efficient, and accessible, Project 2025 Mandate adherents argue that Transportation’s regulatory excess has led to infrastructure stagnation and inefficiency (pgs. 619 et. Seq.).

Regarding the financial sector, controlled by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), with the historical function of protecting investors and maintaining fair and orderly markets is contrasted with Project 2025 Mandate adherents’ claims that current over-regulation may have negative effects on capital formation and the dynamism of markets (pgs., 829 et seq.).

In the healthcare arena, overseen by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the historical mandates of these agencies to protect public health is pitted against Project 2025 Mandate adherents’ criticisms that current regulations slow down medical innovation and inflate healthcare costs (pgs., 449, et seq.).

As for environmental regulation by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), this agency historically sought to protect human health and the environment. However, Project 2025 Mandate adherents argue that the EPA’s current regulatory reach hampers economic growth and infringes on property rights (pgs., 417, et seq.).

Lastly, as for taxation policy, the advocates for dismantling the Administrative State posit: “Tax policy is one of the most direct ways the administrative state influences the economy and lives of citizens, often circumventing the more transparent legislative process.” This reflects their stance that the U.S. tax code has become a complex web of regulations, manipulated by administrative bodies like the Department of the Treasury (Treasury) and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to direct behavior and policy, infringing on economic freedoms. However, these tax regulation critics may not have considered the complexities of a modern economy that necessitate detailed tax codes. These tax codes aim to address economic inequities, fund public services, and manage fiscal policy. Furthermore, tax policies have real-world implications for maintaining public goods and services, which the past year’s infrastructure challenges, such as train derailments and bridge collapses have brought to the fore (pgs. 691, et. seq.).

The Supreme Court’s decision in Loper Bright Enterprises et al v. Raimondo, upending the Chevron deference doctrine, is seen as a move towards curbing what proponents of Project 2025 view as the overreach of the Administrative State. By reinforcing judicial oversight over agency rulemaking, the ruling aligns with the Project’s goals by potentially restricting the scope of the regulatory action that federal agencies can undertake without direct, clear legislative authorization. This means that regulation development and first line enforcement will be shifted from the subject-matter experts in the Executive Branch agencies to our federal courts.

III. Examining the Administrative State: Project 2025 Mandate vs. Contemporary Regulatory Needs

“The unelected administrative state is antithetical to our constitutional system of divided powers and checks and balances,” asserts the Project 2025 Mandate, which views the current government regulatory bodies as bloated blockers of innovation and freedom. This statement reflects a profound concern regarding the size and reach of federal agencies such as the Department of Transportation, which “dictates nearly every aspect of our nation’s transport networks without direct accountability to voters,” as per the Project 2025 Mandate.

While these points resonate with those who champion a limited government, they stand in direct contrast with recent transportation incidents that underscore the necessity of having a sufficient number of independent minds and eyes contained in the corps of federal civil servants with subject matter expertise needed for robust oversight. For instance, despite existing regulations, the Bureau of Transportation Statistics reported approximately 2,000 train accidents in 2023-2024, including the significant Norfolk Southern derailment in East Palestine, Ohio, on Feb. 3, 2023. This event raises questions about whether current regulations and enforcement mechanisms are adequate for ensuring public safety and environmental protections, challenging the idea that agencies like the Department of Transportation are excessively restrictive and over-bloated.

Similarly, recent aviation issues, such as those surrounding the Boeing 737 Max, with approximately 1,500 aircraft accidents reported by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) each year, prompt a reevaluation of regulatory efficacy. Critics of the Administrative State may argue that such incidents are evidence of regulatory failure, yet many experts and citizens posit that these events point to the ongoing and critical need for comprehensive oversight, standards enforcement, and accountability—roles traditionally fulfilled by the likes of the NTSB and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), which the 2025 Mandate wants done away with.

The contrasting perspectives derive from fundamentally different interpretations of the role of government in public life. The Project 2025 Mandate frames the issue as one of overregulation stifling innovation: “Restrictive red tape ties down the ingenuity and enterprise of American industry.” In contrast, recent disasters suggest a narrative where regulatory bodies play a pivotal role in safeguarding the public, which may be at risk from unchecked corporate interests that prioritize profit margins over safety.

The fulcrum of this debate rests on achieving a balance between freedom from unnecessary federal intervention and the protection of society’s well-being. As current events demonstrate, this balance is delicate and complex, necessitating a nuanced view of each incident alongside rigorous legal and public scrutiny.

IV. Dismantling the Administrative State: The Supreme Court’s role in supporting Project 2025

The “Administrative State,” a term of contention and debate, stands at the crossroads of ideological battles and real-world implications. Proponents of the Project 2025 Mandate decry the administrative apparatus as a leviathan encroaching upon the constitutional landscape, siphoning the powers intended for elected bodies into the hands of bureaucratic entities. The Project 2025 Mandate calls for a dismantlement of what it perceives as regulatory excess, seeking to restore the primacy of legislative policymaking and a balance of powers that aligns with the Framers’ original nearly 237-year-old constitutional blueprint in the age of Artificial Intelligence! Surely this solid foundational document that has both stood the test of time as the beacon of liberty, while withstanding necessary modifications that serve only to enhance our liberties when found lacking can withstand the light touch-ups performed by subject matter experts that serve only to clarify without overburdening our federal courts.

Reflecting on the regulatory roles across sectors, the Project 2025 Mandate targets federal agencies’ influence over labor, education, transportation, financial markets, healthcare, environmental and tax policy, among others. It critiques these agencies for their extensive, often complex rules that navigate the gamut from workplace safety and educational equality to infrastructural integrity, investor protection, public health, environmental conservation and taxation fairness.

Yet, a sharp juxtaposition arises with recent transportation calamities, like the Norfolk Southern derailment and the notable Boeing 737 Max’s troubles. Such incidents cast a long shadow, provoking discourses on whether the protections offered by a labyrinthine regulatory state are robust enough—or perhaps misshapen, calling for their reformation rather than their removal.

In its recent seminal decision, the Supreme Court’s ruling in Loper starkly embodies the Project 2025 Mandate’s objectives by overruling a long-standing doctrine of judicial deference known as Chevron deference. This doctrine historically permitted agencies to interpret ambiguous statutes within their purview and expertise, a deference Chevron’s critics have long argued gives agencies too much law-making power contrary to the separation of powers doctrine.

The Court’s ruling champions independent judicial review over deference to agency interpretations, signifying a judicial shift towards limitations on the Administrative State’s reach. The decision reverberates with the Project 2025 Mandate’s ideals, suggesting a judicial endorsement of a restrained regulatory framework where agency rulemaking is more tightly tethered to clear congressional mandates. This judicial recalibration hints at a future where agency power could be substantially curtailed, laying the groundwork for the kind of governance shifts envisioned in the Project 2025 Mandate’s philosophy.

Reforming tax policy further encapsulates the struggle to redefine the scope and nature of governance. The complex tapestry of American tax laws, managed by the IRS, serves as a powerful tool for both revenue generation and policy implementation. The Project 2025 Mandate envisions a leaner, more direct tax system that minimizes what it characterizes as bureaucratic strangleholds and maximizes individual and business autonomy. Such simplification, however, contrasts starkly with the nuanced necessities of funding vital public services and infrastructure—increasingly essential in today’s socio-economic landscape and illustrated by public urgency and the need for a swift outlay of Treasury funding following any infrastructure failures, such as the collapse of the Francis Scott Key Bridge on March 26, 2024.

As such, the Project 2025 Mandate’s vision, underpinned by the Supreme Court’s ruling, calls into question the delicate balance between autonomy and oversight. The ruling provides a fresh impetus for those advocating for a scaled-back regulatory state. Nonetheless, the continuing need for thoughtful regulation—ensuring equitable, safe, and secure American societal functions—remains a strong counterpoint, persistently reminding us of the complexity of governing a modern society.

This discussion serves not only as an intellectual examination of the Project 2025 Mandate’s principles and the Supreme Court’s influence but also primes the debate for real-world informers. Aided by the Court’s recent decision in Loper, the Project 2025 Mandate’s narrative now moves beyond theoretical discourse, potentially ushering in a new era of American governance characterized by retrenched federal agency power and amplified judicial and legislative engagement for better or worse.