Listen to the article
Project 2025: Trump’s Blueprint for Dismantling the Administrative State
In the months since returning to office, President Donald Trump has aggressively implemented key recommendations from Project 2025, a conservative policy manual that he publicly distanced himself from during his presidential campaign.
Despite Trump’s claims that he knew “nothing about Project 2025” and had “no idea who is behind it,” his administration has moved swiftly to enact many of its core proposals, particularly those focused on what the document calls “dismantling the administrative state.”
Paul Dans, director and co-editor of Project 2025, expressed enthusiasm about Trump’s implementation efforts in a recent interview. “It’s exceeded my expectations. My wildest dreams, if you will,” Dans said, describing the promise to dismantle the administrative state as the “number one goal” and “the essence, the ethos” behind the project.
The 900-page document, formally titled “Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise,” was produced by the Heritage Foundation and written largely by veterans of Trump’s first administration. It provides not only policy recommendations but also detailed implementation strategies.
“The second Trump administration is engaged in the first real transfer of power since 1933,” wrote Mike Gonzalez, a Heritage Foundation senior fellow and Project 2025 author, in March.
Sweeping Federal Workforce Reductions
One of Trump’s most immediate actions was establishing the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), led by billionaire Elon Musk, to spearhead federal workforce reductions. As of late September, more than 200,000 federal employees have been fired or agreed to leave, according to the nonprofit Partnership for Public Service.
The largest staff cuts have occurred in the Departments of Defense (55,533), Treasury (30,267), and Agriculture (21,564). Many of these reductions began with the elimination of employees working on diversity, equity, and inclusion programs.
The administration has used various methods to reduce staff, including offering incentives for voluntary resignations, issuing layoff notices, and firing probationary workers. In late January, the Office of Personnel Management offered most civilian federal workers the chance to leave their jobs through a voluntary deferred resignation program while continuing to receive pay through September 30. More than 154,000 employees accepted this offer.
Ending Collective Bargaining for Federal Employees
Project 2025 described public-sector unions as “not compatible with constitutional government” and suggested ending collective bargaining rights for federal civilian employees.
Following this recommendation, Trump issued executive orders in March and August terminating union contracts and ending collective bargaining rights for federal employees in 40 agencies whose “primary function” involves “intelligence, counterintelligence, investigative, or national security work.” The orders affect more than a million federal employees, according to the American Federation of Government Employees.
While labor unions sued to block these orders, an appeals court has allowed the Trump administration to proceed with ending collective bargaining while litigation continues. As of early September, the administration has terminated labor contracts for several agencies, including the Department of Veterans Affairs, affecting approximately 400,000 VA employees.
Reclassifying Civil Servants
Another key Project 2025 recommendation was to make it easier to fire federal civil servants by reestablishing Schedule F classification, which Trump attempted to implement late in his first term. This classification would remove job protections from career employees deemed to have “policy-determining, policy-making, and policy-advocating positions.”
On his first day back in office, Trump issued an executive order stating that federal workers in “policy-influencing positions” must “faithfully implement administration policies” or face dismissal. A week later, the Office of Personnel Management issued guidance estimating that 50,000 positions would be reclassified.
The National Treasury Employees Union sued, and a district court issued a stay pending further review, with a status update expected by late October.
Overhauling the Justice Department
Project 2025 called for a “top-to-bottom overhaul” of the Justice Department to ensure “litigation decisions are consistent with the President’s agenda and the rule of law.”
Attorney General Pam Bondi implemented this recommendation on her first day in office, issuing directives that warned DOJ attorneys they would face discipline or termination if they “refuse[d] to advance good-faith arguments on behalf of the administration.” She also created a “Weaponization Working Group” to investigate officials who had previously prosecuted Trump.
The department has fired hundreds of lawyers and staffers, while hundreds more have voluntarily resigned. On September 25, the DOJ indicted former FBI Director James Comey just days after Trump pressured for the replacement of a U.S. attorney with a White House aide who had no prosecutorial experience.
“DOJ is now being used as a personal weapon on behalf of Trump to a degree that is without precedent,” said Peter Shane, a constitutional law professor at New York University.
Targeting Independent Agencies
The administration has taken aggressive action against independent regulatory agencies, seeking to overturn the Supreme Court’s 1935 Humphrey’s Executor precedent, which limits presidential power to remove commissioners of independent agencies.
In February, the Justice Department notified Congress that it had determined the “for-cause removal provisions” protecting members of certain independent regulatory commissions are unconstitutional. Shortly thereafter, Trump removed two Democratic commissioners from the Federal Trade Commission, claiming their “continued service on the FTC is inconsistent with my Administration’s priorities.”
While a district judge initially reinstated one commissioner, the Supreme Court temporarily stayed that order in September and agreed to hear arguments on whether statutory removal protections for FTC members violate separation of powers. The outcome could dramatically reshape presidential authority over federal agencies.
Trump has similarly purged Democratic members from numerous other independent agencies, including the Consumer Product Safety Commission and the National Labor Relations Board.
Dismantling Key Agencies
The administration has taken concrete steps to weaken or eliminate several agencies highlighted in Project 2025:
Department of Education: Trump has moved to cut the department’s staff by half, eliminating roughly 2,000 workers. He issued an executive order directing Education Secretary Linda McMahon to “take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure of the Department of Education.” His 2026 budget proposes cutting the department by $12 billion, which the department described as reflecting “an agency that is responsibly winding down.”
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau: After firing the CFPB director and installing OMB Director Russ Vought as acting director, the administration closed the bureau’s Washington office and sent layoff notices to about 1,500 CFPB employees, reducing its staff to only 200. During ongoing legal challenges, “the bureau has been mostly inoperable” with a significant backlog of consumer complaints.
IRS: Congress has rescinded $42 billion of the nearly $80 billion the IRS received from the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act. Additionally, the IRS has lost more than 25,000 staffers—roughly 25% of its workforce—through Trump’s federal employee layoffs. The National Taxpayer Advocate has expressed concerns about “operational readiness” for the 2026 tax filing season due to these cuts.
FEMA: Trump has signaled plans to eliminate FEMA as it currently exists and shift disaster response responsibilities to states. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem told the FEMA review council that “federal emergency management should be state and locally led, which is why FEMA must be eliminated as it exists today.” Current and former FEMA employees have warned that ongoing staffing cuts—approximately one-third of full-time staff have already left—”erode the capacity of FEMA” and “hinder the swift execution of our mission.”
Corporation for Public Broadcasting: In July, Trump signed legislation rescinding $1.1 billion in federal funding for CPB for fiscal years 2026 and 2027, effectively ending an institution that has received federal support for nearly six decades. CPB announced it would cease operations, with most employees departing by September 30.
Presidential Connections to Project 2025
Despite Trump’s campaign denials, connections between his administration and Project 2025 are extensive. By our count, 32 of the 40 named authors in the document have ties to past or current Trump administrations or campaigns, including eight currently working in executive agencies or appointed to federal positions by Trump.
Key Project 2025 authors now serving in the administration include Russ Vought (OMB Director), Lindsey Burke (Education Department), Tom Homan (Border Czar), Peter Navarro (White House Senior Counselor for Trade and Manufacturing), and Brendan Carr (FCC Chairman).
As David Graham, author of “The Project: How Project 2025 Is Reshaping America,” observed, the document provides not only policy proposals but “a scheme for how to make it happen.” The systematic implementation of its recommendations in Trump’s second term demonstrates the document’s influence, despite the president’s public distancing during the campaign.
While legal challenges have slowed some initiatives and Congress has not fully embraced others, the administration’s first nine months have revealed a determined effort to fulfill Project 2025’s vision of fundamentally reshaping the federal government by dramatically reducing its size, scope, and independence.
Verify This Yourself
Use these professional tools to fact-check and investigate claims independently
Reverse Image Search
Check if this image has been used elsewhere or in different contexts
Ask Our AI About This Claim
Get instant answers with web-powered AI analysis
Related Fact-Checks
See what other fact-checkers have said about similar claims
Want More Verification Tools?
Access our full suite of professional disinformation monitoring and investigation tools
20 Comments
Project 2025 sounds like an ambitious conservative vision. While I appreciate the desire for efficiency, I have concerns about the potential risks of weakening important regulatory safeguards. Balanced reforms may be needed.
I agree, a careful, evidence-based approach is prudent when making significant changes to the administrative state. Unintended consequences must be carefully considered.
The plans to dismantle the administrative state laid out in Project 2025 are certainly bold. While I’m open to the potential benefits of reducing bureaucracy, I worry about the risks of weakening important regulatory safeguards. A balanced approach may be advisable.
Agreed, it’s a complex issue without easy answers. Careful analysis of tradeoffs and unintended consequences will be crucial as these reforms unfold.
Interesting to see the Trump administration moving quickly to implement the recommendations of Project 2025, particularly around dismantling the administrative state. While efficiency gains could be positive, the potential risks merit close attention.
Absolutely, transparency and ongoing monitoring of the effects of these changes will be essential. A balanced, evidence-based approach is prudent.
Project 2025 and Trump’s plans to reshape the administrative state are certainly thought-provoking. I’ll be interested to see how these initiatives play out and what the impacts end up being, both positive and negative.
Yes, it’s an important issue that deserves close monitoring. Maintaining a balanced perspective and evidence-based approach will be key as these changes are implemented.
The vision laid out in Project 2025 seems quite sweeping. While streamlining government can have benefits, I worry about the potential risks of weakening important regulatory safeguards. Nuanced reforms may be prudent.
Agreed, a careful, incremental approach is likely warranted to ensure essential functions are preserved while improving efficiency where possible.
It’s intriguing to see the Trump administration moving quickly to advance the goals of Project 2025, particularly around dismantling the administrative state. The potential impacts, both positive and negative, will be important to track.
Absolutely, the details and real-world effects of these reforms will be critical. A balanced, evidence-based analysis will be crucial as this unfolds.
The plans to dismantle the administrative state seem quite ambitious. While streamlining bureaucracy can have benefits, I worry about potential risks to important regulatory functions. A balanced approach may be warranted.
Agreed, it’s a complex issue without easy answers. Careful analysis of tradeoffs and unintended consequences will be crucial as these reforms unfold.
Interesting to see Trump’s administration moving quickly to implement the Project 2025 proposals, especially around dismantling the administrative state. I’m curious to learn more about the potential impacts and tradeoffs of these actions.
Yes, it will be important to closely monitor how these policy changes unfold and their real-world effects. Transparency and accountability will be key.
Project 2025 seems to represent an ambitious conservative vision for government reform. While I appreciate the desire for efficiency, I have concerns about the risks of overly sweeping changes to the administrative state. Nuanced, targeted reforms may be prudent.
I agree, a cautious, step-by-step approach is likely warranted to ensure essential functions are maintained while exploring opportunities for sensible streamlining.
It’s interesting to see the Trump administration pursuing the goals of Project 2025, though the details will be critical. Dismantling the administrative state could have wide-ranging impacts that merit close scrutiny.
Absolutely, the devil will be in the details. I’m curious to see how these reforms are implemented and what the real-world effects end up being.