This is Part 6 of the deep dive into Project 2025. To jump to the first post in the series, click here: What is Project 2025? And why should you care?

Our first five posts on Project 2025 introduce the project and its creators. We also discuss some dramatic policy proposals and the four overarching goals under Pillar 1 of the Project—“Re-establishing the Family as the Center of American Life.” Now, we dive into Pillar #2.

Pillar #2 – Dismantling/Reshaping the Administrative State

Any move towards substantially changing or transforming government in the modern United States will necessarily involve ideas for shrinking or reshaping the administrative state. Project 2025 envisions a radical overhaul of how the federal government operates, including a strong focus on reducing the power and independence of federal agencies.

What it means  

This second pillar targets what Project 2025 describes as the “administrative state”—the network of federal agencies and civil servants they employ that implement and enforce federal laws. 

There is nobody across this great land of ours whose life is not directly impacted by the network of our government. Many people may raise their hand and say, “Yeah, I know, and that’s part of the problem with our country.” But the reality for those people is that if they realize the full extent of everything the administrative state does for the American populace, there would be plenty of things they wouldn’t want to lose.

That observation doesn’t mean we’re saying the administrative state isn’t large and ponderous—it comprises over 430 federal agencies and employs nearly 2 million civil servants. These agencies oversee a wide array of public services, from ensuring food safety through the FDA to regulating environmental protections via the EPA, managing Social Security and Medicare benefits, and enforcing labor standards through the Department of Labor. 

Project 2025 directly targets virtually all of that. If you ask them, they’ll say the biggest part will be shrinking the administrative state itself and creating centralized power within the Executive Branch. This will make the agencies more directly accountable to the president and reduce the independence and scope of these crucial functions.  

When we say “reducing the independence and scope of these crucial functions,” we’re talking about Project 2025’s aim to decrease federal agencies’ autonomy in implementing and enforcing laws. This could involve placing more direct control of these agencies under the president, limiting their ability to operate independently of political influence. 

If Project 2025 gets its way, not only will there be many fewer arms of the administrative state, but the scope of their functions—such as regulating industries, protecting the environment, or enforcing civil rights—will be substantially changed.

In other words, the goal is to dismantle the administrative state and put the parts back together in a way more pleasing to conservative views of how government should work.

Concrete Examples: What Does Dismantling the Administrative State Look Like For Project 2025

The Project 2025 plan to create this reality hinges on two broad initiatives:

• Reducing regulations and the power of many agencies overseeing them
• Reclassifying many civil service positions for easier hiring and firing based on political loyalty.

Here’s what some of that would look like.

Policy: Eliminating the Independence of Agencies

The Project calls for overruling the Supreme Court’s 1935 decision in “Humphrey’s Executor,” which established the constitutionality of independent agencies like the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). 

The decision in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States established that federal agencies like the FTC could operate independently of the executive branch, with their leaders protected from removal by the president except for cause. 

By calling for the overruling of this decision, Project 2025 aims to eliminate such independence, allowing the president to exert more direct control over agencies. A sitting president could remove agency heads at will and align the agency’s actions more closely with the current administration’s policies. This would alter the current checks and balances between the executive branch and these independent regulatory bodies.

The president can’t just overrule this kind of thing; it would require a different interpretation of the relevant legal issues by the Supreme Court. So, Project 2025 calls for mounting an effort to bring a case before the Supreme Court to overturn the Humphrey’s Executor decision. 

To challenge the *Humphrey’s Executor v. United States* decision, a new case would need to be brought before the courts, focusing on the modern context of the president’s power over independent agencies. They might argue that Humphrey’s ruling restricts the president’s executive authority by limiting their ability to remove heads of independent agencies, like the FTC, without cause. Maybe the president attempts to fire an agency head at will, and the legality of this action is disputed, leading to a court filing. It could even be a pre-planned thing. The legal argument would be based on the “Unitary Executive Theory,” which holds that the president should have broad control over the entire executive branch, including currently independent agencies. No doubt the matter would need to reach the Supreme Court, which might overturn the precedent if it finds that such restrictions violate the president’s constitutional powers under Article II.

If this case were successful, it might overturn the Humphrey decision and allow the president to exert direct control over agencies that are supposed to operate independently of political power.

Policy: Eliminate Funding for Public Broadcasting, including NPR and PBS

Project 2025 proposes eliminating funding for public broadcasting, including PBS and NPR. This isn’t surprising as it aligns with the broader conservative goal of reducing government spending on media that conservatives believe should operate independently in the private sector. Many conservatives view public broadcasting as a non-essential service that should not receive taxpayer funding. And there’s always the “liberal bias” argument. The view is that if public broadcasting provides valuable content, it should be able to support itself through private donations, advertising, and other non-governmental means.

How would they do this? The president cannot simply eliminate funding for public broadcasting through an executive order. Any federal funding decisions, including those for public broadcasting, are determined through the budgetary process. Therefore, to eliminate such funding, the president must propose a budget to Congress that leaves out or reduces the funding for entities like PBS and NPR. Congress would then need to approve the budget. Having a Republican-controlled Congress would increase the chances of this happening. 

If someone argued against this as a bad idea, they might raise points about educational value, non-commercial nature, and access. Public Broadcasting has a history of being very strong in educational children’s programming – many people like that. The simple fact that PBS and NPR operate without being beholden to commercial advertising means they can focus on the quality of their programming without pressure from corporate sponsors to generate profits. And the simple fact of access undergirds all of this. Public Broadcasting is conceptually considered the one national media offering available to everyone as a public good. Some people like NBC or ABC; half the country watches Fox while the other half watches CNN. But no matter your political or social leanings, public broadcasting is intended to be one thing that’s for everyone and available for everyone, regardless of their ability to pay. 

Policy: Abolishing the 10-Year Term for the FBI Director and Making Them More Accountable to the President

This piggybacks on the previous point—the goal of reducing the autonomy of federal agencies. The FBI is a federal agency. Project 2025 wants to increase executive control over key federal agencies and positions, including leadership roles like the FBI Director. The current system of a 10-year term for the Director is intended to insulate the Director from political pressures. Project 2025 proposes that this be done away with. 

The 10-year term limit for the FBI director was established in 1976, in the aftermath of the Watergate scandal and the long tenure of J. Edgar Hoover, who served as director for 48 years from 1924 to 1972. Hoover’s long tenure raised concerns about the concentration of power in the FBI and the potential for abuse. The 10-year term was intended to depoliticize the agency and the director’s role, ensuring that the director would serve beyond a single presidential term and thereby reduce the risk of the position becoming a political tool for the sitting president.

The goal was to give the FBI independence to carry out its duties impartially, particularly in sensitive areas like criminal investigations, counterterrorism, and counterintelligence, where political interference could compromise the integrity of investigations. The 10-year term was also seen as a safeguard against any undue influence over federal law enforcement, ensuring that directors could not easily be fired for investigating political allies or enemies of the president.

What it means

Under the Project 2025 proposal, the FBI Director would no longer serve a fixed term but could be removed by the president without restriction.

Conservatives in favor of this argue that the FBI has become too independent, with its leadership too insulated from executive oversight. They argue the FBI should be more accountable to the president; the chief executive responsible for overseeing all federal agencies. They also argue that allowing the president to dismiss the FBI director at will would ensure that the bureau remains aligned with the current administration’s priorities and prevent the entrenchment of unelected, potentially partisan bureaucrats who can undermine the elected government’s agenda.

The flip side to this argument is that abolishing the 10-year term would significantly weaken the independence of the FBI and increase the potential for the politicization of law enforcement. Allowing the sitting president to fire the FBI Director at will would open the door for presidents to remove directors for investigating political allies or remove them for refusing to investigate political opponents. Granted, the president can currently fire the FBI Director (see James Comey), but it’s worth pointing out that having a defined term for the Director has functioned as a buffer against this. Presidents have never considered firing the FBI Director for…whatever they don’t like. They must present a valid reason. Project 2025 proposes to radically change this.

Opponents of the Project would point out that the 10-year term was specifically designed to prevent any one president from having too much influence over the FBI. By allowing directors to serve beyond a single administration, the 10-year term ensures that the bureau remains stable and can pursue long-term investigations without fear of political interference or retribution. Removing the term limit could disrupt ongoing investigations and lead to constant turnover in FBI leadership, reducing the bureau’s effectiveness and ability to fulfill its congressional mandate.

Considerations

Now, maybe you’re in the camp that agrees with Project 2025’s idea that making the FBI conform more to the political will of the sitting President is a good thing. For you, I would point this out: Yes, we’ve had an awful lot going on in the last x years concerning the previous Trump administration. So much that it all seems to run together. But we need to take a step back and remember that Donald Trump, on numerous occasions, attempted to use the FBI as a tool against his political opponents. He allegedly pushed the FBI and the Department of Justice (DOJ) to investigate claims of “widespread voter fraud” after the 2020 election that had no real factual basis. He reportedly asked the DOJ to “just say the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the Republican congressmen,” which was seen as a way to lend credibility to his efforts to challenge the election results.

One of the key reasons our country didn’t descend into an all-out constitutional crisis was that the FBI Director and his key personnel knew what Trump was telling them to do wasn’t something the FBI should do. So, they refused. Trump still could have fired them, but knowing a key position like FBI Director is for a defined term is a check that makes one less likely to simply fire someone at will for whatever they don’t like about them. Think about the alternative universe where Trump had installed someone who understood they could be fired at will. How might history have been different?

It’s troubling to think about.

About Post Author