Additionally, the plan advocates for judicial review mechanisms that make it easier to challenge agency overreach in court, potentially overturning precedents like Chevron deference that have traditionally given agencies wide latitude in interpreting statutes.

The blueprint also endorses stronger Congressional oversight committees with enhanced subpoena powers and resources to investigate agency actions, along with reforms to the appropriations process to give lawmakers more specific control over how agencies spend their budgets.

The approach would target specific agencies like the Department of Education, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and aspects of the EPA where conservatives believe federal overreach has been most pronounced. It also proposes returning many federal powers to states through block grants or outright devolution of authority.

The blueprint outlines specific measures to increase citizen participation in governance, including expanded notice-and-comment periods for proposed rules, public forums in affected communities, and mechanisms for citizens to petition for review of burdensome regulations. By shifting power from unelected bureaucrats to elected representatives and ultimately to the people themselves, the plan aims to realign government with constitutional principles of popular sovereignty.

A significant aspect of reclaimed executive power involves reforming institutions like the Justice Department. Project 2025 argues that agencies such as the DOJ and FBI have been "weaponized" against conservatives or used in partisan ways. The blueprint contends that these agencies have strayed from their core missions and become politicized, citing examples like investigations of parents at school board meetings and targeting of religious organizations.

One of the blueprint's headline recommendations is to "restore the integrity" of DOJ by giving the FBI a hard reset. This involves a comprehensive review of all ongoing investigations with political dimensions, reassigning personnel who have demonstrated political bias, and potentially restructuring key divisions. The plan calls for bringing the agency back to its original crime-fighting mission rather than what Project 2025 describes as "political policing."

In practice, this could mean leadership changes, internal reorganization, and new oversight mechanisms to ensure the FBI and DOJ enforce laws impartially and focus on crime, not political targets. The blueprint calls for appointing officials committed to reform, establishing independent accountability offices within agencies, implementing strict protocols for politically sensitive cases, and creating new safeguards against selective prosecution. It also recommends reviewing and potentially reversing recent hiring practices.

By exerting strong top-down control, the President would increase accountability at these agencies. The Heritage blueprint positions such changes as necessary to rebuild trust and to "de-weaponize the federal government," preventing agencies from acting as power centers unto themselves. Project 2025 emphasizes that rebuilding public confidence requires transparency about past abuses, clear metrics for measuring impartial enforcement, and consistent application of the law regardless of political affiliation. The plan suggests regular reporting to Congress and the public on reform progress.

Consistent with its governance philosophy, Project 2025 calls for a smaller federal role in the economy. This means streamlining or privatizing programs and agencies that conservatives view as inefficient or outside the proper scope of government. The plan seeks to reduce bureaucratic overhead and return economic decision-making to individuals and businesses.

For example, the blueprint recommends abolishing the Export-Import Bank, contending that government should not be in the business of subsidizing private exporters. Critics argue the bank primarily benefits large corporations at taxpayer expense, creating market distortions and potential moral hazards through government-backed loans.

It also critiques the Federal Reserve's expansive interventions; while not abolishing the Fed, it suggests refocusing the central bank strictly on controlling inflation (and staying out of fiscal or social policymaking). The plan advocates for more predictable monetary policy and less emergency market intervention, aiming to reduce economic dependency on central bank actions.

By shrinking bureaucratic influence over markets and allocating resources through private sector mechanisms, Heritage envisions revitalizing free enterprise. This approach aims to unleash innovation, encourage entrepreneurship, and create a more dynamic economic environment where businesses can thrive without excessive regulatory burden or government competition.

Project 2025 also proposes significant reforms to welfare and entitlement programs, advocating for work requirements and more stringent eligibility criteria. The plan emphasizes personal responsibility and suggests redirecting social support through community organizations and faith-based institutions rather than federal agencies.

The blueprint emphasizes returning economic authority to states and localities whenever possible. This federalist approach would allow for policy experimentation and regional adaptation, while reducing the concentration of economic decision-making power in Washington DC and unelected bureaucrats.

Project 2025 pointedly targets progressive social policies related to gender and sexuality, seeking to reverse them. A vivid example is the pledge to "ban biological males from competing in women's sports." The initiative argues that these protections are necessary to maintain competitive fairness and preserve opportunities for female athletes. Supporters cite examples of transgender athletes breaking women's records in various sports as evidence of biological advantages that they believe compromise the integrity of women's athletics.

This reflects a broader intention to define sex based on biology in federal policy and to eliminate what conservatives see as unfair advantages or erosion of women's rights under transgender-inclusive rules. The blueprint explicitly calls for government agencies to use biological sex, not gender identity, as the defining characteristic in all federal programs and policies. This would impact everything from data collection to healthcare policy, reestablishing what proponents call "scientific" and "objective" standards for sex-based classifications.

The agenda would likely roll back Obama/Biden-era interpretations of Title IX and other civil rights laws that extended protections to gender identity, and instead enforce traditional sex distinctions in athletics, prisons, shelters, and other contexts. Project 2025 specifically targets the Biden administration's proposed Title IX regulations, which expanded the definition of "sex" to include gender identity. The blueprint argues that these interpretations exceeded statutory authority and undermined the original purpose of Title IX, which was to create equal opportunities for women and girls in education and sports.

Likewise, the project opposes "gender ideology" being promoted to minors; one can expect efforts to halt federal support for gender transition procedures for youth (sometimes termed "gender affirming care") and to possibly incentivize states to limit such practices. The document characterizes these medical interventions as "experimental" and potentially harmful, calling for federal research into long-term outcomes. Additionally, Project 2025 advocates for parental notification requirements in schools regarding any discussions of gender identity issues, and opposes curricula that teach gender fluidity concepts to young children, arguing these decisions should rest with families rather than educators.

The regulatory rollback also has a civil liberties component. Heritage argues that many recent regulations – in areas like education, health, housing, and tech – enforce a left-wing social agenda (for instance, compelling speech or mandating DEI practices). This approach contends that federal agencies have overstepped their bounds by implementing policies without proper legislative authorization, effectively bypassing Congress and democratic processes. Critics particularly highlight regulations from the Department of Education, Health and Human Services, and various workplace standards that they believe impinge on personal freedoms and traditional values.

Project 2025's end goal is to remove politicized mandates from federal rules, thereby "eliminating woke propaganda at every level of government." The blueprint aims to purge what it characterizes as ideological overreach from agency guidelines, training materials, and enforcement priorities. This would involve comprehensive reviews of existing regulatory frameworks to identify and eliminate provisions deemed to advance partisan agendas rather than serving legitimate government interests. Supporters argue this would restore neutrality to government operations and prevent the use of administrative power to reshape cultural norms.

This could involve rescinding rules that require schools to adopt gender identity policies, or that pressure businesses into diversity quotas, etc. Simultaneously, the project favors regulations that protect individual rights such as religious liberty, free speech (especially on campuses and online), and the right to bear arms – and it would seek to nullify any regulations seen as infringing on those rights. The approach prioritizes constitutional protections for conscience rights, parental authority in education, and voluntary association. It would likely lead to new guidance documents reinforcing First and Second Amendment protections while dismantling administrative interpretations that expand protected categories beyond clear statutory language. Religious exemptions would receive particularly strong emphasis across healthcare, education, and employment contexts.

In the economic realm, the ideal is a regulatory environment where free-market competition thrives; thus, rules that create unfair advantages, entrench big government, or enable corporate welfare are targeted for elimination. Project 2025 advocates for removing barriers to entry for small businesses, scaling back licensing requirements deemed excessive, and ending subsidies that distort market outcomes. The plan would scrutinize regulatory frameworks that benefit established industry players at the expense of innovation and new market entrants. Environmental and labor regulations would be evaluated primarily through economic impact analyses, with costs to businesses and consumers weighed heavily against claimed benefits. The underlying philosophy holds that market forces, rather than government expertise, should determine winners and losers in most economic domains.

Even where entire agencies aren't eliminated, the Project 2025 blueprint goes line-by-line through federal departments to identify sub-offices to cut. The mandate given is to "close wasteful and corrupt bureaus and offices." This meticulous approach involves scrutinizing budgets, staffing levels, and program outcomes across all federal entities to identify redundancies and inefficiencies. The blueprint designates special review committees tasked with evaluating each office's alignment with constitutional principles and core governmental functions.

Many offices created in recent years to address progressive priorities would likely be dismantled – for example, the White House Gender Policy Council (established under President Biden) is a likely candidate for elimination, as conservative leaders like Russell Vought (a Project 2025 contributor) have explicitly called for its abolishment. Other potential targets include the Office of Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility at OPM, various environmental justice offices established across agencies, and newly created positions focused on implementing progressive social policies. The blueprint argues these offices expand government beyond its proper constitutional scope and impose ideological perspectives on federal operations.

Offices focused on climate change, diversity initiatives, or globalism in various agencies could also face the axe. The intent is to trim the bureaucracy not just at the top level, but deep within departments, removing programs that are seen as partisan or non-essential. This includes climate-focused positions within the Department of Defense, international climate finance programs at Treasury, DEI training programs across agencies, and offices coordinating with international organizations on global governance issues. Project 2025 authors argue these functions distract from core missions, create regulatory burdens on the economy, and advance contested ideological positions through administrative action rather than legislation.

By the end of a Project 2025-influenced term, the federal organizational chart would be leaner, with fewer offices and layers, ideally improving efficiency and saving taxpayer dollars. The blueprint estimates potential savings in the billions through elimination of duplicative functions and reduction in federal workforce size. Performance metrics would focus on core service delivery rather than process compliance or ideological goals. This restructuring would emphasize clear chains of command with fewer intermediary offices between department leadership and frontline operations. Proponents argue this streamlining would make government more responsive to political leadership and reduce the power of what they term the "administrative state" to operate independently from elected officials.

A vivid example of Project 2025's gender policy is the pledge to "ban biological males from competing in women's sports." This reflects a broader intention to define sex based on biology in federal policy. The initiative argues that biological differences in strength, speed, and physiology create competitive advantages that cannot be mitigated by hormone therapy. Supporters point to examples where transgender athletes have broken women's records or dominated competitions as evidence for the necessity of such policies.

The agenda would likely roll back Obama/Biden-era interpretations of Title IX and other civil rights laws that extended protections to gender identity, and instead enforce traditional sex distinctions in athletics, prisons, shelters, and other contexts. Project 2025 advocates cite concerns about privacy, safety, and fairness as justifications for reverting to biological sex-based policies. This would affect educational institutions, federally-funded programs, and potentially reshape how complaints of discrimination are handled across multiple agencies.

The project opposes "gender ideology" being promoted to minors; one can expect efforts to halt federal support for gender transition procedures for youth and to possibly incentivize states to limit such practices. Project 2025 expresses particular concern about puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgical interventions for minors, which it characterizes as experimental and potentially harmful. The initiative would likely support research highlighting detransition stories and potential long-term health consequences while restricting federal funding for gender-affirming care organizations.

Project 2025 would likely implement policies that recognize biological sex rather than gender identity across federal programs, from healthcare to housing to education. This approach would affect everything from data collection and demographic tracking to bathroom policies in federal buildings. The initiative argues that biological sex is immutable and that government policy should reflect this reality. Administrative changes could include revising forms and documentation requirements across federal agencies, potentially requiring identification based on biological sex at birth rather than gender identity.

Project 2025 suggests significant changes to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) – an agency long criticized by conservatives as unaccountable. This could involve subjecting it to congressional appropriations or even eliminating it if possible. The blueprint argues that the CFPB's current structure, with a single director removable only for cause and funding outside the congressional appropriations process, violates constitutional separation of powers principles. Critics point to the agency's broad regulatory reach across mortgages, credit cards, and other financial products as having increased compliance costs without proportional consumer benefits.

The blueprint critiques the Federal Reserve's expansive interventions; while not abolishing the Fed, it suggests refocusing the central bank strictly on controlling inflation and staying out of fiscal or social policymaking. Project 2025 advocates for more predictable monetary policy based on clear rules rather than discretionary decision-making, which they argue creates market uncertainty. The initiative also questions the Fed's expanded balance sheet and involvement in credit allocation, suggesting these actions exceed its statutory mandate and distort market signals. A potential recommendation includes enhanced oversight and transparency requirements for Federal Reserve operations.

Project 2025 opposes the use of ESG (environmental, social, governance) criteria in federal investment or contracting, viewing these as politically motivated rather than financially sound considerations. The blueprint contends that government fiduciaries should focus exclusively on financial returns rather than advancing social or environmental goals through investment decisions. It particularly targets Labor Department rules allowing retirement plan fiduciaries to consider ESG factors and SEC disclosure requirements related to climate risks. Project 2025 would likely seek to prohibit federal pension funds from considering non-financial factors and reverse regulations that encourage or mandate ESG disclosures by public companies.

The initiative calls for simplifying financial regulations to reduce compliance costs for banks and financial institutions, particularly smaller community banks that conservatives argue have been disproportionately burdened. Project 2025 suggests a comprehensive review of post-2008 financial regulations, including Dodd-Frank provisions, with an eye toward eliminating duplicative or excessive requirements. The blueprint advocates for tailoring regulations based on institution size and risk profile rather than one-size-fits-all approaches. It also promotes principles-based regulation over prescriptive rules and calls for cost-benefit analysis for all new financial regulations. These reforms aim to increase credit availability while maintaining system stability without micromanaging financial institutions.

Project 2025 seeks to roll back labor regulations that conservatives view as burdensome to businesses, particularly small businesses. This includes reassessing rules on overtime, worker classification, and workplace requirements. The initiative argues that excessive regulation increases compliance costs, stifles job creation, and hampers economic growth. Specific targets include reviewing OSHA requirements, simplifying reporting procedures, and creating exemptions for small businesses with limited resources to navigate complex regulatory frameworks.

The blueprint likely includes increased oversight of labor unions, potentially revisiting reporting requirements and election procedures to ensure transparency and member rights. Project 2025 calls for strengthening financial disclosure requirements for unions and enforcing existing laws regarding the use of member dues. The plan also proposes reforms to the National Labor Relations Board to balance what conservatives see as pro-union bias in current administrative procedures, while maintaining protections for legitimate collective bargaining activities.

Project 2025 emphasizes skills-based training and apprenticeships over traditional four-year college degrees, seeking to align workforce development with actual job market needs. The initiative advocates redirecting federal education funding toward vocational training programs, industry partnerships, and certification pathways. By promoting alternative education models, the plan aims to address skills gaps in trades, manufacturing, and technology sectors while reducing student debt burdens associated with degrees that may not lead directly to employment. The proposal includes tax incentives for businesses that create apprenticeship opportunities.

The initiative supports merit-based employment systems rather than diversity quotas or identity-based hiring practices in both government and the private sector. Project 2025 calls for evaluating federal hiring practices to prioritize qualifications, experience, and demonstrated performance over demographic considerations. The plan proposes reviewing existing Equal Employment Opportunity Commission guidelines and enforcement priorities to focus on preventing actual discrimination while avoiding policies that create de facto quotas. It argues that merit-based approaches ultimately benefit all workers by creating more efficient workplaces and rewarding excellence regardless of background.

Project 2025 emphasizes the importance of appointing judges who adhere to originalist and textualist interpretations of the Constitution and laws, continuing the conservative legal movement's long-term strategy. The blueprint calls for rigorous vetting to ensure nominees have demonstrated commitment to constitutional principles rather than progressive activism. It likely includes plans for rapidly filling vacancies across district and appellate courts while developing a pipeline of qualified conservative jurists for future consideration.

The blueprint likely supports judicial doctrines that limit administrative agency power, such as curtailing Chevron deference (which gives agencies broad latitude to interpret ambiguous statutes). Project 2025 advocates for stronger judicial review of agency actions, potentially seeking to revive the major questions doctrine and nondelegation principles to constrain executive branch rulemaking. The initiative aims to restore legislative authority to Congress while preventing bureaucratic overreach through judicial checks on regulatory expansion.

Project 2025 prioritizes judges who will protect constitutional rights as traditionally understood, particularly religious liberty, free speech, and Second Amendment rights. The initiative likely emphasizes rolling back perceived judicial activism in areas like substantive due process while strengthening protections for religious expression in the public square. The blueprint may include strategies for litigation that would cement recent Supreme Court victories on gun rights and religious freedom while challenging progressive interpretations of equal protection and privacy rights.

The initiative calls for the Department of Justice to take litigation positions that advance conservative legal principles, reversing the Biden administration's approaches in key areas. Project 2025 likely prioritizes realigning DOJ amicus briefs with traditional interpretations of civil rights laws, withdrawing from consent decrees that conservatives view as federal overreach, and defending state prerogatives in areas like election administration and immigration enforcement. The blueprint may also include restructuring DOJ's Civil Rights Division to focus on religious liberty cases and traditional anti-discrimination enforcement rather than equity-based initiatives.