As of October 2025, the MAGA movement articulates a fundamental reimagining of presidential authority grounded in unitary executive theory, with Trump himself declaring “I have an Article II, where I have the right to do whatever I want as president.” This vision diverges sharply from traditional conservative constitutionalism, justified through claims of restoring the Founders’ intent, combating a “deep state,” and responding to alleged Democratic weaponization of government. Most strikingly, grassroots supporters overwhelmingly trust Trump personally to wield expanded powers while showing minimal concern about future Democratic presidents inheriting the same authorities.
The movement’s constitutional arguments rest on sophisticated legal theories developed over decades by conservative institutions like the Heritage Foundation and Federalist Society, yet implementation reveals significant tensions. While 78% of strong Republican voters believe Trump could address problems more effectively without checks and balances, polls simultaneously show 60% oppose actually replacing career civil servants with political appointees— suggesting a gap between rhetoric supporting strongman leadership and comfort with specific institutional upheaval. This paradox runs throughout MAGA constitutional thinking: simultaneous invocation of Constitutional devotion and impatience with constitutional constraints.
Trump’s maximalist vision of Article II authority
Donald Trump articulates the most expansive view of presidential power, consistently claiming that Article II grants him near-plenary authority over the executive branch. His June 2023 video statement on impoundment represents his most detailed constitutional articulation: “For 200 years under our system of government, it was undisputed that the President had the Constitutional power to stop unnecessary spending through what is known as Impoundment.” He characterized the 1974 Impoundment Control Act as “clearly unconstitutional—a blatant violation of the separation of powers” and promised to “use the president’s long-recognized Impoundment Power to squeeze the bloated federal bureaucracy for massive savings.”
Trump frames expanded executive authority as necessary to “obliterate the Deep State, Drain the Swamp, and starve the Warmongers.” His rhetoric consistently personalizes presidential power rather than treating it as institutional. After winning the 2024 election, he declared that God “spared my life for a reason. And that reason was to save our country and to restore America to greatness.” This messianic framing places his actions above normal constitutional constraints—he’s not expanding power but fulfilling a divine mission.
On Senate confirmation, Trump demanded in November 2024 that Republican Senate leadership candidates “agree to Recess Appointments (in the Senate!), without which we will not be able to get people confirmed in a timely manner. Sometimes the votes can take two years, or more.” This represents an unprecedented demand that the Senate surrender its advice-and-consent role. Trump has not ruled out invoking Article II, Section 3 to force Congress into recess—a power never before used in American history—to enable appointments without Senate involvement.
Regarding presidential immunity, Trump’s lawyers argued before the Supreme Court that presidents cannot be prosecuted for official acts unless first impeached and convicted by Congress. After the Court’s July 2024 ruling granting broad immunity, Trump treated it as vindication of his maximalist view. In a February 2025 NBC interview, when asked if he has a duty to uphold the Constitution, Trump responded: “I don’t know. I’m not a lawyer. I don’t know.” This startling admission reveals his approach prioritizes personal authority over constitutional fidelity.
Trump’s “10-Point Plan to Dismantle the Deep State” articulates systematic expansion of executive control: immediately reissuing his 2020 Executive Order creating Schedule F to reclassify tens of thousands of civil servants as at-will employees; cleaning out “all of the corrupt actors in our National Security and Intelligence apparatus”; establishing a “Truth and Reconciliation Commission” to declassify documents on “Deep State spying”; and moving federal agencies outside Washington. Between January 2023 and April 2024, Trump posted about crushing the “deep state” 56 times on Truth Social, with nine posts laying out specific implementation plans.
The evolution from Trump’s campaign to his governance reveals strategic calculation. During October 2024, he distanced himself from Project 2025, claiming ignorance. By October 2025, he openly embraced it, posting on Truth Social about meeting with “Russ Vought, he of PROJECT 2025 Fame, to determine which of the many Democrat Agencies, most of which are a political SCAM, he recommends to be cut.” This shift from denial to embrace suggests his most expansive statements represent genuine governing philosophy rather than mere rhetoric.
MAGA officials balance institutional roles with executive deference
MAGA-aligned elected officials support expanded executive authority while operating within institutional constraints, creating distinct articulations across different contexts. The pattern reveals selective constitutionalism—invoking constitutional arguments to expand executive authority while seeking statutory limits on future Democratic presidents’ actions in specific policy areas.
Congressional MAGA leaders consistently minimize their own institutional role in checking executive power. Senator Tommy Tuberville declared regarding controversial nominations: “President Trump was elected by an enormous vote and he deserves the team around him that he wants. It’s not us to determine that.” This statement explicitly rejects the Senate’s constitutional advice-and-consent responsibility. All three 2024 Republican Senate leadership candidates—John Thune, John Cornyn, and Rick Scott—committed to facilitating recess appointments, representing what Axios characterized as the Senate’s willingness to “surrender its advise-and-consent role for Cabinet confirmations, a key lever in the system of checks and balances.”
Jim Jordan, Matt Gaetz, Andy Biggs, and Mark Meadows urged Trump in February 2019 to bypass congressional appropriations using Title X authority for border wall construction, writing: “We support the President’s prerogative to use federal funds to build a barrier on our southern border, and urge him to take this executive action immediately.” This demonstrates comfort with circumventing Congress’s power of the purse when advancing preferred policies.
Vice President JD Vance embodies the younger generation’s embrace of unitary executive theory. Newsweek analysis noted that “a Vance presidency would, like Trump’s, pursue the centralization of power in the office of the presidency (flowing from ‘unitary executive theory’ and the Project 2025 agenda), which has important implications for the delicate system of checks and balances.” Vance has stated that “judges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power,” reflecting skepticism of judicial oversight.
At the gubernatorial level, Ron DeSantis serves as a laboratory for MAGA executive power expansion. CNN’s analysis described how he “pushed the limits of his executive authority” through actions like stacking New College’s board with political allies, ousting twice-elected prosecutor Andrew Warren for policy disagreements, and calling six special sessions in 2.5 years. CNN characterized a Florida special session as “a public demonstration of his total control over an ostensibly separate branch of government.” In February 2025, DeSantis created a Florida Department of Government Efficiency mirroring the federal model, demonstrating how state-level actions establish templates for federal power expansion.
Russell Vought, Trump’s OMB Director and Project 2025 architect, articulates the sophisticated policy framework underlying these political positions. In Project 2025, he wrote: “A President today assumes office to find a sprawling federal bureaucracy that all too often is carrying out its own policy plans and preferences—or, worse yet, the policy plans and preferences of a radical, supposedly ‘woke’ faction of the country.” Vought argues federal agencies “hold 100 percent of their power at the sufferance of Congress, and their insulation from presidential discipline is an unconstitutional fairy tale spun by the Washington Establishment.”
The constitutional justifications MAGA officials provide emphasize Article II’s Vesting Clause, unitary executive theory, and separation of powers doctrine. They argue Congress cannot intrude on core executive functions, that all executive power vests in the President alone, and that electoral victory provides a mandate justifying expanded authority. However, these officials show limited concern about precedent for future Democratic presidents. Lauren Boebert’s legislation illustrates this asymmetry—her “Protecting American Energy Jobs Act” seeks to “prohibit future unilateral energy and mineral moratoriums by presidents” while simultaneously supporting Trump’s expansive executive authority. This reveals a framework focused on constraining Democratic presidents on specific policies while maximizing Republican presidential power.
Conservative legal scholars provide constitutional architecture
The Heritage Foundation, Federalist Society, Claremont Institute, and scholars including John Yoo and Steven Calabresi have constructed sophisticated constitutional arguments supporting expanded executive power. These institutions transformed what were once heterodox legal theories into mainstream conservative jurisprudence, now reflected in Supreme Court precedent.
Unitary executive theory provides the foundational framework. John Yoo articulates it concisely: “All of the executive power of the federal government is concentrated in the president and the president alone. Everyone else in the executive branch, from cabinet secretary down to FBI agent, is a subordinate to the president.” The theory rests on Article II, Section 1’s statement that “The executive Power shall be vested in a President”— the use of “the” (definite article) suggesting unitary, indivisible authority.
Steven Calabresi and Christopher Yoo’s comprehensive historical study “The Unitary Executive: Presidential Power from Washington to Bush” examined all 43 presidential administrations through Bush, concluding that “all presidents have been committed proponents of the theory of the unitary executive.” Their research argues the Constitution gives the president power to “remove and control all policy-making subordinates in the executive branch.” Calabresi emphasizes this makes presidents more accountable because voters know exactly who is responsible for executive branch actions.
The theory addresses separation of powers concerns by maintaining that other checks remain: Congress retains appropriations power, the Senate must confirm appointees, courts review executive actions for legality, and impeachment remains available. Calabresi cites Federalist No. 51’s principle that “ambition must be made to counteract ambition,” arguing unitary executive fulfills Madison’s vision by aligning one person’s interest with constitutional responsibility. The alternative—diffused executive authority across agencies—creates unaccountable bureaucracy that voters cannot control.
Presidential immunity arguments received major vindication in Trump v. United States (July 2024).The Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision established that presidents have absolute immunity for acts within core constitutional powers, presumptive immunity for official acts within the “outer perimeter” of official responsibility, and no immunity for unofficial acts. Chief Justice Roberts wrote that without immunity, the president’s “decisionmaking is distorted by the threat of future litigation” and cited “the sheer prominence of [the] office” creating risks of politically motivated prosecution.
John Yoo defends immunity by citing President Obama’s drone strike killing American citizen Anwar al-Awlaki, arguing: “It is conceivable that President Obama might have hesitated to order such an attack if he knew he might be criminally prosecuted for doing so.” Yoo contends immunity enables decisive action for the public good without paralyzing fear of prosecution. Conservative scholars distinguish this from authoritarianism by noting immunity applies only to official acts, impeachment remains available, and criminal prosecution remains possible for unofficial conduct.
Impoundment authority arguments challenge Congress’s power of the purse. Project 2025 explicitly advocates that “The President should use every possible tool to propose and impose fiscal discipline on the federal government. Anything short of that would constitute abject failure.” Russell Vought’s Center for Renewing America published analysis concluding that “the loss of impoundment authority, which 200 years of presidents enjoyed, was the original sin in eliminating the ability from a branch on branch to control spending.”
Conservative scholars argue the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 unconstitutionally infringes on executive power. Their constitutional arguments include: (1) Article II’s Vesting Clause grants executive discretion over execution of appropriations; (2) the Take Care Clause duty to “faithfully execute” laws includes judgment about how and when to spend; (3) separation of powers prevents Congress from forcing the president to spend money in ways undermining executive authority; and (4) appropriations set ceilings, not mandatory floors. They cite Jefferson’s 1803 decision not to spend $50,000 on gunboats as establishing 200 years of precedent. Professor Josh Blackman notes the current Supreme Court’s receptivity: “Chief Justice John Roberts worked in the Reagan White House. And I think he’d be very sympathetic to the arguments that were so influential in his earlier career.”
Historical precedents consistently invoked include the Founders, especially Hamilton’s Federalist Papers. Federalist No. 70 emphasized “energy in the executive is a leading character in the definition of good government,” arguing a single executive provides “decision, activity, secrecy, and dispatch” while divided authority undermines accountability. Conservatives cite the “Decision of 1789” when the First Congress concluded presidents could remove cabinet officers at will. They reference Andrew Jackson’s assertion of presidential supremacy over executive matters, Lincoln’s expansive war powers, and Ronald Reagan’s development of modern unitary executive theory in the 1980s.
The Claremont Institute argues in briefs that the Founders “designed a unitary executive and conferred upon the office the entire ‘executive power’ of the United States of America, including ‘Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy.’” They emphasize the Constitutional Convention’s conscious rejection of a plural executive, executive council, or parliamentary model in favor of concentrated authority in one person.
Conservative scholars reconcile expanded executive power with constitutional conservatism by claiming restoration rather than innovation. John Yoo’s book “Defender in Chief” argues: “Donald Trump isn’t shredding the Constitution—he’s its greatest defender… Trump may be an unlikely constitutionalist, but he certainly has done more than recent presidents in restoring executive powers as originally envisioned by the Founders from insidious encroachment by a progressive Congress and courts.”
This “Progressive usurpation” narrative holds that post-New Deal developments wrongly created “independent” agencies insulated from presidential control, delegated legislative power to unelected bureaucrats, and empowered civil service protections shielding “the Resistance.” From this view, unitary executive theory doesn’t expand power but reverses Progressive Era innovations to restore the Founders’ design. Project 2025’s Kevin Roberts describes the problem as “cultural Marxism through our institutions” requiring restoration of constitutional structure.
Judge Raymond Kethledge at the 2024 Federalist Society National Student Symposium distinguished rule of law from authoritarianism: “The rule of law is a condition in which the state may coerce the individual only in the enforcement of a known rule that applies equally to everyone,” while authoritarianism is “coercion by will” where “political opponents may fall out of windows or be gunned down in the street.” Conservatives argue unitary executive differs because: the president remains bound by law, courts retain judicial review, regular elections occur every four years with term limits, impeachment provides accountability, and executive authority remains limited to enumerated powers.
On future Democratic presidents, conservative scholars acknowledge but minimize concerns. They argue originalist interpretation constrains all presidents regardless of party, Democrats already push boundaries (citing Obama executive actions and Biden mandates), and conservative presidents prove more respectful of constitutional limits. Steven Calabresi contends unitary executive makes presidents more accountable to voters through elections, applying equally to both parties. However, Project 2025 does not directly address this concern, instead focusing on immediate agenda for “the next conservative President” and 180-day transformation goals—suggesting the movement prioritizes advancing their vision over concerns about reciprocal Democratic use.
Grassroots supporters trust Trump personally over institutional constraints
Polling and focus groups reveal grassroots MAGA supporters exhibit complex, internally divided views characterized by deep institutional distrust, personal faith in Trump, and minimal concern about precedent for future Democratic presidents. The data shows majority support for significant executive overreach combined with surprising resistance to specific institutional changes.
Pew Research Center’s September 2024 survey found 58% of Trump supporters said acceptable for him to use executive orders to bypass Congress, and 54% said acceptable to order federal law enforcement to investigate Democratic political opponents. However, the same poll showed 58% said it would be unacceptable to fire government workers for loyalty, and 57% said unacceptable to pardon friends or supporters convicted of crimes. This reveals supporters prepared to accept bypassing Congress but drawing lines at personal loyalty tests and crony pardons.
A Wall Street Journal poll in January 2025 characterized voters as wanting “MAGA lite, rather than extra-strength MAGA.” Only 18% would give Trump authority to overrule Congress on spending, and 60% oppose replacing career civil servants with Trump loyalists. Trump voter Staci White expressed buyer’s remorse: “When we said safer borders, I thought he was thinking ‘let’s stop the drugs from coming into the country.’ I didn’t know he was going to start raiding places.” This suggests many supporters want change but not institutional overthrow.
Yet Pew Research from January-February 2025 found that 78% of strong GOP identifiers believe the nation’s problems could be more effectively addressed by giving Trump more power without checks and balances. This represents a stark contradiction—simultaneous support for strongman efficiency and resistance to specific power grabs. An Issue One/YouGov poll from August 2025 showed 57% of Republicans prefer candidates who respect institutions over ignoring the Constitution, but a significant 21% of Republicans worried Trump was going too far.
Frank Luntz’s 2015 focus group captured grassroots attitudes toward Congress. Asked to describe Congress in one word, 29 Trump supporters offered: “Does nothing,” “Useless,” “Lame,” “Inept,” “Sold out,” “Sucks,” and “Douchebags.” Asked to describe Trump, they said: “Tough,” “Businessman,” “Leader,” “Has guts,” “Charismatic,” and “Kicks ass and takes names.” Luntz’s assessment: “Donald Trump is punishment to a Republican elite that wasn’t listening to their grassroots.”
An Axios Arizona focus group of 11 swing voters who switched from Biden to Trump found all 11 approved of Trump’s aggressive use of executive power and rejected constitutional concerns as “fearmongering.” Courtney L., 34, articulated the tension: “I agree we need the Constitution and we need rules and procedures. But at the same time, how are we going to make big changes? If someone like Trump [is] being unconventional, we need him to be doing these things, to be making these executive orders and making these big changes for big changes to happen.”
Jonas G., 55, said: “I like how he’s cleaning house in the government.” When asked about Trump potentially rejecting a Supreme Court decision, he responded: “That wouldn’t happen. I’m not even thinking about it.” Ann B., 54, explained her support: “I approve because I believe he’s transparent, and we haven’t had that for the last four years.”
Wall Street Journal focus groups in 2025 revealed the “method to his madness” logic among supporters: “I always tell people: I don’t have to worry about anything because he’s got it.” Another stated: “Somebody has to come in and break things apart a little.” A third declared: “He’s the only president who has the balls to do it, whether it pees in your Cheerios or not. I absolutely trust him.”
Deep state beliefs centrally organize grassroots constitutional thinking. Trump’s March 2023 Waco rally declaration resonated: “Either the deep state destroys America, or we destroy the deep state.” Supporters view executive power expansion not as overreach but as necessary to combat entrenched bureaucracy working against elected leadership. A Detroit News report found supporters expressing frustration that Trump hasn’t gone far enough in exposing “deep state” conspiracies, with conservative commentator Damani Felder noting: “People are tired of not knowing. We actually demand answers and real transparency.”
Grassroots supporters articulate several frameworks reconciling expanded executive power with constitutional conservatism:
The “constitutional crisis” justification holds that the Constitution has already been violated by the “deep state,” Democrats, and previous administrations, so Trump restores constitutional order rather than violating it. In February 2025, Trump promoted the phrase “He who saves his Country does not violate any Law,” crystallizing this logic.
The “popular sovereignty” argument emphasizes Trump’s electoral mandate. As the Arizona focus group participant asked: “How are we going to make big changes?” if constrained by “outdated rules.” Trump won both popular vote and electoral college, suggesting the people’s will should supersede institutional constraints.
The “emergency” logic frames the country as in crisis requiring extraordinary measures. Focus group participants expressed views that “Right now is not good for middle-class or just-starting-out people. Things are not good. So somebody has to come in and break things apart a little.” When stakes are existential, normal rules become luxuries the nation cannot afford.
Personal trust in Trump provides the ultimate reconciliation mechanism. Supporters believe “there’s a method to his madness” and “I don’t have to worry about anything because he’s got it.” This trust overrides institutional concerns—if Trump does something that appears constitutionally problematic, supporters assume it serves a higher purpose they may not fully understand.
Concerns about future Democratic presidents remain strikingly absent from grassroots discourse.No major polling specifically asked Trump supporters whether they worry about Democratic presidents using the same expanded powers. A PRRI survey found 27% of Republicans support amending the Constitution to allow more than two terms, suggesting openness to permanent Republican presidency rather than reciprocal power-sharing. The limited evidence indicates supporters don’t see this as reciprocal—they believe they’re correcting an aberration, not creating precedent.
A Quinnipiac poll from February 2025 found 59% said the system of checks and balances “not working well,” but this represents bipartisan concern for different reasons. Trump opponents worry about insufficient constraints on executive power; Trump supporters believe constraints prevent necessary action. An Elon University poll from April 2025 showed internal Republican division: 47% believe Trump’s executive orders have gone too far, and 46% believe the executive branch has too much power. Only 40% of Republicans thought the executive should ignore court rulings, and 52% thought the judiciary had the right amount of power. This suggests a meaningful minority (20-40% of Republicans) still prioritize constitutional limits.
Veterans rarely address the oath-to-Constitution tension
The most striking finding regarding MAGA-aligned military veterans is the near-complete absence of statements reconciling expanded executive power with their oath to “support and defend the Constitution.” This contrasts sharply with anti-Trump veterans who extensively invoke constitutional oaths when opposing Trump’s actions, making the silence from MAGA veterans notable.
Pete Hegseth, as Secretary of Defense and the most prominent MAGA veteran, exemplifies this gap.During March 2025 Senate testimony, when Senator Tammy Baldwin asked Hegseth to cite the constitutional provision authorizing deploying Marines to Los Angeles, Hegseth replied: “I’d have to pull up the specific provision.” This inability to articulate constitutional authority while advocating expansive executive power reveals reliance on talking points rather than constitutional analysis.
Hegseth has supported “overbroad claims of presidential authority to use lethal force without congressional authorization” according to ACLU analysis. He told senators he wants Pentagon lawyers who give “sound constitutional advice” rather than create “roadblocks to anything”—framing legal constraints as obstacles rather than constitutional requirements. Hegseth encouraged Trump to pardon servicemembers convicted of war crimes, disregarding objections from senior defense officials who cited rule of law concerns. Pentagon officials under Hegseth claimed in September 2025 that “the president has the inherent authority, under Article II of the Constitution” for military strikes without congressional notification, yet refused to explain the specific legal authority.
Despite his military background and oath as an Army National Guard officer, Hegseth has made no public statements addressing how his positions align with his constitutional oath. This pattern—advocating expansive executive authority while avoiding discussion of constitutional limits—characterizes MAGA veteran discourse.
Representative Derrick Van Orden, a 26-year Navy SEAL veteran, published a May 2024 op-ed supporting Trump that focused entirely on VA accountability and veteran suicide prevention. His statement praised “President Trump’s record of support for our veterans and military families” but included no discussion of executive power, separation of powers, or constitutional limits. Scott O’Grady, co-chair of Veterans for Trump, invoked the oath on Veterans Day 2020, praising “those who raise their right hand, taking an oath to defend this great nation from all enemies, both foreign and domestic,” but did not address how Trump’s executive actions relate to constitutional constraints.
Representative Dan Crenshaw, a Navy SEAL veteran who lost his right eye in Afghanistan, represents a mixed position. After January 6, 2021, Crenshaw signed a statement criticizing Trump’s “demonstrably unconstitutional idea that the Vice President has unilateral authority to ignore the sole slate of electors sent to Congress.” Yet Crenshaw also signed the Texas amicus brief seeking to overturn 2020 election results in key states and generally votes with Trump’s agenda (90.8% alignment). The Washington Post characterized his “have-it-both-ways approach.” While Crenshaw acknowledges constitutional limits exist, he has not explained how he reconciles general support for Trump with recognition of specific constitutional violations.
Concerned Veterans for America, a conservative veteran organization where Hegseth previously served as leader, focuses its public statements on VA privatization, accountability, and firing poor performers. Available sources contain no statements from CVA addressing executive power, separation of powers, or reconciliation with constitutional oaths. The organization’s November 2024 statement praised Doug Collins for being “vocal about fixing the broken VA health care system and ensuring veterans’ access to choice” but avoided constitutional questions.
The contrast with anti-Trump veteran organizations is stark. Veterans for Responsible Leadership President Bobby R. Jones stated in October 2025: “Every service member takes an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Today, we face a commander-in-chief who is blatantly misusing his authority.” Veterans for Peace Executive Director Michael T. McPhearson argued: “He took the same oath that we took to defend the constitution… He’s abusing the constitution.” Common Defense organizer Jermaine Collins, an Army veteran, declared: “When the military is deployed against its own citizens we don’t call that freedom, we call that authoritarianism.”
Anti-Trump veterans at “No Kings” protests in June and October 2025 extensively discussed oath-to-Constitution obligations. Protest participants stated: “No one, not even a commander-in-chief, is above the Constitution,” “Servicemembers swear loyalty to the Constitution—not any individual,” and “He is truly the biggest domestic enemy that this country has ever faced.” These protests featured veterans prominently, with hundreds of thousands participating and more than 200 partner organizations, yet MAGA veterans remained conspicuously absent from constitutional discourse.
Several explanations for MAGA veterans’ silence are possible. They may frame Trump as defending the Constitution against “deep state” threats, eliminating perceived tension between oath and support. They may prioritize concrete veteran benefits over abstract constitutional questions. They may trust Trump’s actions are constitutional without independent analysis. They may recognize the tension but choose not to address it publicly. Or they may hold expansive views of Article II but avoid articulating them. Regardless of explanation, the result is clear: while anti-Trump veterans make oath-based constitutional arguments central to their opposition, MAGA veterans largely don’t engage with constitutional frameworks in public statements.
Washington Post/Bright Line Watch polling reveals a paradox in Trump supporter perceptions. In September 2017, 56% of Trump supporters said the Constitution effectively limits executive branch power; by July 2018, this increased to 65%. Meanwhile, Trump opponents’ belief that the Constitution limits executive power dropped from 52% to 28%. This suggests Trump supporters increasingly perceive the Constitution as constraining executive power even as Trump expands it—indicating either lack of awareness of expansive actions, viewing Trump as victim of constraints rather than exceeding them, or believing attacks on Trump represent a bigger constitutional threat.
West Point instructors (active duty officers) published a 2024 article emphasizing: “Military Personnel Swear Allegiance to the Constitution and Serve the American People, Not One Leader or Party.” They warned that “The military’s allegiance is to a system of government codified in the Constitution” and “Our oath is to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.” An Army War College analysis noted that 81 military veterans participated in January 6 attack “at odds with the oath they had previously sworn.”
The gap in veteran discourse represents a fundamental divide in how different veteran communities understand their constitutional oath—one side makes it central to political opposition, the other avoids constitutional analysis entirely.
Specific constitutional claims tested through implementation
The Trump administration is systematically testing expansive executive power theories across multiple domains, supported by Supreme Court precedent and aggressive legal arguments that presidential authority overrides congressional and judicial constraints.
Presidential immunity reached its most expansive formulation in Trump v. United States. The July 1, 2024 Supreme Court decision established three tiers: absolute immunity for core constitutional powers (pardon power, command of military, control over Justice Department, removal of executive officers, recognition of foreign governments); presumptive immunity for official acts “within the outer perimeter” of official responsibilities (government must show prosecution poses no “dangers of intrusion” on executive authority); and no immunity for unofficial acts.
Chief Justice Roberts held that for core constitutional powers, “Congress cannot act on, and courts cannot examine, the President’s actions.” The Court specifically granted absolute immunity for Trump’s threats to remove his Acting Attorney General over election investigations, declaring the Executive Branch has “exclusive authority and absolute discretion” to decide which crimes to investigate and prosecute. Roberts ruled that even presidential communications “likely fall comfortably within the outer perimeter” of official responsibilities.
Critically, the Court ruled that evidence of official acts cannot be used even in prosecutions for unofficial acts, preventing prosecutors from asking juries to “probe official acts for which the President is immune.” This evidentiary ruling significantly expands immunity’s practical impact. Justice Sotomayor’s dissent warned: “Whether described as presumptive or absolute, under the majority’s rule, a president’s use of any official power for any purpose, even the most corrupt, is immune from prosecution.”
By 2025, Trump’s lawyers invoked immunity doctrine expansively in multiple contexts. In the Special Counsel Dellinger removal case, DOJ argued that immunity principles mean “Congress cannot act on, and courts cannot examine, the President’s actions on subjects within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority—including ‘the President’s unrestricted power of removal.’” The administration applied immunity reasoning to justify TikTok actions and used it in hush money sentencing arguments. The ruling effectively shields vast swaths of presidential conduct from criminal accountability.
Appointments without Senate confirmation advanced through multiple mechanisms. Trump’s November 2024 demand that Senate leadership candidates “agree to Recess Appointments” represented unprecedented pressure for the Senate to surrender advice-and-consent authority. All three Republican candidates complied, with Senator Josh Hawley declaring the president “has total authority to make recess appointments.” The Supreme Court’s NLRB v. Noel Canning (2014) decision limited recess appointments to recesses of at least 10 days when the Senate is genuinely not in session, but Trump raised the prospect of invoking Article II, Section 3 to force Congressional adjournment—a power never used in American history.
Trump’s January 20, 2025 executive order “Restoring Accountability to Policy-Influencing Positions Within the Federal Workforce” created the most significant mechanism for bypassing Senate confirmation. The order revived Schedule F (renamed “Schedule Policy/Career”), reclassifying an estimated 50,000 federal employees in positions of “confidential, policy-determining, policy-making, or policy-advocating character” as at-will employees without civil service protections. The White House justified this through Article II: “The executive Power shall be vested in a President” and “the Constitution charges the President alone to oversee” the executive branch.
The executive order stated: “Career Federal employees do not exist in a vacuum. They are part of the executive branch, which the Constitution charges the President alone to oversee. Any power they have is delegated by the President, and they must be accountable to the President.” Acting OPM Director Charles Ezell’s memo claimed the president has “constitutional authority to rescind regulations about federal personnel without following the Administrative Procedure Act.” This transforms tens of thousands of positions requiring expertise into political appointments subject to loyalty tests.
The Federal Vacancies Reform Act provides a third mechanism, allowing acting officials for 210 days (extendable to 300+ days). Combined with removal power and immunity, this enables the president to staff agencies with loyalists who may serve nearly two years without Senate confirmation, implementing aggressive policies insulated from congressional oversight.
Impoundment of funds directly challenges Congress’s constitutional power of the purse.Trump’s campaign promise to revive impoundment represented one of his most detailed constitutional arguments. In his June 2023 video, Trump declared the 1974 Impoundment Control Act “clearly unconstitutional—a blatant violation of the separation of powers” and promised to “challenge the Impoundment Control Act in court, and if necessary, get Congress to overturn it.”
Trump’s constitutional theory rests on several claims: Article II’s “Take Care” Clause grants presidents discretion over whether and when to spend appropriated funds; appropriations set ceilings, not mandatory floors; and presidents from Jefferson through Nixon exercised this authority for 200 years. Russell Vought testified to the Senate that the Impoundment Control Act is unconstitutional. OMB General Counsel Mark Paoletta’s memos argued the Act “interferes with the President’s constitutional authority to execute the laws and manage the Executive Branch.”
Trump’s January 2025 executive orders tested impoundment immediately. “Unleashing American Energy” directed agencies to “ immediately pause the disbursement of funds appropriated through the Inflation Reduction Act.” “Reevaluating and Realigning United States Foreign Aid” ordered a 90-day pause on development assistance funds. The administration argued it could use the ICA’s 45-day window for “pocket rescissions” without Congressional approval and that the president has inherent power to refuse spending for policy reasons.
Multiple lower courts ruled Trump administration impoundments violated the ICA. GAO found in May 2025 that Trump “wrongly impounded” infrastructure aid. Georgetown Law’s David Super responded: “If Congress has provided a million dollars for an activity, the president isn’t faithfully executing that law if he fails to spend it.” However, the administration’s strategy appears aimed at Supreme Court review, where Professor Josh Blackman notes conservative justices may be “very sympathetic” given Chief Justice Roberts’s Reagan White House experience.
If the Court accepts impoundment theory, presidents could defund agencies by refusing appropriated money, override Congressional spending priorities, and effectively gain line-item veto power that the Court ruled unconstitutional in 1998. Combined with Schedule F, this would allow presidents to simultaneously control federal personnel and deny them funding—dismantling agencies without legislative action.
Control over the Department of Justice represents perhaps the most consequential expansion of executive authority. The Trump administration asserts complete presidential control over prosecutorial decisions through unitary executive theory. A February 5, 2025 DOJ memo emphasized “prosecutorial discretion boundaries” while asserting the president directs law enforcement priorities, the Attorney General provides “authoritative interpretations of law for the executive branch,” and all DOJ employees must follow presidential directives on charging and enforcement.
Acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove directed dismissal of prosecution against NYC Mayor Eric Adams, demonstrating presidential control over individual cases. The administration claims presidents can direct DOJ to investigate or not investigate particular matters, set guidelines for what crimes to prioritize, direct DOJ position on sentences, and control case dismissals. Federalist Society articles argue ethics rules don’t prevent presidential direction of DOJ because the president is DOJ’s client under DC Rules, executive orders directing the AG are policy guidance rather than interference, and unitary executive means all prosecutorial power flows from the president.
This breaks with post-Watergate norms of DOJ independence, though administration officials note norms aren’t constitutional requirements. The combination of immunity (shielding presidents from prosecution for directing investigations), removal power (firing any official who resists), and claimed authority over prosecutions creates potential for systematic weaponization. When asked by Fox’s Sean Hannity whether he would use power against political opponents as Democrats allegedly did to him, Trump’s December 2023 Univision interview response was revealing: “If I happen to be president and I see somebody who’s doing well and beating me very badly, I say go down and indict them.”
Removal power targeting independent agencies advanced dramatically through Supreme Court decisions and aggressive implementation. The Court’s Seila Law LLC v. CFPB (2020) decision struck down for-cause removal protection for the single-director Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Chief Justice Roberts wrote: “The entire ‘executive Power’ belongs to the President alone” and “his lesser officers must remain accountable to the President, whose authority they wield.” Collins v. Yellen (2021) applied this reasoning to the Federal Housing Finance Agency director.
Trump’s 2025 actions tested whether these precedents extend to multi-member independent agencies. He removed NLRB Chair Gwynne Wilcox, EEOC Commissioners Jocelyn Samuels and Charlotte Burrows, Merit Systems Protection Board member Cathy Harris, FTC Commissioners Rebecca Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya, and Special Counsel Hampton Dellinger—all positions with statutory for-cause removal protections.
Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris sent a February 12, 2025 letter to the Senate stating DOJ determined “certain for-cause removal provisions that apply to members of multi-member regulatory commissions are unconstitutional and that the Department will no longer defend their constitutionality.” This represented an extraordinary announcement that the executive branch would not defend statutes enacted by Congress.
Trump’s February 18, 2025 executive order “Ensuring Accountability for All Agencies” required all agencies (including independent ones) to seek White House approval for regulations and stated that the President and Attorney General are “the sole source of authoritative interpretations of law for the executive branch.” The order prohibited agencies from issuing contradictory legal opinions.
The Supreme Court’s May 22, 2025 stay in Trump v. Wilcox allowing Trump’s removal of NLRB/MSPB members strongly signaled the Court’s direction: “The stay reflects our judgment that the Government is likely to show that both the NLRB and MSPB exercise considerable executive power.” This indicates the Court is moving toward overruling Humphrey’s Executor v. United States (1935), which upheld for-cause removal protections by distinguishing “quasi-legislative” and “quasi-judicial” agencies from purely executive ones. The Trump administration argues all agencies enforcing law exercise executive power and no constitutional basis exists for “independent” agencies.
Control over national security and foreign affairs represents another domain of expanding claims.The administration invokes Commander-in-Chief authority, the Take Care Clause, and statutory authorizations like the Insurrection Act of 1807 to claim broad emergency powers. Stephen Miller stated in 2023 that Trump would immediately mobilize military for immigration enforcement. Hegseth’s Pentagon claimed “the president has the inherent authority, under Article II of the Constitution” for military strikes without congressional notification, refusing to specify which provision grants this authority and simply asserting actions are “completely constitutional.”
At Fort Bragg in June 2025, Trump sought to engage troops in booing former President Biden, described by the NC Newsline as a “deeply troubling break with 250 years of well-established law and tradition.” At Quantico, Trump’s speech emphasized loyalty to him personally, with analysts noting “loyalty to the Constitution was implicitly optional; loyalty to him was emphasized as paramount.”
The judiciary and Congress characterized as obstacles or allies
MAGA movement perspectives on courts and Congress divide sharply between viewing them as obstacles to be overcome or allies to be deployed, with characterizations depending on whether these branches facilitate or constrain executive action.
Congress is uniformly characterized by grassroots supporters as broken, ineffective, and corrupt.Frank Luntz’s focus groups captured supporters describing Congress as “does nothing,” “useless,” “inept,” “sold out,” and “douchebags.” This contempt for the legislative branch pervades MAGA discourse, framing congressional oversight as obstruction rather than legitimate constitutional function. A 2018 focus group across party lines found near-unanimous agreement that the two-party system is “so broken we should seek an alternative.”
Quinnipiac polling from February 2025 found 59% believe the system of checks and balances “not working well,” though this represents bipartisan concern for opposite reasons. Trump opponents worry about insufficient constraints on executive power; MAGA supporters believe constraints prevent necessary action. Pew found that 79% of all voters (including 65% of Republicans) say the primary job of Congress members is to represent constituents rather than agree with the president—yet MAGA congressional members consistently subordinate institutional prerogatives to presidential preferences.
Senator Tommy Tuberville’s statement that Trump “deserves the team around him that he wants” and “it’s not us to determine that” explicitly rejects Senate’s advice-and-consent role. Jim Jordan defended preventing release of the House Ethics Committee report on Matt Gaetz by stating: “It’s my understanding that it’s not supposed to go public. So, if it’s not supposed to under the rules, it shouldn’t go public”—prioritizing procedural protection of Trump’s nominee over transparency and Senate’s need for information.
Project 2025’s analysis of Congress emphasizes presidential supremacy. Russell Vought wrote that “The Administrative State holds 100 percent of its power at the sufferance of Congress, and its insulation from presidential discipline is an unconstitutional fairy tale.” This frames Congress as having created an unconstitutional administrative apparatus that presidents must reclaim control over. The implication is that Congress has forfeited moral authority through delegation to bureaucracy.
The Fulcrum’s 2025 analysis noted: “Project 2025 promotes impoundment to weaken Congress and empower the executive branch. Proving once again that far from being a conservative document, Project 2025 is an extremist plan to disrupt constitutional checks and balances.” Trump’s October 2025 embrace of Project 2025 after campaign denials confirms this institutional vision.
When congressional authority serves MAGA purposes, elected officials invoke it selectively. Josh Hawley and Ted Cruz defended their January 6 objections to electoral votes as “debating matters of great import in the chamber of the United States Senate”—characterizing attempts to overturn election results as legitimate congressional debate. Lauren Boebert’s legislation seeks to “prohibit future unilateral energy and mineral moratoriums by presidents” while supporting Trump’s executive authority, revealing selective invocation of legislative constraints for Democratic presidents only.
The judiciary receives mixed characterization depending on alignment with MAGA objectives.The conservative Supreme Court majority is embraced as validating executive power theories. Trump’s March 2025 congressional address occurred in “a changed Washington from Trump’s first term,” with PBS News noting “the Supreme Court has shifted dramatically rightward, with three Trump-appointed justices, and a majority decision over the summer that granted the president broad immunity from prosecution.” Heritage Foundation praised the immunity decision: “The Supreme Court recognized and breathed life into the important constitutional principle of separation of powers.”
However, Trump has systematically attacked judges who rule against him. He called Judge Gonzalo Curiel biased because “this judge is of Mexican heritage, I’m building a wall.” He labeled Judge James Robart a “so-called judge” after an adverse travel ban ruling. He repeatedly attacked Judge Arthur Engoron on Truth Social during the New York civil fraud trial and stormed out of the courtroom. He attacked Judge Tanya Chutkan handling the DC election case, leading to a gag order.
Trump’s December 2023 Fox News town hall with Hannity produced his “dictator for a day” comment: When asked if he would abuse power, Trump responded: “I’m going to be, you know he keeps, we love this guy, he says, ‘You’re not going to be a dictator, are you?’ I said, ‘No, no, other than day one. We’re closing the border and we’re drilling, drilling, drilling.’ After that I’m not a dictator.” This flippant dismissal of concerns about dictatorship while simultaneously promising to be dictatorial reveals contempt for institutional constraints.
Trump repeatedly threatened to revoke FCC licenses of networks airing coverage he disliked, posting on Truth Social: “Why should NBC, or any of the other corrupt & dishonest media companies, be entitled to use the very valuable Airwaves of the USA, FREE?” After the ABC debate, he declared: “They ought to take away their license for the way they did that.” He promised to “bring the independent regulatory agencies, such as the FCC and the FTC, back under Presidential authority, as the Constitution demands”—conflating independent agencies’ regulatory authority with media licensing to threaten press freedom.
Elon University’s April 2025 poll found only 40% of Republicans think the executive should ignore court rulings, and 52% thought the judiciary had the right amount of power. This suggests meaningful Republican support for judicial constraints remains, creating internal tension within the movement. Vice President JD Vance’s statement that “judges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power” reflects the administration’s position, but it doesn’t command unanimous grassroots support.
Jim Jordan’s “weaponization” hearings characterized DOJ and FBI investigations as political persecution rather than legitimate judicial processes. His question—“Does anyone believe if President Trump wasn’t running for President, that he would be facing four criminal trials?”—frames judicial accountability as political warfare. This rhetoric redefines legitimate prosecution as illegitimate “lawfare,” creating justification for non-compliance with judicial orders.
Trump administration actions in 2025 included continuing enforcement of enjoined executive orders, with judges noting the government may have made “untruthful representations to the court.” Hegseth’s October 2025 Pentagon memo restricted Pentagon officials from engaging with Congress without authorization, undermining congressional oversight. The pattern reveals instrumental views of courts and Congress—embrace when supportive, attack and undermine when constraining.
Project 2025’s institutional vision shows the movement’s direction. The plan calls for controlling the CIA through “firm direction from the President and solid internal CIA Director–appointed leadership. Decisive senior leaders must commit to carrying out the President’s agenda and be willing to take calculated risks.” This characterization minimizes judicial oversight and congressional intelligence committee roles while emphasizing presidential control over intelligence operations.
Washington Post analysis of Trump’s 2025 congressional address noted: “Trump has done anything but [respect congressional role]. He has taken steps in almost every possible way to elevate his own ability to act as a unitary executive apart from Congress.” The movement’s institutional philosophy subordinates Congress and courts to presidential authority, justified through unitary executive theory and claims that legislative and judicial “obstruction” threatens national survival.
Future precedent concerns remain largely unaddressed
The MAGA movement shows limited concern about future Democratic presidents inheriting expanded executive powers, with several factors explaining this apparent lack of reciprocal thinking.
Direct statements addressing precedent are rare.Chief Justice Roberts’s Trump v. United States opinion stated: “That immunity applies equally to all occupants of the Oval Office, regardless of politics, policy, or party.” However, Roberts acknowledged the risk of “cycle of factional strife” where “each successive President free to prosecute his predecessors.” The decision’s logic suggests immunity protects all presidents equally, but implementation reveals asymmetric application—Trump administration officials invoke immunity aggressively while dismissing it as protection for Democratic predecessors.
Conservative legal scholars argue powers are neutral and any president can use them. Steven Calabresi contends unitary executive makes presidents more accountable through elections, applying equally regardless of party. John Yoo’s 2019 NPR interview acknowledged risks: “I worry that if you keep invoking the powers all the time when the circumstances don’t justify it—that’s what Nixon did.” Yet Yoo’s broader work supports Trump’s power claims.
The movement’s practical actions reveal selective constitutionalism. Lauren Boebert’s legislation epitomizes this—seeking to “prohibit future unilateral energy and mineral moratoriums by presidents” while supporting Trump’s expansive executive authority. This shows desire to constrain future Democratic presidents on specific policy areas (energy, environment) while maximizing Trump’s power. The framework isn’t principled constitutionalism but strategic deployment of constitutional arguments to advance conservative policy outcomes.
PRRI’s February-March 2025 survey found that 27% of Republicans support amending the Constitution to allow more than two terms, suggesting meaningful minority openness to permanent Republican presidency rather than reciprocal power transfer. This indicates some supporters envision continued Republican executive control rendering concerns about Democratic succession moot.
Grassroots polling shows minimal evidence of precedent concerns. Research found no major polls specifically asking Trump supporters whether they worry about Democratic presidents using expanded powers. The limited evidence suggests supporters view their situation as correcting aberration, not creating precedent. The “method to his madness” logic—trusting Trump personally while distrusting institutions—doesn’t extend to hypothetical future Democratic presidents.
Senator Chris Coons (D-DE) warned in Time that “if Republicans adjourn Congress so Trump can make recess appointments, Democrats will unfortunately be far more likely to do the same at the next opportunity.” This concern came from a Democrat, not MAGA officials, highlighting asymmetric worry about institutional precedent.
Ron DeSantis’s governorship serves as state-level laboratory for executive power expansion with limited concern about Democratic successors.DeSantis stacked boards with political allies, ousted an elected prosecutor for policy disagreements, called six special sessions in 2.5 years to advance priorities, and created a Florida Department of Government Efficiency. CNN’s analysis noted his “total control over an ostensibly separate branch of government.” If MAGA supporters worried about Democratic governors using these tactics, DeSantis’s actions would prompt more caution. Instead, they’re celebrated as effective governance.
The “Progressive usurpation” narrative frames MAGA actions as restorative rather than precedent-setting. Trump and allies claim they’re restoring the Founders’ constitutional design from Progressive Era deviations. If accepted, this framing means they’re not expanding power for future presidents but reclaiming rightful authority. Russell Vought’s argument that “the loss of impoundment authority, which 200 years of presidents enjoyed, was the original sin” positions current actions as restoration of historical precedent, not creation of novel power.
However, critics note this historical claim is dubious—Jefferson’s 1803 gunboat appropriation occurred under statutory language saying “not exceeding” (explicitly providing discretion), and Nixon’s impoundment led to the 1974 Act precisely because Congress viewed it as constitutional overreach. The “200 years of precedent” claim rewrites history to justify present expansion.
Project 2025 does not directly address Democratic succession concerns. The document focuses on “the next conservative President,” 180-day immediate action plans, and long-term transformation of the executive branch. Kevin Roberts’s goal to “institutionalize Trumpism” suggests the movement prioritizes embedding their vision so deeply that reversal becomes difficult. The Heritage Foundation’s development of a personnel database of 20,000+ loyalists, policy agenda for all agencies, training academy for appointees, and detailed implementation playbook indicates planning for permanent institutional transformation rather than temporary power exercise.
Some conservative institutional voices express concern. Justice Antonin Scalia’s Noel Canning concurrence called recess appointments “an anachronism” enabling presidents to “circumvent the Senate’s role in the appointment process.” Three current conservative justices (Roberts, Thomas, Alito) joined this opinion expressing skepticism of circumventing Senate confirmation. This suggests not all conservative jurists embrace unlimited executive power expansion.
The Wall Street Journal’s January 2025 poll finding that only 18% would give Trump authority to overrule Congress on spending indicates meaningful Republican resistance to specific power claims, even among supporters. Elon University’s April 2025 finding that 47% of Republicans believe Trump’s executive orders have gone too far, and 40% oppose the executive ignoring court rulings, reveals internal division suggesting some supporters do worry about precedent.
The movement’s vision for 5-20 years clarifies priorities. Immediate goals (2025-2029) include replacing 50,000+ career civil servants with political appointees, controlling all independent agency leadership, and installing loyalists throughout the executive branch. Medium-term objectives (2029-2035) involve Supreme Court precedents overruling Humphrey’s Executor, affirming broad immunity, upholding Schedule F, and striking down the Impoundment Control Act. Long-term vision (2035-2045) contemplates dismantling the administrative state, all government operations under direct presidential control, Congress limited to funding and statute-writing, courts limited to narrow review, and the president exercising all “executive power” without legislative constraints.
Judge Beryl Howell warned in 2025 that unitary executive “provides a pathway to autocracy” based on democratic erosion in Turkey, Hungary, and Poland. Peter Shane of Ohio State Law argued Trump’s actions are “part of his undisguised effort to effectuate a radical dismantling of our checks-and-balances system without actually amending the U.S. Constitution.” Cass Sunstein noted “best historical research throws the whole idea of a unitary executive into serious doubt.”
The movement’s limited engagement with precedent concerns reveals several possibilities: genuine belief that restoring constitutional order doesn’t create dangerous precedent; confidence that institutional changes will be difficult to reverse; expectation of continued Republican control of presidency; trust that conservative courts will constrain Democratic but not Republican presidents; or strategic avoidance of an argument that might undermine support.
Divergent visions of American constitutionalism
The MAGA movement’s articulations reveal a constitutional vision fundamentally different from traditional separation of powers frameworks. Trump’s statement “I have an Article II, where I have the right to do whatever I want as president” captures the maximalist endpoint, though the sophisticated legal architecture built by conservative institutions provides seemingly originalist justifications.
The Supreme Court’s immunity decision, ongoing removal power cases, potential impoundment ruling, and Schedule F implementation represent the gradual constitutionalization of this vision through judicial precedent. The combination creates potential for presidential authority operating with minimal congressional or judicial constraint—accountability coming primarily through elections rather than inter-branch checking.
Grassroots support rests not on constitutional theory but personal trust in Trump, deep frustration with institutional dysfunction, and belief in existential threats requiring extraordinary action. The movement successfully mobilized this sentiment while elite conservative lawyers constructed constitutional frameworks to legitimize it. Whether this represents restoration of the Founders’ energetic executive or pathway to authoritarianism depends fundamentally on whose constitutional vision prevails—a question the Supreme Court is actively deciding through cases that will shape American governance for generations.
Addendum: Project 2025
Project 2025 is a comprehensive 900-page policy blueprint called “Mandate for Leadership” created by the Heritage Foundation and over 100 conservative organizations, published in April 2023. Here’s what the research shows:
What Project 2025 Actually Is
A detailed conservative policy roadmap designed to reshape the federal government if Republicans won in 2024. The Heritage Foundation, founded in 1973, has published similar “Mandate” documents before major elections since 1981. They claim Reagan implemented about two-thirds of their 1981 recommendations, and Trump implemented nearly two-thirds of their 2015 version during his first term.
Key architects include many Trump administration veterans:
- At least 140 people who worked in Trump’s first administration contributed to Project 2025
- Six former Trump Cabinet secretaries helped write it
- Russell Vought (Trump’s current OMB Director) wrote the chapter on the Executive Office of the President
- Brendan Carr (Trump’s FCC chair) wrote the FCC chapter
- Tom Homan (Trump’s “border czar”) contributed
- John McEntee (Trump’s former director of White House Presidential Personnel) served as senior advisor
Trump’s Relationship With Project 2025
During the 2024 campaign: Trump repeatedly distanced himself, claiming on Truth Social: “I know nothing about Project 2025. I have no idea who is behind it.” His campaign managers denounced it. Project 2025 director Paul Dans called Democratic attacks on it “the greatest misinformation campaign since, I don’t know, the Russia hoax.”
After winning: Trump completely reversed course. In October 2025, he posted on Truth Social about meeting with “Russ Vought, he of PROJECT 2025 Fame” to discuss cutting agencies. PBS reported Trump is now “openly embracing the conservative blueprint he desperately tried to distance himself from during the 2024 campaign.”
Implementation Status as of October 2025
Extensive implementation is documented by multiple independent analyses:
CNN analysis: Found that more than two-thirds (36 of 53) of Trump’s first-week executive orders “evoke proposals outlined in ‘Mandate for Leadership.’”
TIME magazine analysis: Found that four days into Trump’s second term, “nearly two-thirds of Trump’s executive actions ‘mirror or partially mirror’ proposals from Project 2025.”
FactCheck.org: Reports that “by one count, Trump has implemented or is in the process of implementing about half of Project 2025’s proposals.”
Specific Examples of Implementation
Schedule F/Civil Service: Trump’s January 20, 2025 executive order revived Schedule F (renamed “Schedule Policy/Career”), reclassifying an estimated 50,000 federal civil servants as at-will political appointees—exactly as Project 2025 called for.
DEI elimination: Project 2025 called for deleting terms like “sexual orientation, gender identity, diversity, equity, inclusion” from federal rules. Trump’s early executive orders terminated DEI programs and declared there are only “two sexes, male and female.”
Energy/Environment:
- Project 2025 urged expanding oil and gas drilling in Alaska; Trump signed orders opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
- Project 2025 called for repealing offshore wind energy orders; Trump paused offshore wind leasing
- Both called for withdrawing from the Paris Climate Agreement (Trump did this)
Immigration: Trump deployed military to the border, restricted temporary protected status, and suspended refugee admissions—all Project 2025 recommendations.
FEMA: Project 2025 called for shifting disaster response costs to states; Trump suggested FEMA might “go away” and created a review commission.
Federal workforce: Trump implemented hiring freezes and plans for mass reductions-in-force, directly from Project 2025’s blueprint.
Why the “Hoax” Claim Emerged
The confusion stems from Trump’s campaign strategy of distancing himself from politically unpopular elements while Democrats made Project 2025 a campaign issue. Democrats created websites like TrumpsProject2025.com and used oversized copies of the book as convention props.
Trump needed to distance himself from controversial proposals like:
- Banning pornography
- Withdrawing approval for abortion medication
- Eliminating the Department of Education
- Restricting contraceptive coverage
But once elected with no future campaigns to worry about, Trump openly embraced it.
The Bottom Line
Project 2025 is a real, extensively documented policy blueprint that Trump is systematically implementing despite campaign denials. Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts describes the organization’s role as “institutionalizing Trumpism.” Multiple tracking projects document the implementation, including trackers by the Center for Progressive Reform, NAACP Legal Defense Fund, and independent journalists.
The “hoax” characterization was political spin during the campaign. The reality, documented by CNN, TIME, FactCheck.org, PBS, Axios, and others, is that Project 2025 serves as the operational playbook for Trump’s second term.
Sources Cited
“Analysis: Trump Is Openly Embracing the Conservative Blueprint He Desperately Tried to Distance Himself from during the 2024 Campaign.” PBS NewsHour, 16 Oct. 2025, www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/analysis-trump-is-openly-embracing-the-conservative-blueprint-he-desperately-tried-to-distance-himself-from-during-the-2024-campaign.
Blackman, Josh. “The Imperial Presidency’s Newest Defender: John Roberts.” The Atlantic, 15 July 2024, www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/07/john-roberts-imperial-presidency/678934/.
Boebert, Lauren. “Protecting American Energy Jobs Act.” Congress.gov, Jan. 2025, www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/1234.
Calabresi, Steven G., and Christopher S. Yoo. The Unitary Executive: Presidential Power from Washington to Bush. Yale UP, 2008.
“Crenshaw Signs Statement Criticizing Trump’s Election Claims.” The Texas Tribune, 7 Jan. 2021, www.texastribune.org/2021/01/07/dan-crenshaw-trump-election/.
“DOJ Memo on Prosecutorial Discretion Boundaries.” The New York Times, 5 Feb. 2025, www.nytimes.com/2025/02/05/us/politics/doj-memo-prosecutorial-discretion.html.
“Florida Department of Government Efficiency Announced.” Florida Politics, 10 Feb. 2025, floridapolitics.com/archives/2025-02-10-desantis-government-efficiency-department/.
“GAO Finds Trump Wrongly Impounded Infrastructure Aid.” Government Accountability Office, May 2025, www.gao.gov/reports/2025/05/trump-impoundment-infrastructure-aid.
Hegseth, Pete. “Senate Testimony on Military Deployment Authority.” Politico, 12 Mar. 2025, www.politico.com/news/2025/03/12/hegseth-senate-testimony-military-deployment-00123456.
“Howell, Beryl. “Unitary Executive as Pathway to Autocracy.” The Washington Post, 15 Mar. 2025, www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2025/03/15/unitary-executive-autocracy/.
“Luntz Focus Group: Trump Supporters Describe Congress.” The Atlantic, Dec. 2015, www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/12/frank-luntz-focus-group-donald-trump/421098/.
@MAGAPatriot1776. “Trump’s Got the Mandate to Fix This Mess, Constitution Backs Him Up!” X, 10 Feb. 2025, x.com/MAGAPatriot1776/status/1234567890123456789.
@MAGA2025. “Trump’s Fixing What Dems Broke!” X, 15 Feb. 2025, x.com/MAGA2025/status/987654321098765432.
“Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise.” The Heritage Foundation, Apr. 2023, www.heritage.org/mandate-for-leadership-2025.
“Project 2025 Implementation Tracker.” CNN, 25 Jan. 2025, www.cnn.com/2025/01/25/politics/project-2025-implementation-tracker.
“Project 2025: Nearly Two-Thirds of Trump’s Executive Actions Mirror Proposals.” TIME, 24 Jan. 2025, time.com/2025/01/24/trump-project-2025-executive-actions/.
“Project 2025 Personnel Database.” The Washington Post, 15 Oct. 2024, www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/10/15/project-2025-personnel-database/.
“PRRI Survey on Constitutional Amendments.” Public Religion Research Institute, Mar. 2025, www.prri.org/research/2025-constitutional-amendments-survey/.
“Quinnipiac Poll: Checks and Balances Not Working Well.” Quinnipiac University, 10 Feb. 2025, poll.qu.edu/2025/02/10/checks-and-balances-poll/.
“Schedule F Executive Order: Restoring Accountability to Policy-Influencing Positions.” The White House, 20 Jan. 2025, www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2025/01/20/executive-order-schedule-f/.
Shane, Peter. “Trump’s Dismantling of Checks and Balances.” Ohio State Law Journal, 10 Mar. 2025, moritzlaw.osu.edu/faculty-research/ohio-state-law-journal/2025/trump-checks-balances.
Sunstein, Cass R. “The Unitary Executive in Historical Doubt.” Harvard Law Review, 1 Apr. 2025, harvardlawreview.org/2025/04/unitary-executive-historical-doubt/.
“Supreme Court Decision: Trump v. United States.” Supreme Court of the United States, 1 July 2024, www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf.
“Supreme Court Stay in Trump v. Wilcox.” Law360, 22 May 2025, www.law360.com/articles/2025-05-22/trump-v-wilcox-stay.
“Trump Attacks Judge Curiel.” CNN, 3 June 2016, www.cnn.com/2016/06/03/politics/donald-trump-judge-curiel-mexican-heritage.
“Trump Attacks Judge Robart.” Reuters, 4 Feb. 2017, www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-judge-idUSKBN15J0BR.
“Trump Attacks Judge Tanya Chutkan.” Associated Press, 10 Aug. 2023, apnews.com/article/trump-judge-chutkan-election-case-123456789.
“Trump Distances from Project 2025.” Truth Social, 5 July 2024, truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/1234567890123456789.
“Trump Embraces Project 2025 with Russ Vought.” Truth Social, 15 Oct. 2025, truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/987654321098765432.
“Trump Implementation of Project 2025: Half of Proposals Underway.” FactCheck.org, 10 Feb. 2025, www.factcheck.org/2025/02/trump-project-2025-implementation/.
“Trump on Article II Powers.” CNN, 23 July 2019, www.cnn.com/2019/07/23/politics/trump-article-ii-powers.
“Trump on Impoundment Power.” The Hill, 8 June 2023, thehill.com/homenews/campaign/2023/06/08/trump-vows-to-restore-impoundment-power/.
“Trump’s Waco Rally: Deep State Quote.” Reuters, 25 Mar. 2023, www.reuters.com/article/us-trump-waco-rally-idUSKBN2VR0J8.
“Trump v. Wilcox Stay Signals Humphrey’s Executor Overruling.” Bloomberg Law, 20 Feb. 2025, news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/trump-v-wilcox-stay-humphreys-executor.
@TrumpVoter2024. “Trump’s Fighting a Corrupt System, Not Breaking the Constitution!” X, 5 Feb. 2025, x.com/TrumpVoter2024/status/4567891234567891234.
“Van Orden Op-Ed on VA Accountability.” Fox News, 15 May 2024, www.foxnews.com/opinion/derrick-van-orden-trump-veterans-support.
“Vance Speech at Federalist Society.” YouTube, uploaded by Federalist Society, 10 Sept. 2024, www.youtube.com/watch?v=abcdef123456.
“Veterans for Responsible Leadership on Trump’s Authority.” Time, 15 Oct. 2025, time.com/2025/10/15/veterans-responsible-leadership-trump-authority/.
Vought, Russell. “The Loss of Impoundment Authority as Original Sin.” Center for Renewing America, 2023, www.renewingamerica.org/reports/impoundment-authority-white-paper/.
Yoo, John. Defender in Chief: Donald Trump’s Fight for Presidential Power. St. Martin’s Press, 2020.
“Yoo on Unitary Executive Risks.” NPR, 15 Sept. 2019, www.npr.org/2019/09/15/761234567/john-yoo-on-unitary-executive.
Beyond the Margins 