Statement from Center for Progressive Reform Policy Director James Goodwin on President Donald Trump’s Day One Actions to institute a Project 2025 authoritarian administrative state
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Project 2025 was the conservative movement’s unapologetic blueprint for building an authoritarian presidency. The Trump administration’s Day One actions are the first concrete steps toward realizing that vision.
Individually, most of Trump’s executive orders and memoranda are light on substance and distinctly lacking in technical sophistication — sometimes even comically so. Within their four corners, many of the actions do not even do much — often merely calling for an investigation or a report. This, of course, is not uncommon for executive orders and memos, which often function as little more than glorified press releases.
But still, despite the actions’ lack of substantive heft and amateurish presentation, there is terrifying significance to them, especially when read together. They demonstrate that the administration is committed to a radical version of the unitary executive theory, in which the office of the president wields exclusive and unchecked power over the executive branch apparatus.
On the flip side, it shows that Trump is willing and able to defuse any efforts by Congress or the U.S. Supreme Court to maintain constitutional checks and balances. We see this with the actions’ frequent embrace of impoundment and the assertion of constitutional theories that have been roundly rejected by the Court in the past. (Impoundment is when a president refuses to spend money lawfully appropriated by Congress, which represents a clear violation of Article I spending powers.)
Many of the actions reflect an aggressive attempt to frame every issue — from energy to immigration — as a national security threat, which would enable the president to claim even greater authority over them.
We also see a commitment to the arbitrary and irrational exercise of power. This is evident from Trump’s claims to rename geographic features on maps and his rejection of scientific integrity policies, among other things. Like the proverbial frog in boiling water, once this political culture has been introduced to the public, it becomes easier to ratchet up even more extreme exercises of arbitrary power in the future.
We at the Center are taking this threat to our democracy seriously. We’ll continue to track these developments and formulate effective response strategies grounded in a progressive vision of the administrative state.
