What federal or legal efforts are underway to encourage expansion in remaining states?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Federal efforts to spur expansion vary by policy and actor: the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 lays out a broad federal blueprint to reshape and expand presidential control over the executive branch, with concrete proposals affecting agency missions, hiring and spending [1] [2]. Federal agencies and the White House have used executive orders, personnel moves, hiring incentives and proposed budget and regulatory changes to press those agendas, while opponents — civil liberties and watchdog groups — are preparing litigation and congressional oversight to block or limit implementation [2] [3].
1. Project 2025: a federal blueprint for expansion and overhaul
Project 2025 is not a law but a detailed policy plan from conservative policy networks that seeks sweeping changes across the executive branch — from placing many agencies under tighter presidential control to reworking agency missions on climate, health and energy — and its authors expect to translate recommendations into federal actions in a new administration [1] [2].
2. From blueprint to executive action: orders, moves and staffing changes
Elements recommended in Project 2025 have been reflected in actual federal moves: administration executive orders and staffing initiatives have targeted border enforcement, agency relocations, and management reforms; reporting shows the administration using executive authority to reshape agencies and pursue personnel and structural changes consistent with the Project’s playbook [4] [5].
3. Financial levers: budgets, rescissions and funding priorities
Project 2025 and allied policymakers push Congress and the White House to cut certain federal programs (notably renewable-energy research) and to redirect or rescind funding; meanwhile federal budget and appropriations fights — including continuing resolutions and omnibus bills in 2024–25 — have been the practical arena where expansionary and contractionary priorities collide [6] [7].
4. Regulatory and legal pathways: rules, waivers and litigation risk
The strategy relies heavily on executive and regulatory actions — redefining agency authorities, using exemptions in the Administrative Procedure Act, and aggressive rulemaking — which invites legal challenges. Civil‑liberties groups and legal watchdogs have publicly vowed litigation and oversight to block proposals they view as unlawful or antidemocratic [2] [3] [4].
5. Personnel and incentives: hiring surges, bonuses and civil‑service changes
Federal expansion here includes workforce realignment: reports document targeted hiring bonuses and surges at specific agencies and proposals to weaken civil‑service protections and collective bargaining — measures designed to reshape agency culture and capacity, but which critics say undermine career civil servants and invite legal and congressional pushback [8] [3] [5].
6. Competing narratives: supporters frame efficiency, critics warn of consolidation
Supporters argue the reforms increase speed, efficiency and presidential accountability; allies cite modernization work across agencies [8]. Opponents — including the ACLU and Brennan Center — say Project 2025’s measures centralize power, curtail civil rights, and risk politicizing independent agencies; those groups have mapped legal and political responses [2] [1].
7. Where federal efforts meet state resistance or inaction
Available sources do not detail specific federal programs designed to “encourage expansion in remaining states” by name; instead the record focuses on federal-level reforms, agency relocations, and national rule changes that would indirectly affect states [1] [5]. State lawmakers and advocacy groups are described as a key counterweight — the ACLU says it will work “with state lawmakers around the country to enact proactive laws that protect people from federal interference” [2].
8. Practical constraints: courts, Congress and implementation limits
Multiple sources record real limits: courts have blocked some federal rules (for example a Labor Department overtime rule) and, historically, courts and Congress have constrained sweeping administrative reorganizations — meaning many Project 2025 prescriptions require legislative action, face litigation, or depend on the contours of executive authority [9] [3].
9. What to watch next: budgets, lawsuits and agency rulemaking
Key near‑term indicators of success or failure will be congressional appropriations, agency rulemaking dockets and major lawsuits. The 2025 budget and continuing resolutions, agency regulatory notices (including APA exemptions), and high‑profile litigation tracked by civil‑liberties organizations will determine whether blueprint proposals become law or are blocked [7] [4] [2].
Limitations: this analysis relies solely on the supplied reporting and policy summaries; it does not include documents or developments outside those sources. Where specific federal “expansion in remaining states” programs were not described, I note that omission rather than infer unreported actions [2] [1].