Which Project 2025 proposals still require Congressional action and which are implementable by executive order?
Executive summary
Project 2025 is a 900‑page Heritage Foundation blueprint that mixes items that an incoming president can enact by executive order, hiring and regulatory moves with more sweeping proposals that would need new statutes, congressional appropriations, or favorable court rulings to become durable law [1] [2]. Independent trackers and civil‑liberties groups identify a clear pattern: many of the most radical aims are written to be pushed by the executive branch alone where possible, while the most structural or criminal‑law changes explicitly call for Congressional action [3] [4].
1. Executive‑branch levers already being used: orders, rulemaking, personnel and guidance
A large swath of Project 2025 reads like an administrative to‑do list that the president can translate into executive orders, agency guidance, reorganization memos, and rulemaking — actions that do not require new statutes. Examples include rescinding Biden‑era agency policies on diversity, environmental safeguards, and LGBTQ protections via executive orders and agency rule changes, steps the Trump White House began immediately after inauguration [5] [6] [7]. Democracy Forward and other trackers list specific Project 2025 recommendations framed for agency implementation — cuts to programmatic guidance, changing enforcement priorities, and reassigning or purging career staff through personnel rules — all implementable within the executive branch absent new legislation [2] [8].
2. Personnel and civil‑service overhaul: regulatory fight with congressional backstop potential
Project 2025’s playbook for consolidating loyalty inside the bureaucracy — including reviving Schedule F‑style authorities to reclassify and replace career civil servants — is designed to be enacted by executive action, regulatory reclassification, and aggressive hiring/firing practices [9] [7]. Those moves can be implemented administratively, but they face legal and congressional countermeasures: Congress can pass statutes to prohibit certain classifications or defund changes, and courts can block unlawful reclassifications, meaning these executive tools are potent yet contestable [9] [4].
3. Items that clearly require Congress: criminal law changes, statutory reallocations, and authorizations
Project 2025’s proposals that would alter criminal statutes or require new statutory authorities are squarely congressional terrain. For instance, proposals to criminalize the distribution or receipt of abortion and contraceptive medications, and to strip or rewrite core civil‑rights or environmental statutes, would demand new laws passed by Congress [1] [4]. Likewise, calls for Congress to authorize the Bureau of Land Management to “humanely dispose” of wild horses or to authorize particular nuclear force posture changes implicate appropriations, statutory changes, or treaty considerations that cannot be achieved solely by executive fiat [10] [1].
4. The hybrid category: statutory workarounds and use of existing tools like the Congressional Review Act
The administration can sometimes use a mix of executive action and statutory mechanisms that involve Congress to lock in changes. Trackers note the use of the Congressional Review Act and appropriation riders to rescind or prevent regulations, which requires cooperation from Congress but can implement Project 2025 goals without new authorizing statutes [11]. Similarly, budget proposals and selective enforcement can achieve policy shifts pending congressional acquiescence or legislative follow‑through [12] [13].
5. Legal and political constraints: courts, oversight, and public pushback matter
Even where Project 2025 foresees executive implementation, those actions face judicial review, agency science and staffing limits, and potential congressional oversight or defunding. Civil‑liberties groups and watchdogs explicitly highlight plans that are “meant” to be done administratively but warn litigators and Congress will be battlefield actors; conversely, the plan’s authors acknowledge some proposals need congressional passage or favorable Supreme Court rulings to be durable [4] [1].
Conclusion: mapping the terrain for readers who want to know what’s possible now versus what needs lawmakers
In sum, many of Project 2025’s operational and personnel designs were intentionally drafted to be achievable by executive order, rulemaking, and agency memos and have been partially implemented that way [2] [7]. The most consequential legal changes — new criminal prohibitions, statutory rewrites, major appropriations shifts, or binding international/nuclear posture alterations — still require Congress or favorable court decisions to be permanent [1] [10]. Where reporting does not list every proposal by name, it is not possible from the available sources to catalogue every item’s legal pathway with precision; the pattern across independent trackers and advocacy groups is nevertheless consistent on the executive‑versus‑legislative split [3] [14].