Bonica wrote that targeting U.S. Agency for International Development and Consumer Financial Protection Agency “two of the most liberal-oriented institutions are likely to be illustrative.” “The institutions that have been hit hard are precisely those that regulate industry, protect public health and expand educational opportunities.”
Bonica argues that layoffs call for the implementation of the dictatorial agenda, following the recommendations of its Heritage Foundation’s 2025 project.
As administrative reform, political purge: This framework obscures the potential for politically motivated actions, such as targeting institutions that enforce environmental regulations or protect civil rights.
Target institutions that restrict administrative power: The project 2025 document specifically requires major changes or demolition of institutions such as the EPA, the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Labor, and the Department of Homeland Security.
Weak regulatory enforcement without changing the law: Advocates for the 2025 project revoke numerous regulations, streamline licensing procedures and reduce funding for institutions responsible for environmental protection and labor standards. This weakens law enforcement without the need for more challenging and challenging legislative change procedures.
Replace professional civil servants with loyalists: The project document repeatedly emphasizes the need for political appointments in key positions, even in positions traditionally held by professional professionals. The 2025 project clearly praised the idea of replacing professional officials with “consistent political appointees” to ensure that bureaucracy executes the executive’s agenda without boycott.
The so-called “unified execution theory” provides a theoretical basis for Trump to expand his executive authority.
In 2020, “Unified Executives: Past, Present, Future,” Harvard Law School professor Cass R.
This is a very simple idea.
Article 1, Article 2 of the US Constitution grants the executive power of the “President of the United States”. These words do not seem to be vague. According to the Constitution, no one else has the power to enforce it. Therefore, executives are “unified”.
With the night following closely behind, Congress lacks the power to realize executives—for example, the Transport Secretary is a free agent, free from presidential control, or the Commerce Secretary can maintain his job unless the president can establish some kind of “reason” to remove him. ”
Richard Pildes, professor of constitutional law at NYU, described the legal status of unified enforcement theory in an email in response to my inquiry:
The Supreme Court rejected the theory during the new agreement, which is why we have independent institutions. Justice Scalia moved to a powerful driving force for unifying theories of the executive branch in his objections in the Independence Conference bill, and Roberts Court brought the doctrine closer to the theory in several decisions. The question is how far the court will go, and the Trump administration will obviously push the boundaries as the courts are laissez-faire.
Trump often expresses support for an extreme version of his unified implementation theory. For example, on February 16, regarding the “Society of Truth,” he declared himself above the law, which read: “The person who saved his country will not violate any law”, repeating a variant of the quote attributable to Napolion.
In a February 19 article about Truth Social, Trump claimed to have killed traffic jam pricing in New York, declaring: “Congestion pricing is dead. Manhattan and the entire New York are saved. Long live the king!”
In March 2023, Trump announced at the annual CPAC conference
I am your warrior, I am your justice. I am your retribution for those who have been wronged and betrayed. I am your retribution. I will completely eliminate the deep state.
The Supreme Court strengthened Trump’s vision for himself in a 6-3 judgment in Trump v. United States v. United States in July 2024. The ruling grants Trump “an absolute immunity to criminal prosecutions in his concluding and exclusion constitutional authority” and “at least presumptive immunity to prosecutions of all his formal actions.”
