On March 25, 2025, President Trump signed four far-reaching executive orders that dramatically reshape American institutions - and they have striking similarities to recommendations from Project 2025, the conservative Heritage Foundation's controversial blueprint for reforming government.

Election "Integrity" or Voter Suppression?

The "Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections" order sounds noble enough until you read the details:

What's the real story? This could disenfranchise millions of eligible voters. Approximately 21.3 million voting-age citizens (9% of the eligible population) lack readily available proof of citizenship documents. The restrictions on mail ballots would eliminate practices currently legal in 18 states.

The timing is especially suspect considering that 45% of young voters used mail voting in 2020, with young voters of color more likely to return ballots closer to Election Day. Research shows restrictive voting policies reduce turnout by 8-12%.

This aligns perfectly with Project 2025's vision of consolidating federal control over elections while making it harder for certain demographics to vote. As one election law expert noted, "This is straightforward voter suppression dressed up as integrity measures."

The Law Firm Hit Job

The "Addressing Risks from Jenner & Block" order takes direct aim at a specific law firm:

Why target this particular firm? The order explicitly cites their representation of clients Trump dislikes and involvement in cases challenging his policies. This is essentially retribution against lawyers for doing their job.

This matches Project 2025's blueprint for weaponizing executive power against perceived opponents. A federal judge has already blocked a similar order targeting another law firm (Perkins Coie), finding it likely violates First Amendment protections.

"The government has opted to penalize prominent law firms for representing parties that the administration disapproves of," said the American Bar Association's president. The chilling effect on legal representation could undermine the entire justice system.

Treasury Power Grab

The "Protecting America's Bank Account Against Fraud, Waste, and Abuse" order sounds responsible but institutes a massive financial power shift:

While preventing fraud is a worthy goal, this represents an unprecedented centralization of financial control under the executive branch. It requires even the Defense Department and Homeland Security to hand over core financial functions, "excluding only classified payments".

This mirrors Project 2025's goal of consolidating executive power and reducing agency independence. One analysis noted the order "weaponizes a legitimate concern—financial fraud in government—to justify a sweeping consolidation of power under the executive branch".

The Electronic Payments Mandate

The "Modernizing Payments To and From America's Bank Account" order eliminates paper checks and mandates electronic transfers by September 2025. It's being presented as an efficiency measure, but consider:

While the order includes an exceptions process, the implementation timeline is aggressive and the impact on vulnerable populations could be severe. This aligns with Project 2025's pattern of standardizing government operations without adequate consideration for diverse citizen needs.

Hoovering Up Data

Two of the four executive orders also contain alarming provisions requiring states to surrender vast troves of data to the federal government, representing an unprecedented expansion of federal authority over state-held information:

A previous executive order also demands "unfettered access to comprehensive data from all State programs that receive Federal funding". This could encompass sensitive health, social services, and other personal data held by states.

These provisions raise serious concerns:

  1. Federal overreach: They represent a significant intrusion into state sovereignty and data management.

  2. Privacy risks: Centralizing vast amounts of personal data increases vulnerability to breaches and misuse.

  3. Coercion: Using federal funding as leverage may force states to comply against their better judgment.

  4. Potential misuse: There are fears this data could be used for purposes beyond stated fraud prevention, such as targeting specific groups.

  5. Legal challenges: These directives may conflict with existing state privacy laws and federal statutes.

The Big Picture

These four executive orders represent a concentrated effort to reshape American governance by:

  1. Making it harder for certain groups to vote
  2. Punishing perceived adversaries
  3. Centralizing financial control under the executive branch
  4. Forcing standardization that may exclude vulnerable populations
  5. Centralizing control and expanding federal access to personal information

Each aligns with Project 2025's vision of expanded presidential power and reduced checks and balances. Former administration officials who contributed to Project 2025 have been appointed to implement these very policies.

The fundamental question isn't about the stated goals of these orders—who's against election integrity or preventing fraud?—but whether they're actually designed to consolidate power, sideline opposition, and reshape government in ways that benefit the few at the expense of the many.

Why It Matters

These orders aren't abstract policy debates—they affect real people. They determine who can vote, whether lawyers can represent clients against the government, how federal agencies operate, and whether Americans can receive payments they depend on.

When power is consolidated, accountability suffers. When access is restricted, democracy weakens. And when government is weaponized against perceived enemies, everyone becomes vulnerable.

Are They Legal?

Several provisions in these executive orders likely exceed presidential authority and may be illegal based on constitutional limitations and precedent.

The "Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections" order contains multiple legally questionable provisions:

The "Addressing Risks from Jenner & Block" order contains provisions similar to those already blocked by courts:

The "Protecting America's Bank Account Against Fraud, Waste, and Abuse" order may exceed presidential authority by:

Fundamentally, executive orders cannot:

The Supreme Court established in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer that presidential power through executive orders is limited, and the president cannot act as a lawmaker. Recent court decisions have already blocked similar executive orders from the Trump administration on constitutional grounds, particularly those targeting DEI initiatives that were found to violate First and Fifth Amendment rights.