2EXECUTIVE OFFICE
OF THE PRESIDENT
OF THE UNITED STATESRuss VoughtIn its opening words, Article II of the U.S. Constitution makes it abundantly
clear that “[t]he executive power shall be vested in a President of the UnitedStates of America.”1 That enormous power is not vested in departments oragencies, in staff or administrative bodies, in nongovernmental organizations orother equities and interests close to the government. The President must set andenforce a plan for the executive branch. Sadly, however, a President today assumes
office to find a sprawling federal bureaucracy that all too often is carrying out its
own policy plans and preferences—or, worse yet, the policy plans and preferencesof a radical, supposedly “woke” faction of the country.
The modern conservative President’s task is to limit, control, and direct theexecutive branch on behalf of the American people. This challenge is createdand exacerbated by factors like Congress’s decades-long tendency to delegate its
lawmaking power to agency bureaucracies, the pervasive notion of expert “independence” that protects so-called expert authorities from scrutiny, the presumed
inability to hold career civil servants accountable for their performance, and theincreasing reality that many agencies are not only too big and powerful, but also
increasingly weaponized against the public and a President who is elected by thepeople and empowered by the Constitution to govern.
In Federalist No. 47, James Madison warned that “[t]he accumulation of all powers,
legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many,
and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced thevery definition of tyranny.”2 Regrettably, that wise and cautionary note describes
to a significant degree the modern executive branch, which—whether controlled— 43 —

Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promiseby the bureaucracy or by the President—writes federal policy, enforces that policy,
and often adjudicates whether that policy was properly drafted and enforced. The
overall situation is constitutionally dire, unsustainably expensive, and in urgent needof repair. Nothing less than the survival of self-governance in America is at stake.
The great challenge confronting a conservative President is the existential needfor aggressive use of the vast powers of the executive branch to return power—
including power currently held by the executive branch—to the American people.
Success in meeting that challenge will require a rare combination of boldness andself-denial: boldness to bend or break the bureaucracy to the presidential will andself-denial to use the bureaucratic machine to send power away from Washington
and back to America’s families, faith communities, local governments, and states.
Fortunately, a President who is willing to lead will find in the Executive Officeof the President (EOP) the levers necessary to reverse this trend and impose asound direction for the nation on the federal bureaucracy. The effectiveness of
those EOP levers depends on the fundamental premise that it is the President’s
agenda that should matter to the departments and agencies that operate under his
constitutional authority and that, as a general matter, it is the President’s chosen
advisers who have the best sense of the President’s aims and intentions, both withrespect to the policies he intends to enact and with respect to the interests thatmust be secured to govern successfully on behalf of the American people. This
chapter focuses on key features of and recommendations for several of the EOP’s
important components.
U.S. OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET (OMB)OMB assists the President in the execution of his policy agenda across the government by employing many statutory and executive procedural levers to bring
the bureaucracy in line with all budgetary, regulatory, and management decisions.
Properly understood, it is a President’s air-traffic control system with the ability and charge to ensure that all policy initiatives are flying in sync and with theauthority to let planes take off and, at times, ground planes that are flying off course.
OMB’s key roles include:lllDeveloping and enforcing the President’s budget and executing theappropriations laws that fund the government;
Managing agency and personnel performance, procurement policy,
financial management, and information technology;
Developing the President’s regulatory agenda, reviewing new regulatory
actions, reviewing federal information collections, and setting and enforcing
federal information policy; and— 44 —

2025 Presidential Transition Projectl

Coordinating and clearing agency communications with Congress,
including testimonies and views on draft legislation.

OMB cannot perform its role on behalf of the President effectively if it is not intimately involved in all aspects of the White House policy process and lacks knowledgeof what the agencies are doing. Internally to the EOP, ensuring that the policy-formulation procedures developed by the White House to serve the President include
OMB is one of any OMB Director’s major responsibilities. A common meme of those
who intend to evade OMB review is to argue that where “resources” are not being
discussed, OMB’s participation is optional. This ignores both OMB’s role in all downstream execution and the reality that it has the only statutory tools in the WhiteHouse that are powerful enough to override implementing agencies’ bureaucracies.
The Director must view his job as the best, most comprehensive approximation of the President’s mind as it pertains to the policy agenda while always being
ready with actual options to effect that agenda within existing legal authorities andresources. This role cannot be performed adequately if the Director acts instead as
the ambassador of the institutional interests of OMB and the wider bureaucracy
to the White House. Once its reputation as the keeper of “commander’s intent”
is established, then and only then does OMB have the ability to shape the mostefficient way to pursue an objective.
Externally, the Director must ensure that OMB has sufficient visibility into
the deep caverns of agency decision-making. One indispensable statutory tool tothat end is to ensure that policy officials—the Program Associate Directors (PADs)
managing the vast Resource Management Offices (RMOs)—personally sign what
are known as the apportionments. In 1870, Congress passed the Anti-Deficiency
Act3 to prevent the common agency practice of spending down all appropriatedfunding, creating artificial funding shortfalls that Congress would have to fill. The
law mandated that all funding be allotted or “apportioned” in installments. This
process, whereby agencies come to OMB for allotments of appropriated funding, isessential to the effective financial stewardship of taxpayer dollars. OMB can thendirect on behalf of a President the amount, duration, and purpose of any apportioned funding to ensure against waste, fraud, and abuse and ensure consistency
with the President’s agenda and applicable laws.
The vast majority of these apportionments were signed by career officials—the
Deputy Associate Directors (DADs)—until the Trump Administration placed this
responsibility in the hands of the PADs and thereby opened wide vistas of oversightthat had escaped the attention of policy officials. The Biden Administration subsequently reversed this decision. No Director should be chosen who is unwilling
to restore apportionment decision-making to the PADs’ personal review, who is
not aggressive in wielding the tool on behalf of the President’s agenda, or who isunable to defend the power against attacks from Congress.

— 45 —

Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise

It should be noted that each of OMB’s primary functions, along with otherexecutive and statutory roles, is carried out with the help of many essential OMB
support offices. The two most important offices for moving OMB at the will of a
Director are the Budget Review Division (BRD) and the Office of General Counsel(OGC). The Director should have a direct and effective relationship with the headof the BRD (considered the top career official within OMB) and transmit most
instructions through that office because the rest of the agency is institutionally inclined toward its direction and responds accordingly. The BRD inevitably
will translate the directions from policy officials to the career staff, and at every
stage, it is obviously vital that the Director ensure that this translation is an
accurate one.
In addition, many key considerations involved in enacting a President’s agenda
hinge on existing legal authorities. The Director must ensure the appointmentof a General Counsel who is respected yet creative and fearless in his or her ability to challenge legal precedents that serve to protect the status quo. This is vitalwithin OMB not only with respect to the adequate development of policy options
for the President’s review, but also with respect to agencies that attempt to protect
their own institutional interests and foreclose certain avenues based on the mere
assertion (and not proof ) that the law disallows it or that, conversely, attempt todisregard the clear statutory commands of Congress.
In general, the Director should empower a strong Deputy Director with authority over the Deputy for Management, the PADs, and the Office of Information andRegulatory Affairs (OIRA) to work diligently to break down barriers within OMB
and not allow turf disputes or a lack of visibility to undermine the agency’s principal budget, management, and regulatory functions. OMB should work toward a“One OMB” position on behalf of the President and represent that view during thevarious policymaking processes.
Budget. The United States today faces an untenable fiscal situation and owes
$31 trillion on a debt that is steadily increasing. The OMB Director should present
a fiscal goal to the President early in the budget development process to address
the federal government’s fiscal irresponsibility. This goal would help to align themonths-long process of developing the actual proposals for inclusion in the budget.
Though some mistakenly regard it as a mere paper-pushing exercise, the President’s budget is in fact a powerful mechanism for setting and enforcing public
policy at federal agencies. The budget team includes six Resource Management
Offices that, together with the BRD and other components, help the Director of
OMB to develop and execute detailed agency spending plans that bear on every
major aspect of policy formation and execution at federal agencies. Through initialpriority-setting and ongoing supervision of agency spending, OMB’s budget teamplays a key role in executing policy across the executive branch, including at manyagencies wrongly regarded as “independent.”— 46 —

2025 Presidential Transition Project

The RMOs, each of which is led by a political appointee known as the PAD anda career DAD, are separated into six functional units:lNational Security.

lNatural Resources, Energy, and Science.

l

Health.

l

Education, Income Maintenance, and Labor.

lTransportation, Justice, and Homeland Security.

lTreasury, Commerce, and Housing.

Because the RMOs are institutionally ingrained in nearly all policymaking andimplementation across the executive branch, they play a critical role in helping the
Director to implement the President’s public policy agenda. However, because each
RMO is responsible for formulating and supervising such a wide range of policy
details, many granular but critical policy decisions are effectively left to the career
professionals who serve across Administrations.
To enhance the OMB Director’s ability to help the President drive policy at theagencies, the existing six RMOs should be divided into smaller subject-matter areas,
allowing for more PADs, and each of these PADs should have a Deputy PAD. This
expanded pool of RMOs with additional political leadership would enable morecomprehensive direction and oversight of policy development and implementation.
Regardless of whether Congress adopts the President’s full set of budget recommendations, the President should reintroduce the concept of administrative
pay-as-you-go, or administrative PAYGO. This simple procedural requirement
imposes budget neutrality on the discretionary choices of federal agencies, ofwhich there are many in nearly all areas of policymaking. This simple step forces
the executive branch to control what it can control. The principle may occasionallyyield to other overarching requirements, such as a presidential regulatory budget,
but in nearly all cases, administrative PAYGO plays a unique and indispensablerole in enforcing fiscal responsibility at federal departments and agencies.
The President should use every possible tool to propose and impose fiscal discipline on the federal government. Anything short of that would constitute abject failure.
Management. The Management Office of OMB (the “M-Side” as it is often
called) is responsible for carrying out several important agency oversight functions,many of which are statutory. The Management team includes the following offices
led by presidentially appointed Senate-confirmed individuals:— 47 —

Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promisel

The Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP).

lThe Office of Performance and Personnel Management (OPPM).

l

The Office of Federal Financial Management (OFFM).

l

The Office of the Federal Chief Information Officer (OFCIO).

l

The Made in America Office (MIAO), which was added by the Biden
Administration and is not a Senate-confirmed slot.

Each of these offices has responsibilities and authorities that a President canuse to help drive policy across the government. It is vital that the Director and his
political staff, not the careerists, drive these offices in pursuit of the President’s
actual priorities and not let them set their own agenda based on the wishes of the
sprawling “good government” management community in and outside of government. Many Directors do not properly prioritize the management portfolio, leaving
it to the Deputy for Management, but such neglect creates purposeless bureaucracythat impedes a President’s agenda—an “M Train to Nowhere.”
OFPP. This office plays a critical role in leading the development of new policies
and regulations concerning federal contracting and procurement. Through theFederal Acquisition Regulatory Council, which is generally chaired by the OFPP
Administrator, OFPP helps the Director to set a wide range of policies for all of
those who contract with the executive branch. In the past, those governmentwide
contracting rules have played a key role in helping to implement the President’s
policy agenda. This office should be engaged early and often in OMB’s effort to drive
policy, including by obtaining transparency about entities that are awarded federal
contracts and grants and by using government contracts to push back against woke
policies in corporate America.
OPPM. Through this office, the Director helps federal agencies to establish theirperformance goals and performance review processes. OPPM also works with the
U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to establish and manage personnel
policies and practices across the federal government. The Director should instruct
OPPM to establish annual performance goals and review processes for agencies
that reflect the President’s agenda. OPPM should also be part of the President’s
strategy to set and enforce sensible policies and practices for the federal workforce.
OFFM. This office helps the Director to root out waste, fraud, and abuse in federal programs—for example, through the Do Not Pay program. It should be part ofefforts to save precious taxpayer resources.
OFCIO. This office guides the federal government’s use and adoption of Internet-based technologies to improve government operations and save taxpayer— 48 —

2025 Presidential Transition Projectmoney. As a function of its leadership role, it is critical in interagency discussions
on a wide range of technology issues. The office thus is an important part of the
President’s efforts to modernize, strengthen, and set technology-adoption policy
for the executive branch.
MIAO. Building on the example and work of the Trump Administration, President Biden established this office to centralize, carry out, and further develop thefederal government’s Buy-American and other Made-in-America commitments.
Its work ought to be continued and further strengthened.
Regulatory and Information Policy. OMB’s OIRA plays an enormous andvital role in reining in the regulatory state and ensuring that regulations achieve
important benefits while imposing minimal burdens on Americans. The President
should maintain Executive Order (EO) 12866,4 the foundation of OIRA’s review
of regulatory actions. The Administration should likewise maintain the recent
extension of those standards to regulatory actions of the U.S. Department of theTreasury.5 Regulatory analysis and OIRA review should also be required of thehistorically “independent” agencies as the Office of Legal Counsel has found islegally permissible.6
If the current Administration proceeds with its declared intent to modify
aspects of EO 12866 or review OMB Circular A-4,7 the related document thatprovides the foundation for cost-benefit analysis, the next President should immediately begin to undo those changes and develop a rigorous, data-driven approachthat will result in the least burdensome rules possible. The next President should
also revive the directive in Executive Order 138918 that significant guidance documents also must pass through OIRA review.
Because OIRA review often leads to fewer regulatory burdens, more regulatory
benefits, and better coordination of regulatory policy, funding for OIRA tends to
pay large dividends. Yet over the years, funding for OIRA has diminished. This
trend should be reversed. The budget should also include sufficient full-time equivalent (FTE) employees to form regulatory advance teams that would consult withagencies on cost-benefit analysis and good regulatory practices at the beginningof the rulemaking process for the most important regulations. These teams would
help agencies take cost-benefit analysis into account from the beginning of theirrulemaking efforts, which in turn would result in higher-quality regulations and aswifter eventual OIRA review. To preserve the integrity of OIRA review, the staff
who consult at the beginning of a rulemaking should not handle its eventual review.
The next President should also reinstate the many executive orders signed
by President Trump that were designed to make the regulatory process morejust, efficient, and transparent. Executive Orders 13771,9 13777,10 13891,11 13892,12
13893,13 13924 Section 6,14 13979,15 and 1398016 should be revived (with modifications as needed). Executive Order 1313217 on federalism should be strengthened
so that state regulatory and fiscal operations are not commandeered by the federal— 49 —

Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise

government through so-called cooperative federalism programs. Additionally, thePresident should revise and sign an updated version of President Ronald Reagan’s
Executive Order 1263018 on federal takings.
The next President should strengthen implementation of the Information Quality Act,19 robustly use the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act,20 carefully
enforce the Privacy Act,21 and ensure the sound execution of OIRA’s statisticaland other information policy functions. Regulatory cooperation agreements canalso promote the further adoption of good regulatory practices, which improve
market conditions for America and her allies. OIRA should also work with othercomponents of OMB to revise and apply OMB’s uniform Guidance for Grants andAgreements22 and ensure that federal contract and grant guidelines satisfy EO
12866 and other centralized standards as appropriate.
But executive reforms and actions, while vital, are not enough: Congress also
must act. The next President should work with Congress to pass significant regulatory policy and process reforms, which could go a long way toward reining in
the administrative state. Excellent examples of such legislation include the Regulatory Accountability Act,23 SMART Act,24 GOOD Act,25 Early Participation inRegulations Act,26 Unfunded Mandates Accountability and Transparency Act,27
and REINS Act.28
Finally, the next President should work with Congress to maximize the utilityof the Congressional Review Act (CRA),29 which allows Congress to undo midnight
regulatory actions (including those disguised as “guidance”) on an accelerated
timeline. To leverage the CRA’s power to the maximum extent, Congress andthe President should enact the Midnight Rules Relief Act,30 which would help toensure that multiple regulatory actions could be packaged and voted on at the sametime. Immediate and robust use of the CRA would allow the President to focus
his rulemaking resources on major new regulatory reforms rather than devoting
months or years to undoing the final rulemakings of the Biden Administration.
Legislative Clearance and Coordination. OMB plays a critical role in ensuring that the executive branch is aligned on legislative proposals and language,agency testimonies, and other communications with Congress. The Director should
use these authorities to enforce policy and message consistency aggressively andpromote the effective engagement of the executive branch in legislative processes.
NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL (NSC)

The National Security Council (NSC) was established by statute to support the
President in developing and implementing national security policy by coordinating
across relevant departments and agencies, integrating authorities and resources
toward common ends, and objectively assessing progress toward establishedgoals. Led by the National Security Advisor (NSA), the NSC staff will be successful in implementing the President’s national security goals only if it is made up— 50 —

2025 Presidential Transition Projectof personnel with technical expertise and experience as well as an alignment to
the President’s declared national security policy priorities. The NSC must thenchart a course that articulates and achieves the President’s national security goals
and objectives. The President should empower a strong NSC that not only has thepower to convene the policy process, but also is entrusted with the full power ofthe presidency to drive the bureaucracy.
In organizing (by means of Presidential Directive31) an NSC staff that is more
responsive and aligned with the President’s goals and empowered to implement
them, the NSA should immediately evaluate and eliminate directorates that are
not aligned with the President’s agenda and replace them with new directorates asappropriate that can drive implementation of the President’s signature national
security priorities. In addition to realigning the staff organization to the President’s
priorities, the NSA should assign responsibility for implementation of specificpolicy initiatives to senior NSC officials from across the NSC staff structure. These
officials should develop, direct, and execute tangible action plans in coordination
with multiple agencies to achieve measurable, time-defined milestones.
Aligning NSC staff to the President’s national security goals will provide clearer
direction, a mandate for action, and a baseline of accountability that can be used
to evaluate staff performance and the NSC’s overall progress. Accountable senior
officials, themselves either political appointees or a minimum number of career
detailees, who are selected and vetted politically and report directly to politicalstaff should be the main day-to-day managers for interagency coordination andimplementation of their assigned national security policy objectives. They should
provide policy analysis for consideration by the broader NSC and relevant agencies
and ensure timely responses to decisions made by the President. The accountablesenior officials should be established at the direction of the NSA and draw on personnel and expertise from beyond the NSC, including OMB, the National Economic
Council, and relevant federal agencies.
The NSC staff and principals should work in tandem with the National Economic Council and OMB at all levels, presenting a united effort to achieve thePresident’s goals and drawing on the latter’s statutory authorities to guide thebureaucracy. To accomplish national objectives effectively, foreign policy should
fully incorporate the economic instruments of national power. National security
policy must also include the prioritized allocation of resources. When policies are
divorced from the resources required to implement them, they are stillborn—academic exercises that undermine our national security and leave departments andagencies to their own devices.
The accountable senior officials should be empowered to identify, recruit, clear,and hire staff who are aligned with and willing to shepherd the President’s national
security priorities. NSC staff leads, under the direction of the NSA, should havethe discretion to reduce the number of positions that need high-level clearances,— 51 —

Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promiseand the NSC should be adequately resourced and authorized to adjudicate andhold security clearances internally with investigators who work directly for the
NSC and whose sole task is to clear NSC officials. If certain staff are determined
not to need high-level clearances, the question becomes whether they should bepart of the NSC at all.
The NSC should take a leading role in directing the drafting and thorough review
of all formal strategies: the National Security Strategy, the National Defense Strategy, the Nuclear Posture Review, the Missile Defense Strategy, etc. In particular,
the National Defense Strategy, which by tradition has evaded significant review,should be prioritized for White House review by the NSC and OMB. Both should
also conduct reviews of operational war plans and global force planning and allocations with the Secretary of Defense to align them with presidential priorities andreview all key policy and guidance intended for implementation by the heads of the
Department of Defense, the Department of State, and the Intelligence Community
before they are authorized for distribution. The NSC should rigorously review all
general and flag officer promotions to prioritize the core roles and responsibilitiesof the military over social engineering and non-defense matters, including climatechange, critical race theory, manufactured extremism, and other polarizing policies
that weaken our armed forces and discourage our nation’s finest men and womenfrom enlisting to serve in defense of our liberty.
The NSC staff will need to consolidate the functions of both the NSC and theHomeland Security Council (HSC), incorporate the recently established Office of
the National Cyber Director, and evaluate the required regional and functional
directorates. Given the aforementioned prerequisites, the NSC should be properly resourced with sufficient policy professionals, and the NSA should prioritize
staffing the vast majority of NSC directorates with aligned political appointees
and trusted career officials. For instance, the NSA should return all nonessential detailees to their home agencies on their first day in office so that the new
Administration can proceed efficiently without the personnel land mines left by
the previous stewards and as soon as possible should replace all essential detailees
with staff aligned to the new President’s priorities. The HSC has overseen pandemic
response, and its incorporation is important.
In the end, change requires intervention, and the NSC staff should be appropriately recruited, manned, and empowered to achieve the President’s national
security and foreign policy objectives and maintain robust policy analysis anddiscussion while minimizing resistance from those who have an agenda or who
jealously guard their resources and autonomy at the expense of national security
and sound policy development. This resistance and inertia can be inadvertently
enabled by a small and unempowered NSC.
Additionally, the White House Chief of Staff and NSA must ensure that the NSC
is functioning in tandem with the rest of the White House staff to benefit from— 52 —

2025 Presidential Transition Project

the best strategic thinking of the President’s top advisers. History shows that an
unsupervised NSC staff can stray from its statutory role and adversely affect a President and his policies. Moreover, while the NSC should be fully incorporated into
the White House, it should also be allowed to do its job without the impedimentof dually hatted staff that report to other offices. For instance, the NSC needs its
own counsel to inform what legal options can be provided to the President. The
White House Counsel should be part of that policy process as the President’s top
legal adviser. These recommendations provide a clear road map for rapidly sizing
and solidifying the NSC staff to support and achieve the President’s objectives
beginning on Inauguration Day.
NATIONAL ECONOMIC COUNCIL (NEC)The National Economic Council is one of the policy councils serving the President along with the NSC and the Domestic Policy Council (DPC). The Director
serves as principal adviser to the President on domestic and international economic policy and communicates the President’s economic message to the media.
The Deputy Director is responsible for the day-to-day operation of the council,
which includes chairing the committee that coordinates economic policy development at the Deputy Secretary level. In effect, the Director and Deputy Director
are the officials who are primarily responsible for the development of economic
policymaking for the Administration. Once a policy is adopted, it is the appropriate agency’s responsibility to implement it. The NEC’s policy process is also used
to determine whether the President should support or oppose legislation passed
by Congress.
In addition to its leadership, the NEC has policy experts (for example, Special
Assistants to the President or SAPs) who are responsible for developing and coordinating, as well as advising the President, on specific issues. It is essential thatthe policy expertise of the NEC reflect the current environment’s most pressing
issues. Today, this would include (among other topics) taxes, energy and environment, technology, infrastructure, health care, financial services, workforce,
agriculture, antitrust and competition policy, and retirement programs. NEC’s
SAPs should have a working knowledge of how the Administration can implement
policy through the rulemaking process, although it is not necessary that they be
experts on regulation themselves, particularly given OMB’s role. This will facilitate
the NEC’s effectiveness in coordinating Administration policy.
The NEC needs to work closely with other offices within the Executive Officeof the President to promote innovation by the private sector and create an environment that will stimulate economic activity while reducing federal spending
and debt. This includes working with the DPC, NSC, OMB, Council of Economic
Advisers, Office of Intergovernmental Affairs, Office of Cabinet Affairs, WhiteHouse Counsel, Council on Environmental Quality, Office of Legislative Affairs,— 53 —

Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promiseand Office of Science and Technology Policy. To this end, the NEC Director should
chair a standing meeting with the principals from each of the other EOP offices toenhance coordination from within the White House.
In the past, there has been tension among the DPC, NEC, and NSC over jurisdiction. It is important to set clear jurisdictions at the start of an Administration
to prevent needless and counterproductive turf fights. In addition, the Principal
Deputy for international economic policy is jointly appointed at NEC and NSC andcould end up serving two different interests. To avoid such problems, international
economic policy should be entirely coordinated from NEC.
It will be especially important for the NEC to work seamlessly with the Councilof Economic Advisers (CEA), which provides the President and the White House
offices with the latest economic data and forecasts, as well as estimates of the economic impact of proposed policies, and prepares the annual Economic Report of
the President. The CEA is not a policy council and therefore does not run policy
processes, which is the responsibility of the NEC, DPC, and NSC. However, the
CEA does play a key role in ensuring that any policy considered by the councils is
rigorously evaluated for its economic impacts.
The NEC works closely with the White House Office of Communications andOffice of Speechwriting to ensure that the White House’s messaging and media
engagement communicate the President’s economic policy effectively.
The NEC also plays a key role in advancing the President’s economic agenda
by advising the Office of Presidential Personnel on appointments to key economic
posts, including positions in financial regulatory agencies. The NEC helps to ensurethat each economic post is held by a person who shares the President’s policy priorities and works well with the rest of the Administration’s economic team. The
financial regulators are run partly by civil servants (some of whom were political appointees in prior liberal Administrations) who often resist a conservative
Administration’s policies. It is therefore critical that an Administration not only
appoints capable individuals to lead these agencies, but also has personnel who
can be hired into senior staff positions within the agencies.
A few areas will be especially important if the NEC is to develop a well-defined
economic policy agenda. One is the promotion of innovation as a foundation foreconomic growth and opportunity. Another is the creation of an environment that
fosters economic growth through tax reform and the elimination of regulatory andprocedural barriers.
OFFICE OF THE U.S. TRADE REPRESENTATIVE (USTR)The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative provides the President with theinternal White House resources necessary to formulate and execute a unified,
whole-of-government approach to trade policy. The President should ensurethat the USTR is empowered to serve in that leadership role, much as other— 54 —

2025 Presidential Transition Project

EOP components organize and drive a coordinated policy agenda on behalf of
the President.
The People’s Republic of China’s predatory trade practices have disrupted theopen-market trading system that has provided mutual benefit to all participating
countries—including China—for decades. The failure of the World Trade Organization (WTO) to discipline China for abrogation of its trading commitments has
seriously undermined its credibility and made it a largely ineffective institution.
The United States, through an empowered USTR, must act to rebalance and refocus
international trading relationships in favor of democratic nations that embrace
free, fair, and open trade principles built on market-driven economies.
Chapter 26 of this book outlines recommended trade policy priorities for theincoming President. However, regardless of the approach, successful implementation of that trade agenda will require the President to articulate a clear policy
direction and instructions for the executive branch to operate in a coordinatedfashion under the leadership of an empowered USTR.
To address these and other challenges, protect the American worker, and secure
free and open markets for our communities and businesses, the next President
must leverage the institutional resources and strength of the USTR and neither
allow institutional interests to drive a fragmented trade policy that is developed
from the ground up nor cater to parochial interests across government and Washington’s broader industry of influence.
The USTR’s mission is vitally important in reorienting the global trading system
in a direction that is open, fair, and prosperous. In order to achieve the President’s
policy goals, a strong USTR must be empowered to set trade policy from the WhiteHouse with the authority and resources to represent the interests of the President’s trade agenda with adequate budget, staff, analysis, and expertise to engage
meaningfully in internal and interagency policy deliberations. The USTR shouldorganize and harness existing interagency trade committees to serve the President’s trade agenda and drive a consensus among federal stakeholders, disposeof legacy advisory committees with members who serve special interests, direct
action to implement policy priorities, measure progress toward implementing thePresident’s agenda, and hold agencies and officials accountable for delivering thePresident’s agenda. The USTR’s leadership should not only coordinate and enforce
the President’s agenda across the federal community, but also set and enforce thePresident’s trade agenda internally.
Trade policy and priorities should be set by the President and implemented by
the U.S. Trade Representative in cooperation with the other economic and national
security officials, not by the range of governmental and nongovernmental intereststhat attempt to force their policy preferences on the USTR. A strong USTR empowered with the necessary resources, authorities, and interagency cooperation willprotect U.S. interests in the global marketplace more effectively.

— 55 —

Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise

COUNCIL OF ECONOMIC ADVISERS (CEA)

Congress established the Council of Economic Advisers in 1946 to advise thePresident on economic policy based on data, research, and evidence. The CEA is
one of the oldest congressionally created offices within the White House complex
and plays a broad role in bringing economic expertise to Administration policy
across a large range of policy areas. The CEA has one presidentially appointed
and Senate-confirmed chair, two presidentially appointed members who assist
and often have expertise that complements the chair, and approximately 40
staff employees.
Statutorily, the CEA is charged with being the President’s principal source ofeconomic advice. However, this role has diminished over time as its policy appraisal
and especially formulation and recommendation functions have been taken over ordiluted by other economic policy bodies within the White House. By law, the CEA
is required to publish an annual Economic Report of the President within 10 days
after submission of the budget. This report is not just a messaging document; it isan opportunity to provide greater rigor in support of policy areas that the WhiteHouse is prioritizing and to build up the external credibility of those ideas.
A future conservative Administration should utilize the CEA as the senior internal White House economists much as the White House Counsel’s office functions
as the senior internal White House lawyers. This does not mean that there are no
economists in other offices. There are, just as there often are lawyers in the policy
councils and other White House offices, but the CEA’s role, like the White HouseCounsel’s, is to employ its unique expertise (particularly on the technical side) toensure that sound analysis is contributing to and shaping the policy discussion.
In practice, this means that CEA staff do not “coordinate” the policy process inthe way that the DPC or NEC would, but they should be integral to the EOP’s policy
development processes. CEA staff should support sound policy development andexecution by actively contributing to running policy dialogues, proactively raising
issues that need to be addressed, consulting on questions that arise, and guiding
EOP and agency officials on the analytical foundations of policy. Structurally, theWhite House Chief of Staff should ensure that the CEA has a seat at the policymaking table on all relevant policy.
Senior economists traditionally have not gone through the Office of Presidential
Personnel process and more often than not are hired on an academic-year cycle. As
a result, senior economists hired in the summer of a presidential election year tend
to remain on staff until the next summer even if a President from the opposite party
takes power and installs a new slate of CEA political appointees for chair, members,
etc. Although these hiring practices create some continuity, the presence of senioreconomists who were never fully vetted for their alignment with White House
policy objectives or who were holdovers from a recently departed Administration can breed skepticism and distrust of the CEA by other units within the White— 56 —

2025 Presidential Transition ProjectHouse, creating the risk that the CEA’s role in the policymaking process will bediminished. A future Administration should consider hiring that reflects the WhiteHouse calendar (mid-January) and involves the Office of Presidential Personnel.
NATIONAL SPACE COUNCIL (NSPC)The National Space Council is responsible for providing advice and recommendations to the President on the formulation and implementation of space policy
and strategy. It is charged with conducting a whole-of-government approach to
the nation’s space interests: civil, military, intelligence, commercial, or diplomatic.
Historically, it has been chaired by the Vice President at the President’s direction,and its members consist of members of the Cabinet and other senior executive
branch officials as specified by the President in Executive Order 13803.32 The
NSpC’s purpose is to ensure that the President’s priorities relative to space arecarried out and, as necessary, to resolve policy conflicts among departments andagencies that are related to space.
Space projects and programs are risky, complex, expensive, and time consuming—although commercial space innovations are lowering costs and acceleratingschedules. Nevertheless, while fiscal discipline should not be ignored, long-term
policy stability is crucial to investors, innovators, industry, and agencies. Policy
stability is easier when policies and programs are aligned with long-term national
interests as opposed to those of particular advocacy groups or political factions.
The Trump Administration’s major space policies—including the U.S. Space Force,the Artemis program to land the next Americans on the moon, and support for astrong commercial space sector—have endured under the Biden Administration.
Major challenges remain in implementation and regulatory reform to keep up
with rapidly evolving space markets and competitors. These include the long-termsustainability of space activities in light of increasing orbital debris; creation of
space situational awareness services for civil and commercial uses; managementof mega-constellations; licensing of new commercial remote sensing capabilities;
keeping up with licensing demands due to high launch rates; transitioning International Space Station operations to multiple, privately owned space platforms;
and (most important) accelerating the acquisition and fielding of national security
space capabilities in response to an increasingly aggressive China.
The Vice President should have a clear understanding with the National Security Advisor and the White House Counsel that they and their respective staffs
will work within the White House to determine the scope and leadership of policy
reviews that can overlap multiple areas of responsibility. A similar understandingis necessary with the heads of other policy councils such as the NEC, DPC, andNational Science and Technology Council (NSTC).
As a result of the President’s direction and the Vice President’s leadership, theNSpC under the Trump Administration was able to coordinate a wide range of— 57 —

Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise

space policy reviews, legislative proposals, and regulatory reforms smoothly. The
NSpC generally led on space issues within the EOP, but other White House offices
also took on space topics.
lll

As a member of the NSpC, and in coordination with other members, theOffice of Science and Technology Policy developed a national space weather
strategy, research and development (R&D) plans to mitigate the effects oforbital debris, and protocols for planetary protection to avoid biologicalcontamination of celestial bodies.
The Council of Economic Advisers did research on the economic benefits ofspace property rights.
OMB’s Office of Information and Regulatory Reform updated andstreamlined commercial launch licensing and commercial remote sensing
satellite rules.

During the Trump Administration, if a topic was purely military, such as standing up the U.S. Space Command, the NSC took the lead. If a topic cut across military,
civil, and commercial sectors, as was the case with cybersecurity in space, the NSpC
and NSC would cochair the policy review groups.
Trusted, collegial relationships across the White House complex are critical tosuccessful space policy development, implementation, and oversight. Nowhereis this more important than in the relationship between the NSpC staff and OMB
staff who oversee civil and national security–related space spending. Teamwork
between the NSpC and OMB staff can communicate clear presidential priorities
to departments and agencies, facilitating smooth development of the President’s
budget request. The NSpC and OMB have many opportunities to collaborate inpromoting presidential priorities while finding offsets in lower-priority programs
and funding lines.
OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY (OSTP)

The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) was createdby the National Science and Technology Policy, Organization, and Priorities Act
of 1976.33 Before its creation, Presidents received their advice and counsel on suchmatters through advisers and boards that had no statutory authority. The Directorof OSTP is one of the few Senate-confirmed positions within the Executive Officeof the President. Consistent with other laws, the President may delegate to the
Director of OSTP directive authority over other elements of the executive branch.
Other EOP policy officials and organizations such as the NSC and NEC are formally
only advisory with relevant agency directives issued by the President.

— 58 —

2025 Presidential Transition Project

The OSTP’s functions, as contained in the law, are to advise the President ofscientific and technological considerations, evaluate the effectiveness of the federal
effort, and generally lead and coordinate the federal government’s R&D programs.
If science is being manipulated at the agencies to support separate political andinstitutional agendas, the President should increase the prominence of the OSTP’s
Director either formally or informally. This would elevate the role of science inpolicy discussions and subsequent outcomes and theoretically help to balanceout agencies like the Departments of Energy, State, and Commerce and the Environmental Protection Agency and Council on Environmental Quality. The OSTP
can also help to bring technical expertise to regulatory matters in support of OMB.
The OSTP should continue to play a lead role in coordinating federal R&D programs. Recent legislation, especially the CHIPS and Science Act,34 has expandedfederal policy and funding across the enterprise, and there is a need for more significant leadership in this area both to ensure effectiveness and to avoid duplicationof effort. As befitting its location in the White House, the OSTP must be concernedwith advancing national interests and not merely the parochial concerns of departments, agencies, or parts of the scientific community.
During the Trump and Biden Administrations, there has been a bipartisan focus
on prioritizing R&D funding around the so-called Industries of the Future (IOTF).
Under President Trump, IOTF priorities were artificial intelligence (AI), quantum
information science (QIS), advanced communications/5G, advanced manufacturing,and biotechnology. Under President Biden, this list has been expanded to include
advanced materials, robotics, battery technology, cybersecurity, green products andclean technology, plant genetics and agricultural technologies, nanotechnology, andsemiconductor and microelectronics technologies. These priorities should be evaluated and narrowed to ensure consistency with the next Administration’s priorities.
Given a long list of priorities, coordinating efforts across agencies and measuring success are extremely challenging. The OSTP and OMB are required towork together on an annual basis to prioritize the funding requests and whatever
Congress adds on top of them, but there continues to be concern about mission
creep and funds expended on nonscientific R&D.
The President should also issue an executive order to reshape the U.S. Global
Change Research Program (USGCRP) and related climate change research programs. The USGCRP produces strategic plans and research (for example, theNational Climate Assessment) that reduce the scope of legally proper options inpresidential decision-making and in agency rulemakings and adjudications. Also,
since much environmental policymaking must run the gauntlet of judicial review,
USGCRP actions can frustrate successful litigation defense in ways that the career
bureaucracy should not be permitted to control. The process for producing assessments should include diverse viewpoints. The OSTP and OMB should jointly assess
the independence of the contractors used to conduct much of this outsourced— 59 —

Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise

government research that serves as the basis for policymaking. The next President
should critically analyze and, if required, refuse to accept any USGCRP assessment
prepared under the Biden Administration.
The President should also restore related EOP research components to theirpurely informational and advisory roles. Consistent with the Global Change
Research Act of 1990,35 USGCRP-related EOP components should be confined toa more limited advisory role. These components should include but not necessarily
be limited to the OSTP; the NSTC’s Committee on Environment; the USGCRP’s
Interagency Groups (for example, the Carbon Cycle Interagency Working Group);
and the Federal Coordinating Council for Science, Engineering, and Technology.
As a general matter, the new Administration should separate the scientific risk
assessment function from the risk management function, which is the exclusive
domain of elected policymakers and the public.
Finally, the next Administration will face a significant challenge in unwinding
policies and procedures that are used to advance radical gender, racial, and equity
initiatives under the banner of science. Similarly, the Biden Administration’s
climate fanaticism will need a whole-of-government unwinding. As with otherfederal departments and agencies, the Biden Administration’s leveraging of thefederal government’s resources to further the woke agenda should be reversed andscrubbed from all policy manuals, guidance documents, and agendas, and scientificexcellence and innovation should be restored as the OSTP’s top priority.
COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY (CEQ)The Council on Environmental Quality is the EOP component with the principal task of administering the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)36 by
issuing regulations and interpretive documents and by overseeing the processesof individual permitting agencies’ own NEPA regulations, including categoricalexclusions. The CEQ also coordinates environmental policy across the federal
government, and its influence has waxed and waned across Administrations.
The President should instruct the CEQ to rewrite its regulations implementing
NEPA along the lines of the historic 2020 effort and restoring its key provisions
such as banning the use of cumulative impact analysis. This effort should incorporate new learning and more aggressive reform options that were not includedin the 2020 reform package with the overall goal of streamlining the process tobuild on the Supreme Court ruling that “CEQ’s interpretation of NEPA is entitledto substantial deference.”37 It should frame the new regulations to limit the scopefor judicial review of agency NEPA analysis and judicial remedies, as well as tovindicate the strong public interest in effective and timely agency action.
The Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council (FPISC), of which the
CEQ is a part, has been empowered by Congress through significant new funding
and amendments to FAST-41.38 The President should build on this foundation to— 60 —

2025 Presidential Transition Projectfurther empower the FPISC by making its Executive Director an EOP appointee
with delegated presidential directive authority over executive branch permitting
agencies. For instance, the implementation of Executive Order 13807’s One Federal
Decision39 revealed many ways that the systems established by EO 13807 can be
improved. The new President should seek to issue a new executive order to createa unified process for major infrastructure projects that includes giving project
proponents more control of any regulatory clocks.
The President should issue an executive order establishing a Senior Advisor tocoordinate the policy development and implementation of relevant energy andenvironment policy by officials across the EOP (for example, the policy staff of the
NSC, NEC, DPC, CEQ, and OSTP) and abolishing the existing Office of Domestic Climate Policy. The Senior Advisor would report directly to the Chief of Staff. The role
would be similar to the role that Brian Deese and John Podesta had in the Obama
White House. This energy/environment coordinator would help to lead the fightfor sound energy and environment policies both domestically and internationally.
The President should eliminate the Interagency Working Group on the Social
Cost of Carbon (SCC), which is cochaired by the OSTP, OMB, and CEA, and by
executive order should end the use of SCC analysis.
Finally, the President should work with Congress to establish a sweeping modernization of the entire permitting system across all departments and agencies thatis aimed at reducing litigation risk and giving agencies the authority to establish
programmatic, general, and provisional permits.
OFFICE OF NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL POLICY (ONDCP)

Congress created the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) throughthe Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 198840 to serve as a coordinative auxiliary for the President on all matters related to drug policy. The next President’s top drug policy
priority must be to address the current fentanyl crisis and reduce the number ofoverdoses and fatalities. This crisis resulted in the deaths of more than 100,000
Americans in 2021.
The next Administration must reaffirm a commitment to preventing drug use
before it starts, providing treatment that leads to long-term recovery, and reducing
the availability of illicit drugs in the United States. The drug trafficking environment is exponentially more dynamic and dangerous today than it was just five
years ago as powerful synthetic opioids (fentanyl and its analogues) are mixed
into other drugs of abuse. Drug trafficking organizations are extremely nimble andable to adapt quickly to federal government actions and changes in user behavior.
Disrupting the flow of drugs across our borders and into our communities is ofparamount importance, both to save lives and to bolster our public health efforts.
For these reasons, the Director of ONDCP should make it a point to consult withfederal border enforcement officials.

— 61 —

Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise

The National Drug Control Program agencies represented a total of $41 billion
in fiscal year 2022. Whereas the position for overseeing budget activities is traditionally held by a career official, it is imperative that a political appointee lead the
ONDCP budget office to ensure coordination between the OMB Program Associate
Director and the ONDCP budgetary appointee.
ONDCP grant-making activities have been controversial over the years, particularly within conservative Administrations concerned that the White House
lacks the expertise to oversee such programs directly. The ONDCP administers
two grant programs: the Drug-Free Communities Support Program and the HighIntensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program. While it makes sense to transfer these
programs eventually to the Department of Justice and Department of Health andHuman Services, respectively, it is vital that the ONDCP Director ensure in theimmediate term that these grant programs are funding the President’s drug control
priorities and not woke nonprofits with leftist policy agendas. Thus, the President
must insure that the ONDCP is managed by political appointees who are committed to the Administration’s agenda and not acquiesce to management by politicalor career military personnel who oversaw the prior Administration’s ONDCP.
GENDER POLICY COUNCIL (GPC)The President should immediately revoke Executive Order 1402041 and every
policy, including subregulatory guidance documents, produced on behalf of or
related to the establishment or promotion of the Gender Policy Council and its
subsidiary issues. Abolishing the Gender Policy Council would eliminate central
promotion of abortion (“health services”); comprehensive sexuality education(“education”); and the new woke gender ideology, which has as a principal tenet“gender affirming care” and “sex-change” surgeries on minors. In addition to eliminating the council, developing new structures and positions will have the dual
effect of demonstrating that promoting life and strengthening the family is a priority while also facilitating more seamless coordination and consistency acrossthe U.S. government.
Specifically, the President should appoint a position/point of contact with therank of Special Assistant to the President or higher to coordinate and lead the President’s domestic priorities on issues related to life and family in cooperation with
the Domestic Policy Council. This position would be responsible for facilitating
meetings, discussions, and agreements among personnel; coordinating Administration policy; and ensuring agency support for implementation of policies related
to the promotion of life and family in the United States.
OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT (OVP)The Vice President is elected to the second highest office in the nation and plays
a constitutionally vital role as President-in-waiting. The Vice President is also

— 62 —

2025 Presidential Transition Project

the President of the Senate and is charged with breaking tie votes in that body. In
recent years, the Vice President has been granted office space in the West Wing
and the Eisenhower Executive Office Building.
The OVP is another one of the levers that the President should use to execute his
agenda. This is particularly true because there is significant and unique leveragethat the Vice President’s leadership of the OVP can evoke to shape policy discussions and outcomes. Every other appointed White House official serves at thepleasure of the President, whereas the Vice President is elected, and the process
for filling vacancies in that Article II constitutional office, which includes confirmation of a replacement Vice President by a majority of both Houses of Congress,
is governed by the Twenty-Fifth Amendment.42
The Vice President has his or her own economic advisers, domestic policy andnational security staff, and daily intelligence briefings. The Vice President should
fill his or her office with strong and sound policy minds to effectively assist the
President in fulfilling his agenda.
The Vice President is also a statutory member of the National Security Council.43
In theory, in light of the fact that the Vice President is a member of the Smithsonian Institution’s Board of Regents,44 there is nothing to prevent Congress fromassigning the Vice President additional statutory duties.
All of the component councils and offices discussed in this chapter include realpolicy development and implementation authority, and a robust OVP should befully integrated into all policy-formation procedures. Only a Vice President who
is deeply steeped in the interworking of the interagency and policy councils canoffer useful advice and prove helpful in accomplishing the President’s agenda. It
is also obvious, in view of the fact that many former Vice Presidents have gone on
to be elected President in their own right,45 that the Vice Presidency can act as a
training ground for presidential office.
In the past, the Vice President has been tasked with leading certain initiatives or
issues. For example, Mike Pence was tasked with coordinating the federal response
to COVID-19, and both Pence and Kamala Harris have chaired the National SpaceCouncil. Vice Presidents Richard Cheney and Dan Quayle were also active on the
deregulatory front and in imposing regulatory moratoria. However, OVP officials should be fully integrated into each and every process from the start of a
new Administration and not have to wait to be invited to join various meetings orworking groups on an ad hoc basis. For example, the budget and regulatory review
processes are linchpins in the execution of policy, and the OVP should have a seatat the table through every phase of policy development.
Past Vice Presidents have also spent significant time abroad serving as a type ofbrand ambassador for the White House and, more broadly, for the United States,
announcing Administration priorities and coordinating with heads of state andother top officials of foreign governments. The Vice President, as President of the— 63 —

Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise

Senate, often serves as a presidential emissary to the Senate and thus can be especially helpful in securing passage of the President’s legislative agenda.
To the extent that he or she desires, a Vice President can have a direct role inshaping Administration policy. A Vice President who regularly attends meetingsand disperses staff across the interagency and policy councils is a Vice President
whose voice will be heard.

AUTHOR’S NOTE: Special thanks to those who contributed to this chapter: Stephen Billy, Scott Pace, Casey

Mulligan, Edie Heipel, Mike Duffey, Vance Ginn, Iain Murray, Laura Cunliffe, Mario Loyola, Anthony Campau, Paige
Agostin, Molly Sikes, Paul Ray, Kenneth A. Klukowski, Michael Anton, Robert Greenway, Valerie Huber, James Rockas,Paul Winfree, Aaron Hedlund, Brian McCormack, David Legates, Art Kleinschmidt, Paul Larkin, Kayla Tonnessen,
Jeffrey B. Clark, Jonathan Wolfson, and Bob Burkett.

— 64 —

2025 Presidential Transition Project
ENDNOTES

1.
2.
3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.
12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 1, https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleii#section1 (accessed
January 30, 2023).
James Madison, The Federalist Papers No. 47, January 30, 1788, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/
Madison/01-10-02-0266 (accessed January 30, 2023).
31 U.S.C. §§ 1341(a)(1)(A) and 1341(a)(1)(B), https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/1341 (accessed
January 30, 2023); § 1342, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/1342 (accessed January 30, 2023); and§ 1517(a), https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/1517(a) (accessed January 30, 2023).
President William J. Clinton, Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” September 30, 1993,
in Federal Register, Vol. 58, No. 190 (October 4, 1993), pp. 51735–51744, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/
FR-1993-10-04/pdf/FR-1993-10-04.pdf (accessed March 9, 2023).
Brent J. McIntosh, General Counsel, Department of the Treasury, and Neomi Rao, Administrator, Office ofInformation and Regulatory Affairs, Memorandum of Agreement, “The Department of the Treasury and the
Office of Management and Budget Review of Tax Regulations Under Executive Order 12866,” April 11, 2018,https://home.treasury.gov/sites/default/files/2018-04/04-11%20Signed%20Treasury%20OIRA%20MOA.pdf(accessed January 31, 2023).
See Steven A. Engel, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, “Extending Regulatory Review
Under Executive Order 12866 to Independent Regulatory Agencies,” 43 Op. O.L.C. __ (Oct. 8, 2019), https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opinions/attachments/2020/12/30/2019-10-08-extend-reg-review.pdf(accessed January 31, 2023).
Office of Management and Budget, Circular A-4, “Regulatory Analysis,” September 17, 2003, https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/legacy_drupal_files/omb/circulars/A4/a-4.pdf (accessed
January 31, 2023).
President Donald J. Trump, Executive Order 13891, “Promoting the Rule of Law Through Improved Agency
Guidance Documents,” October 9, 2019, in Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 199 (October 15, 2019), pp. 55235–
55238, https://home.treasury.gov/sites/default/files/2018-04/04-11%20Signed%20Treasury%20OIRA%20MOA.
pdf (accessed January 31, 2023).
President Donald J. Trump, Executive Order 13771, “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,”
January 30, 2017, in Federal Register, Vol. 82, No. 22 (February 3, 20170, pp. 9339–9341, https://www.govinfo.
gov/content/pkg/FR-2017-02-03/pdf/2017-02451.pdf (accessed January 31, 2023).
President Donald J. Trump, Executive Order 13777, “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda,” February 24,
2017, in Federal Register, Vol. 82, No. 39 (March 1, 2017), pp. 12285–12287, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/
pkg/FR-2017-03-01/pdf/2017-04107.pdf (accessed January 31, 2023).
See note 8, supra.
President Donald J. Trump, Executive Order 13892, “Promoting the Rule of Law Through Transparency and
Fairness in Civil Administrative Enforcement and Adjudication,” in Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 199 (October
15, 2019), pp. 55239–55243, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-10-15/pdf/2019-22624.pdf(accessed January 31, 2023).
President Donald J. Trump, Executive Order 13893, “Increasing Government Accountability for Administrative
Actions by Reinvigorating Administrative PAYGO,” October 10, 2019, in Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 200(October 16, 2019), pp. 55487–55488, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-10-16/pdf/2019-22749.
pdf (accessed January 31, 2023).
President Donald J. Trump, Executive Order 13924, “Regulatory Relief to Support Economic Recovery,” May 19,
2020, in Federal Register, Vol. 85, No. 100 (May 22, 2020), pp. 31353–31356, esp. 31355, https://www.govinfo.
gov/content/pkg/FR-2020-05-22/pdf/2020-11301.pdf (accessed January 31, 2023).
President Donald J. Trump, Executive Order 13979, “Ensuring Democratic Accountability in Agency
Rulemaking,” January 18, 2021, in Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 13 (January 22, 2021), pp. 6813–6815, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2021-01-22/pdf/2021-01644.pdf (accessed January 31, 2023).
President Donald J. Trump, Executive Order 13980, “Protecting Americans from Overcriminalization
Through Regulatory Reform,” January 18, 2021, in Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 13 (January 22, 2021),
pp. 6817–6820, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2021-01-22/pdf/2021-01645.pdf (accessed
January 31, 2023).

— 65 —

Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise
17. President William J. Clinton, Executive Order 13132, “Federalism,” August 4, 1999, in Federal Register, Vol. 64,
No. 153 (August 10, 1999), pp. 43255–43259, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-1999-08-10/pdf/9920729.pdf (accessed January 31, 2023).
18. President Ronald Reagan, Executive Order 12630, “Governmental Actions and Interference with
Constitutionally Protected Property Rights,” March 15, 1988, in Federal Register, Vol. 53, No. 53 (March 18,1988), pp. 8859–8862, https://www.regulationwriters.com/downloads/Executive_Orders/EO_12630.pdf(accessed January 31, 2023).
19. Section 115 in H.R. 4577, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2001, Public Law No. 106-544, 106th Congress,
December 21, 2000, https://www.congress.gov/106/plaws/publ554/PLAW-106publ554.pdf (accessed
January 31, 2023).
20. H.R. 6410, Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, Public Law No. 96-511, 96th Congress, December 11, 1980, https://www.congress.gov/96/statute/STATUTE-94/STATUTE-94-Pg2812.pdf (accessed January 31, 2023).
21. S. 3418, An Act to Amend Title 5, United States Code, by Adding a Section 552a, to Safeguard Individual
Privacy from the Misuse of Federal Records, to Provide that Individuals Be Granted Access to Records
Concerning Them Which Are Maintained by Federal Agencies, to Establish a Privacy Protection Study
Commission, and for Other Purposes (Privacy Act of 1974), Public Law No. 93-579, 93rd Congress,
December 31, 1974, https://www.congress.gov/93/statute/STATUTE-88/STATUTE-88-Pg1896.pdf (accessed
January 31, 2023).
22. Office of Management and Budget, “Guidance for Grants and Agreements,” Final Guidance, Federal Register,Vol. 85, No. 157 (August 13, 2020), pp. 49506–49582, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2020-08-13/
pdf/2020-17468.pdf (accessed January 31, 2023), and “Guidance for Grants and Agreements,” Correcting
Amendments, Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 33 (February 22, 2021), pp. 10439–10440, https://www.govinfo.
gov/content/pkg/FR-2021-02-22/pdf/2021-02969.pdf (accessed January 31, 2023).
23. H.R. 5, Regulatory Accountability Act of 2017, 115th Congress, introduced January 3, 2017, https://www.
congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/5 (accessed January 31, 20/23), and S. 951, Regulatory
Accountability Act of 2017, 115th Congress, introduced April 26, 2017, https://www.congress.gov/bill/115thcongress/senate-bill/951 (accessed January 31, 2023).
24. S. 2314, Social Media Addiction Reduction Technology Act (SMART Act), 116th Congress, introduced July 30,
2019, https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/2314/text (accessed January 31, 2023).
25. H.R. 1605, Guidance Out of Darkness Act (GOOD Act), 117th Congress, introduced March 8, 2021, https://www.
congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/1605 (accessed January 31, 2023).
26. S. 2804, Early Participation in Regulations Act of 2021, 117th Congress, introduced September 22, 2021, https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/2804 (accessed January 31, 2023).
27. S. 170, Unfunded Mandates Accountability and Transparency Act, 117th Congress, introduced February 2, 2021,
https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/170 (accessed January 31, 2023).
28. H.R. 277, Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2023 (REINS Act), 118th Congress,
introduced January 11, 2023, https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/277/all-info?r=217(accessed January 31, 2023).
29. Subtitle E, “Congressional Review,” in H.R. 3136, Contract with America Advancement Act of 1996, Public Law
No. 104-121, 104th Congress, March 29, 1996, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-104publ121/pdf/
PLAW-104publ121.pdf (accessed January 31, 2023).
30. H.R. 115, Midnight Rules Relief Act of 2023, 118th Congress, introduced January 9, 2023, https://www.congress.
gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/115/text?s=1&r=18 (accessed January 31, 2023).
31. See Federation of American Scientists, Intelligence Resource Program, “Presidential Directives and Executive
Orders,” https://irp.fas.org/offdocs/direct.htm (accessed February 1, 2023), and Library of Congress,
Researchers, Newspaper and Current Periodical Reading Room, “Presidential Directives and Where to Find
Them,” March 30, 2022, https://www.loc.gov/rr/news/directives.html (accessed February 1, 2023).
32. President Donald J. Trump, Executive Order 13803, “Reviving the National Space Council,” June 30, 2017, inFederal Register, Vol. 82, No. 129 (July 7, 2017), pp. 31429–31432, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR2017-07-07/pdf/2017-14378.pdf (accessed February 1, 2023).

— 66 —

2025 Presidential Transition Project
33. H.R. 10230, National Science and Technology Policy, Organization, and Priorities Act of 1976, Public Law No.
94-282, 94th Congress, May 11, 1976, https://www.congress.gov/94/statute/STATUTE-90/STATUTE-90-Pg459.
pdf (accessed February 1, 2023).
34. H.R. 4346, CHIPS [Creating Helpful Incentives to Produce Semiconductors] and Science Act, Public Law No.
117-167, 117th Congress, August 9, 2022, https://www.congress.gov/117/plaws/publ167/PLAW-117publ167.pdf(accessed February 1, 2023).
35. S. 169, Global Change Research Act of 1990, Public Law No. 101-606, 101st Congress, November 16, 1990,
https://www.congress.gov/101/statute/STATUTE-104/STATUTE-104-Pg3096.pdf (accessed February 1, 2023).
36. S. 1075, National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Public Law No. 91-190, 91st Congress, January 1, 1970,
https://uscode.house.gov/statutes/pl/91/190.pdf (accessed February 1, 2023).
37. Andrus v. Sierra Club, 442 U.S. 347, 358 (1979), https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep442/
usrep442347/usrep442347.pdf (accessed March 7, 2023).
38. Title XLI (41) in H.R. 22, Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act), Public Law No. 114-94, 114th
Congress, December 4, 2015, https://www.congress.gov/114/statute/STATUTE-129/STATUTE-129-Pg1312.pdf(accessed February 1, 2023).
39. President Donald J. Trump, Executive Order 13807, “Establishing Discipline and Accountability in theEnvironmental Review and Permitting Process for Infrastructure Projects,” August 15, 2017, in Federal Register,Vol. 82, No. 163 (August 24, 2017), pp. 40463–40469, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2017-08-24/
pdf/2017-18134.pdf (accessed February 1, 2023).
40. H.R. 5210, Anti-Drug Abuse of 1988, Public Law No. 100-690, 100th Congress, November 18, 1988, https://www.
congress.gov/100/statute/STATUTE-102/STATUTE-102-Pg4181.pdf (accessed February 1, 2023).
41. President Joseph R. Biden Jr., Executive Order 14020, “Establishment of the White House Gender Policy
Council,” March 8, 2021, in Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 46 (March 11, 2021), pp. 13797–13801, https://www.
govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2021-03-11/pdf/2021-05183.pdf (accessed January 31, 2023).
42. U.S. Constitution, Amendment XXV, https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxxv (accessed
March 9, 2023).
43. 50 U.S.C. § 3021(c)(1), https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/3021 (accessed March 9, 2023).
44. 20 U.S.C. § 20(a), https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/20/42#:~:text=The%20business%20of%20the%20
Institution%20shall%20be%20conducted,no%20two%20of%20them%20of%20the%20same%20State(accessed March 9, 2023).
45. Vice Presidents Gerald Ford and Lyndon Johnson assumed (Ford) or initially assumed (Johnson) the office ofthe presidency by a process of succession.

— 67 —