This chapter is about the Justice Department and the FBI. It says both have become political. It wants the FBI cut back and moved under closer control. It says the FBI should not police speech. It also asks for more use of the death penalty.
The document says “should”Who acts: Attorney GeneralHow: internal managementp. 549 in the PDF
What the document says
“remove the FBI from the Deputy Attorney General’s direct supervision”
The chapter proposes placing the FBI under the general supervision of the Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division, says this can be done through a simple internal reorganization without Congress, and that under no circumstances should the FBI be able to go around the Attorney General or the department's leadership on any matter in its area of responsibility.
What the document actually says
“remove the FBI from the Deputy Attorney General’s direct supervision”
That sentence, in plain words
Take the FBI out from under the number two at the department.
What this is about
The FBI answers to the number two at the Justice Department. The book says it should answer to a different official. That would put it under closer watch.
Read against the documents indexed here on August 26, 2026, and nothing was found that answers this. No indexed document changes where the FBI sits in the Justice Department. Executive Order 14147 of January 20, 2025 is the nearest, and it orders a review and a report on past federal enforcement activity rather than a reorganization. Nothing indexed removes the FBI from the Deputy Attorney General's supervision or places it under the Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division. That is a record of a search, not a finding that nothing has happened: an act this site does not hold, or one that answers the proposal in words unlike its own, would not be caught by it.
The document says “should”Who acts: Attorney General, PresidentHow: internal managementp. 550 in the PDF
What the document says
“Prohibit the FBI from engaging, in general, in activities related to combating the spread of so-called misinformation and disinformation by Americans who are not tied to any plausible criminal activity.”
The chapter says the government has no business policing speech, that the First Amendment prohibits it, and asks for a hard firewall between monitoring online activity for threats or evidence of crime, which it treats as legitimate, and asking or demanding that publishers remove material based on content or viewpoint, which it says the department must not do.
What the document actually says
“Prohibit the FBI from engaging, in general, in activities related to combating the spread of so-called misinformation and disinformation by Americans who are not tied to any plausible criminal activity.”
That sentence, in plain words
Stop the FBI working on false claims spread by Americans. Unless a crime is involved.
What this is about
The FBI has worked on false claims spread online. The book says that is not its job. It says the government must not police speech.
Executive Order 14149 of January 20, 2025 states that the federal government infringed protected speech under the guise of combatting misinformation, disinformation and malinformation, bars every federal department, agency, officer, employee and agent from acting or spending federal resources in a way that would unconstitutionally abridge an American citizen's speech or facilitate such conduct, and directs the Attorney General to investigate the previous four years and recommend remedies. The prohibition is government-wide and covers the activity the chapter names. It breaks down on scope and on line-drawing: the order names no agency, so it neither singles out the FBI nor ends any identified FBI program, and it forbids only conduct that would be unconstitutional rather than setting the chapter's firewall between monitoring online activity for evidence of crime and asking a publisher to remove material.
In plain English
The order says the government wrongly curbed speech while fighting false news. It bars all federal staff from acts that cut off free speech. But no agency is named, so the FBI is not singled out and no program of it ends. It bars only acts that break the Constitution.
The document says “should”Who acts: Attorney GeneralHow: internal managementp. 551 in the PDF
What the document says
“The next conservative Administration should eliminate any offices within the FBI that it has the power to eliminate without any action from Congress.”
The chapter gives the FBI's Office of General Counsel as its example, saying it holds about 300 attorneys, has been involved in what it calls some of the FBI's most damaging recent scandals, and that these attorneys are not necessary in their current capacity because legal advice should come from department attorneys. It separately asks that field offices be emphasized, funded and rewarded while headquarters staff shrinks, saying the department must value badges over bureaucracy.
What the document actually says
“The next conservative Administration should eliminate any offices within the FBI that it has the power to eliminate without any action from Congress.”
That sentence, in plain words
Close any FBI office that can be closed without asking Congress.
What this is about
The FBI has many offices at its headquarters. The book says some can be closed by the department alone. It wants those closed.
Read against the documents indexed here on August 26, 2026, and nothing was found that answers this. Executive Order 14210 of February 11, 2025 orders a government-wide workforce reduction on a one-for-four hiring ratio, but it exempts public safety, immigration enforcement and law enforcement functions from that ratio and lets agency heads exempt further positions. Executive Order 14217 of February 19, 2025 names four entities to be reduced, none of them in the Justice Department. Neither eliminates an office within the FBI, and nothing indexed touches the Office of General Counsel the chapter gives as its example or shifts staff from headquarters to field offices. That is a record of a search, not a finding that nothing has happened: an act this site does not hold, or one that answers the proposal in words unlike its own, would not be caught by it.
The document says “should”Who acts: Congress, PresidentHow: legislationp. 552 in the PDF
What the document says
“the next conservative Administration should seek a legislative change to align the FBI Director’s position with those of the heads of all other major departments and agencies.”
The FBI Director serves a ten-year term, an arrangement adopted to insulate the post from political pressure. The chapter says the Director must remain politically accountable to the President in the same manner as any other agency head, and frames the change as ensuring prompt political accountability and reining in perceived or actual abuses.
What the document actually says
“the next conservative Administration should seek a legislative change to align the FBI Director’s position with those of the heads of all other major departments and agencies.”
That sentence, in plain words
Change the law so the FBI chief is like other agency heads.
What this is about
The FBI chief serves a ten-year term. That was meant to keep the job out of politics. The book says the president should be able to remove him like any other chief.
Read against the documents indexed here on August 26, 2026, and nothing was found that answers this. Nothing indexed changes how the FBI Director may be removed. The nearest document, Executive Order 14147 of January 20, 2025, directs the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence to review four years of federal law enforcement and intelligence activity and report to the President with recommended remedies. It leaves the Director's ten-year statutory term in place, and the alignment the chapter asks for would take an act of Congress, which the record indexed here does not contain. That is a record of a search, not a finding that nothing has happened: an act this site does not hold, or one that answers the proposal in words unlike its own, would not be caught by it.
The document says “should”Who acts: DOJHow: internal managementp. 553 in the PDF
What the document says
“Use applicable federal laws to bring federal charges against criminals when local jurisdictions wrongfully allow them to evade responsibility for their conduct.”
The chapter says prosecution in most jurisdictions must remain a state and local responsibility, but that the federal government owes a special responsibility to Americans where state and local prosecutors have abdicated that duty. It asks for an increased federal law enforcement presence in such places.
What the document actually says
“Use applicable federal laws to bring federal charges against criminals when local jurisdictions wrongfully allow them to evade responsibility for their conduct.”
That sentence, in plain words
Some local prosecutors let people off. Federal law should be used to charge them instead.
What this is about
Most crimes are charged by local prosecutors. The book says some choose not to charge. It says federal prosecutors should step in.
Executive Order 14339 of August 25, 2025 puts more federal law enforcement into a jurisdiction the order says has lost control of crime: the Park Police are to hire in the District of Columbia and enforce the DC Code, the United States Attorney for the District is to hire prosecutors focused on violent and property crime, and a specialized federal unit is created that the order says could be deployed in other cities where public safety and order has been lost. That answers the chapter's call for a greater federal law enforcement presence where local authorities are said to have abdicated. The fit breaks down on the proposal's actual instruction: the order does not direct anyone to bring federal charges against criminals whom local prosecutors declined to charge. It rests on a declared crime emergency in the capital and the Home Rule Act rather than on a general charging policy, and deployment to any other city is contingent.
In plain English
An order of August 25, 2025 sends more police and prosecutors into the capital. It also sets up a unit that could go to other cities. That is the bigger federal role the chapter wants. But it tells no one to bring charges in cases the local side dropped.
The document says “should”Who acts: DOJHow: internal managementp. 554 in the PDF
What the document says
“Administration should therefore do everything possible to obtain finality for the 44 prisoners currently on federal death row.”
The chapter says the current crime wave makes deterrence vital, that providing the punishment without ever enforcing it serves neither victims' families nor the defendant, and that the death penalty should be pursued for applicable crimes, particularly heinous crimes involving violence and sexual abuse of children, until Congress says otherwise.
What the document actually says
“Administration should therefore do everything possible to obtain finality for the 44 prisoners currently on federal death row.”
That sentence, in plain words
Forty-four people wait on federal death row. Do all you can to carry those out.
What this is about
Some federal prisoners are sentenced to death. Most sentences are never carried out. The book says they should be.
The chapter asked that the Administration do everything possible to obtain finality for those on federal death row and pursue capital punishment for applicable crimes. This order directs that approach.
In plain English
The book asked that the government seek final rulings for those on federal death row. It also asked that such cases be pressed. This order sets that course.
The document says “should consider”Who acts: President, DOJ, DODHow: internal managementp. 555 in the PDF
What the document says
“This could include use of active-duty military personnel and National Guardsmen to assist in arrest operations along the border”
The chapter raises this as part of what it calls a creative and aggressive approach to cartels at the border, and notes that it has not yet been done. It says a forceful approach to interdiction would affect the operations of these organizations and lay the groundwork for prosecutions of their leaders.
What the document actually says
“This could include use of active-duty military personnel and National Guardsmen to assist in arrest operations along the border”
That sentence, in plain words
That could mean using soldiers to help make arrests at the border.
What this is about
Soldiers do not normally arrest people inside the country. The book says they could help at the border. It notes this has not been done before.
Executive Order 14167 of January 20, 2025 assigns United States Northern Command the mission to seal the borders and repel what it calls forms of invasion, including unlawful mass migration, narcotics trafficking, and human smuggling, and adds Level 3 and campaign planning requirements for that mission. Active-duty forces are put to border work, which is the first half of what the chapter raises. It breaks down on the specific step the chapter says has not yet been tried: the order says nothing about arrest operations, does not mention the National Guard, and does not address the Posse Comitatus limits that stand between a military presence and military arrests.
In plain English
The order gives the military command for North America the job of sealing the border. It must also turn back mass entry. Troops are put to border work, which is half of what the book raised. But the order says nothing about arrests. It never names the Guard or the law that bars troops from police work.
The document says “should”Who acts: Attorney GeneralHow: internal managementp. 552 in the PDF
What the document says
“The Attorney General should require all U.S. Attorneys to develop a jurisdictional-specific plan”
The chapter asks that the plans be developed wherever possible in coordination with state and local law enforcement to reduce violent crime in each district, and that the Attorney General then hold each US Attorney accountable for achieving actual results.
What the document actually says
“The Attorney General should require all U.S. Attorneys to develop a jurisdictional-specific plan”
That sentence, in plain words
Each top prosecutor should write a plan. It should fit their own area.
What this is about
Each region has a top federal prosecutor. The book says each should write a crime plan. Then they would answer for the results.
Read against the documents indexed here on August 26, 2026, and nothing was found that answers this. Executive Order 14164 of January 20, 2025 directs the Attorney General to prioritize public safety and the prosecution of violent crime, to encourage state attorneys general and district attorneys to adopt aligned policies, and to have federal law enforcement coordinate with state and local law enforcement. It requires no district-specific plan from any United States Attorney and sets no accountability for results, which is what the chapter asks for. Executive Order 14339 reaches a single district, directing the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia to hire prosecutors for violent and property crime. That is a record of a search, not a finding that nothing has happened: an act this site does not hold, or one that answers the proposal in words unlike its own, would not be caught by it.
Gene Hamilton, “Department of Justice,” in Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise, edited by Paul Dans and Steven Groves (The Heritage Foundation, 2023), pp. 545-580. https://static.heritage.org/project2025/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf
This page
“Department of Justice,” Project 2025, chapter 17. Read the Mandate, https://readthemandate.org/project-2025/chapter-17/ (retrieved October 7, 2026).
Cite the document when the claim is about what the document says. Cite this page when the indexing, the wording or the record of what has happened is what is being relied on.
What This Page Covers, and What It Leaves Out
Recommendations on the FBI's place in the department, its work on misinformation, its size and structure, the accountability of its Director, violent crime, capital punishment, cartels and the border.
The chapter's account of specific past cases and controversies, its treatment of the Civil Rights Division and antitrust, and many of its detailed component-level recommendations.
This chapter argues at length that the department has been politicized, citing particular episodes. Those arguments are the chapter's characterizations and are not indexed as proposals or repeated as fact here.
