This chapter is about work and workers. It wants to end training and rules it calls woke. It wants more protection for religious employers. It asks for time and a half for working on the Sabbath. It also wants clearer rules about who counts as an employee.
The document says “should”Who acts: President, CongressHow: executive orderp. 582 in the PDF
What the document says
“Issue an executive order banning, and Congress should pass a law prohibiting the federal government from using taxpayer dollars to fund, all critical race theory training”
The chapter states that under what it calls a diversity, equity and inclusion revolution every aspect of labor policy became a vehicle to advance race and sex classifications and to discriminate against conservative and religious viewpoints, and says the next Administration should eliminate every one of those projects.
What the document actually says
“Issue an executive order banning, and Congress should pass a law prohibiting the federal government from using taxpayer dollars to fund, all critical race theory training”
That sentence, in plain words
Sign an order banning this training. Have Congress pass a law too.
What this is about
Some workplace training deals with race and history. The book calls it critical race theory. It says no public money should pay for it.
Executive Order 14151 of January 20, 2025 has the Director of the Office of Personnel Management review and revise all existing federal employment practices, union contracts, and training policies or programs to comply with the order, directs each agency head within 60 days to terminate to the maximum extent allowed by law all diversity, equity and inclusion mandates, policies, programs, preferences and activities and all such performance requirements for employees, contractors or grantees, and requires each agency to report the federal contractors that have provided such training or training materials to its employees. That is an executive order ending the federal government's use of taxpayer money for training of the kind the passage names. The fit breaks down in that the order works through the diversity, equity and inclusion label and does not use the term critical race theory or define a body of ideas to be banned, it directs termination and review rather than stating a prohibition, and the second half of the passage, a law from Congress prohibiting the spending, is not in the indexed record.
In plain English
The order tells the staffing agency to redo training rules. Each agency has 60 days to end DEI programs. Each must also report firms that gave such training. That cuts off federal money for the training the book names. But it works through the DEI label and never uses the term critical race theory. The law from Congress that the book asked for is not in the record.
Each of these names the order above in its own summary, preamble or filing. That is a fact about the document, not a finding that it carries out this proposal: it is one step further away than the order is, and what it does about the proposal is a reading nobody has made here.
The document says “should”Who acts: PresidentHow: executive orderp. 584 in the PDF
What the document says
“Rescind EO 11246. The President should eliminate OFCCP by simply rescinding EO 11246.”
Executive Order 11246, signed in 1965, requires federal contractors to take affirmative action and not discriminate, and is enforced by the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs. The chapter says contractors would still be bound by statutory nondiscrimination law but would no longer face overlapping regimes, and that the order lets the department impose theories Congress never enacted.
What the document actually says
“Rescind EO 11246. The President should eliminate OFCCP by simply rescinding EO 11246.”
That sentence, in plain words
Cancel this old order. Then the office that enforces it would close.
What this is about
Firms that sell to the government follow extra hiring rules. Those rules come from a 1965 order. The book says to cancel the order. The office that enforces it would close.
The chapter asked for Executive Order 11246 to be rescinded, which it said would eliminate the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs. The Federal Register records this order as revoking 11246. The chapter noted contractors would remain bound by statutory nondiscrimination law, which this order does not alter.
In plain English
The book asked that a 1965 order on contractors be pulled, which would end the office that enforced it. This order pulls that order. The book noted that firms would still be bound by bias law, which this order leaves in place.
Removal of Unconstitutional Preferences Based on Race and Sex in Response to Court RulingAgriculture Department, Office of the Secretary, Federal Crop Insurance Corporation, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Farm Service Agency, Commodity Credit Corporation, Rural Business-Cooperative Service, Rural Housing Service, Rural Utilities Service · July 10, 2025
Each of these names the order above in its own summary, preamble or filing. That is a fact about the document, not a finding that it carries out this proposal: it is one step further away than the order is, and what it does about the proposal is a reading nobody has made here.
The document says “should”Who acts: PresidentHow: internal managementp. 584 in the PDF
What the document says
“The new Administration should restrict Bostock’s application of sex discrimination protections to sexual orientation and transgender status in the context of hiring and firing.”
Bostock v. Clayton County held in 2020 that firing someone for being gay or transgender is discrimination because of sex under Title VII. The chapter asks that its reasoning be confined to hiring and firing, that agencies withdraw notices and guidance applying it more broadly, and that regulations reading sex discrimination to cover sexual orientation, gender identity and transgender status be rescinded.
What the document actually says
“The new Administration should restrict Bostock’s application of sex discrimination protections to sexual orientation and transgender status in the context of hiring and firing.”
That sentence, in plain words
One court ruling covers hiring and firing. Keep it to that and no further.
What this is about
A court said firing someone for being gay or trans is sex discrimination. The book says that should apply to hiring and firing only. It should not spread to other rules.
Executive Order 14148 of January 20, 2025 revokes Executive Order 13988, the 2021 order that had directed agencies to apply the reasoning of Bostock to every statute prohibiting sex discrimination, and its section 3(b) directs the Domestic Policy Council and the National Economic Council to review actions taken under the revoked orders and take steps to rescind, replace or amend them. Withdrawing that instruction is the route by which the broad reading the chapter objects to loses its government-wide backing. The fit breaks down because revoking an executive order does not restrict what the Supreme Court held: the order does not confine Bostock to hiring and firing in terms, names no guidance document or regulation to be withdrawn, and lists the revocation among 78 others without giving any reason tied to Bostock.
In plain English
A 2021 order told agencies to read a court ruling on sex bias broadly. This order scraps that one and calls for a review of steps taken under it. But an order cannot change what the Court held. It sets no limit on the ruling and names no rule to pull. It is one of 78 items scrapped at once, with no reason given for this one.
The document says “should”Who acts: PresidentHow: internal managementp. 585 in the PDF
What the document says
“The President should direct agencies to focus their enforcement of sex discrimination laws on the biological binary meaning of “sex.””
This accompanies the chapter's request that regulations interpreting sex discrimination provisions to cover sexual orientation, gender identity, transgender status and sex characteristics be rescinded.
What the document actually says
“The President should direct agencies to focus their enforcement of sex discrimination laws on the biological binary meaning of “sex.””
That sentence, in plain words
Tell agencies to read the word sex as male or female only.
What this is about
Laws ban unfair treatment because of sex. The book says sex should mean only male or female. Agencies would enforce it that way.
The chapter asked that agencies enforce sex discrimination law on the biological binary meaning of sex. This order establishes that policy across the federal government. The chapter's request was framed around enforcement of discrimination law specifically; this order is broader.
In plain English
The book asked that agencies enforce sex bias law by the male or female meaning of sex. This order makes that the rule for the whole government. The book spoke of bias law alone. This order goes wider.
Each of these names the order above in its own summary, preamble or filing. That is a fact about the document, not a finding that it carries out this proposal: it is one step further away than the order is, and what it does about the proposal is a reading nobody has made here.
The document says “should”Who acts: CongressHow: legislationp. 585 in the PDF
What the document says
“Congress should pass a law requiring that to the extent an employer provides employee benefits for abortion, it must provide equal or greater benefits for pregnancy, childbirth, maternity, and adoption.”
The chapter adds that the law should clarify that no employer is required to provide any accommodation or benefit for abortion.
What the document actually says
“Congress should pass a law requiring that to the extent an employer provides employee benefits for abortion, it must provide equal or greater benefits for pregnancy, childbirth, maternity, and adoption.”
That sentence, in plain words
Say a job plan pays for an abortion. Then it must pay as much for birth.
What this is about
Some employers help pay for an abortion. The book says they should then help at least as much with birth and adoption.
Read against the documents indexed here on August 26, 2026, and nothing was found that answers this. Executive Order 14182 of January 24, 2025 ends the use of federal funds for elective abortion under the Hyde Amendment and revokes two prior orders. It governs federal money, not what an employer must offer its employees, and it creates no requirement to match abortion benefits with equal or greater benefits for pregnancy, childbirth, maternity or adoption. The law the chapter asks Congress to pass is not in the indexed record. 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, DOLHow: legislationp. 585 in the PDF
What the document says
“Congress and DOL should clarify that ERISA does not preempt states’ power to restrict abortion, surrogacy, or other anti-life “benefits.””
The chapter records that since Dobbs some benefits lawyers have argued that federal preemption under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act should block state efforts to stop employers helping employees obtain abortions through benefit plans, and says that law should not be allowed to override a state's ability to restrict it.
What the document actually says
“Congress and DOL should clarify that ERISA does not preempt states’ power to restrict abortion, surrogacy, or other anti-life “benefits.””
That sentence, in plain words
One federal law can override state rules. The book says it should not do so here.
What this is about
A federal law covers job benefit plans. It can override state law. Some states restrict abortion. The book says the federal law should not block those states.
Read against the documents indexed here on August 26, 2026, and nothing was found that answers this. No indexed document addresses ERISA preemption or the reach of state abortion restrictions over employer benefit plans. The two Jenner and Block dockets appear as candidates on shared words alone, and the litigation record here carries docket details rather than the text of any ruling. Executive Order 14182 is the only indexed document on abortion funding, and it concerns federal dollars, not whether federal benefits law displaces state law. 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: PresidentHow: executive orderp. 586 in the PDF
What the document says
“The President should make clear via executive order that religious employers are free to run their businesses according to their religious beliefs”
The chapter says this should hold notwithstanding general nondiscrimination laws, and that the order should support the participation of religious employers and employees as federal contractors and in federal programs. It separately asks Congress to make Title VII's religious organization exemptions more explicit.
What the document actually says
“The President should make clear via executive order that religious employers are free to run their businesses according to their religious beliefs”
That sentence, in plain words
Sign an order. It would say bosses may run a firm by their faith.
What this is about
Some bosses run a firm on faith lines. The book says an order should protect that. It would hold even against some equal rights rules.
Read against the documents indexed here on August 26, 2026, and nothing was found that answers this. Executive Order 14291 of May 1, 2025 sets an executive branch policy of vigorously enforcing existing religious liberty protections and establishes a Religious Liberty Commission, whose report is to consider the First Amendment rights of employers and employees among many other topics, and which terminates on July 4, 2026 unless extended. The commission reports and advises. The order declares nothing about whether religious employers may run their businesses according to their beliefs notwithstanding general nondiscrimination laws, and it says nothing about religious employers as federal contractors or in federal programs. 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: EEOCHow: internal managementp. 586 in the PDF
What the document says
“EEOC should disclaim its regulatory pretensions.”
The chapter states the commission has no rulemaking authority under Title VII yet issues guidance and technical assistance that push new policy positions. It asks that the commission act by majority vote of Commissioners rather than by unilateral Chair action or staff delegation, disclaim power to enter consent decrees requiring what it could not require by law, and reorient enforcement toward failure to accommodate disability, religion and pregnancy, but not abortion.
What the document actually says
“EEOC should disclaim its regulatory pretensions.”
That sentence, in plain words
The EEOC should stop acting as if it can write rules.
What this is about
The EEOC enforces job discrimination law. The book says it cannot write rules. It says the agency acts as though it can.
The EEOC rescinded its 1979 Guidelines on Affirmative Action under Title VII and removed them from 29 CFR part 1608 on July 6, 2026, stating that the Guidelines were inconsistent with the statutory language and unsupported by Supreme Court precedent when issued. That is the commission withdrawing a Title VII regulation of the kind the chapter says it had no authority to issue. The fit breaks down because it drops one set of guidelines rather than disclaiming a regulatory role, and it does not reach the chapter's other asks: acting by majority vote of Commissioners rather than by the Chair or by delegation to staff, giving up consent decrees that require what the law does not, or reorienting enforcement.
In plain English
On July 6, 2026 the job rights board dropped its 1979 affirmative action guidelines. It said they never matched the words of the law. That is the board pulling back a rule the chapter says it could not issue. But it drops one set of guidelines, not its rule making role, and the other asks go unmet.
The document says “should”Who acts: CongressHow: legislationp. 587 in the PDF
What the document says
“Congress should enact the Working Families Flexibility Act.”
The bill would let private-sector employees take paid time off instead of overtime pay. The chapter groups it with proposals to exclude the cost of on-site childcare from an employee's regular rate of pay.
What the document actually says
“Congress should enact the Working Families Flexibility Act.”
That sentence, in plain words
Congress should pass this bill. Workers could take time off instead of extra pay.
What this is about
Extra hours are usually paid as overtime. This bill would let workers take time off instead. The book wants it passed.
Read against the documents indexed here on August 26, 2026, and nothing was found that answers this. The Working Families Flexibility Act is not in the indexed record, and no indexed document lets private-sector employees take paid time off in place of overtime pay. The nearest candidate, rule-2026-09382 of May 12, 2026, rescinds requirements in the child care subsidy program that states administer, including the cap on family co-payments and prospective payment of providers. That is a different subject from the treatment of on-site childcare costs in an employee's regular rate, which is what the chapter groups with this proposal. 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: CongressHow: legislationp. 589 in the PDF
What the document says
“Congress should encourage communal rest by amending the Fair”
The full proposal asks Congress to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act so that workers are paid time and a half for hours worked on the Sabbath, defaulting to Sunday, except for employers with a sincere religious observance at another time, to which the obligation would transfer. Houses of worship and employers legally required to operate around the clock, such as hospitals and first responders, would be exempt, as would workers otherwise exempt from overtime.
What the document actually says
“Congress should encourage communal rest by amending the Fair”
That sentence, in plain words
Congress should help people rest on the same day. It would change the wage law.
What this is about
The book wants extra pay for working on the Sabbath. That would usually be Sunday. Hospitals and emergency services would be left out.
What is disputed
What this means is contested
The chapter prints its own dissent. An 'Alternative View' passage immediately after this proposal argues that government's role is to protect free exercise by removing barriers rather than erecting them, that a Sabbath premium would raise costs, limit access to goods and services, reduce work available on that day, and actually tempt some people into Sabbath work through higher wages. Both positions are the chapter's, and it resolves neither.
Read against the documents indexed here on August 26, 2026, and nothing was found that answers this. Nothing indexed comes close. No indexed law amends the Fair Labor Standards Act, and no indexed document requires premium pay for work on a Sabbath or creates the transfer and exemptions the proposal describes. The candidates matched on the words fair and act. 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: CongressHow: legislationp. 588 in the PDF
What the document says
“Congress should establish an Assistant Commissioner for Family”
The chapter notes that labor market data is published monthly but data on the family is published at best annually and often a year late. It asks that marriage and fertility rates, the share of children living with both biological parents, the cost of a basket of middle-class essentials and the share of families whose highest earner makes more than twice the poverty threshold be measured and reported monthly, that a pilot survey be established, and that the Consumer Price Index basket include family-essential goods.
What the document actually says
“Congress should establish an Assistant Commissioner for Family”
That sentence, in plain words
Congress should create a new post at the statistics bureau. It would cover the family.
What this is about
The government counts jobs and prices every month. It counts family life far less often. The book wants that measured monthly too.
What is disputed
What this means is contested
The chapter prints its own dissent. An 'Alternative View' passage argues that while family metrics are important, monthly statistics would add little, could cause unnecessary confusion and concern, and that funding would be better spent making the annual figures timelier.
Read against the documents indexed here on August 26, 2026, and nothing was found that answers this. Nothing indexed comes close. No indexed document creates a family statistics post at the Bureau of Labor Statistics, changes what family data the government publishes or how often it appears, starts a pilot survey, or alters the Consumer Price Index basket. The candidates matched on common words only. 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: CongressHow: legislationp. 591 in the PDF
What the document says
“Congress should establish a bright-line test—based on the level of control an individual exercises over his or her work”
The chapter says businesses and workers must navigate many different definitions of employee and independent contractor across employment, compensation, tort, tax and pension law, which causes confusion, misclassification and costly litigation. It asks that the department and the labor board return to their 2019 and 2021 independent contractor rules and that Congress provide a safe harbor for companies offering independent workers access to earned benefits.
What the document actually says
“Congress should establish a bright-line test—based on the level of control an individual exercises over his or her work”
That sentence, in plain words
Congress should set one clear test. It would turn on how much control a person has over the work.
What this is about
A worker can be an employee or a contractor. The rules for telling them apart differ by law. The book wants one clear test.
Read against the documents indexed here on August 26, 2026, and nothing was found that answers this. Nothing indexed comes close. No indexed rule, law or order sets a test for whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor, returns the Labor Department or the labor board to their 2019 and 2021 rules, or creates a safe harbor. The candidates share only common words with the proposal. 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: DOL, NLRB, CongressHow: regulationp. 591 in the PDF
What the document says
“DOL and NLRB should return to the long-standing approach to defining joint employers based on direct and immediate control.”
A joint employer standard determines when one company is legally responsible for another's workers, which matters most for franchises and contractors. The chapter asks Congress to enact the Save Local Business Act to codify the narrower definition.
What the document actually says
“DOL and NLRB should return to the long-standing approach to defining joint employers based on direct and immediate control.”
That sentence, in plain words
Go back to the older test for when two firms share a worker. It turns on direct control.
What this is about
Sometimes two firms both count as a worker's boss. That matters for franchises. The book wants the narrower old test back.
Read against the documents indexed here on August 26, 2026, and nothing was found that answers this. Nothing indexed comes close. No indexed document defines joint employment at the Labor Department or the National Labor Relations Board, and the Save Local Business Act is not in the indexed record. The candidate rules concern the Defense Production Act, student loans, farm worker wage rates and airspace. 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: CongressHow: legislationp. 588 in the PDF
What the document says
“the limit for married couples on 401(k) and similar workbased retirement savings accounts should be double the limit for individuals”
The chapter frames this as equalizing access to tax-free retirement saving for married couples regardless of how work is divided between them, so that a couple with one earner is not limited relative to a couple with two.
What the document actually says
“the limit for married couples on 401(k) and similar workbased retirement savings accounts should be double the limit for individuals”
That sentence, in plain words
A married couple should be able to save twice what one person can.
What this is about
Workers can save a set amount for retirement each year, tax free. If only one partner works, the couple saves less. The book says a couple should get double.
Read against the documents indexed here on August 26, 2026, and nothing was found that answers this. Executive Order 14403 of April 30, 2026 sets up TrumpIRA.gov, a listing of low-cost individual retirement accounts, and delivery of the federal Saver's Match of up to $1,000 for eligible savers who lack an employer plan. Contribution limits are set by statute, and nothing indexed raises them or ties any limit to marital status. Executive Order 14330 opens 401(k) plans to alternative assets and likewise leaves the limits alone. 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.
Jonathan Berry, “Department of Labor and Related Agencies,” in Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise, edited by Paul Dans and Steven Groves (The Heritage Foundation, 2023), pp. 581-618. https://static.heritage.org/project2025/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf
This page
“Department of Labor and Related Agencies,” Project 2025, chapter 18. Read the Mandate, https://readthemandate.org/project-2025/chapter-18/ (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 civil rights enforcement, federal contractor rules, sex discrimination, abortion and benefits, religious liberty at work, the EEOC, family policy and statistics, worker classification and overtime.
The chapter's detailed treatment of union elections, pension regulation, worker training programs, and many technical wage and hour items.
This chapter is unusual in printing dissent from itself. Several proposals are followed by a passage headed 'Alternative View' setting out a different conservative position. Where a proposal has one, it is recorded on that proposal rather than dropped, because a reader who sees only the proposal would think the chapter is unanimous when it says plainly that it is not.
