Executive Office of the President of the United States
Chapter 2 · pp. 43–68 ·
Russ Vought
What this chapter is about
This chapter is about the offices that sit closest to the president. The biggest one is the budget office. It controls how money is spent. It also checks new rules before they can take effect. The chapter wants the president to use these offices much more forcefully. It also asks him to undo a long list of orders from the last president.
The document says “should”Who acts: President, OMBHow: internal managementp. 45 in the PDF
What the document says
“No Director should be chosen who is unwilling to restore apportionment decision-making to the PADs’ personal review”
Apportionment is the process by which OMB releases appropriated funds to agencies in instalments under the Anti-Deficiency Act of 1870. The chapter records that these were signed by career officials until the Trump Administration moved the responsibility to political appointees, that the Biden Administration reversed this, and says no OMB Director should be chosen who is unwilling to restore it, unwilling to wield the tool aggressively, or unable to defend it against Congress.
What the document actually says
“No Director should be chosen who is unwilling to restore apportionment decision-making to the PADs’ personal review”
That sentence, in plain words
Do not pick a budget chief who will not give this job back to political staff.
What this is about
Congress votes money to agencies. The budget office hands it out in parts. It can slow money down or attach terms. The book says political staff should sign off on that, not career staff.
Section 5 directs the Director of the Office of Management and Budget to review independent regulatory agencies' obligations for consistency with the President's policies and priorities on an ongoing basis and to adjust those agencies' apportionments by activity, function, project or object, including by prohibiting spending on particular activities where consistent with law. Apportionment decisions are placed with a politically appointed officer and used as a policy instrument, which is the direction the passage argues for. It does not do what the quoted sentence asks: it does not restore apportionment decision-making to the personal review of the Program Associate Directors, says nothing about who signs an apportionment document, and reaches only independent regulatory agencies rather than the executive branch generally.
In plain English
The order lets the budget chief check and adjust how some agencies spend. That puts the choice in a political hand, as the chapter wanted. But it names no such role for the staff the chapter named. And it reaches only the independent agencies, not the whole branch.
The document says “should”Who acts: President, OMBHow: internal managementp. 47 in the PDF
What the document says
“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.”
The chapter states that because each of OMB's six Resource Management Offices covers a wide range of policy, many granular decisions fall to career staff who serve across Administrations. It proposes splitting them into smaller subject areas so there can be more political appointees, each with a political deputy.
What the document actually says
“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.”
That sentence, in plain words
The six budget teams should be split into smaller ones. That makes room for more political staff. Each one should get a deputy too.
What this is about
Six teams inside the budget office watch over spending. Each covers a lot of ground. So career staff end up making many calls. The book says to split the teams up. Then more political staff can be put in charge.
Read against the documents indexed here on August 26, 2026, and nothing was found that answers this. Nothing indexed comes close. No candidate reorganizes the Office of Management and Budget or creates new Program Associate Director positions. The internal structure of OMB's Resource Management Offices is set by the agency itself and does not produce a published document. 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: internal managementp. 47 in the PDF
What the document says
“the President should reintroduce the concept of administrative pay-as-you-go, or administrative PAYGO.”
Administrative PAYGO requires that discretionary agency actions be budget neutral, so that a new cost must be offset. The chapter says the President should reintroduce it regardless of whether Congress adopts his budget, and that it may occasionally yield to other requirements such as a presidential regulatory budget.
What the document actually says
“the President should reintroduce the concept of administrative pay-as-you-go, or administrative PAYGO.”
That sentence, in plain words
The president should bring back a rule. It is called administrative pay-as-you-go.
What this is about
Agencies can make choices that cost money. This rule says they must find savings first. If they add a cost, they must cut one. The book wants that rule back.
Read against the documents indexed here on August 26, 2026, and nothing was found that answers this. Executive Order 14192 imposes an offset requirement on agencies, but on a different ledger. It caps the cost that new regulations impose on the private sector, requiring ten regulations to be identified for repeal for each new one and the total incremental cost of new regulations to be significantly less than zero. Administrative pay-as-you-go, the subject of the proposal, imposes budget neutrality on the effect of agency actions on federal spending. The chapter itself treats the two as distinct, saying the principle may occasionally yield to a presidential regulatory budget, and the order is that regulatory budget rather than administrative PAYGO. 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: OMBHow: regulationp. 48 in the PDF
What the document says
“using government contracts to push back against woke policies in corporate America.”
The chapter says the Office of Federal Procurement Policy should be engaged early and often in OMB's effort to drive policy, including by obtaining transparency about who receives federal contracts and grants and by using government contracts to push back against what it calls woke policies in corporate America. The chapter does not define the term.
What the document actually says
“using government contracts to push back against woke policies in corporate America.”
That sentence, in plain words
Use the contracts the government hands out. Use them to push back on woke policies in big firms.
What this is about
The government buys a lot from private firms. It can set terms for who it buys from. The book says to use that power. It wants to push back on what it calls woke company policies. The book does not say what counts as woke.
The State Department rule adds an award term, Combating Discriminatory Equity Ideology in Foreign Assistance, to grants, cooperative agreements and voluntary contributions, which is the route the passage describes: attaching conditions to federal awards in order to press recipients on diversity policy. The fit breaks down on nearly every particular. The rule reaches foreign assistance recipients, which it lists as foreign and United States nongovernmental organizations, international organizations, foreign governments and parastatals, rather than corporate America. It applies to grants and cooperative agreements rather than to procurement contracts. And it is issued by the State Department under the Foreign Assistance Act rather than through the Office of Federal Procurement Policy and the governmentwide contracting rules the passage names.
In plain English
The rule adds a term on equity ideology to foreign aid grants. Adding terms to federal awards is the route the passage names. But it reaches aid groups abroad, not firms at home. It covers grants, not buying contracts, and it came from the State Department.
The document says “should”Who acts: President, OMBHow: executive orderp. 49 in the PDF
What the document says
“Regulatory analysis and OIRA review should also be required of the historically “independent” agencies as the Office of Legal Counsel has found is legally permissible.”
Independent agencies, such as the financial and communications regulators, have not generally submitted their rules to White House review. The chapter says regulatory analysis and OIRA review should be required of them too, citing an Office of Legal Counsel finding that this is legally permissible. It puts the word independent in quotation marks.
What the document actually says
“Regulatory analysis and OIRA review should also be required of the historically “independent” agencies as the Office of Legal Counsel has found is legally permissible.”
That sentence, in plain words
These agencies should have to send their rules to the White House for review too.
What this is about
Some agencies have long been kept apart from the White House. They write rules without sending them over first. The book says they should have to send them. It says a legal office has said this is allowed.
Section 1 states that all executive departments and agencies, including so-called independent agencies, shall submit for review all proposed and final significant regulatory actions to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs before publication in the Federal Register, and section 3 amends the definition of agency in Executive Order 12866 to reach any agency under 44 U.S.C. 3502(1) plus the Federal Election Commission. That is the extension of White House regulatory review the passage asks for, applied to the same class of agencies. The fit is not complete: the order exempts the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal Open Market Committee in the conduct of monetary policy, reaching the Board only on its supervision and regulation of financial institutions; it covers significant regulatory actions rather than the regulatory analysis the passage also names; and it cites no Office of Legal Counsel finding, which is the authority the passage rests the proposal on.
In plain English
The order makes so-called independent agencies send big rules to the White House first. That is the review the chapter asked for. But the Fed is left out for its money work. And the order rests on no legal finding, which the chapter had leaned on.
The document says “should”Who acts: PresidentHow: executive orderp. 49 in the PDF
What the document says
“the next President should immediately begin to undo those changes and develop a rigorous, data-driven approach that will result in the least burdensome rules possible.”
The chapter says the President should maintain Executive Order 12866, the foundation of OIRA's review of regulatory actions, and should keep its extension to Treasury. If the Biden Administration modified that order or OMB Circular A-4, which underpins cost-benefit analysis, the next President should immediately begin undoing those changes.
What the document actually says
“the next President should immediately begin to undo those changes and develop a rigorous, data-driven approach that will result in the least burdensome rules possible.”
That sentence, in plain words
The next president should undo those changes right away. He should build a strict method that keeps rules as light as possible.
What this is about
One old order sets how new rules get checked. It weighs the cost against the good they do. The book says if the last president changed it, the next one should change it back.
Executive Order 14192 does both of the specific things the passage names. Section 6(b) revokes OMB Circular A-4 of November 9, 2023, the document that underpins the weighing of costs against benefits and that the passage says should be restored if it was changed, and reinstates the prior version issued on September 17, 2003. Section 6(c) reinstates the 2018 memorandum of agreement between the Treasury Department and the Office of Management and Budget on review of tax regulations under Executive Order 12866, which is the extension to Treasury the passage says should be maintained. The fit breaks down because the order does not touch the amendments made to Executive Order 12866 itself by Executive Order 14094 in 2023, including the raised threshold for a significant regulatory action, and because it adds a ten-for-one repeal requirement and an agency-by-agency cost allowance that the passage does not ask for.
In plain English
The order does both things the chapter named. It drops the 2023 guide on weighing costs and brings back the 2003 one. It also brings back a 2018 deal on tax rules. But it leaves the 2023 changes to the main order in place, and adds cuts the chapter did not ask for.
The document says “should”Who acts: PresidentHow: executive orderp. 49 in the PDF
What the document says
“The next President should also revive the directive in Executive Order 13891 that significant guidance documents also must pass through OIRA review.”
Guidance documents are agency statements that are not formal regulations but shape how rules are applied. The chapter says the next President should revive the requirement, from Executive Order 13891, that significant guidance also pass through OIRA review.
What the document actually says
“The next President should also revive the directive in Executive Order 13891 that significant guidance documents also must pass through OIRA review.”
That sentence, in plain words
The next president should bring back the rule that big guidance papers must be checked too.
What this is about
Agencies write papers that are not full rules. They still tell people what to do. The book says these should be checked by the White House first.
Executive Order 14219 puts guidance documents inside the definition of regulation for the purposes of the order, and then directs in section 4 that agencies continue to follow the processes set out in Executive Order 12866 for submitting regulations to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs and consult that office on potential new regulations, which is the substance of what the passage asks for. The fit breaks down because the order does not revive Executive Order 13891, which was revoked in 2021 and stays revoked, and so does not restore that order's separate machinery for significant guidance, including the agency guidance portals and the notice and comment step. It also takes its definition of guidance document from Executive Order 13422 rather than from 13891, and it exempts military, national security, homeland security, foreign affairs and immigration functions along with anything the Director of the Office of Management and Budget chooses to exempt.
In plain English
The order counts guidance as a rule, so guidance goes to the White House for review. That is the heart of what the chapter asked. But the old order it wanted revived stays dead, along with its web lists and comment step. Whole fields are also left out.
The document says “should”Who acts: PresidentHow: executive orderp. 49 in the PDF
What the document says
“The next President should also reinstate the many executive orders signed by President Trump that were designed to make the regulatory process more just, efficient, and transparent.”
The chapter names the orders it wants revived, with modifications as needed: Executive Orders 13771, 13777, 13891, 13892, 13893, section 6 of 13924, 13979 and 13980. It separately says Executive Order 13132 on federalism should be strengthened, and that an updated version of Executive Order 12630 on federal takings should be signed.
What the document actually says
“The next President should also reinstate the many executive orders signed by President Trump that were designed to make the regulatory process more just, efficient, and transparent.”
That sentence, in plain words
President Trump signed many orders about rules. The next president should bring them back.
What this is about
President Trump signed a set of orders about how rules are made. President Biden canceled most of them. The book lists eight by number. It says the next president should sign them again.
The chapter asked for eight named Trump-era regulatory orders to be reinstated, of which Executive Order 13771 established the repeal-for-issuance approach. This order re-establishes that approach rather than reinstating the named orders as a set.
In plain English
The chapter asked for eight old orders to be brought back. One of them said an agency must repeal rules to add a new one. This order brings back that idea. It does not bring back the eight as a set.
The document says “should”Who acts: PresidentHow: executive orderp. 50 in the PDF
What the document says
“the President should revise and sign an updated version of President Ronald Reagan’s Executive Order 12630 on federal takings.”
Executive Order 12630, signed in 1988, directs agencies to assess whether their actions amount to a taking of private property requiring compensation under the Fifth Amendment. The chapter says the President should revise and sign an updated version.
What the document actually says
“the President should revise and sign an updated version of President Ronald Reagan’s Executive Order 12630 on federal takings.”
That sentence, in plain words
President Reagan signed an order about land. The president should update it. Then he should sign it again.
What this is about
Sometimes a government rule cuts what an owner can do with land. The Constitution says owners must be paid when property is taken. An old order made agencies check for this. The book wants a new version of it.
Read against the documents indexed here on August 26, 2026, and nothing was found that answers this. Nothing indexed comes close. No candidate revises or replaces Executive Order 12630 of 1988, and none of the candidates concerns the taking of private property or compensation under the Fifth Amendment. The candidates cover missile defense, tariffs, controlled substance ordering forms, a Medicare payment model and alien registration. 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: President, CongressHow: legislationp. 50 in the PDF
What the document says
“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.”
The chapter names the bills it gives as examples: the Regulatory Accountability Act, the SMART Act, the GOOD Act, the Early Participation in Regulations Act, the Unfunded Mandates Accountability and Transparency Act and the REINS Act. It states that executive action alone is not enough and that Congress must also act.
What the document actually says
“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.”
That sentence, in plain words
The next president should work with Congress. Together they should change how rules get made.
What this is about
The book says orders from the president are not enough. Congress has to pass laws too. It names six bills it wants passed. They would all make new rules harder to issue.
Read against the documents indexed here on August 26, 2026, and nothing was found that answers this. Nothing indexed comes close. None of the bills the chapter names, including the REINS Act, the Regulatory Accountability Act and the GOOD Act, appears among the candidates, and no candidate is a law changing the rulemaking process. The candidates are an Office of Personnel Management rule on probationary periods, two proclamations, a determination about a golf course and two memoranda on unrelated subjects. 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: President, CongressHow: legislationp. 50 in the PDF
What the document says
“Congress and the President should enact the Midnight Rules Relief Act”
The Congressional Review Act lets Congress undo recent regulatory actions on an accelerated timetable. The chapter says the Midnight Rules Relief Act would let multiple actions be packaged and voted on together, and that robust use of the Congressional Review Act would let the President spend rulemaking capacity on new reforms rather than years undoing the previous Administration's final rules.
What the document actually says
“Congress and the President should enact the Midnight Rules Relief Act”
That sentence, in plain words
Congress and the president should pass a new law. It is called the Midnight Rules Relief Act.
What this is about
A president often issues many rules just before he leaves. Congress can undo them, but only one at a time. This bill would let Congress undo them in one batch.
Read against the documents indexed here on August 26, 2026, and nothing was found that answers this. Nothing indexed comes close. The Midnight Rules Relief Act has not been enacted, and the laws among the candidates concern the Congressional Award Program rather than the Congressional Review Act. Executive Order 14295 on the Office of the Federal Register touches the publication of rules but creates no procedure for disapproving several rules in a single vote, which is what the bill would do. 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: National Security AdvisorHow: internal managementp. 51 in the PDF
What the document says
“the NSA should immediately evaluate and eliminate directorates that are not aligned with the President’s agenda”
The chapter says the National Security Advisor should immediately assess the Council's directorates, eliminate those not aligned with the President's agenda and replace them with new ones able to drive his signature national security priorities, assigning named senior officials responsibility for specific initiatives with measurable milestones.
What the document actually says
“the NSA should immediately evaluate and eliminate directorates that are not aligned with the President’s agenda”
That sentence, in plain words
The adviser should look at each team. He should close the ones that do not fit the president's aims.
What this is about
The security council is split into small teams by subject. The book says the new adviser should judge each one. Teams that do not fit the president's plans should be closed. New teams would take their place.
Read against the documents indexed here on August 26, 2026, and nothing was found that answers this. Executive Order 14169 pauses and reviews United States foreign aid for alignment with the President's foreign policy, which is the same test the passage applies, but it is applied to assistance programs at the State Department and the aid agencies rather than to the directorates of the National Security Council staff. No candidate abolishes, creates or reassigns an NSC directorate. 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: National Security AdvisorHow: internal managementp. 52 in the PDF
What the document says
“the NSA should return all nonessential detailees to their home agencies on their first day in office”
The chapter says the National Security Advisor should send all nonessential detailees back to their home agencies on the first day, so the Administration can proceed without what it calls the personnel land mines left by the previous stewards, and should replace essential detailees as soon as possible with staff aligned to the new President's priorities.
What the document actually says
“the NSA should return all nonessential detailees to their home agencies on their first day in office”
That sentence, in plain words
On day one, send the borrowed staff back. They should go to the agencies they came from.
What this is about
Much of this staff is borrowed from other agencies. The book says most of them should be sent back at once. It says they may be loyal to the last president. New staff would replace them.
Read against the documents indexed here on August 26, 2026, and nothing was found that answers this. The memorandum of January 20, 2025 on returning to in-person work directs agency heads to end remote work arrangements and require employees to return to their duty stations. It is about where federal employees sit, not about sending detailees back to their home agencies, and it says nothing about the staff of the National Security Council. 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: NSCHow: internal managementp. 52 in the PDF
What the document says
“The NSC should rigorously review all general and flag officer promotions to prioritize the core roles and responsibilities of the military over social engineering and non-defense matters”
The chapter says the National Security Council should rigorously review all general and flag officer promotions, in order to prioritize the military's core roles over what it calls social engineering and non-defense matters, listing climate change, critical race theory and manufactured extremism among the policies it says weaken the armed forces.
What the document actually says
“The NSC should rigorously review all general and flag officer promotions to prioritize the core roles and responsibilities of the military over social engineering and non-defense matters”
That sentence, in plain words
The council should check every top officer picked to lead. Fighting should count first, not other aims.
What this is about
The military picks its own top officers. The book says the White House should check each choice. It wants officers judged on fighting ability. It names climate change and race training as things to weigh against.
Read against the documents indexed here on August 26, 2026, and nothing was found that answers this. Executive Order 14356 requires each agency to set up a Strategic Hiring Committee to approve every vacancy and to file annual staffing plans, which is a form of central review of who is appointed, but section 3 exempts military personnel of the Armed Forces outright. No candidate gives the National Security Council or any other White House body a role in reviewing general and flag officer promotions. 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 “will need to”Who acts: National Security AdvisorHow: internal managementp. 52 in the PDF
What the document says
“The NSC staff will need to consolidate the functions of both the NSC and the Homeland Security Council (HSC)”
The chapter says the National Security Council staff will need to absorb the Homeland Security Council and the Office of the National Cyber Director, and evaluate which regional and functional directorates are required. It notes that the Homeland Security Council has overseen pandemic response and says its incorporation is important.
What the document actually says
“The NSC staff will need to consolidate the functions of both the NSC and the Homeland Security Council (HSC)”
That sentence, in plain words
There are two councils that keep us safe. The staff will need to join them into one.
What this is about
There are two councils, one for threats abroad and one for threats at home. The book says one should absorb the other. The home one has handled things like pandemics.
Read against the documents indexed here on August 26, 2026, and nothing was found that answers this. Nothing indexed comes close. No candidate merges the Homeland Security Council into the National Security Council or moves the Office of the National Cyber Director. The nearest candidate, Executive Order 14397, continues a review council on the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which is an agency question rather than a question about the councils inside the White House. 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: President, CEQHow: regulationp. 60 in the PDF
What the document says
“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.”
The National Environmental Policy Act requires environmental review before major federal actions. The chapter says the President should have the Council on Environmental Quality rewrite its rules along the lines of the 2020 revision, restoring the ban on cumulative impact analysis, and should frame the new rules to limit the scope for judicial review of agency environmental analysis and the remedies available.
What the document actually says
“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.”
That sentence, in plain words
The president should have this office rewrite the rules on environmental checks. It should go back to the 2020 version. That version banned adding up effects over time.
What this is about
Big projects must be checked for harm to the environment first. One rule made agencies add up harm from many sources together. The book wants that rule dropped. It also wants courts to have less say.
The Council on Environmental Quality acted on its National Environmental Policy Act regulations, as the proposal asks, and did so at the President's instruction: Executive Order 14154 directed the Chairman to issue guidance and propose rescinding the regulations, and this interim final rule removes 40 CFR parts 1500 through 1508 from the Code of Federal Regulations. The fit breaks down on how. The passage asks for a rewrite along the lines of the 2020 revision, restoring provisions such as the ban on weighing cumulative impacts; the rule writes no new provisions at all, so that requirement disappears with the rest of the regulations rather than being replaced by a rule banning it, and the substantive text moves to agency-level procedures issued separately by the Interior, Energy and Agriculture Departments and others. The rule also does not address the two further things the passage asks the new regulations to do, limiting the scope of judicial review of an agency's environmental review and limiting the remedies available.
In plain English
The council wiped out its own environment rules, as the President had told it to. The chapter asked for a rewrite that would ban one kind of study. Nothing new was written, so that ban was not written either. Each agency now sets its own steps instead.
The document says “should”Who acts: PresidentHow: executive orderp. 61 in the PDF
What the document says
“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.”
The social cost of carbon is a dollar figure agencies use to weigh the future damage from emissions when assessing a rule. The chapter says the President should abolish the working group that sets it and end the use of the analysis by executive order.
What the document actually says
“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.”
That sentence, in plain words
The president should shut down the group that sets the cost of carbon. He should sign an order to stop using the figure at all.
What this is about
Agencies use a dollar figure for the harm from carbon. They weigh it when they write rules. A small group of offices sets that figure. The book says to close the group and drop the figure.
The chapter asked that the working group be eliminated and the use of the analysis ended by executive order. The Federal Register text disbands that working group by name and withdraws its documents. The chapter's request covered ending use of the analysis generally, which extends beyond disbanding the group that produced it.
In plain English
The book asked that a work group on the cost of carbon be shut down and its measure dropped. The order shuts that group down by name and pulls its papers. But the book asked that use of the measure end in general, which is more than shutting the group.
The document says “should”Who acts: PresidentHow: executive orderp. 62 in the PDF
What the document says
“The President should immediately revoke Executive Order 14020”
The chapter says the President should revoke Executive Order 14020 and every policy and guidance document related to the Gender Policy Council. It states that abolishing the council would eliminate central promotion of abortion, comprehensive sexuality education, and what it calls gender ideology. It proposes appointing an official at Special Assistant rank or higher to lead the President's priorities on life and family with the Domestic Policy Council.
What the document actually says
“The President should immediately revoke Executive Order 14020”
That sentence, in plain words
The president should cancel one order right away. Its number is 14020.
What this is about
One order set up a council on gender inside the White House. The book says to cancel that order and close the council. It wants a new post instead. That post would work on life and family issues.
The chapter asked for Executive Order 14020 to be revoked. The Federal Register records this order as revoking it by name. The chapter also asked for the appointment of an official at Special Assistant rank or higher to lead life and family policy with the Domestic Policy Council; that is a separate step and is not established by this order.
In plain English
The book asked that a 2021 order on gender policy be scrapped. This order scraps it by name. The book also asked for a new aide to lead family policy. That step is not in this order.
The document says “should”Who acts: PresidentHow: executive orderp. 59 in the PDF
What the document says
“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 chapter states that the research program's products, such as the National Climate Assessment, narrow the legally proper options available in presidential decisions and agency rulemakings, and can frustrate the government's defense of litigation. It says the process should include diverse viewpoints, that OSTP and OMB should jointly assess the independence of the contractors used, and that related offices should be confined to a more limited advisory role.
What the document actually says
“The President should also issue an executive order to reshape the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) and related climate change research programs.”
That sentence, in plain words
The president should sign an order. It would change how the government studies climate change.
What this is about
The government runs a big climate research program. It writes reports on what is happening. The book says those reports limit what the president can then do. It wants the program changed by order.
Read against the documents indexed here on August 26, 2026, and nothing was found that answers this. Executive Order 14177 reconstitutes the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, which is one of the science bodies in the Executive Office of the President that the surrounding passage would confine to an advisory role, and it states that ideological agendas have distorted scientific work. It does not answer the proposal: it never mentions the Global Change Research Program, the National Climate Assessment or the Global Change Research Act of 1990, and it changes nothing about how assessments are produced or who is contracted to produce them. 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: not specifiedp. 60 in the PDF
What the document says
“The next President should critically analyze and, if required, refuse to accept any USGCRP assessment prepared under the Biden Administration.”
The chapter says the next President should critically analyze assessments produced by the Global Change Research Program under the Biden Administration and, if required, refuse to accept them. It names no instrument for doing so.
What the document actually says
“The next President should critically analyze and, if required, refuse to accept any USGCRP assessment prepared under the Biden Administration.”
That sentence, in plain words
The next president should look hard at any climate report written under President Biden. He should refuse it if he needs to.
What this is about
The book says the next president should study these climate reports closely. If he does not accept a report, he can say so. It does not say how he would do that.
Read against the documents indexed here on August 26, 2026, and nothing was found that answers this. Nothing indexed comes close. The two cases among the candidates were filed before 2025 and concern oil and gas leasing rather than the Global Change Research Program. No candidate records a decision to accept or refuse an assessment prepared under the previous Administration. 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. 61 in the PDF
What the document says
“The President should issue an executive order establishing a Senior Advisor to coordinate the policy development and implementation of relevant energy and environment policy”
The chapter says the order should also abolish the existing Office of Domestic Climate Policy, and that the new Senior Advisor would report directly to the Chief of Staff and coordinate energy and environment policy across the National Security Council, National Economic Council, Domestic Policy Council, Council on Environmental Quality and Office of Science and Technology Policy.
What the document actually says
“The President should issue an executive order establishing a Senior Advisor to coordinate the policy development and implementation of relevant energy and environment policy”
That sentence, in plain words
The president should sign an order. One adviser would lead on energy. That same adviser would lead on the environment.
What this is about
Many White House offices work on energy. Others work on the environment. The book says one adviser should run it all. The same order would shut the climate office.
Executive Order 14154 does the second half of what the passage asks. Section 4(a) revokes Executive Order 14008 and abolishes any offices established in the orders it revokes, and the Office of Domestic Climate Policy was established by Executive Order 14008, so the office the passage names is abolished by executive order as asked. The fit breaks down on the first half: the order does not create a Senior Advisor to coordinate energy and environment policy across the Executive Office of the President, and it creates no position reporting directly to the Chief of Staff. Coordination was instead given to the National Energy Dominance Council, established by Executive Order 14213 and chaired by the Secretary of the Interior rather than by an advisor inside the White House.
In plain English
The order does the second half of what the book asked. It pulls a 2021 order and shuts the climate office that order set up. But it names no senior aide to run energy and green policy at the White House. That work went to a new council led by the Interior chief, not by a White House aide.
The document says “must”Who acts: PresidentHow: not specifiedp. 61 in the PDF
What the document says
“The next President’s top drug policy priority must be to address the current fentanyl crisis”
The chapter states that more than 100,000 Americans died of overdoses in 2021 and says addressing the fentanyl crisis must be the next President's top drug policy priority. It says the Administration must reaffirm a commitment to preventing drug use, providing treatment leading to long-term recovery, and reducing the availability of illicit drugs, and that the Director should consult federal border enforcement officials.
What the document actually says
“The next President’s top drug policy priority must be to address the current fentanyl crisis”
That sentence, in plain words
The next president's first job on drugs must be the fentanyl crisis.
What this is about
Fentanyl is a very strong drug. It killed more than 100,000 people in one year. The book says this should come first. It wants work on stopping use, on treatment, and on the border.
Executive Order 14193 declares the influx of illicit opioids a national emergency and imposes tariffs on Canadian goods on the ground that fentanyl is reaching the United States across the northern border, which acts on the third of the three commitments the passage names, reducing the availability of illicit drugs, and treats the flow across the border as the priority the passage says it should be. The fit breaks down because the order is a trade measure taken under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and aimed at another country's conduct: it sets no drug policy priority as such, gives no direction to the Office of National Drug Control Policy, and does nothing on the other two commitments the passage names, preventing drug use before it starts and providing treatment leading to long-term recovery.
In plain English
The order calls the flow of these drugs an emergency. It then puts a tax on goods from Canada to stem it. That covers one of the three aims the chapter named. It is a trade step, and it does nothing on stopping drug use or on treatment.
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.
Russ Vought, “Executive Office of the President of the United States,” in Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise, edited by Paul Dans and Steven Groves (The Heritage Foundation, 2023), pp. 43-68. https://static.heritage.org/project2025/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf
This page
“Executive Office of the President of the United States,” Project 2025, chapter 2. Read the Mandate, https://readthemandate.org/project-2025/chapter-2/ (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
The chapter's discrete recommendations across the Office of Management and Budget, the National Security Council, the National Economic Council, the Trade Representative, the Council of Economic Advisers, the Space Council, the Office of Science and Technology Policy, the Council on Environmental Quality, drug policy, the Gender Policy Council and the Vice President's office.
Descriptions of how each office currently works, the chapter's argument about the constitutional position of the executive branch, and its characterizations of the bureaucracy. Advice on what qualities an appointee should have is indexed only where it asks for a specific change.
This chapter names many executive orders by number. Where it asks for a batch of orders to be revived without describing each, the proposal records the batch and lists the numbers rather than splitting them into separate entries.
