In recent developments, the federal government’s reach into personal liberties has expanded through several initiatives. Notably, Project 2025, spearheaded by The Heritage Foundation, aims to consolidate executive power and reshape the federal government. This plan includes replacing merit-based federal employees with individuals loyal to the administration, thereby increasing political influence over agencies such as the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Additionally, the project proposes dismantling departments like Education and Commerce, reducing environmental regulations, and altering tax structures to favor corporations. These measures are intended to streamline governance and align federal operations with the administration’s policies. That’s just where we are now.
Another significant development is the reinstatement of “Schedule F” through an executive order signed on January 20, 2025. This policy allows for the mass dismissal of federal employees in policy-related positions, replacing them with political appointees. The objective is to ensure that personnel in these roles are directly accountable to the President, facilitating the implementation of the administration’s agenda without internal resistance. This approach centralizes control over policy decisions and reduces the influence of career civil servants. That’s just where we are now.
The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), established on the first day of the current administration, has been granted access to sensitive personal data across various federal agencies. Utilizing artificial intelligence, DOGE analyzes information from departments such as Treasury and Health and Human Services to identify areas for budget cuts and program reductions. This data-driven approach aims to enhance governmental efficiency but raises concerns about privacy and the potential for misuse of personal information. That’s just where we are now.
In the legislative arena, the Protecting Our Land from Federal Overreach Act of 2024 (H.R.9527) was introduced to address concerns over federal authority in land management. The bill seeks to limit federal jurisdiction, emphasizing state and local control over land use decisions. While intended to reduce federal intervention, the act has sparked debates about the balance between national interests and local autonomy. That’s just where we are now.
Public perception reflects apprehension regarding the expansion of executive power. A recent AP-NORC poll indicates that approximately half of Americans believe the President holds too much authority in governmental operations. This sentiment underscores the ongoing debate over the appropriate distribution of power among the branches of government and the potential implications for individual freedoms. That’s just where we are now.
To address these developments, the administration has committed to implementing oversight mechanisms and allocating resources to ensure that the expansion of executive power is conducted with transparency and accountability. This includes establishing review panels and increasing staffing to monitor the implementation of policies such as Project 2025 and Schedule F. These measures aim to balance the pursuit of governmental efficiency with the protection of personal liberties. That’s just where we are now.
—
Mark Davis writes on constitutional rights, firearms legislation, and state-level legal trends. A graduate of Liberty University with a background in legal research, he has reported on gun rights cases from state courts to the Supreme Court. Before journalism, he worked with a constitutional law nonprofit focused on Second Amendment litigation.