Our Regulatory Philosophy: Objective Rules, Not Unlimited Bureaucracy
Because the term “progressive” is often associated with the modern administrative state, a common misconception is that Project 2029 is a blank check for unlimited federal regulation. It is not.
Project 2029 is built on the premise that regulation is not a moral good in itself; it is a mechanical tool. Our framework establishes strict philosophical and structural constraints on when and how government should intervene.
1. Targeting Extraction, Protecting Markets
The system isn’t broken, but it too often rewards extraction over productive value creation.
- Extraction (rent-seeking, regulatory capture, cronyism) occurs when well-connected actors use government power or monopolistic leverage to siphon wealth without creating value.
- Our Mandate: We intervene specifically to target and eliminate extraction. We are not regulating to punish success or tear down producers; we are clearing the way for them.
If a regulation does not target extraction or correct a clear market failure (like unpriced environmental costs), it does not fit this mandate. We believe in setting objective rules of the game so that free markets and productive value creation can thrive without being looted by cronies.
2. Structural Sanitation First
A framework that is “fully pro-regulation without constraints” blindly trusts the regulatory state to act benevolently. We do not.
This is why Project 2029 prioritizes Structural Sanitation and Institutional Accountability. Before expanding the scope of any agency, the state itself must be structurally sanitized and held accountable. We demand strict ethics laws, independent Inspectors General, and rigorous performance metrics. We cannot trust a system with expanded duties until we have ended the “Two-Tier System” of justice that allows elites to bypass the rules.
3. The “Progressive-Mandate” Constraint
We explicitly reject the temptation to trade decentralized rights violations for inescapable federal supremacy.
For example, if a state passes a localized regulation that violates free trade or individual property rights, the instinct of some might be to pass a sweeping federal law (invoking the Commerce Clause) to strike it down.
While the state law is unjust, expanding centralized federal regulatory authority to fix it is a catastrophic bargain. An expanded, unrestrained federal apparatus is historically a far graver threat to liberty and markets than a localized, decentralized mandate.
Project 2029 serves as a principled constraint against this short-term political thinking. We do not empower the central apparatus simply to solve a localized issue.
4. Honest Costs and Fair Competition
Throughout this framework, you will find terms like “Honest Costs” and “Fair Competition” rather than “Command Limits” or “Transformative Equity.”
Our goal is not to have the government dictate market outcomes. Our goal is to ensure the market functions accurately. By ensuring environmental policies price in “Honest Costs,” and by enforcing “Fair Competition” in trade and antitrust, we are utilizing market mechanisms, not discarding them.
In summary: We are building a government that enforces fair play, not one that plays the game for you.
Last updated: June 2026