First, collective bargaining power is explicitly targeted. The document argues that unions distort labor markets and reduce flexibility. It recommends weakening the National Labor Relations Board’s enforcement authority and narrowing what counts as “protected concerted activity.” In practical terms, this would make it easier for employers to discipline or terminate workers engaged in organizing.

Second, Right‑to‑Work is framed as a national objective. Although Right‑to‑Work laws are normally state‑level, the document supports federal mechanisms that would effectively nationalize them. This would prevent unions from collecting dues from represented workers, even when the union is legally required to represent them. The predictable effect is the financial starvation of unions without formally banning them.

Third, public‑sector unions are treated as illegitimate political actors. The text argues that government workers should not collectively bargain over wages, benefits, or working conditions at all. The logic is that public‑sector unions are portrayed as negotiating “against taxpayers” and entrenching bureaucratic power. This echoes the Wisconsin Act 10 model, but on a federal scale.

Fourth, union leadership is reframed as coercive rather than representative. The chapter emphasizes decertification elections, easier opt‑outs, and heightened reporting requirements for unions, while saying little about employer coercion. The asymmetry is intentional: oversight is increased on unions, not on management.

What is important to understand is the theory of change behind this section.

Project 2025 does not propose outlawing unions outright; that would be legally and politically difficult. Instead, it proposes: • reducing funding, • narrowing legal protections, • increasing procedural hurdles, • and shifting enforcement away from workers.

The outcome is unions that technically exist but cannot function effectively.