Section 1: Taking the Reins of Government
“America is now divided between two opposing forces: woke revolutionaries, and those who believe in the ideals of the American Revolution.”
They continue under the premise that “woke” people believe that “America is – and always has been – systemically racist, and not worth celebrating, and must be fundamentally transformed, largely through a centralized administrative state.” (Project 2025, Section 1: Taking the Reins of Government, page 51, paragraph 1.)
The fact that America is (and always has been) systemically racist, is undisputably factual. We are a country founded and built on the backs of enslaved people. To suggest that wanting to remedy systemic inequality in the United States equates to a belief that the United States is “not worth celebrating” is utterly ludicrous. Almost as ludicrous as suggesting that “real” Americans (i.e., the non-“woke”), must thereby be celebrating systemic racism (although they’re implicitly arguing that this is true if A follows B.)
Full contextual analysis of Section 1: Taking the Reins of Government here.
[“Woke” people believe that] “America is – and always has been – systemically racist, and not worth celebrating, and must be fundamentally transformed, largely through a centralized administrative state.”
To suggest that wanting to remedy systemic inequality in the United States equates to a belief that the United States is “not worth celebrating” is utterly ludicrous. Almost as ludicrous as suggesting that “real” Americans (i.e., the non-“woke”), must thereby be celebrating systemic racism (although they’re implicitly arguing that this is true if A follows B.)
Full contextual analysis of Section 1: Taking the Reins of Government here.
“(Whether it be) mask and vaccine mandates, school and business closures, efforts to keep Americans from driving gas cars or using gas stoves, or efforts to defund the police, indoctrinate schoolchildren, alter beloved books, abridge free speech, undermine the colorblind ideal, or deny the biological reality that there are only two sexes, the Left’s steady stream of insanity appears to be never-ending.”
That’s a lot to unpack.
Full contextual analysis of Section 1: Taking the Reins of Government here.
“The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” Accordingly, Vought writes, “it is the President’s agenda that should matter to the departments and agencies,” not their own.”
Well, what happens when we have a President with a terrible agenda? The writer is advocating for a system with no departmental checks and balances on a tyrannical President.
Full contextual analysis of Section 1: Taking the Reins of Government here.
“Federal employees are often ideologically aligned—not with the majority of the American people—but with one another, posing a profound problem for republican government, a government “of, by, and for” the people.”
The writer is operating under the assumption here that the majority of “the people” are ideologically aligned with Republicans, which simply isn’t true.
Full contextual analysis of Section 1: Taking the Reins of Government here.
“Only in the federal government could an applicant in the hiring process be sent to the front of the line because of a “history of drug addiction” or “alcoholism,” or due to “morbid obesity,” “irritable bowel syndrome,” or a “psychiatric disorder.”
Where in the federal government is this actually occurring? I tried Googling “preferential federal hiring practices for fat alcoholics”, but came up short. (I’m joking, for the sarcasm-impaired.) I DID find, however, that ever having been treated for alcoholism can prevent you from obtaining a security clearance, so that seems like the opposite of a preferential hiring practice (although I supposed it could be argued that the Republican party demonstrated preferential treatment for alcoholics when they appointed Brett “I like beer, okay?” Kavanaugh – an admitted blackout drunk – to the Supreme Court.
Full contextual analysis of Section 1: Taking the Reins of Government here.
“Above all, the President and those who serve under him or her must be committed to the Constitution and the rule of law.”
Ideally, I agree! Except that the writer goes on to say in the same paragraph, “…the White House Counsel “must take seriously the duty to protect the powers and privileges of the President from encroachments by Congress, the judiciary, and the administrative components of departments and agencies.” (Project 2025, Section 1, page 53, paragraph 1.) This sounds suspiciously like advocating for removing all checks and balances from the Federal government, which certainly does not support The Constitution.
Full contextual analysis of Section 1: Taking the Reins of Government here.
“…the White House Counsel “must take seriously the duty to protect the powers and privileges of the President from encroachments by Congress, the judiciary, and the administrative components of departments and agencies.”
This sounds suspiciously like advocating for removing all checks and balances from the Federal government.
Full contextual analysis of Section 1: Taking the Reins of Government here.
“It is crucial that all three branches of the federal government respect what Madison called the “double security” to our liberties: the separation of powers among the three branches, and the separation of powers between the federal government and the states.”
Protecting the President from “encroachments by Congress” is the exact opposite of the separate but equal powers/checks and balances enumerated in The Constitution.
Full contextual analysis of Section 1: Taking the Reins of Government here.
“Political appointees who are answerable to the President and have decision-making authority in the executive branch are key to this essential task. The next Administration must not cede such authority to non-partisan “experts,” who pursue their own ends while engaging in groupthink, insulated from American voters.”
This is frightening – he’s basically saying, the people in charge of the government should by no means be experts in their fields, but instead be loyalists who answer to a dictatorial president with unchecked power.
Full contextual analysis of Section 1: Taking the Reins of Government here.