Topic: Congress
“In recent decades, members of the House and Senate discovered that if they give away that power to the Article II branch of government, they can also deny responsibility for its actions. So today in Washington, most policy is no longer set by Congress at all, but by the Administrative State. Given the choice between being powerful but vulnerable or irrelevant but famous, most Members of Congress have chosen the latter.”
Is…the Administrative State in the room with us right now? I kid. In context, he’s arguing that Congress is increasingly useless (I agree), and claiming that unelected bureaucrats in various government departments are the ones effectively setting the laws.
Full contextual analysis of the foreword 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.
“Informal congressional notification or “tiered review” is a hinderance to ensuring timely sales to our global partners. The tiered review process is not codified in law; it is merely a practice by which the Department of State provides a preview of prospective arms transfers before Congress is formally notified.”
He’s arguing here for ending the tiered review process, which would result in the President being able to unilaterally transfer or sell arms to other nations without Congressional approval. This is a horrifying recommendation. He continues, “Use the tiered review process only when unanimous congressional support is guaranteed in order to eliminate the “weaponization” by select Members of Congress that has prevented billions of dollars of arms sales from moving into formal congressional notification.” (Project 2025, Section 2.1: Department of Defense, Christopher Miller, page 133, paragraph 5.)
If you’re only using the review process when congressional support is “guaranteed”, that’s a completely pointless review process.
Full contextual analysis of Section 2.1: Department of Defense here.
“Notwithstanding the challenges and slowness of the modern U.S. Senate confirmation process, the next President can exert leverage on the Senate if he or she is willing to place State Department appointees directly into those roles, pending confirmation.”
The president has the authority to place individuals in key roles as “acting” officials while they await Senate confirmation, in order not to leave important roles vacant for too long. These appointees can begin performing their duties immediately, even though they haven’t been confirmed by the Senate. By doing this, the president can bypass delays in the confirmation process to ensure that leadership positions in the State Department are filled with people loyal to the administration’s agenda. This puts pressure on the Senate to act, because if appointees are already in the role, the Senate may feel compelled to either confirm them or block them through a formal vote sooner, and may even be reluctant to oust someone who is already serving. Skinner is arguing that this practice should be the norm.
Full contextual analysis of Section 2.3: Department of State here.
“[t]he next conservative Administration should eliminate any offices within the FBI that it has the power to eliminate without any action from Congress.”
This is an explicit argument for dismantling the FBI.
Full contextual analysis of Section 3: The General Welfare here.
“A top priority should be the immediate and consistent rejection of all EPA ORD and science activities that have not been authorized by Congress.”
If the EPA’s Office of Research and Development (ORD) and other science activities were limited only to those explicitly authorized by Congress, as this statement suggests, the consequences could be significant and potentially harmful to environmental protection efforts.
ORD’s research often addresses emerging environmental threats, such as new pollutants, climate change impacts, or novel industrial processes. Limiting research to only what is specifically authorized by Congress could reduce the agency’s ability to respond quickly to emerging issues and technological advancements.
Waiting for Congress to authorize specific research would likely introduce significant delays in responding to urgent environmental or public health crises. If an issue arises, such as the discovery of a harmful pollutant, the EPA would not be able to investigate or develop solutions unless Congress formally approves it. This could lead to a slower response to serious threats, including toxic spills, contamination, air and water quality issues, and climate-related disasters.
Furthermore, if the EPA’s scientific research is subject to congressional approval, it would almost certainly (and possibly by design) become politicized. Research might be influenced by political agendas or lobbying, rather than being driven by scientific priorities or actual environmental needs.
Limiting the EPA’s ability to conduct broad scientific research would likely undermine public trust in environmental regulation (which is also 100% by design in this case.) If people believe that the agency’s research is being dictated by political agendas rather than unbiased scientific inquiry, confidence in the EPA’s findings and regulations will erode.
Full contextual analysis of Section 3.4: Environmental Protection Agency here.
“Enforce the death penalty where appropriate and applicable. Capital punishment is a sensitive matter, as it should be, but the current crime wave makes deterrence vital at the federal, state, and local levels. However, providing this punishment without ever enforcing it provides justice neither for the victims’ families nor for the defendant. The next conservative Administration should therefore do everything possible to obtain finality for the 44 prisoners currently on federal death row. It should also pursue the death penalty for applicable crimes – particularly heinous crimes involving violence and sexual abuse of children – until Congress says otherwise through legislation.”
This is concerning on a lot of levels. He has previously suggested that the “current crime wave” is illegal immigration, among other things. Is he suggesting putting illegal immigrants to death?
His choice of words here is interesting… “It should also pursue the death penalty for applicable crimes – particularly heinous crimes involving violence and sexual abuse of children – until Congress says otherwise through legislation.”
UNTIL CONGRESS SAYS OTHERWISE THROUGH LEGISLATION.
I’m not theoretically opposed, either, to putting sexual abusers of children to death. I don’t happen to believe that restorative justice applies here – the evidence suggests that child predators cannot be rehabilitated in most cases30. A compromise I like better than murder is chemical castration31.
But why would Congress “say otherwise” with legislation that child sex offenders should not be punished (or at least not punished with death?) Could it be because so many Congressional Republicans have been accused of sexual misconduct involving children?
See Florida Representative Mark Foley, former Republican Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert (who pleaded guilty to child molestation), Alabama Republican Senate candidate Roy Moore, Republican Jim Jordan, Republican congressman Matt Gaetz, and Donald Trump himself, accused by dozens of women (and at least one child) of sexual assault, including barging in on Miss Teen USA pageant contestants as young as 15, who were changing clothes.
Republicans have rallied around these people. There are many more examples than mentioned above.
“The Republicans have apparently decided that the committee in charge of sex crimes legislation should include one guy currently being investigated for actual sex crimes—and another who allegedly looked the other way on them. It’s not exactly the behavior of a party that cares deeply about sexual abuse.” [Source]32 (They’re referring to Gaetz and Jordan respectively.)
Full contextual analysis of Section 3.8: Department of Justice here.