Topic: The Government
“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.
“Bureaucrats at the Department of Education inject racist, anti-American, ahistorical propaganda into America’s classrooms; Bureaucrats at the Department of Justice force school districts to undermine girls’ sports and parents’ rights to satisfy transgender extremists; Woke bureaucrats at the Pentagon force troops to attend “training” seminars about “white privilege”; and Bureaucrats at the State Department infuse U.S. foreign aid programs with woke extremism about “intersectionality” and abortion.”
In 2020, Russell Vought, also a material contributor to Project 2025, ordered the Air Force to stop using training materials that mention race. [Source] Vought called diversity and unconscious bias training intended to create inclusive environments “un-American propaganda training sessions.” Deeply, deeply racist.
Full contextual analysis of Foreword here.
(A conservative president must) “defang and defund the woke culture warriors who have infiltrated every last institution in America.”
It is heavily implied that this should be done by firing any bureaucrats deemed disloyal to the agenda and replacing them with loyalists.
Full contextual analysis of the foreword here.
“There is no such thing as “the government.” There are just people who work for the government and wield its power and who—at almost every opportunity—wield it to serve themselves first and everyone else a distant second. This is not a failing of one nation or socialist party, but inherent in human nature.”
I can agree in general terms with this statement. He then nonsensically equates the “Soviet Empire”, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, and Vermont (yes, really) when discussing failed socialist policies. (Most of those suffer/suffered under fascist policies, not socialist.) The Vermont mention was an unveiled dig at Bernie Sanders, whom he mentions by name in the paragraph.
Full contextual analysis of the Foreword 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.