Topic: Staffing the Government with Regime Loyalists
(This theme repeated so often throughout the Project 2025 document that it merited its own category.)
(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.
“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.
“Choosing who will carry out that agenda on a daily basis is not only one of the first decisions a President makes in office, but also one of the most critical. The tone and tempo of an administration are often determined on January 20.”
Full contextual analysis of Section 1.1: White House Office here.
“The White House Counsel’s office cannot serve as a finishing school to credential the next set of white-shoe law firm attorneys or federal judges in waiting who cabin their opinions for fear their elite credentials could be tarnished through a policy disagreement. Rather, it should function more as an activist yet ethical plaintiffs’ firm that advocates for its client—the Administration’s agenda—within the limits imposed by the Constitution and the duties of the legal profession.”
He’s explicitly arguing that White House Counsel should serve as the President’s personal legal team.
Full contextual analysis of Section 1.1: White House Office here.
“Instead of choosing a specialist, the President should hire a counsel with extensive experience with a wide range of complex legal subjects. Moreover, while a candidate with elite credentials might seem ideal, the best one will be above all loyal to the President and the Constitution.”
This is regarding who the President should choose as White House Counsel.
Full contextual analysis of Section 1.1: White House Office here.
“Although its focus should be identifying and recruiting leaders to fill the approximately 1,000 appointments that require Senate confirmation, PPO must also fill approximately 3,000 political jobs that require dedicated conservatives to support the Administration’s political leadership.”
This is regarding who the PPO (Presidential Personnel Office) should hire, generally speaking. Staffing the country with loyalists is a central tenet of their plan, and they argue for it over, and over again.
Full contextual analysis of Section 1.1: White House Office here.
“The Director must view his job as the best, most comprehensive approximation of the President’s mind as it pertains to the policy agenda…”
This is about how the OMB (Office of Management and Budget) should be governed. He goes on to imply that the Director of the OMB should be comfortable operating outside of the law, in order to enact the President’s agenda: “In addition, many key considerations involved in enacting a President’s agenda hinge on existing legal authorities. The Director must ensure the appointment of a General Counsel who is respected yet creative and fearless in his or her ability to challenge legal precedents that serve to protect the status quo.” (Project 2025, Section 1.2: Executive Office of the President of the United States, Russ Vought, page 78, paragraph 2.)
“Respected, yet creative” in terms of following the law is…certainly an interesting way to describe your ideal government official.
Full contextual analysis of Section 1.2: Executive Office of the President of the United States here.
Share this quote from Project 2025:
“In addition, many key considerations involved in enacting a President’s agenda hinge on existing legal authorities. The Director must ensure the appointment of a General Counsel who is respected yet creative and fearless in his or her ability to challenge legal precedents that serve to protect the status quo.”
He implies here that the Director of the OMB should be comfortable operating outside of the law, in order to enact the President’s agenda.
Full contextual analysis of Section 1.2: Executive Office of the President of the United States here.
Share this quote from Project 2025:
“…the NSA should immediately evaluate and eliminate directorates that are not aligned with the President’s agenda and replace them with new directorates as appropriate that can drive implementation of the President’s signature national security priorities.”
This is another argument for staffing the government with loyalists to the Project 2025 agenda, not to the country.
Full contextual analysis of Section 1.2: Executive Office of the President of the United States here.
Share this quote from Project 2025:
“Since the turn of the 20th century, progressives have sought a system that could effectively select, train, reward, and guard from partisan influence the neutral scientific experts they believe are required to staff the national government and run the administrative state. Their U.S. system was initiated by the Pendleton Act of 188310 and institutionalized by the 1930s New Deal to set principles and practices that were meant to ensure that expert merit rather than partisan favors or personal favoritism ruled within the federal bureaucracy. Yet, as public frustration with the civil service has grown, generating calls to “drain the swamp,” it has become clear that their project has had serious unintended consequences.”
They have a real issue with staffing the government with nonpartisan experts. It follows logically that the alternative must be partisan bootlickers. While I can agree that the federal government is bloated in places and has its share of problems, I do not agree that the one of them is “too many politically neutral experts.”
Full contextual analysis of Section 1.3: Central Personnel Agencies: The Bureaucracy here.
Share this quote from Project 2025: