Topic: The Media
“The OPL is critically important in building coalitions and support for the President’s agenda across every aligned social, faith-based, minority, and economic interest group. It is a critical tool for shaping public opinion and keeping myriad supporters, as well as “frenemies” and opponents alike who are within reach, better informed.”
This was regarding the OPL (Office of Public Liaison) and manipulating public opinion.
Full contextual analysis of Section 1.1: White House Office here.
“Make public diplomacy and international broadcasting serve American interests.”
This is the headline for one of her additional recommendations. She goes on to say “The United States must reassert its public diplomacy obligations by restoring its international broadcasting infrastructure as part of the broader U.S. foreign policy framework, consolidating broadcasting resources and recommitting to people-focused and pro-freedom messaging and content.”
This is explicitly an argument to restrict/destroy the free press, and is a violation of the First Amendment.
Full contextual analysis of Section 2.3: Department of State here.
“In particular, the IC must restore confidence in its political neutrality to rectify the damage done by the actions of former IC leaders and personnel regarding the claims of Trump–Russia collusion following the 2016 election and the suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop investigation and media revelations of its existence during the 2020 election.”
Let’s unpack that. For a couple of years, Trump got to shout “hoax” when it was suggested that his campaign colluded with Russia. His administration suppressed the Mueller report. The media even reported that there was “no collusion!” both at the time, and while Trump was in office and could control the narrative. By 2021, we were seeing the truth as more and more of Trump’s cronies turned states’ evidence to avoid prison time (see Paul Manafort, who admitted colluding with Russia as part of the Trump campaign.)
Further unpacking and full contextual analysis of Section 2.4: Intelligence Community here.
“The mission of United States Agency for Global Media (USAGM) is to inform, engage, and connect people around the world in support of freedom and democracy. However, this mission statement does not reflect the current work of the agency. The mission is noble, but the execution is lacking. To fulfill its mission, USAGM should also aim to present the truth about America and American policy – not parrot America’s adversaries’ propaganda and talking points.”
For context, the U.S. Agency for Global Media (USAGM) is an independent federal agency that oversees the United States’ international media efforts. It manages government-funded news outlets such as Voice of America (VOA), Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), Radio Free Asia (RFA), Middle East Broadcasting Networks (MBN), and Office of Cuba Broadcasting (OCB). These outlets aim to provide unbiased news, promote freedom of the press, and support democratic values in regions where free media is restricted or censored.
Full contextual analysis of Section 2.5: Media Agencies: U.S. Agency for Global Media & Corporation for Public Broadcasting here.
Share this quote from Project 2025:
“Late in the Trump Administration, following the long-delayed Senate confirmation of Michael Pack as USAGM Chief Executive Officer (CEO), agency leadership rapidly initiated long-overdue and necessary reforms, including security reforms repeatedly requested by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) that had been ignored by USAGM leadership. Unfortunately, as was the case with the OTF, the Biden Administration immediately reinstated personnel who had been fired for gross security violations, placing the agency back into its previously failed posture—one that poses a danger to national security.”
She’s claiming here that Pack was finally cleaning up the USAGM, and Biden reversed those efforts. The reality is that Pack attempted to purge the organization of career officials, censor any criticisms of President Trump, and withhold congressionally appropriated funding from a subsidiary of the media organization. [Source]1. From the linked article:
“Pack’s moves have continued to stoke fear over the White House’s mismanagement and attempted politicization of the federal agency intended to promote independent and credible journalism.”
Pack was accused three times in the same week of fraud and misuse of his office. One of the charges, from the AG of the District of Columbia, accused Pack of illegally funneling more than $4 million dollars to himself through a nonprofit that he also controls.
Full contextual analysis of Section 2.5: Media Agencies: U.S. Agency for Global Media & Corporation for Public Broadcasting here.
Share this quote from Project 2025:
“Even content that went well beyond fair and accurate reporting on U.S. domestic and political problems could not be reined in by front office leadership under the Firewall Regulation. Soon, VOA’s White House correspondent was posting content highly critical of, and personally insulting to, the U.S. President—in contradiction of VOA’s own journalistic standards, policies, and procedures.”
Namdar gives no examples of these critical and “personally insulting” news stories, but I feel it’s necessary to point out that when a President commits crimes, or says something disgusting about women or veterans, or tells any of the literally more than thirty thousand documented lies Trump told during his presidency, that’s newsworthy and something we the people (and the press) SHOULD be critical about, regardless of whether or not the president finds it “personally insulting.”
Namdar is arguing for a system where nobody is allowed to criticize Dear Leader. This is fascism. She goes on for several paragraphs, outraged that the media would dare criticize Trump or his staff. In fact, Vice President Pence’s office threatened reporter Steve Herman with retaliation for accurately reporting that Pence visited the Mayo clinic without wearing a mask, which was explicitly against their rules at the time (there is photographic evidence of this.)
Full contextual analysis of Section 2.5: Media Agencies: U.S. Agency for Global Media & Corporation for Public Broadcasting here.
Share this quote from Project 2025:
“In brief, the USAGM is vulnerable to exploitation by foreign spies. During the last six months of the Trump Administration, known foreign intelligence operatives were removed from the OCB and RFE/RL.”
This is a lie. What she’s referring to is Michael Pack’s accusations that the USAGM was “ripe for espionage, and possibly rife with spies.” “It’s a great place to put a foreign spy,” Pack said, citing what he contended were severe security lapses by previous leadership.
From the linked article:
“Pack’s insistence that there were issues related to security in hiring at VOA is merely a smokescreen to avert attention from his blatant attempt to interfere with the legislatively mandated independence, or ‘firewall’, protecting the journalists of VOA from government interference,” said former USAGM CEO John Lansing. Lansing is now the CEO of NPR.”
I could find no real record of actual spies who were removed from the USAGM for any kind of “spying” activities.
Full contextual analysis of Section 2.5: Media Agencies: U.S. Agency for Global Media & Corporation for Public Broadcasting here.
Share this quote from Project 2025:
“There is great concern about the vulnerability of undersea cable trunks that make up the Internet cloud. The vast majority of global Internet traffic — 95 percent — is transmitted through these cables, including news transmissions and Presidential Transition Project web-based content produced by the USAGM’s broadcast networks.”
That the cables “make up the internet cloud” is inaccurate. The cables carry information, they don’t store it. It’s also not news that these cables are vulnerable. They experience about 200 outages a year and the vast majority of these are human-caused (mostly by fishing equipment or anchors). The reason we don’t hear about the outages is that there is almost always a backup route of transmitting information, especially for crucial infrastructure.
Full contextual analysis of Section 2.5: Media Agencies: U.S. Agency for Global Media & Corporation for Public Broadcasting here.
Share this quote from Project 2025:
“The VOA firewall is meant to protect broadcasters from government interference with content; however, USAGM staff have abused the firewall and used it as an offensive measure to block oversight.”
Namdar is arguing here for government oversight (and of course manipulation of) the USAGM here (and explicitly states it in the previous paragraph.)
Full contextual analysis of Section 2.5: Media Agencies: U.S. Agency for Global Media & Corporation for Public Broadcasting here.
Share this quote from Project 2025:
“Not only is the federal government trillions of dollars in debt and unable to afford the more than half a billion dollars squandered on leftist opinion each year, but the government should not be compelling the conservative half of the country to pay for the suppression of its own views.”
Wow. You don’t get much clearer in your intentions than that statement. Defuding public broadcasting would result in a number of consequences including educational, cultural and local programming being reduced or canceled; small or rural stations being forced to close, leading to a loss of access to reliable information in underserved areas; public broadcasters might have to turn to commercialized funding to stay afloat, potentially leading to biased and commercial programming that appeals to advertisers rather than the public interest, huge impact on free access to information, and more.
Full contextual analysis of Section 2.5: Media Agencies: U.S. Agency for Global Media & Corporation for Public Broadcasting here.
Share this quote from Project 2025: