Vought begins by lamenting the fact that Presidents have to deal with departments of the government making their own policies, rather than having to do what the President says (yet another argument for making the President a de facto King/Dictator.)

He goes on to quote James Madison to make his point: “In Federalist No. 47, James Madison warned that “[t]he accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” (Project 2025, Section 1.2: Executive Office of the President of the United States, Russ Vought, page 75, paragraph 3.)

This statement has all of the self-awareness of a dog licking its own ass in public, to quote popular commentator Jim Wright¹. Concentrating the power behind only the President, as Vought is arguing for, is the very definition of “accumulating all powers in the hands of one”, which as he admits it follows, would be the “definition of tyranny”.

Vought then argues that a conservative President should return power to “America’s families, faith communities, local governments, and states.” (Project 2025, Section 1.2: Executive Office of the President of the United States, Russ Vought, page 76, paragraph 2.) By including “faith communities” in this statement, he is advocating for Christian nationalism.

Christian Nationalism is a political ideology advocating for a nation to be explicitly defined by and governed according to Christian principles. This is explicitly unconstitutional. The authors of Project 2025 like to claim that they are strict Constitutionalists, and that we are a “Christian nation.” Many conservatives claim that a Christian nation is what the Founding Fathers wanted.

It’s ironic, then, that Vought would quote James Madison here – Madison felt that state support for a particular religion or for ANY religion was improper. [Source]² Thomas Jefferson declared when the American people adopted the Establishment Clause that they “built a wall of separation between the church and state.”³

The First Amendment states that Congress “shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. This is known as the Establishment Clause and was ratified in 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights. The Establishment Clause prevents the government from creating or establishing a religion, and also protects people’s right to worship however they choose, or not to worship at all. Ergo, Christian Nationalism as a philosophy is in direct violation of the First Amendment.

Vought then discusses how the OMB (Office of Management and Budget) should be governed: “The Director must view his job as the best, most comprehensive approximation of the President’s mind as it pertains to the policy agenda…” (Project 2025, Section 1.2: Executive Office of the President of the United States, Russ Vought, page 77, paragraph 2.)

He implies 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.

Vought touches on the National Debt next. It’s ironic for him to criticize the National Debt while supporting Trump, who exploded the National Debt with his tax cuts for the wealthy.

“The national debt has risen by almost $7.8 trillion during Trump’s time in office. That’s nearly twice as much as what Americans owe on student loans, car loans, credit cards and every other type of debt other than mortgages, combined, according to data from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. It amounts to about $23,500 in new federal debt for every person in the country.” (ProPublica, January 14, 2021, Allan Sloan & Cezary Podkul.⁴) Trump oversaw the third-largest increase of the National Debt relative to the size of the economy in history, behind only Abraham Lincoln and George W. Bush.

From the article: “Economists agree that we needed massive deficit spending during the COVID-19 crisis to ward off an economic cataclysm, but federal finances under Trump had become dire even before the pandemic⁵. That happened even though the economy was booming and unemployment was at historically low levels. By the Trump administration’s own description⁶, the pre-pandemic national debt level was already a “crisis” and a “grave threat.”

The cognitive dissonance here is astounding. “The President should use every possible tool to propose and impose fiscal discipline on the federal government. Anything short of that would constitute abject failure.” (Project 2025, Section 1.2: Executive Office of the President of the United States, Russ Vought, page 79, paragraph 5.) By Vought’s own assertion here, Trump’s administration was an abject failure.

“Additionally, the President should revise and sign an updated version of President Ronald Reagan’s Executive Order 1263018 on federal takings.” (Project 2025, Section 1.2: Executive Office of the President of the United States, Russ Vought, page 82, paragraph 1.) This has to do with safeguarding private property against the federal government taking it without just compensation. Vought is unclear what needs to be changed about this. Reagan’s act, issued in 1988, has not been substantially altered since its inception.

“The next President should work with Congress to pass significant regulatory policy and process reforms, which could go a long way toward reining in the administrative state. Excellent examples of such legislation include the Regulatory Accountability Act, SMART Act, GOOD Act, Early Participation in Regulations Act, Unfunded Mandates Accountability and Transparency Act, and REINS Act.” (Project 2025, Section 1.2: Executive Office of the President of the United States, Russ Vought, page 82, paragraph 3.)

This is another argument for deregulation. Let’s break down what each of those acts is, and what the potential impact of each of them would be:

1. Regulatory Accountability Act: This act aims to reform the process by which federal agencies issue regulations. It would require agencies to conduct more rigorous cost-benefit analyses, increase transparency, and allow for greater public participation and judicial review.
2. SMART Act (Search for and Cutting Regulations that are Unnecessarily Burdensome Act): The SMART Act proposes a systematic review of existing regulations to identify and eliminate those that are outdated, duplicative, or unnecessarily burdensome on businesses.
3. GOOD Act (Guidance out of Darkness Act): The GOOD Act requires federal agencies to post all guidance documents online in a searchable format, making it easier for the public and businesses to understand and comply with regulations.
4. Early Participation in Regulations Act: This act encourages early public involvement in the regulatory process, allowing stakeholders to provide input before a regulation is formally proposed.
5. Unfunded Mandates Accountability and Transparency Act: This act seeks to increase transparency and accountability regarding unfunded mandates—regulations or requirements imposed by the federal government on state, local, or tribal governments without providing funding to cover the costs.
6. REINS Act (Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act): The REINS Act would require that any major regulation with an economic impact of $100 million or more be approved by Congress before it can take effect.

Some of those don’t sound so bad. So what’s the potential downside?

The Regulatory Accountability Act (Goodlatte, R-VA)⁷, while aimed at making the regulatory process more rigorous, could make it excessively difficult for federal agencies to implement new regulations (which is precisely the point). The increased requirements for cost-benefit analyses, public hearings, and judicial reviews might slow down the regulatory process significantly, potentially delaying important protections related to public health, safety, and the environment. This could hinder the government’s ability to respond quickly to emerging issues or crises. (This proposed legislation has passed the House.)

While the SMART Act (Sinema, D-AZ)⁸ seeks to remove unnecessary regulations, it could lead to the elimination of important rules that provide critical protections, especially if the review process is driven by short-term economic concerns rather than long-term public interest. There is also a risk that the act could be used to justify cutting regulations that are politically unpopular, even if they serve important social or environmental purposes, potentially leading to harm in those areas. (This legislation has been introduced.)

Although the GOOD Act (Comer, R-KY)⁹ aims to increase transparency, if implemented poorly, it could overwhelm agencies with the requirement to post every piece of guidance online. This could lead to an information overload where significant guidance is buried under less relevant documents, making it harder for businesses and the public to find the information they truly need. Additionally, the act might discourage agencies from issuing guidance altogether, leading to less clarity and more uncertainty for those subject to federal regulations. (This legislation has been introduced.)

As for the Early Participation in Regulations Act (Lankford, R-OK)¹⁰, encouraging early public involvement is generally positive, but this act could lead to regulatory capture, where special interest groups dominate the early stages of the rule-making process, shaping regulations in ways that benefit them at the expense of broader public interests. Additionally, it could slow down the regulatory process if agencies are required to engage in extensive consultations before even proposing a rule, potentially delaying necessary regulations. (This legislation has been introduced.)

While transparency about unfunded mandates is important, focusing too much on the costs could discourage the federal government from implementing necessary regulations or requirements that address critical issues, such as public health or environmental protection. If states and local governments are given too much leeway to resist unfunded mandates, it could result in uneven implementation of federal policies across the country, leading to disparities in public services and protections. (Unfunded Mandates Accountability Act (Foxx, R-NC).¹¹ This legislation has been introduced.)

The REINS Act (Cammack, R-FL)¹² could severely slow down the regulatory process by requiring Congressional approval for major regulations. Given the often slow and partisan nature of Congress, this could result in significant delays or even the prevention of important regulations from being enacted, particularly those related to environmental protection, consumer safety, and public health. It could also lead to a situation where critical regulatory decisions are made based on political considerations rather than expert analysis or public need. (This legislation has passed the House.)

As with any laws, the danger of most of these is if they are exploited or implemented poorly, which feels like a sure bet. At worst, these introduce delays in necessary regulations, weakening of important protections, increased influence of special interest groups, reduced clarity and transparency, and a general undermining of the government’s ability to effectively regulate in the public interest.

On to National Security!

“…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.” (Project 2025, Section 1.2: Executive Office of the President of the United States, Russ Vought, page 83, paragraph 2.) This is another argument for staffing the government with loyalists to the Project 2025 agenda, not to the country.

Trump’s National Security Strategy is more rhetoric than actual policy¹³, but he mentions strengthening border security (despite ordering Congress not to act on the border so he could continue to campaign on it¹⁴ – must not be that big of a problem if it can wait!), immigration reform (he wants to deport all illegal immigrants – more about the economic impact¹⁵ of that here), and pouring even more funding into the military (despite cutting funding for Veterans’ health care¹⁶)

“The NSC should rigorously review all general and flag officer promotions to prioritize the core roles and responsibilities of the military over social engineering and non-defense matters, including climate change, critical race theory, manufactured extremism, and other polarizing policies that weaken our armed forces and discourage our nation’s finest men and women from enlisting to serve in defense of our liberty.” (Project 2025, Section 1.2: Executive Office of the President of the United States, Russ Vought, page 84, paragraph 2.)

The term “social engineering” here refers to policies or initiatives aimed at changing societal behaviors or values within the military, such as those related to diversity, inclusion, or addressing systemic racism. “Non-defense matters” likely refers to issues like climate change, which Vought sees as unrelated to the military’s core mission. Vought is arguing that policies related to climate change, CRT, and similar issues are deterring potential recruits from joining the military.

In fact, studies show that MOST Americans would discourage a young person from enlisting in the military¹⁷ (unless as an officer), and the Military itself issued a statement counter to Vought’s assertion that politicization of the military is hindering recruitment efforts: “Military recruiting officials on Wednesday dismissed concerns that perceptions of an increasingly politicized military are undermining their pitches to young Americans, saying instead that unfamiliarity with military life poses a bigger barrier to efforts in boosting enlistments.” [Source]¹⁸

In 2020, Vought ordered the Air Force to stop using training materials that mention race. [Source]¹⁹ Vought called diversity and unconscious bias training intended to create inclusive environments “un-American propaganda training sessions.” He is deeply, deeply racist.

Vought goes on to reiterate that the NSA should be staffed with loyalists to the Project 2025 agenda (page 84, paragraph 3.) He argues for bolstering economic growth via tax reform and the “elimination of regulatory and procedural barriers” (page 86, paragraph 6). Vought does not elaborate on what the “tax reform” portion of this would look like at this time.

“The People’s Republic of China’s predatory trade practices have disrupted the open-market trading system that has provided mutual benefit to all participating countries—including China—for decades.” (Project 2025, Section 1.2: Executive Office of the President of the United States, Russ Vought, page 87, paragraph 2.)

Vought is criticizing the WTO (World Trade Organization) for failing to discipline China for their unfair trading practices. However, this study by the Cato Institute²⁰ found that “If the Trump administration really does want the Chinese economy to be more market-oriented, it should make better use of WTO rules by filing more complaints against China. While it is often accused of flouting the rules, China does a reasonably good job of complying with WTO complaints brought against it.”

“During the Trump and Biden Administrations, there has been a bipartisan focus on prioritizing R&D funding around the so-called Industries of the Future (IOTF). Under President Trump, IOTF priorities were artificial intelligence (AI), quantum information science (QIS), advanced communications/5G, advanced manufacturing, and biotechnology. Under President Biden, this list has been expanded to include advanced materials, robotics, battery technology, cybersecurity, green products and clean technology, plant genetics and agricultural technologies, nanotechnology, and semiconductor and microelectronics technologies. These priorities should be evaluated and narrowed to ensure consistency with the next Administration’s priorities.” (Project 2025, Section 1.2: Executive Office of the President of the United States, Russ Vought, page 91, paragraph 3.)

I take this to mean that Vought is offended by the addition of green products and clean technology to their “Industries of the Future.”

Vought then explicitly argues that the next President should kill climate change research programs by executive order, and “…if required, refuse to accept any USGCRP assessment prepared under the Biden Administration.” (Project 2025, Section 1.2: Executive Office of the President of the United States, Russ Vought, page 92, paragraph 1.) (The USGCRP is the U.S. Global Change Research Program.)

“Finally, the next Administration will face a significant challenge in unwinding policies and procedures that are used to advance radical gender, racial, and equity initiatives under the banner of science. Similarly, the Biden Administration’s climate fanaticism will need a whole-of-government unwinding. As with other federal departments and agencies, the Biden Administration’s leveraging of the federal government’s resources to further the woke agenda should be reversed and scrubbed from all policy manuals, guidance documents, and agendas, and scientific excellence and innovation should be restored as the OSTP’s top priority.” (Project 2025, Section 1.2: Executive Office of the President of the United States, Russ Vought, page 92, paragraph 3.)

Again, Vought’s racism and climate denial is on full display here. It’s utterly laughable that he cites “scientific excellence” as something he’s interested in, but the scientific community OVERWHELMINGLY agrees that climate change is an issue – 97% of actively publishing climate scientists agree that humans are causing climate change and global warming²¹.

Regarding the CEQ (Council for Environmental Quality) Vought says, “The President should instruct the CEQ to rewrite its regulations implementing NEPA along the lines of the historic 2020 effort and restoring its key provisions such as banning the use of cumulative impact analysis.” (NEPA is the National Environmental Policy Act.) (Project 2025, Section 1.2: Executive Office of the President of the United States, Russ Vought, page 92, paragraph 5.)

Isn’t it interesting that Vought denies climate change exists, but in the same breath, wants to prevent any research into cumulative impact? It’s almost like he knows he’s completely full of shit.

“Abolishing the Gender Policy Council would eliminate central promotion of abortion (“health services”); comprehensive sexuality education (“education”); and the new woke gender ideology, which has as a principal tenet “gender affirming care” and “sex-change” surgeries on minors.” (Project 2025, Section 1.2: Executive Office of the President of the United States, Russ Vought, page 94, paragraph 3.)

Vought seems to believe, about many things, that removing the words from documentation about a thing, banning talking about a thing, or banning research into a thing, will magically make the thing go away. This naive denialism is laughable at best, but he’s outright lying here – nobody, especially from the government²², is promoting sex-change surgery for children. Furthermore, studies have shown that eliminating sex education leads to decreased contraceptive use, increased number of sexual partners, higher instances of sexually transmitted infections (STIs), higher rates of homophobia and related bullying, increased dating violence and intimate partner violence, and more²³. Age-appropriate sex education does, however, prevent child sex abuse²⁴, so one wonders why anyone who isn’t abusing children would be against it.

Oh, right. Because Russ Vought thinks that if he bans people from mentioning something, it ceases to exist.