Skinner begins by explaining the purpose of the Department of State. Namely, implementing foreign policy, serving U.S. citizens abroad, protecting national security interests, et al.

“There are scores of fine diplomats who serve the President’s agenda, often helping to shape and interpret that agenda. At the same time, however, in all Administrations, there is a tug-of-war between Presidents and bureaucracies – and that resistance is much starker under conservative Presidents, due largely to the fact that large swaths of the State Department’s workforce are left-wing and predisposed to disagree with a conservative President’s policy agenda and vision.” (Project 2025, Section 2.3: Department of State, Kiron Skinner, page 203, paragraph 3.)

Do you see where this is going already? I sense more arguments for staffing the federal government with loyalists to the President rather than experts in their fields coming on!

“As the U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century (the Hart–Rudman Commission) observed more than 20 years ago, the State Department is a “crippled institution” suffering from “an ineffective organizational structure in which regional and functional policies do not serve integrated goals, and in which sound management, accountability, and leadership are lacking.” Unfortunately, this critique remains accurate.” (Project 2025, Section 2.3: Department of State, Kiron Skinner, page 204, paragraph 4.)

You can learn more about the Hart-Rudman commission here.¹ In a nutshell, it’s a pretty obvious pre-amble/supplement to the Project 2025 agenda (it was written in 1998.)

The basis of Skinner’s argument stems from this: The State Department has been described as having a strong institutional culture, with many career diplomats who view their mission as representing the U.S. to the world based on longstanding diplomatic norms, not just the agenda of the sitting administration.

Under Trump, there were several high-profile disagreements between the administration and career diplomats at the State Department. One notable example was the resignation of several senior diplomats over the administration’s foreign policy direction, such as disagreements over Ukraine policy, handling of the Iran nuclear deal, and the withdrawal from international organizations. During the Obama administration, there were also reports of internal disagreements within the State Department, especially regarding policies on Syria and the Middle East, where some career officials felt sidelined by the White House.

Even historically, Nixon complained about the State Department’s reluctance to fully implement his directives. Nixon famously distrusted the State Department. Similarly, George W. Bush’s administration clashed with the State Department over how to handle the Iraq War and subsequent nation-building efforts.

So it’s very clear here that she’s arguing that anyone representing the United States on foreign policy or as part of the state department must be a loyalist to the President, not to the country. Trump’s clashes with the State Department included whether or not to prosecute him for having stolen classified documents², and the State Department calling for removing him via the 25th Amendment for inciting the January 6 insurrection³, so one need not wonder why he wishes to staff the federal government with loyalists to him – it’s part and parcel of declaring himself officially above the law.

In fact, that’s already happened to an extent: In July 2024, the Supreme court’s conservative supermajority (that Trump appointed) afforded Trump blanket immunity⁴ for his interactions with the Justice Department and concluded he had “presumptive” immunity for other kinds of official acts. Now it’s up to the courts to determine whether or not stealing classified documents and inciting riots were “an official act.” In any case, the plan is obvious, and intended to stop the President from ever being questioned by anyone else in government, regardless of what his actions are.⁵

From the linked article: “If elected, Trump has threatened to reinstate a policy he unsuccessfully attempted in his first term with the creation of “Schedule F”, a new category of federal employees which would be applied to tens of thousands of civil servants in “policy-related” jobs, robbing them of legal protections and making them liable to be fired at will.”

In any case, I’d argue that the ability to disagree with one another/disagree with leadership is a core principle of democracy and a representative republic. If you’re not allowed to question Dear Leader, that’s a fascist dictatorship.

“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.” (Project 2025, Section 2.3: Department of State, Kiron Skinner, page 205, paragraph 2.)

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.

“To the extent possible, all non-confirmed senior appointees should be selected by the President-elect’s transition team or the new President’s Office of Presidential Personnel (depending on the timing of selection) and be in place the first day of the Administration. No one in a leadership position on the morning of January 20 should hold that position at the end of the day.” (Project 2025, Section 2.3: Department of State, Kiron Skinner, page 205, paragraph 4.)

Guess who would be selecting the “Day 1” staff she describes here?

If Trump wins this time around, he’s tapped RFK, Jr. and Tulsi Gabbard⁶ to head up his transition team – an outspoken anti-vaxxer⁷ and serial abuser of animal corpses⁸ who has publicly admitted to sexually assaulting his children’s babysitters⁹, and a woman who is a (perhaps unwitting) Russian propagandist¹⁰ whose campaign has taken money from Russian assets¹¹ and was literally brought up in a cult¹². Seriously, RFK Jr. once decapitated a whale, and doesn’t think that’s a weird story to tell people.¹³

At best, these are deeply problematic individuals. They’re certainly not the “best and brightest.” In linked article 10 above, the writer couches Gabbard as a “useful idiot” for Russian interests:

“While it is one thing for Gabbard to voice her own views, this becomes rather problematic considering her position as a Commissioned Officer in the US Army Reserve and the potential for her to serve Russian government interests as a useful idiot — a term often attributed to Lenin, and which describes a naïve person who can be used to further a political cause without necessarily properly comprehending it.”

So, she’s a Russian asset. The debate is whether or not she’s aware of it. She’s either stupid or evil. Voluntary association with Donald Trump is a strong indicator of either/both.

Last time around, Trump’s transition team was a veritable who’s who of poster children for stupid and/or evil, including many contributors to Project 2025.¹⁴

“Reboot Ambassadors Worldwide. All ambassadors are required to submit letters of resignation at the start of a new Administration.” (Project 2025, Section 2.3: Department of State, Kiron Skinner, page 206, paragraph 2.)

She goes on to say that the next administration should review all career ambassadors “well before the first day”, and reinstate those who are loyalists to the President.

“Ambassadors in countries where U.S. policy or posture would substantially change under the new Administration, as well as any who have evinced hostility toward the incoming Administration or its agenda, should be recalled immediately.” (Project 2025, Section 2.3: Department of State, Kiron Skinner, page 206, paragraph 3.)

“Political ambassadors with strong personal relationships with the President should be prioritized for key strategic posts such as Australia, Japan, the United Kingdom, the United Nations, and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).”(Project 2025, Section 2.3: Department of State, Kiron Skinner, page 206, paragraph 3.)

“[The next President] should direct the Secretary of State to freeze any ongoing treaty or international agreement negotiations and assess whether those efforts align with the new President’s foreign policy direction.” (Project 2025, Section 2.3: Department of State, Kiron Skinner, page 207, paragraph 3.)

This is a horrible and dangerous idea – unilaterally freezing agreements and treaties while they’re “evaluated” is going back on our word as a country. Foreign governments would almost certainly view a sudden freeze in treaty negotiations as a sign of unpredictability and unreliability in U.S. foreign policy. This would erode trust and harm diplomatic relationships, especially with allies or partners who may have spent years negotiating these agreements. Freezing negotiations on arms control, defense cooperation, or counterterrorism agreements could delay critical measures needed for global security, potentially leaving the U.S. or its allies more vulnerable to threats.

Treaties involving climate change, human rights, or international law could be at risk if the new administration’s foreign policy is fundamentally different from the previous one. This could result in a rollback of international commitments, such as withdrawing from climate accords or other multilateral agreements. (This is no doubt an intentional part of the plan.)

If the U.S. pulls back from certain treaties or negotiations, other countries (such as China or the European Union) may step in to fill the leadership vacuum, potentially altering global power dynamics. You get the idea. It’s unnecessary isolationism, if not actively and intentionally harmful.

“The United States should strictly enforce the doctrine of reciprocity when issuing visas to all foreign nationals.” (Project 2025, Section 2.3: Department of State, Kiron Skinner, page 209, paragraph 3.)

The doctrine of reciprocity means that the visa policies applied to foreign nationals entering the U.S. would mirror the policies those foreign nations apply to U.S. citizens. If a country imposes strict visa requirements on Americans, the U.S. would respond by imposing similar restrictions on citizens of that country. This promotes diplomatic leverage, and in a perfect world, could result in better treatment of Americans traveling abroad while they’re in those countries, assuming we’ve agreed to treat visitors from that particular country well while they’re guests of the United States.

In reality, however, some countries would automatically be excluded due to their policies, making enforced reciprocity a means of legally discriminating against foreign visitors from those countries. Israel’s border policy¹⁵ is one such example.

“Rather, it is a return to an old way of leveraging U.S. power against more vulnerable states under an ostensibly fair framework. This particular Republican Party tradition is rooted in late-19th-century GOP foreign policies. Now, as then, Trump’s “favorite word” is a tool for retaliation to be used against “so-called allies.” It coerces specific behaviors by leveraging concessions, invoking paranoia and alienating allies. In the end, it has replaced international cooperation with imperial activities and colonialism.”[Source]¹⁶

The writer continues: “Reciprocity had stark consequences for weaker states such as Cuba. In 1902, Cuban representatives such as Luis V. Placé pleaded for free trade with the United States “on the understanding it is for you to grant; we beg.” In reply, the Cubans received taunts from GOP congressmen alongside a slightly discounted tariff rate on raw sugar, in exchange for discounts on a variety of U.S. exports and a further loss of control over its finances. The Cubans reluctantly agreed, fearing that to do otherwise would risk U.S. annexation.

In short, reciprocity gave the United States access to key foreign markets without undermining the protectionist system back home.”

The GOP backed off from its allegiance to reciprocity after WW2, once it was widely recognized that their high tariff policies had worsened the Great Depression¹⁷ and sparked trade wars¹⁸. Now they’re revisiting these misguided and harmful policies even though history has foretold the results.

“The federal government’s obligation to shift national security–essential screening and vetting resources to the forged border crisis will necessitate an indefinite curtailment of the number of USRAP refugee admissions.” (Project 2025, Section 2.3: Department of State, Kiron Skinner, page 210, paragraph 2.)

It’s interesting that Skinner would use the word “forged” here, which can also mean “counterfeit.” It’s almost a Freudian slip. The “border crisis” is indeed largely a manufactured talking point¹⁹ by Republicans. Trump even blew up a bipartisan border control measure in January²⁰ because he wanted to continue to campaign on the issue, and resolving the problem would “look too good” for Democrats, since they’re the ones in office currently. It follows logically that since it can wait until Trump is in office to do anything about it, the border must not be as big an issue as they’re claiming it is. Biden later used executive action in June to drastically tighten the border²¹.

So it would seem that Skinner’s recommendation here is simply a means of permanently denying refugees entry to the United States. Even citizens of El Paso, Texas say that there is no “border crisis”²², and that the militarization of the border, not immigration, is what’s making their communities unsafe.

“…the next President must significantly reorient the U.S. government’s posture toward friends and adversaries alike—which will include much more honest assessments about who are friends and who are not. This reorientation could represent the most significant shift in core foreign policy principles and corresponding action since the end of the Cold War.” (Project 2025, Section 2.3: Department of State, Kiron Skinner, page 211, paragraph 1.)

I’m guessing this means we won’t be friends with any “shithole countries”²³ any more? Seriously, this will likely result in the United States aligning itself with nations who have dictators Trump has “fallen in love with”²⁴ or admires – Russia, North Korea, Venezuela, Hungary, et al.

“The five countries on which the next Administration should focus its attention and energy are China, Iran, Venezuela, Russia, and North Korea.” (Project 2025, Section 2.3: Department of State, Kiron Skinner, page 211, paragraph 3.)

It’s interesting that Skinner is identifying as “existential threats” to the United States the very countries whose dictatorial leaders Trump has lavishly praised in all cases. This could create an internal conflict – I’m guessing she would disagree, then, with Trump’s promise to “let Putin do whatever the hell he wants.”²⁵ (And in fact, Trump’s advisers at the time did attempt to distance themselves from this remark.) Trump has misunderstood for years how NATO funding works. NATO has a target that each member country spends a minimum of 2% of gross domestic product on defense, and most countries are not meeting that target. But the figure is a guideline and not a binding contract, nor does it create “bills” – member countries haven’t been failing to pay their share of NATO’s common budget to run the organization.

She goes on to make specific recommendations for curtailing the threat from the mentioned countries.

“The U.S. government needs an Article X for China, and it should be a presidential mandate.” (Project 2025, Section 2.3: Department of State, Kiron Skinner, page 211, paragraph 5.)

Article X refers to a 1947 document written by George F. Kennan that laid out the framework for the Cold War. Skinner is arguing for the President declaring a cold war on China without congressional approval. One of the consequences would be economic decoupling (which is no accident, Kevin D. Roberts touches on the idea in the Foreword, and I cover the potential results there²⁶) – in a nutshell, “Estimates suggest that decoupling [from China] would cost the American aviation industry up to $875 billion by 2038; the semiconductor industry up to $159 billion and 100,000 jobs; the medical services industry more than $479 billion over the next decade; and more.”

This is to say nothing of the additional risks, increased military spending required to maintain a cold war, the effect on the global economy if countries who depend on both countries for trade are forced to “pick sides”, and the risk of it escalating into a more dangerous conflict.

Skinner goes on to argue for supporting the people of Iran, the possibility of striking at their government’s stranglehold over the Iranian people, and installing a democratic government. This is what’s known as “democratic intervention”, and often involves direct and costly military action. In principle, I can agree that the Irani people deserve freedom.

The U.S. has a long history of what we call “nation-building” – Iraq in 2003, Afghanistan in 2001, et al., where the stated goal was to replace authoritarian regimes with democratic governments. The perspective depends on the observer – some view this activity as promoting democracy, some view it as imperialism or foreign meddling.

She argues for similar intervention (and for many of the same reasons) in Venezuela. Skip to the bottom of the page for a digression about Venezuela, and how they came to be in the state that they’re in, if you’re curious.

Skinner then recommends that we deter North Korea from military conflict, but does not detail how we should do that.

As for other countries…

“Bluntly stated, Mexico can no longer qualify as a first-world nation; it has functionally lost its sovereignty to muscular criminal cartels that effectively run the country.” (Project 2025, Section 2.3: Department of State, Kiron Skinner, page 215, paragraph 3.)

Skinner recommends here a “sovereign Mexico” policy, wherein we minimize U.S. intervention in Mexico’s internal affairs.

The U.S. has traditionally been involved in Mexico’s fight against drug cartels through programs like the Mérida Initiative²⁷. A sovereign Mexico policy might reduce or end U.S. involvement in these operations, leaving Mexico to address drug violence and trafficking independently. The success will hinge on whether Mexico has the resources or capacity to manage these threats alone.

In the next paragraph, Skinner appears to believe that a sovereign Mexico policy will resolve the fentanyl crisis. As I point out in Section 2.1 when discussing why militarizing the border won’t end the fentanyl crisis, “An NPR-Ipsos poll in September 2022 found that “39% of Americans and 60% of Republicans believe that most of the fentanyl entering the U.S. is smuggled in by unauthorized migrants crossing the border.” In fact, 86.3% of convicted fentanyl drug traffickers, and fentanyl smuggling is ultimately funded by U.S. consumers who pay for illicit opioids, 99% of whom are U.S. citizens.” [Source]²⁸ Neither will declaring Mexico a sovereign nation magically resolve the fentanyl crisis.

“African nations are particularly (and reasonably) non-receptive to the U.S. social policies such as abortion and pro-LGBT initiatives being imposed on them.” (Project 2025, Section 2.3: Department of State, Kiron Skinner, page 219, paragraph 3.)

This is an absolute misrepresentation of what’s really going on. In fact, abortion is legal in much of Africa²⁹.

From the linked article: “And despite the expanded legality of the procedure in places like Ghana, Congo, Ethiopia and Mozambique, some doctors and nurses say they’ve become increasingly wary of openly providing abortions. They’re fearful of triggering the ire of opposition groups that have become emboldened since the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 decision overturning the nationwide right to abortion.”

Skinner is erroneously claiming that Africa balks at “woke” policies, when in fact, they’re responding to OUR oppressive policies and afraid they’ll be endangered by zealots who are emboldened by those oppressive policies.

Need more proof? “In a September speech to the African Bar Association, the president of Family Watch International, Sharon Slater, alleged that donor countries were attempting a “sexual social recolonization of Africa” by smuggling in legal abortion along with sex education and LGBTQ+ rights.” [Source]³⁰

To wit, it’s U.S. Conservatives aggressively lobbying in Africa to restrict abortion, reproductive rights, sex education, and LGBTQ rights there, not Africans supporting it organically. Family Watch International is a nonprofit Christian conservative organization whose anti-LGBTQ+ stance, anti-abortion activities and “intense focus on Africa” led to its designation as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. Continued from the linked article: “Groups that oppose abortion in Africa’s second most populous nation are mostly incited by outsiders and “consider the Supreme Court decision as fuel for them,” Abebe Sibru, the Ethiopia director for MSI Reproductive Choices, said.”

“It is paramount to create a healthy culture of respect for life, the family, sovereignty, and authentic human rights in international organizations and agencies. To support this goal, the U.S. led an effort during the Trump Administration to forge a consensus among like-minded countries in support of human life, women’s health, support of the family as the basic unit of human society, and defense of national sovereignty. The result was the Geneva Consensus Declaration on Women’s Health and Protection of the Family.” (Project 2025, Section 2.3: Department of State, Kiron Skinner, page 224, paragraph 3.)

Sounds good on the surface, right? Wrong. The Geneva Consensus she’s referring to opposes abortion, and emphasizes that there is no international obligation to recognize abortion as a human right, and that decisions on reproductive health and family matters should be made at the national level. Read the last half of that sentence again. The “like-minded” countries that also signed? The United States (under Trump), Brazil, Egypt, Hungary, Poland, and Uganda.

After the Biden administration took office in 2021, the U.S. withdrew from the declaration, signaling a policy shift toward supporting reproductive rights, including access to safe and legal abortion, in line with international human rights standards. Skinner is arguing for bringing this back. This is a cleverly disguised argument for a federal abortion ban.

“Make public diplomacy and international broadcasting serve American interests.” (Project 2025, Section 2.3: Department of State, Kiron Skinner, page 226, paragraph 4.)

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.

—

The promised Venezuela digression*:

In 2012, Venezuela’s communist regime under Hugo Chavez passed a bill to “disarm all citizens.” The new law prohibited all gun sales, except to the government. The bill went into effect in 2013 (the year that Nicolas Maduro took over). Since just April 2017, 163 pro-democracy protesters have been murdered by the Maduro dictatorship³¹. They moved for gun prohibition because they claimed it was because of their out-of-control violent crime. Admittedly, they had a ton of it. 40% of their homicide rate is from robberies. But the government’s seizure of private property without compensation has been awful for Venezuela. As a result, 87% of Venezuelans live in poverty. 64.3% lost an average of 24 pounds in weight in 2017. ³²

There is a statistical association between poverty and crime everywhere. Basically, since the Venezuelan government intended to stranglehold the economy, they had to do a gun grab in order to keep the people from revolting. Since all legal firearms in Venezuela were already registered, disarmament should have been easy for them – you bang down doors and take guns. The effect of this has been a huge increase of civilian violence against law enforcement who is coming to forcibly take their guns – you end up with a lot of murdered police officers. When Venezuelans took to the streets in 2014 and 2017 to protest the destruction of their democracy, their government (dictatorship) murdered protesters, who could now only protect themselves with improvised weapons like rocks, fireworks, and even giant slingshots.³³

One way Venezuela easily suppresses protesters and dissent is by the use of colectivos³⁴ – pro-government citizen gangs that carry out the government’s agenda using violence against other citizens. They are paramilitaries conceived by Hugo Chavez and trained by state security officials (whom I believe are trained by Cuban secret police.) The colectivos prevent the publication of unfavorable news, decide union disputes, and stifle political protests. They even have impunity to injure and murder protesters. The government is cool with them because they provide the regime with a facade of plausible deniability. The gangs perpetrate the killings the government wants to do, but doesn’t because of fear of public backlash. Colectivos have regularly used guns against protesters in Venezuela.

But how could such guns fall into the hands of citizen gangs, if the country banned guns? Simple. In 2017, the dictatorship announced that it was providing weapons to approximately 400,000 “militiamen”³⁵, meaning members of these pro-government citizen gangs. In other words, the Maduro regime stripped citizens of their ability to self-defend, then transferred the confiscated firearms to its loyal thugs. When people ask, what are Central Americans seeking asylum from? Why are they coming here? This is your answer. They fear being murdered by their thug neighbors, and they are in abject poverty. They are willing to take the risks, because the risks of traveling with your children and bringing them to America are so much less daunting than the risks of staying at home.

There’s a poem called “Home” by Warsan Shire³⁶ which demonstrates this – here are the last few lines:

no one leaves home until home is a sweaty voice in your ear
saying-
leave,
run away from me now
i dont know what i’ve become
but i know that anywhere
is safer than here

*(this section was taken from a more casual commentary I wrote in June 2018. Figures cited may not be accurate at this time in 2024, but they were when written.)