Thanks for laying out your concerns. No surprise, we disagree on many of them.
For those that haven't read Project 2025 here's a summary from, I believe, the other point of view which, I believe, balances the knee jerk reaction to ignore it outright.
IMO Project 2025 is yet another bugaboo used to validate tribal affiliations. Nobody in the current administration is referencing it directly AFAIK (references appreciated). As such, I use it to flag impending Guilt by Association fallacies.
#1-3 are features not bugs. The Constitution and supporting documentation from the time, e.g. the Federalist Papers, are clear on these points. The executive is unique in our republic and the President, alone, is its leader.
The idea a rando federal judge in the corner of some rando state can tell the president what to do is non-functional. The founders created checks and balances. Not a system run by the heckler's veto.
Calling SCOTUS "right wing" implies a persecution mindset. As a gun owner join the club! Given the inconsistency of recent rulings nobody has any idea how a given case will shake out. That's not any kind of "wing."
#4 is definitely a problem! When was the last time we had an actual federal budget? Abdication of responsibility is the root of most human misery.
#5 agree. I was hoping for smarter implementations by Trump's cabinet picks. Alas, I'm also not surprised.
#7-9 are repeats of #1-3. Congress should not have abdicated their responsibilities for the last 60 years but here we are. The President is the executive and he now has a very large toolbox to test. Maybe this will finally wake up Congress.
#10 is not a lie. It is sad the propaganda around Jan 6th and the burning cities in 2020 will, it seems, never allow us to heal those wounds.
Stephen Miller (WH aide) hit the talk shows after the Heritage Foundation's president made controversial comments about the "Second American Revolution being bloodless - if the left lets it be." Miller defended many contentious Project 2025 ideas as "conservative policies we've wanted going back to Reagan."
While I don't agree with either major party on most issues, I have tech friends in the federal government protecting critical infrastructure. They're losing their jobs.
After the buy-outs didn't go over well, another tactic is in use that'll probably be reported on soon. Relocating offices to another city under the guise of "consolidating services" and ending remote work forces employees to quit without paying severance. A friend sent me his notice that cited "Over $5 million will be saved over 5 years through attrition."
Th infrastructure my friend supports (energy grid, flooding, food and water safety) will suffer with reduced or reallocated staff. He also detects attempted cyberattacks on utilities and has had difficulty escalatng warnings with CISA and DOD cutbacks.
Despite what's being reported, most techs work on modern, advanced systems. They could earn more in the private sector. Those who lose their jobs will add to the "multiplier effect" of unemployment where they live. Less qualified applicants won't have the same opportunities and local economies will suffer.
The reorganization my friend is facing appears in Project 2025's mandate. Many if not most of the changes do. I wouldn't dismiss it or those who cite it any faster than I would the pharmacist who disputes or reiterates medication side-effect warnings.
I noted and followed the Russ Vought rabbit hole. Thanks for that mention.
While I can't blindly trust Wikipedia or its tendrils I will retract my comment _nobody_ in the administration is using Project 2025 as their playbook. Somebody may well be.
At the same time, "collection of conservative things" should be no surprise here. Trump won on a return to conservative values campaign. I still have to question how much the OMG Project 2025! imagery is a propaganda/tribal device and how much of it is completely obvious conservative alignment.
Appreciate your laying out your thoughts on these points. We obviously disagree more than we agree, but that's OK.
Saying Unitary Executive Theory is a feature of the Constitution is one particular interpretation of the Constitution. I don't pretend to be a Constitutional scholar or judge and have the ability to read the text of the Constitution and the Federalist Papers and declare what the clear meaning is. If the Constitution was so clear, we wouldn't need the courts to be interpreting it for us all the time. The Unitary Executive Theory is not (yet) a settle matter -- https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/714860 -- and even if the Roberts Supreme Court settles, it will not be settled once and for all. E.g., Dred Scott, Plessy v Ferguson, Roe, etc.
To your request for references, I'm not sure what you would consider a legitimate source or data, but saying nobody "is referencing it directly" is a bit of an elusive formulation. They don't have to reference it directly for it to be animating their work. We can see Project 2025 people in key positions in the Trump Administration (e.g., Russell Vought; and many others: https://www.newsweek.com/project-2025-contributors-trump-administration-2040464) and a textual analysis of his executive orders finds key overlaps with Project 2025 (https://www.eiu.com/n/trump-executive-orders-show-influence-and-limits-of-project-2025/). Pretending to not know about Project 2025 is part of Trump's shadiness and I wish those who support him would just own up to it. Be proud conservatives! At least someone like Christopher Rufo doesn't sugar coat what he's trying to do.
As to calling the SCOTUS "right wing," that is meant to mirror the Trump/MAGA habit of calling anyone who is left of center-right "left wing" or "left radical lunatics," etc. Speaking of a persecution mindset, King Trump is the king of grievances.
We're probably talking past each other at this point but I'll get a couple words in and then try to give the reply button a rest.
I would say the court's role is not to interpret the Constitution. It is to remind everybody -- mostly legislators -- that it means what it says. Those that claim "shall not be infringed" requires deep thought and contextual interpretation are why the phrase too clever by half exists.
If we could all stop applying titles to people, institutions and ideas that'd help. I'm no saint here, and I know they did it first, but right wing and king trump are not helping anybody come to the table for honest debate.
As for owning Project 2025 why would anybody do that? AFAICT it's a dry 900 page tome that very few people have actually read (including me), is internally inconsistent and used as a club. But I'll certainly own egalitarian jackalope's 10 point summary. I can get behind every one of those.
Definitely agree to disagree but I have to ask one more question. Based on your view that SCOTUS just reminds everyone what the Constitution says, would you say that the Heller decision is wrong? Because it has some pretty significant carves outs to "shall not be infringed" in it.
I'd say, like all human institutions, this SCOTUS is imperfect.
The Heller decision was on the right track but didn't go far enough. Bruen took it a few more steps. Now VanDerStok has taken us a few steps backwards.
Humans have a knack for making simple things complicated.
Unitary Executive "Theory" - It's that pesky Constitution. The Supreme Court is following it, and the arguments against it are extremely weak.
Challenging Judicial Authority - I'm more concerned with rogue liberal judges exceeding their authority. I agree that impeachment is extreme, but it's about the only recourse (ditto for POTUS).
The vision of the unitary executive promoted by Project 2025 and embraced by Trump is indeed a theory. The Supreme Court under John Roberts may indeed adopt it. The Supreme Court can indeed be wrong. That pesky Constitution does not speak for itself.
I have no idea what's in Project 2025 since I haven't read it. However, I can tell you what the Constitution says (Under Article II): “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.”
Under the Constitution, the President is the head of the Executive Branch. I don't believe it can be any clearer. This isn't emanations or penumbras.
That's interesting, because Trump says he didn't read Project 2025 either (which, honestly, is not surprising since he doesn't read much of anything), and yet his administration is packed with Project 2025ers, including/notably Russ Vought, a major proponent of Unitary Executive Theory and other actions falling from it since January. Anyway, I'm not a Constitutional scholar, but the two points you put together do not settle the issue in the view of some: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/714860. The point is that we have a Supreme Court because the Constitution is not clear, and even the Supreme Court cannot see clearly at times (Dred Scott, Plessy v Ferguson, etc.).
Pretty much agree with #1-10. Can quibble with David about some of his earlier articles of faith (I was once blocked on X by my Ph.D. granting institution when I questioned its DEI policies--so much for academic freedom. And the fiasco in the UC system on using a DEI "loyalty oath" was widely published. I think some of this right wing backlash is the left's comeuppance.)
That said, the ends do not justify the means.
With Congress broken and Trump wanting to fulfill his ego, Trump wants to govern like an absolute monarch. Further, he has enablers like Mr. Musk to help him. I disagree with Zendo that there is an equivalency between what Trump is doing and what Biden, Bush, Obama, or previous presidents did. It is a matter of scale. But I do agree with Zendo that this trend of an "imperial presidency" goes back pretty far and like a cancer, is metastasizing rapidly. I recall it being discussed during Nixon's terms in office. Arthur Schlesinger wrote a whole book about it in the early seventies. Yep, I'm that old.
Also, the gun rights crowd might be happy with Trump right now, but what a monarch giveth, a monarch can taketh away. Let's see if we get an Enabling Act next.
David Brooks wrote an ominous piece in the NY Times the other day about the erosion of reading and critical thinking skills in younger Americans. I suppose if people want others to do their thinking and decision making for them, they might want an authoritarian. Not my choice.
So you weren't worried about the concentration of power in the executive branch when Obama was President. But now that someone you don't like has power... When Obama said "I've got a pen and a phone" implying that he didn't need Congress to legislate, that was OK, or at least not something to get worked up about.
But now the shoe is on the other foot, it's a problem
The Civil Service is bloated, and out of control. Democrats have cut the size of government. Clinton and Obama both eliminated 100s of thousands of jobs. They always seem to grow back.
And I know you probably don't admit that the IRS targeted conservative groups under Obama, but it is pretty clear to a lot of us, that they did.
- Then there are things like the Steele Dossier - created out of whole cloth to take down Trump.
- The Hunter Biden Laptop and the attack on the NY Post over the story.
- The .gov's attack on free speech via their backdoor relationships with Twitter and F*c*book (can't let those nasty Republicans have free speech)
This doesn't even include the attack on Parler when it looked to be taking off.
Are you in the business of selling guns? You might lose access to banking services. A few people have had their banks cancel them because they have purchased firearms.
I agree that the Power of the Executive branch is a problem, but it did NOT become of problem in January of 2025. It has been a problem for more than a decade, dating back at least as far as 2001, and probably farther.
Joe Biden and his one (or a few) executive order to destroy any and all security at the southern border pales in comparison to anything that Trump is doing.
Biden basically said "this administration is going to ignore the laws around immigration controls, because we don't like those laws as passed by Congress." That isn't how the Executive branch is supposed to work.
On concentration of power, I'd like to point out that it was already there. Trump's just the first to make full, blatant use of it. This could be a good thing. A wakeup call. The power of the executive branch has been disproportional for a while, but there was a gentleman's agreement not to push it. As I'm sure you're aware, things like that are worthless. We're just one vote cycle away from tyranny (this isn't it, bros) so long as congress is comfortable with deferring its sworn duties to a single office.
I've been pretty vocal in my criticism of City, County, and state Democrats last couple years. I also became fairly vocal in my criticism of some national issues / candidates as well. Due to this some of my friends seem to think that implies I endorse Trump. Which couldn't be further from the truth. Being critical of Tim waltz, for example, should not imply that I agree with JD Vance.... But there you go. (All the Vance clearly did better in the debate )Even if there's one or two things I agree with Trump about -His implementation is atrocious. Talk about the pendulum swinging. For example, I completely support legal immigrants in America. But his Draconian methods are going too far in the other direction. Anyway, good article!
Thanks for laying out your concerns. No surprise, we disagree on many of them.
For those that haven't read Project 2025 here's a summary from, I believe, the other point of view which, I believe, balances the knee jerk reaction to ignore it outright.
https://egalitarianjackalope.wordpress.com/2024/11/22/i-read-project-2025-so-you-dont-have-to/
IMO Project 2025 is yet another bugaboo used to validate tribal affiliations. Nobody in the current administration is referencing it directly AFAIK (references appreciated). As such, I use it to flag impending Guilt by Association fallacies.
#1-3 are features not bugs. The Constitution and supporting documentation from the time, e.g. the Federalist Papers, are clear on these points. The executive is unique in our republic and the President, alone, is its leader.
The idea a rando federal judge in the corner of some rando state can tell the president what to do is non-functional. The founders created checks and balances. Not a system run by the heckler's veto.
Calling SCOTUS "right wing" implies a persecution mindset. As a gun owner join the club! Given the inconsistency of recent rulings nobody has any idea how a given case will shake out. That's not any kind of "wing."
#4 is definitely a problem! When was the last time we had an actual federal budget? Abdication of responsibility is the root of most human misery.
#5 agree. I was hoping for smarter implementations by Trump's cabinet picks. Alas, I'm also not surprised.
#7-9 are repeats of #1-3. Congress should not have abdicated their responsibilities for the last 60 years but here we are. The President is the executive and he now has a very large toolbox to test. Maybe this will finally wake up Congress.
#10 is not a lie. It is sad the propaganda around Jan 6th and the burning cities in 2020 will, it seems, never allow us to heal those wounds.
Stephen Miller (WH aide) hit the talk shows after the Heritage Foundation's president made controversial comments about the "Second American Revolution being bloodless - if the left lets it be." Miller defended many contentious Project 2025 ideas as "conservative policies we've wanted going back to Reagan."
While I don't agree with either major party on most issues, I have tech friends in the federal government protecting critical infrastructure. They're losing their jobs.
After the buy-outs didn't go over well, another tactic is in use that'll probably be reported on soon. Relocating offices to another city under the guise of "consolidating services" and ending remote work forces employees to quit without paying severance. A friend sent me his notice that cited "Over $5 million will be saved over 5 years through attrition."
Th infrastructure my friend supports (energy grid, flooding, food and water safety) will suffer with reduced or reallocated staff. He also detects attempted cyberattacks on utilities and has had difficulty escalatng warnings with CISA and DOD cutbacks.
Despite what's being reported, most techs work on modern, advanced systems. They could earn more in the private sector. Those who lose their jobs will add to the "multiplier effect" of unemployment where they live. Less qualified applicants won't have the same opportunities and local economies will suffer.
The reorganization my friend is facing appears in Project 2025's mandate. Many if not most of the changes do. I wouldn't dismiss it or those who cite it any faster than I would the pharmacist who disputes or reiterates medication side-effect warnings.
But, good comment!
I noted and followed the Russ Vought rabbit hole. Thanks for that mention.
While I can't blindly trust Wikipedia or its tendrils I will retract my comment _nobody_ in the administration is using Project 2025 as their playbook. Somebody may well be.
At the same time, "collection of conservative things" should be no surprise here. Trump won on a return to conservative values campaign. I still have to question how much the OMG Project 2025! imagery is a propaganda/tribal device and how much of it is completely obvious conservative alignment.
Appreciate your laying out your thoughts on these points. We obviously disagree more than we agree, but that's OK.
Saying Unitary Executive Theory is a feature of the Constitution is one particular interpretation of the Constitution. I don't pretend to be a Constitutional scholar or judge and have the ability to read the text of the Constitution and the Federalist Papers and declare what the clear meaning is. If the Constitution was so clear, we wouldn't need the courts to be interpreting it for us all the time. The Unitary Executive Theory is not (yet) a settle matter -- https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/714860 -- and even if the Roberts Supreme Court settles, it will not be settled once and for all. E.g., Dred Scott, Plessy v Ferguson, Roe, etc.
To your request for references, I'm not sure what you would consider a legitimate source or data, but saying nobody "is referencing it directly" is a bit of an elusive formulation. They don't have to reference it directly for it to be animating their work. We can see Project 2025 people in key positions in the Trump Administration (e.g., Russell Vought; and many others: https://www.newsweek.com/project-2025-contributors-trump-administration-2040464) and a textual analysis of his executive orders finds key overlaps with Project 2025 (https://www.eiu.com/n/trump-executive-orders-show-influence-and-limits-of-project-2025/). Pretending to not know about Project 2025 is part of Trump's shadiness and I wish those who support him would just own up to it. Be proud conservatives! At least someone like Christopher Rufo doesn't sugar coat what he's trying to do.
As to calling the SCOTUS "right wing," that is meant to mirror the Trump/MAGA habit of calling anyone who is left of center-right "left wing" or "left radical lunatics," etc. Speaking of a persecution mindset, King Trump is the king of grievances.
We're probably talking past each other at this point but I'll get a couple words in and then try to give the reply button a rest.
I would say the court's role is not to interpret the Constitution. It is to remind everybody -- mostly legislators -- that it means what it says. Those that claim "shall not be infringed" requires deep thought and contextual interpretation are why the phrase too clever by half exists.
If we could all stop applying titles to people, institutions and ideas that'd help. I'm no saint here, and I know they did it first, but right wing and king trump are not helping anybody come to the table for honest debate.
As for owning Project 2025 why would anybody do that? AFAICT it's a dry 900 page tome that very few people have actually read (including me), is internally inconsistent and used as a club. But I'll certainly own egalitarian jackalope's 10 point summary. I can get behind every one of those.
Thanks again for the discussion.
Definitely agree to disagree but I have to ask one more question. Based on your view that SCOTUS just reminds everyone what the Constitution says, would you say that the Heller decision is wrong? Because it has some pretty significant carves outs to "shall not be infringed" in it.
I'd say, like all human institutions, this SCOTUS is imperfect.
The Heller decision was on the right track but didn't go far enough. Bruen took it a few more steps. Now VanDerStok has taken us a few steps backwards.
Humans have a knack for making simple things complicated.
I wish I could see the world as simply as some do.
Good piece. Do you mind if I quote the section and patrimony and link to your piece on Medium? No problem if not.
Unitary Executive "Theory" - It's that pesky Constitution. The Supreme Court is following it, and the arguments against it are extremely weak.
Challenging Judicial Authority - I'm more concerned with rogue liberal judges exceeding their authority. I agree that impeachment is extreme, but it's about the only recourse (ditto for POTUS).
The vision of the unitary executive promoted by Project 2025 and embraced by Trump is indeed a theory. The Supreme Court under John Roberts may indeed adopt it. The Supreme Court can indeed be wrong. That pesky Constitution does not speak for itself.
I have no idea what's in Project 2025 since I haven't read it. However, I can tell you what the Constitution says (Under Article II): “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.”
Under the Constitution, the President is the head of the Executive Branch. I don't believe it can be any clearer. This isn't emanations or penumbras.
That's interesting, because Trump says he didn't read Project 2025 either (which, honestly, is not surprising since he doesn't read much of anything), and yet his administration is packed with Project 2025ers, including/notably Russ Vought, a major proponent of Unitary Executive Theory and other actions falling from it since January. Anyway, I'm not a Constitutional scholar, but the two points you put together do not settle the issue in the view of some: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/714860. The point is that we have a Supreme Court because the Constitution is not clear, and even the Supreme Court cannot see clearly at times (Dred Scott, Plessy v Ferguson, etc.).
Pretty much agree with #1-10. Can quibble with David about some of his earlier articles of faith (I was once blocked on X by my Ph.D. granting institution when I questioned its DEI policies--so much for academic freedom. And the fiasco in the UC system on using a DEI "loyalty oath" was widely published. I think some of this right wing backlash is the left's comeuppance.)
That said, the ends do not justify the means.
With Congress broken and Trump wanting to fulfill his ego, Trump wants to govern like an absolute monarch. Further, he has enablers like Mr. Musk to help him. I disagree with Zendo that there is an equivalency between what Trump is doing and what Biden, Bush, Obama, or previous presidents did. It is a matter of scale. But I do agree with Zendo that this trend of an "imperial presidency" goes back pretty far and like a cancer, is metastasizing rapidly. I recall it being discussed during Nixon's terms in office. Arthur Schlesinger wrote a whole book about it in the early seventies. Yep, I'm that old.
Also, the gun rights crowd might be happy with Trump right now, but what a monarch giveth, a monarch can taketh away. Let's see if we get an Enabling Act next.
David Brooks wrote an ominous piece in the NY Times the other day about the erosion of reading and critical thinking skills in younger Americans. I suppose if people want others to do their thinking and decision making for them, they might want an authoritarian. Not my choice.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/10/opinion/education-smart-thinking-reading-tariffs.html
So you weren't worried about the concentration of power in the executive branch when Obama was President. But now that someone you don't like has power... When Obama said "I've got a pen and a phone" implying that he didn't need Congress to legislate, that was OK, or at least not something to get worked up about.
But now the shoe is on the other foot, it's a problem
The Civil Service is bloated, and out of control. Democrats have cut the size of government. Clinton and Obama both eliminated 100s of thousands of jobs. They always seem to grow back.
And I know you probably don't admit that the IRS targeted conservative groups under Obama, but it is pretty clear to a lot of us, that they did.
- Then there are things like the Steele Dossier - created out of whole cloth to take down Trump.
- The Hunter Biden Laptop and the attack on the NY Post over the story.
- The .gov's attack on free speech via their backdoor relationships with Twitter and F*c*book (can't let those nasty Republicans have free speech)
This doesn't even include the attack on Parler when it looked to be taking off.
Are you in the business of selling guns? You might lose access to banking services. A few people have had their banks cancel them because they have purchased firearms.
I agree that the Power of the Executive branch is a problem, but it did NOT become of problem in January of 2025. It has been a problem for more than a decade, dating back at least as far as 2001, and probably farther.
The number, type, and scope of executive orders under any previous presidency, Republican or democratic, pales in comparison to what Trump is doing.
Joe Biden and his one (or a few) executive order to destroy any and all security at the southern border pales in comparison to anything that Trump is doing.
Biden basically said "this administration is going to ignore the laws around immigration controls, because we don't like those laws as passed by Congress." That isn't how the Executive branch is supposed to work.
You focus on an executive order concerning one issue. My concern is not limited to executive orders but entails 10 distinct but related concerns.
Thanks for the article.
On concentration of power, I'd like to point out that it was already there. Trump's just the first to make full, blatant use of it. This could be a good thing. A wakeup call. The power of the executive branch has been disproportional for a while, but there was a gentleman's agreement not to push it. As I'm sure you're aware, things like that are worthless. We're just one vote cycle away from tyranny (this isn't it, bros) so long as congress is comfortable with deferring its sworn duties to a single office.
I've been pretty vocal in my criticism of City, County, and state Democrats last couple years. I also became fairly vocal in my criticism of some national issues / candidates as well. Due to this some of my friends seem to think that implies I endorse Trump. Which couldn't be further from the truth. Being critical of Tim waltz, for example, should not imply that I agree with JD Vance.... But there you go. (All the Vance clearly did better in the debate )Even if there's one or two things I agree with Trump about -His implementation is atrocious. Talk about the pendulum swinging. For example, I completely support legal immigrants in America. But his Draconian methods are going too far in the other direction. Anyway, good article!