One comment: "Parts of Project 2025 violate traditional norms, such as the concern with the political beliefs of military officers." Not true. For many years, the Form DD-398 Statement of Personal History asked "Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party U.S.A. or any communist organizations anywhere?" and "Are you now or have you ever been a member of a Fascist organization?" They've gotten rid of those questions but I believe still ask the one about "advocating or approving the commission of acts of force or violence to deny other persons their rights..."
The military is VERY concerned about the loyalty of officers (well, everyone) and is within its rights to examine the associations of its members. Where those associations bleed into political beliefs that are somewhat mainstream in culture, that's where we have a political football since you can mildly agree with the goals of DEI, BLM, or even the Occupy movement, without agreeing on all the methods. Same with MAGA.
I was wondering what the Heritage Foundation's beef with NOAA was, and it looks like it wants to toss the baby out with the bathwater because of NOAA data used to back up climate change theories:
"The plan says the National Weather Service should 'focus on its data-gathering services' and 'fully commercialize its forecasting operations.' That’s in line with a long-standing push by some conservatives to foster greater private sector involvement in weather forecasting."
"The National Hurricane Center’s mission is centered on informing and warning the public about potentially deadly storms, and as part of that work, it has connected the effects of climate change to hurricane intensity. The brushback it gets in the Project 2025 playbook speaks to past insinuations from Republicans that government agencies are manipulating data to make climate change appear worse."
In other words, socialize the expensive parts of the forecasting process, and leave it to crony companies to turn a profit after the hard work has been done. As a taxpayer, I object. If The Weather Channel wants to sell forecasting, they can pay for their own satellites, instead of insisting on a gov't-provided monopoly.
It seems like a more conservative solution to this problem - if it is a problem, not sure I trust a retired lawyer on this front - would be to erect a firewall within NOAA to separate the data-gathering team from the modelling team, instead of tearing apart the entire agency and parceling out parts to other agencies, states, and the private sector.
Legislate that the data-gathering team is obligated to release its raw data sets and provide that data to any interested party (including forecasters WITHIN NOAA) under uniform terms so that independent teams can create their own models and we can compare them to see who's capturing the phenomenon most accurately. In other words, use politics to enhance the scientific process, instead of replacing it with another flawed process that has biases in the other direction.
I'm currently building out some technology related to monitoring air quality using commercial third-party sensors (AirBeam, Purple Air) and one the things that is a basic truth about this kind of data collection is that the raw sensor readings are not always reliable indicators of what they are sensing.
Hardware can go flaky, inputs can be blocked, network and power outages can lead to data blackouts, etc. I'm sympathetic towards NOAA using a statistical methodology that attempts to account and correct for the unreliability of sensors on the ground, but those algorithms and data should be public (if they are not already) so that others can attempt to replicate their work and (ideally) improve those statistical models to bring it more in-line with independent measurements with (more expensive) validated sensors in areas where the model is predicting a temperature or other data point in a particular location.
I'd be surprised if this isn't being done already, but I can't point you at the moment towards where you'd look to get those details. (More likely a function of my ignorance than some grand conspiracy to lie about the temperature.) Seems like such a low-hanging fruit, that if NOAA isn't doing that, a moderately-well funded transparent effort should be able to answer the question conclusively for all concerned.
"But the pro-family promises expressed in this book, and central to the next conservative President’s agenda, must go much further than the traditional, narrow definition of “family issues.” Every threat to family stability must be confronted."
If you twist it enough, no-fault divorce may fall under the "threat to family stability" umbrella. That said, expecting Donald Trump to be a leader on eliminating no-fault divorce is laughable. Other than Mike Pence, it's hard to imagine a plausible national candidate without their own self-inflicted family issues to be the torchbearer for this.
Family issues are no longer just marriage and children. They're just as likely to be financial contracts having to do with income tax, government benefits, cohabitation and funding of bank accounts.
I saw that as well. I didn’t see direct evidence of the divorce claim, and divorce is typically a topic for states rather than the federal government. I have seen this on the list of Christian Nationalist goals (listed by the CNs).
Democrats have shifted the meaning of court-packing to include lawful and traditional appointments of judges.
Both may be goals of at least some Republicans, but I didn’t see them in p2025.
Wanting to round up 15mil migrants - including legal ones, and their citizen children - and deporting them requires massive amounts of armed personnel throughout America, going door to door. Then holding the people until they have a place to deport them to (concentration camps is an apt term for it, thanks Brits for coming up with that one). Little thought given to the economic impact of such a move, besides the moral and ethical ones.
Trump is mentioned over 300 times in the document.
There are a lot of authors, and a lot of those are former Trump admin personnel - besides Ken Cuccinelli, there's Ben Carson, Stephen Miller, Russ Bought, Peter Navarro... and many more.
Adding a quote from a Judd Legum tweet:
"Prior to the 2016 election, the Heritage Foundation created a similar project called "Mandate for Leadership." The "Mandate for Leadership" contained "334 unique policy recommendations."
One year into Trump's term, the Heritage Foundation announced that "64 percent of the policy prescriptions were included in Trump’s budget, implemented through regulatory guidance, or under consideration for action in accordance with The Heritage Foundation’s original proposals.""
It will reduce overcrowded schools and hospital emergency rooms. It will reduce the number of people on public assistance rolls. It will allow us to determine the true value of competent labor. It will reduce the need for interpreters in medical facilities, schools and government offices. It will reduce the crime rate. It will reduce hit and run auto crashes. It will reduce housing shortages and housing costs. It will reduce national security threats.
It will be quick enough once the phony delaying tactics are sorted out and rejected. If the illegals refuse to provide information on country of origin, lock them up in solitary confinement until info is obtained. If countries refuse deportation, apply sanctions.
I don't expect it to be quick. Close the border and deport 10,000 per month.
It will reduce overcrowded schools and hospital emergency rooms. It will reduce the number of people on public assistance rolls. It will allow us to determine the true value of competent labor. It will reduce the need for interpreters in medical facilities, schools and government offices. It will reduce the crime rate. It will reduce hit and run auto crashes. It will reduce housing shortages and housing costs. It will reduce national security threats.
It will be quick enough once the phony delaying tactics are sorted out and rejected. If the illegals refuse to provide information on country of origin, lock them up in solitary confinement until info is obtained. If countries refuse deportation, apply sanctions.
I don't expect it to be quick. Close the border and deport 10,000 per month.
Due process is in accordance with the law. One law calls for detention while processing claims - the operative word is "shall". There are dozens of excuses for being unable to follow that law. None of them justify breaking the law. The lawful way to handle that is to shut down the border to all classes of aliens which the president can do under the USC, links and excerpts from which have been posted numerous times.
My apologies for using imprecise language regarding the crime rate. I can believe the crime rate is less for legal immigrants, but I do not believe the same applies to illegals. In any case, the total number of crimes should be reduced simply by the subtraction of those committed by illegals.
Your belief is incorrect: they are less likely to commit crime because of their immigration status.
Due process involves actually proving the claims of the state - the whole "innocent until proven guilty" aspect of our legal code. Thus the state must prove guilt in a court of law, which would then allow for deportation.
So, are you calling for us to move to a presumption of guilt?
This comment should end all debate: “Bloodless revolution.” Really? From the party that cannot, CANNOT win the popular vote. Screw majority rule, screw democracy and let’s just rush back to the era of 1950’s white man’s privilege.
I wouldn’t say SCOTUS rejected the attack on the availability and use of mifepristone. It seems their ruling hinged only on standing, and did not actually adjudicate the merits. That hardly seems reassuring, since another plaintiff with a better claim of standing could challenge the FDA once again.
I wouldn’t say SCOTUS rejected the attack on the availability and use of mifepristone. It seems their ruling hinged only on standing, and did not actually adjudicate the merits. That hardly seems reassuring, since another plaintiff with a better claim of standing could challenge the FDA once again.
I wouldn’t say SCOTUS rejected the attack on the availability and use of mifepristone. It seems their ruling hinged only on standing, and did not actually adjudicate the merits. That hardly seems reassuring, since another plaintiff with a better claim of standing could challenge the FDA once again.
Instead of wasting time discussing Project 25, I would like to suggest everyone have a look at Agenda 47. Select one for discussion each day; for example, the first listed is DJT declares war on cartels.
The big question hovering over all of these agenda items is why he didn't do them during his first term, and why should we expect any difference during his second term?
For example, veteran homelessness is relatively well-bounded problem. At the end of the Trump administration (2020), there were 37k homeless veterans, 33k in 2022, and the main issue seems to be affordable housing. Is Trump suggesting that the federal gov't cover the rent for those folks, or will it actually tackle the root cause, which is that we're not building enough affordable housing for these folks?
Will he continue to be on the veterans' side when landlords organize and complain that the gov't is interfering in their markets and stealing from them by setting price limits? (His history as a landlord himself suggests not.)
Say what you will about Project 2025, it at least describes in details what actions and policies need to be enacted to accomplish the higher-level goals. Agenda 47 is a lot of wishlist items without much actual planning to map how we get from where we are now to achieving each goal.
There should be an attempt to end birthright citizenship. If, after the best effort, the Supreme Court rules that an amendment to the constitution is required is required, forget it. I do not believe the original intent was to grant citizenship to children of illegals or tourists.
Was there any notion of "illegal" immigration back when the Founders drafted the Constitution? From what I can tell, the US didn't start restricting its borders until 1875, with the Page Act:
I believe there was a specific intent to make sure former slaves and their offspring would become citizens. That's good. Also good is that the offspring of families who have been vetted for residency and citizenship become citizens unless they screw up somewhere along the way. What's not good is illegal anchor babies and Manchurian candidates. Common sense is badly missing from this discussion.
I think that there's a common sense case to be made for ending or restricting birthright citizenship, but you're not going to find it through originalism or textualism when it comes time to argue against it in front of SCOTUS.
That said, after last Monday's ruling, those modes of interpreting the Constitution clearly have lost their luster among the "conservative" majority, so now may be easier to make that case than ever before.
And also: compare Agenda 47 to PJ2025 and they're quite similar - just the former is tweet-level detail (standard for Trump) and the latter much more detailed.
As usual, a complete deep dive. Thank you David.
One comment: "Parts of Project 2025 violate traditional norms, such as the concern with the political beliefs of military officers." Not true. For many years, the Form DD-398 Statement of Personal History asked "Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party U.S.A. or any communist organizations anywhere?" and "Are you now or have you ever been a member of a Fascist organization?" They've gotten rid of those questions but I believe still ask the one about "advocating or approving the commission of acts of force or violence to deny other persons their rights..."
The military is VERY concerned about the loyalty of officers (well, everyone) and is within its rights to examine the associations of its members. Where those associations bleed into political beliefs that are somewhat mainstream in culture, that's where we have a political football since you can mildly agree with the goals of DEI, BLM, or even the Occupy movement, without agreeing on all the methods. Same with MAGA.
Link: https://www.nsa.gov/Portals/75/documents/news-features/declassified-documents/friedman-documents/correspondence/ACC37442/41896409093532.pdf
It might have been better to preface that with “radical.” Penalizing major party politics would be new.
I was wondering what the Heritage Foundation's beef with NOAA was, and it looks like it wants to toss the baby out with the bathwater because of NOAA data used to back up climate change theories:
"The plan says the National Weather Service should 'focus on its data-gathering services' and 'fully commercialize its forecasting operations.' That’s in line with a long-standing push by some conservatives to foster greater private sector involvement in weather forecasting."
"The National Hurricane Center’s mission is centered on informing and warning the public about potentially deadly storms, and as part of that work, it has connected the effects of climate change to hurricane intensity. The brushback it gets in the Project 2025 playbook speaks to past insinuations from Republicans that government agencies are manipulating data to make climate change appear worse."
In other words, socialize the expensive parts of the forecasting process, and leave it to crony companies to turn a profit after the hard work has been done. As a taxpayer, I object. If The Weather Channel wants to sell forecasting, they can pay for their own satellites, instead of insisting on a gov't-provided monopoly.
https://www.eenews.net/articles/trump-allies-target-noaa-climate-research/
"...because of [manipulated] NOAA data used to back up climate change theories:"
https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2015/7/21/the-greatest-scientific-fraud-of-all-time-part-v?rq=NOAA%20data
It seems like a more conservative solution to this problem - if it is a problem, not sure I trust a retired lawyer on this front - would be to erect a firewall within NOAA to separate the data-gathering team from the modelling team, instead of tearing apart the entire agency and parceling out parts to other agencies, states, and the private sector.
Legislate that the data-gathering team is obligated to release its raw data sets and provide that data to any interested party (including forecasters WITHIN NOAA) under uniform terms so that independent teams can create their own models and we can compare them to see who's capturing the phenomenon most accurately. In other words, use politics to enhance the scientific process, instead of replacing it with another flawed process that has biases in the other direction.
Raw data available to all - good idea!
Raw data with caveats is a better idea.
I'm currently building out some technology related to monitoring air quality using commercial third-party sensors (AirBeam, Purple Air) and one the things that is a basic truth about this kind of data collection is that the raw sensor readings are not always reliable indicators of what they are sensing.
Hardware can go flaky, inputs can be blocked, network and power outages can lead to data blackouts, etc. I'm sympathetic towards NOAA using a statistical methodology that attempts to account and correct for the unreliability of sensors on the ground, but those algorithms and data should be public (if they are not already) so that others can attempt to replicate their work and (ideally) improve those statistical models to bring it more in-line with independent measurements with (more expensive) validated sensors in areas where the model is predicting a temperature or other data point in a particular location.
I'd be surprised if this isn't being done already, but I can't point you at the moment towards where you'd look to get those details. (More likely a function of my ignorance than some grand conspiracy to lie about the temperature.) Seems like such a low-hanging fruit, that if NOAA isn't doing that, a moderately-well funded transparent effort should be able to answer the question conclusively for all concerned.
That's a different set of claims than the one I saw posted on Twitter. The one I saw started with
"End no fault divorce"
and ended with
"Continue to pack the Supreme Court, and lower courts with right-wing judges".
I ran at least half a dozen word/phrase searches of the actual document to check these claims.
I found that they were either completely fabricated or spun wildly out of context.
True, I didn't check every claim, nor did I read the entire document (I don't need to cure insomnia).
On the divorce front, I did find this passage:
"But the pro-family promises expressed in this book, and central to the next conservative President’s agenda, must go much further than the traditional, narrow definition of “family issues.” Every threat to family stability must be confronted."
If you twist it enough, no-fault divorce may fall under the "threat to family stability" umbrella. That said, expecting Donald Trump to be a leader on eliminating no-fault divorce is laughable. Other than Mike Pence, it's hard to imagine a plausible national candidate without their own self-inflicted family issues to be the torchbearer for this.
I think PJ2025 is less about POTUS than it is the GOP at large, though they of course need a POTUS that will rubber stamp their agenda.
Trump is a means to an end for them.
Family issues are no longer just marriage and children. They're just as likely to be financial contracts having to do with income tax, government benefits, cohabitation and funding of bank accounts.
I saw that as well. I didn’t see direct evidence of the divorce claim, and divorce is typically a topic for states rather than the federal government. I have seen this on the list of Christian Nationalist goals (listed by the CNs).
Democrats have shifted the meaning of court-packing to include lawful and traditional appointments of judges.
Both may be goals of at least some Republicans, but I didn’t see them in p2025.
Wanting to round up 15mil migrants - including legal ones, and their citizen children - and deporting them requires massive amounts of armed personnel throughout America, going door to door. Then holding the people until they have a place to deport them to (concentration camps is an apt term for it, thanks Brits for coming up with that one). Little thought given to the economic impact of such a move, besides the moral and ethical ones.
Trump is mentioned over 300 times in the document.
There are a lot of authors, and a lot of those are former Trump admin personnel - besides Ken Cuccinelli, there's Ben Carson, Stephen Miller, Russ Bought, Peter Navarro... and many more.
Adding a quote from a Judd Legum tweet:
"Prior to the 2016 election, the Heritage Foundation created a similar project called "Mandate for Leadership." The "Mandate for Leadership" contained "334 unique policy recommendations."
One year into Trump's term, the Heritage Foundation announced that "64 percent of the policy prescriptions were included in Trump’s budget, implemented through regulatory guidance, or under consideration for action in accordance with The Heritage Foundation’s original proposals.""
It does not have to be done that way. With proper planning the illegals can be deported the week they are arrested. Slow but sure.
It's 5% of the population, a d assumedly you have to take time to prove actual immigration status, determine proper country to be deported, etc...
It's not gonna be clean or quick. And it's not just gonna be undocumented people.
What do you think removal of 5% of the population will do to the economy?
It's 5% of the population, a d assumedly you have to take time to prove actual immigration status, determine proper country to be deported, etc...
It's not gonna be clean or quick. And it's not just gonna be undocumented people.
What do you think removal of 5% of the population will do to the economy?
It will reduce overcrowded schools and hospital emergency rooms. It will reduce the number of people on public assistance rolls. It will allow us to determine the true value of competent labor. It will reduce the need for interpreters in medical facilities, schools and government offices. It will reduce the crime rate. It will reduce hit and run auto crashes. It will reduce housing shortages and housing costs. It will reduce national security threats.
It will be quick enough once the phony delaying tactics are sorted out and rejected. If the illegals refuse to provide information on country of origin, lock them up in solitary confinement until info is obtained. If countries refuse deportation, apply sanctions.
I don't expect it to be quick. Close the border and deport 10,000 per month.
It will reduce overcrowded schools and hospital emergency rooms. It will reduce the number of people on public assistance rolls. It will allow us to determine the true value of competent labor. It will reduce the need for interpreters in medical facilities, schools and government offices. It will reduce the crime rate. It will reduce hit and run auto crashes. It will reduce housing shortages and housing costs. It will reduce national security threats.
It will be quick enough once the phony delaying tactics are sorted out and rejected. If the illegals refuse to provide information on country of origin, lock them up in solitary confinement until info is obtained. If countries refuse deportation, apply sanctions.
I don't expect it to be quick. Close the border and deport 10,000 per month.
Due process ≠ phony delaying tactic.
Go through the negatives, 'cause there's always a negative to everything. To do otherwise is irresponsible.
10k/month won't be enough for what they aim to do: that's not even 1mil over a 4yr term, and they want to make it 15mil.
It will not reduce the crime rate, because immigrants already have lower crime rates than natural-born citizens.
But then again, I expected nothing less from you.
Due process is in accordance with the law. One law calls for detention while processing claims - the operative word is "shall". There are dozens of excuses for being unable to follow that law. None of them justify breaking the law. The lawful way to handle that is to shut down the border to all classes of aliens which the president can do under the USC, links and excerpts from which have been posted numerous times.
My apologies for using imprecise language regarding the crime rate. I can believe the crime rate is less for legal immigrants, but I do not believe the same applies to illegals. In any case, the total number of crimes should be reduced simply by the subtraction of those committed by illegals.
Your belief is incorrect: they are less likely to commit crime because of their immigration status.
Due process involves actually proving the claims of the state - the whole "innocent until proven guilty" aspect of our legal code. Thus the state must prove guilt in a court of law, which would then allow for deportation.
So, are you calling for us to move to a presumption of guilt?
This comment should end all debate: “Bloodless revolution.” Really? From the party that cannot, CANNOT win the popular vote. Screw majority rule, screw democracy and let’s just rush back to the era of 1950’s white man’s privilege.
Freaking shameful.
I wouldn’t say SCOTUS rejected the attack on the availability and use of mifepristone. It seems their ruling hinged only on standing, and did not actually adjudicate the merits. That hardly seems reassuring, since another plaintiff with a better claim of standing could challenge the FDA once again.
I wouldn’t say SCOTUS rejected the attack on the availability and use of mifepristone. It seems their ruling hinged only on standing, and did not actually adjudicate the merits. That hardly seems reassuring, since another plaintiff with a better claim of standing could challenge the FDA once again.
I wouldn’t say SCOTUS rejected the attack on the availability and use of mifepristone. It seems their ruling hinged only on standing, and did not actually adjudicate the merits. That hardly seems reassuring, since another plaintiff with a better claim of standing could challenge the FDA once again.
Instead of wasting time discussing Project 25, I would like to suggest everyone have a look at Agenda 47. Select one for discussion each day; for example, the first listed is DJT declares war on cartels.
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/agenda47
The big question hovering over all of these agenda items is why he didn't do them during his first term, and why should we expect any difference during his second term?
For example, veteran homelessness is relatively well-bounded problem. At the end of the Trump administration (2020), there were 37k homeless veterans, 33k in 2022, and the main issue seems to be affordable housing. Is Trump suggesting that the federal gov't cover the rent for those folks, or will it actually tackle the root cause, which is that we're not building enough affordable housing for these folks?
Will he continue to be on the veterans' side when landlords organize and complain that the gov't is interfering in their markets and stealing from them by setting price limits? (His history as a landlord himself suggests not.)
Say what you will about Project 2025, it at least describes in details what actions and policies need to be enacted to accomplish the higher-level goals. Agenda 47 is a lot of wishlist items without much actual planning to map how we get from where we are now to achieving each goal.
Interesting. And some items are blatantly unconstitutional such as ending birthright citizenship.
There should be an attempt to end birthright citizenship. If, after the best effort, the Supreme Court rules that an amendment to the constitution is required is required, forget it. I do not believe the original intent was to grant citizenship to children of illegals or tourists.
Was there any notion of "illegal" immigration back when the Founders drafted the Constitution? From what I can tell, the US didn't start restricting its borders until 1875, with the Page Act:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Page_Act_of_1875
Race and other factors were stronger determinants of who got to be a citizen and who didn't, more so than country of origin.
I believe there was a specific intent to make sure former slaves and their offspring would become citizens. That's good. Also good is that the offspring of families who have been vetted for residency and citizenship become citizens unless they screw up somewhere along the way. What's not good is illegal anchor babies and Manchurian candidates. Common sense is badly missing from this discussion.
I think that there's a common sense case to be made for ending or restricting birthright citizenship, but you're not going to find it through originalism or textualism when it comes time to argue against it in front of SCOTUS.
That said, after last Monday's ruling, those modes of interpreting the Constitution clearly have lost their luster among the "conservative" majority, so now may be easier to make that case than ever before.
It's not a waste of time, not when the Speaker of the House is talking about it positively.
And also: compare Agenda 47 to PJ2025 and they're quite similar - just the former is tweet-level detail (standard for Trump) and the latter much more detailed.
You're correct, and I was not clear.
Trump was not involved with P25 so why bother discussing when Trump's OWN Agenda 47 is out there.
81% of the writers are former Trump admin members.
A number of those will likely be members of the next admin if Trump is elected.
And this is the GOP plan, which is enabled by Trump's election - so it's relevant.
Both Trump and Heritage are trying to distance themselves from each other, because they know it's toxic and harms the chances of Trump's election.
Who cares? Trump has denounced P25. If you want to attack Trump, why not use his own words, A47? I'm handing this to you on a platter :)
de·nounce
/dəˈnouns/
verb
past tense: denounced; past participle: denounced
publicly declare to be wrong or evil.
Yeah, no: he has not.