Trump's Project 2025 Nominees

November 23, 2024

Trump released a flurry of nominations on Friday evening—apparently hoping that Americans would not notice that several of the nominees share a connection to Project 2025 and Fox “news” programs.

The most significant nomination is Russell T. Vought to lead the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). OMB is part of the Executive Office of the President and is charged with (a) creating the budget and (b) oversight of federal agencies to ensure compliance with the president’s policies and spending authority. Although the job sounds like it is “in the weeds,” OMB is where the hard work of implementing the president’s policies takes place.

Russel T. Vought served as acting director of OMB for two years during the first Trump administration. That’s good and reassuring in the sense that one of the most important jobs in Washington will be filled with someone actually qualified to perform the job.

But Vought is also an “architect” of Project 2025. Per the NYTimes,

Mr. Vought was a leading figure in Project 2025, the effort by conservative organizations to build a governing blueprint for Mr. Trump should he take office once again. Mr. Trump tried to distance himself from the effort during his campaign, but he has put forward people with ties to the project for his administration since the election.

Mr. Vought’s role in Project 2025 was to oversee executive orders and other unilateral actions that Mr. Trump could take during his first six months in office, with the goal of tearing down and rebuilding executive branch institutions in a way that would enhance presidential power.

To the surprise of no one, Trump's claim during the election that he knew nothing about Project 2025 was a lie. There is almost no one better positioned to advocate for the goals of Project 2025 than Vought—both because of his key role in drafting the agenda and because of the powerful position he will assume at OMB.

Vought has been a vocal advocate for eliminating the “independence” of certain federal agencies—such as the Federal Trade Commission, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the Federal Reserve.

Removing the independence of those regulatory agencies would put the president in the position to reward friends and punish enemies through the power of federal agencies.

For example, the SEC has charged Elon Musk with violating securities laws in his takeover of Twitter. Under the current operating protocols for the SEC, the president would not interfere in decisions by the SEC to initiate prosecutions or enforcement actions. But if Trump is successful in eliminating the independence of the SEC, Trump could order the SEC commissioners to drop the case against Musk.

Other nominations that deserve scrutiny include:

Sebastian Gorka as the senior director for counterterrorism. Gorka was forced out of the White House during Trump's first administration because he frequently clashed with senior intelligence leaders who saw Gorka as an ideologue with little real-world experience.

Marty Makary, has been nominated to lead the FDA. Per The Hill, Makary is a Johns Hopkins’s oncology surgeon who espoused contrarian views about the response to the COVID-19 pandemic. In early 2021, Makary published an op-ed in the WSJ asserting that “herd immunity” would end the pandemic by April 2021. In fact, cases of Covid in the US increased substantially after Makary’s op-ed, with nearly half of the total deaths occurring after his claim that “herd immunity” would end the pandemic.

Scott Bessent has been nominated as Secretary of Treasury. Bessent is a hedge fund manager and may have the experience to serve in the position. However, he is a deficit hawk who also wants to extend the costly Trump tax cuts from 2017. Per HuffPo,

Even as he pushes to lower the national debt by stopping spending, Bessent has backed extending provisions of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, which Trump signed into law in his first year in office. Estimates from different economic analyses of the costs of the various tax cuts range between nearly $6 trillion and $10 trillion over 10 years. Nearly all of the law’s provisions are set to expire at the end of 2025.

To put a finer point on Bessent’s nomination, extending tax cuts for the wealthy while reducing deficits likely means that deficit reduction will be borne by the middle class and working poor.

And to put an even finer point on the nominations—and to paraphrase Bill Clinton’s campaign motto— “It’s Project 2025, stupid!” We were right all along—and Trump was lying all along. Somehow that storyline is missing from the media on Friday . . . .

---

Trump voters suddenly feel better about the economy

Readers send me dozens of copies of articles each day that explain “why Democrats lost the 2024 election.” Most of the analyses are subterfuges for attacking either (a) the progressive wing of the party for being too liberal or (b) the centrist wing of the party for not being liberal enough.

I will say again that the last thing Democrats should be doing at this moment is assigning blame for the loss. One op-ed published in legacy media today effectively advocated abandoning support for unions and LGBTQ people. That is both wrong and a horrible idea. We can’t change who we are as a party to chase elusive Trump voters who are likely not being honest about their reasons for supporting Trump.

Most of the analysts who are scolding Democrats start with the patently false notion that Democrats have “abandoned the working class.” They then pile on with the corollary that Democrats lost because they failed to address concerns about the economy and inflation.

The commentators assume that exit polling accurately reflects why voters supported Trump. There is good reason to believe that Trump supporters are offering post-facto rationalizations to justify their support for Trump's divisive and hateful platform.

A new survey suggests that Trump supporters weren’t being honest about their reasons for supporting Trump. See MSN, Poll: Republicans reverse views on economy and election fraud after Trump’s win; much smaller shifts among Democrats

Per the article, a significant portion of Republicans suddenly changed their mind about how good they felt about the economy after Trump won. Per MSN,

The survey of 1,612 U.S. adults, which was conducted from Nov. 14 to Nov. 18, found that fewer than half of Republicans (48%) now say the economy is getting worse. But immediately before the Nov. 5 election, nearly three-quarters of Republicans (74%) said the economy was going downhill.

That’s a sudden 26-point shift.

A 26-point shift is significant. To state the obvious, the economy did not make sudden improvements in the ten days after the election. Rather, when complaining about the economy no longer justifies voting for Trump, more Republicans acknowledge that the economy is doing well.

So, it is a mistake to base “What went wrong?” analyses on the unquestioning acceptance of what voters are saying in exit polls. It is also a mistake to talk about “what went wrong” by ignoring the fact that Trump's campaign platform had three culture-war pillars: racism, sexism, and white supremacy.

Those policy pillars are manifesting themselves in Trump's nominees for senior positions in his administration. To publish an analysis of “why Democrats lost” while ignoring Trump's campaign themes is a recipe for delusion.

But I digress. We must use caution when publishing, reading, or sharing analyses about why Democrats lost. And no part of that analysis should be used to blame or banish any part of the Democratic coalition. We must stick together to increase our chances of victory in the short term.

---

Concluding Thoughts

I will hold a Substack Livestream on Saturday morning, November 23 at 8:00 a.m. Pacific / 11:00 a.m. Eastern. If you have the Substack app on your phone, you will receive a notice when I go live. You will not receive a link in advance. To download the Substack app, go to these links: Substack on the App Store and Substack - Apps on Google Play.

I was chatting with a reader about their feelings of exhaustion “in the face of four more years of Trump.” I understand those feelings but believe we should be thinking about resisting Trump in a series of discrete, shorter time periods. Thinking about our resistance in “phases” can help us be more strategic and relieve artificial pressure from our shoulders.

Between today and the Inauguration (January 20, 2025), Joe Biden is still president and can take steps to appoint judges and implement policies in a way that will delay or defeat efforts to undo Biden’s accomplishments.

After the Inauguration, Trump and his enablers will face the daunting task of embedding themselves in a massive federal government while they undertake their promised deportation of 10 million immigrants. That period will last eighteen months and will be a daily challenge. But then, the 2026 midterms will get underway. Trump's congressional supporters will be concerned about re-election—a concern that may cause them to re-think their loyalty to Trump. Our leverage and messaging opportunities will increase.

In the last two years of his presidency, Trump will be a lame duck.  The internal GOP struggle to replace Trump will be in full swing and Trump will be fighting with his party as much as he will be fighting with Democrats.

Here’s my point: While we cannot relent, the period of maximal effort will be the next twenty months (Dec and January, plus eighteen months before the 2026 midterms). What happens after that depends on whether Democrats retake the House in 2026.

So, rather than thinking about Trump's tenure as a four-year unbroken battle, break up the periods of resistance into smaller periods. Doing so is realistic, smart, and healthy. We are in this battle for the long term. We can’t burn ourselves out with outrage and freneticism. We have a job to do. Let’s do it in a measured but passionate way. That will increase our chances for success.

Talk to you tomorrow!

---

Daily Dose of Perspective

The Milky Way Galaxy is about 100,000 light-years in diameter and 12,000 light-years “thick” at its center. Most of the images I publish in the newsletter show nebulae and star clusters that are contained within the Milky Way. Occasionally, I publish images of other galaxies that are 2 million to 350 million light-years from the Milky Way.

The image below shows the Cetus A Galaxy in the center of the frame. Cetus A is 47 million light years from the Milky Way.

To the upper right of Cetus A (at 2:00 o’clock) is a tiny dot, which is a galaxy designated as PGC 3112720. PGC 3112720 is located two billion light-years from the Milky Way. Two billion light-years! And it is moving away from us at 14% of the speed of light!

For reference, the Earth was formed 4.54 billion years ago. So, the light in the image below from PGC 3112720 has been traveling toward us for roughly half the age of the Earth.

The second image is cropped to show PGC 3112720 with a red circle highlighting its location.