Russell Vought, one of the chief architects of Project 2025 — a conservative blueprint for the next presidency — is no fan of the federal government that President-elect Donald Trump will soon lead.

He believes “woke” civil servants and “so-called expert authorities” wield illegitimate power to block conservative White House directives from deep within federal agencies, and wants Trump to “bend or break” that bureaucracy to his will, he wrote in the second chapter of the Project 2025 playbook.

Vought is a vocal proponent of a plan known as Schedule F, under which Trump would fire thousands of career civil servants with extensive experience in their fields and replace them with his own political loyalists, and of Christian nationalism, which would see American governance aligned with Christian teachings. Both are core tenets of Project 2025.

Throughout his campaign, Trump adamantly disavowed Project 2025, even though its policies overlapped with his and some of its authors worked in his first administration. He castigated anyone who suggested the blueprint, which polls showed was deeply unpopular among voters, represented his aims for the presidency.

But last week, the president-elect nominated Vought to lead the Office of Management and Budget, which oversees the White House budget and its policy agenda across the federal government.

Trump called Vought, who held the same role during his first term, an “aggressive cost cutter and deregulator” who “knows exactly how to dismantle the Deep State and end Weaponized Government.”

The nomination was one of several Trump has made since his election that have called into question his claims on the campaign trail that Project 2025 was not his playbook and held no sway over him or his plans for a second term.

He selected Tom Homan, a Project 2025 contributor and former visiting fellow at the Heritage Foundation, the conservative organization behind the blueprint, as his “border czar.” Trump named Stephen Miller, an immigration hard-liner also linked to Project 2025, as his deputy chief of staff for policy. Both also served in the first Trump administration.

He also named Brendan Carr to serve on the Federal Communications Commission. Carr wrote a chapter of Project 2025 on the FCC, which regulates U.S. internet access and TV and radio networks, and has echoed Trump’s claims that news broadcasters have engaged in political bias against Trump.

Trump named John Ratcliffe as his pick for CIA director and Pete Hoekstra as ambassador to Canada. Both are Project 2025 contributors. It has also been reported that the Trump transition team is filling lower-level government spots using a Project 2025 database of conservative candidates.

During the campaign Trump said that he knew “nothing about” Project 2025 and that he found some of its ideas “absolutely ridiculous and abysmal.” In response to news in July that Project 2025’s director, Paul Dans, was leaving his post, Trump campaign managers Chris LaCivita and Susie Wiles — whom the president-elect has since named his chief of staff — issued a statement saying that “reports of Project 2025’s demise would be greatly welcomed.”

Asked about Trump’s selection of several people with Project 2025 connections to serve in his administration, Trump transition spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt responded with a statement, saying Trump “never had anything to do with Project 2025.”

“This has always been a lie pushed by the Democrats and the legacy media, but clearly the American people did not buy it because they overwhelmingly voted for President Trump to implement the promises that he made on the campaign trail,” Leavitt wrote. “All of President Trump’s cabinet nominees and appointments are whole-heartedly committed to President Trump’s agenda, not the agenda of outside groups.”

Leavitt too has ties to Project 2025, having appeared in a training video for it.

In addition to calling for much greater power in the hands of the president, Project 2025 calls for less federal intervention in certain areas — including through the elimination of the Department of Education. It calls for much stricter immigration enforcement and mass deportations — a policy priority of Trump’s as well — and rails against environmental protections, calling for the demolition of key environmental agencies such as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the National Weather Service.

It calls for tougher restrictions on abortion and for the federal government to collect data on women who seek an abortion, and backs a slew of measures that would strip rights from LGBTQ+ people.

For Trump’s critics, his selections make it clear that his disavowal of the conservative playbook was nothing more than a campaign ploy to pacify voters who viewed the plan as too far to the right. It’s an argument many were making before the election as well.

“There are many of us who tried to sound the alarm bell before the election,” when voters still had the power to keep such a plan from coming to fruition, said Ben Olinsky, senior vice president of structural reform and governance at the liberal Center for American Progress.

Now, he said, he expects many of the more “draconian pieces” of Project 2025 to start being implemented given the nominees Trump has put forward. That includes Vought’s plan to eviscerate the career civil service, the core of American government, by doing away with merit-based staffing in favor of loyalty-based appointments, Olinsky said.

“We know what happened before there was a merit-based civil service. There was cronyism in American government, and we can look back through history and see that kind of graft and cronyism,” Olinsky said.

Filling the government with Trump loyalists will clear the way for more policies of Project 2025 to be implemented without resistance, Olinsky said.

Olinsky said the Supreme Court and the Republican-controlled House have already proved they are not willing to stand up to Trump.

There are “still some institutionalists” in the Senate — soon to be controlled by Republicans, as well — who could leverage their power to push back, he said, but it is not clear that they will.

Incoming Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) has signaled that he may be willing to do so: According to reports from his home state, he said at a local Chamber of Commerce event Tuesday that all presidents try to push policy through executive action, and that Congress “sometimes will have to put the brakes on.”

In the end, Olinsky said, real resistance might come only once Americans start realizing that Trump’s new government, stripped of all of its experts, is failing them in serious ways.

“They do care about their Social Security checks being delivered. They do care about the nation being defended properly. They care that, when they turn on the faucet, they will drink water that won’t sicken them and their kids,” Olinsky said. “And that’s what requires expertise.”

It’s long been said that Congress is a lot like school.

What’s the first thing they do in school? Take attendance.

That is one thing which they usually don’t do in Congress.

But they might next year.

FAMILIAR FACES, FAMILIAR PLACES: THE LATEST FROM CAPITOL HILL

Figuring out who is present and accounted for and who is out will emerge as one of the most dramatic daily events on Capitol Hill.

It is always about the math on Capitol Hill.

But the 119th Congress will really be about the math.

Every day in the House will hinge on who’s sick. Who has a parent/teacher conference. Whose plane was delayed due to snow. Who is just playing hooky and isn’t reliable. Who was giving a speech downtown, got caught in traffic and just didn’t make it back in time. Whose kid is starring in the school play. Whose aunt died.

President Trump and House Republicans have big plans for their 2025 legislative agenda. But the miniscule size of the GOP majority could temper those expectations on a daily basis.

It will be interesting to see what Republicans can execute.

Republicans will likely begin the new year with a 219-215 majority. So 434 seats. There is one vacancy as former Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., resigned. That’s a margin of four seats. But it in reality, it means the GOP majority can only tolerate one Republican defector on each roll call vote without needing help from the other side. One Republican “nay” is 218-216. But two Republican rebels produces a 217-217 tie. By rule, ties lose in the House.

But the beginning of the new Congress on January 3 could represent the Halycon days for the House Republican Conference.

Reps. Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y., and Michael Waltz, R-Fla., intend to resign in January to join the Trump Administration. Stefanik is up for United Nations Ambassador and requires confirmation for that post. The President-elect tapped Waltz to serve as National Security Advisor. That position is not subject to Senate confirmation. So the Republican majority will dwindle to 217-215. At that point, Republicans can’t lose any votes to pass their agenda.

THE HITCHHIKER’S GUIDE TO GAETZ’S STATUS IN THE HOUSE AND THE ETHICS COMMITTEE REPORT

That is a problem for House Republicans who regularly had a squadron of defectors – ranging from keeping the government open to even impeaching Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. This could even spell problems for House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., returning to the Speaker’s suite. Johnson must win an outright majority of all House members voting when the new Congress convenes on January 3 to become Speaker. He’ll have a bit of a cushion when the new Congress starts. But it won’t be much. House Republicans still suffer from political PTSD after the 15 rounds it took to elect former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., early last year.

Yes. There will be special elections to fill the seats of Gaetz, Stefanik and Waltz. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) has already called a special election for the Gaetz seat for April 1.

You can’t make this stuff up.

U.S. Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) waves on stage on the third day of the Republican National Convention at the Fiserv Forum on July 17, 2024 in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.  (Leon Neal/Getty Images)

The other special elections are months away because Stefanik and Waltz haven’t resigned yet. In fact, if Stefanik is confirmed and resigns in late January, it may be May before there’s a special election in her seat – based on New York law and discretion afforded New York Gov. Kathy Hochul (D).

The results in special elections sometimes produce “special” results. The usual electorate periodically stays home and the opposite party captures those seats in off-cycle elections. So, even though these are “Republican” seats, there’s no guarantee that Republicans will automatically prevail.

But if things go according to plan, Republicans will have those seats back in a few months, with a comparatively robust 220-215 majority. That means Republicans can lose up to two votes on any major issue.

But there are always absences. Always resignations.

And this isn’t limited to the Republican side of the aisle.

SPRINT TO CONFIRM TRUMP NOMINEES KICKS OFF IN JANUARY

There have long been concerns about the health and attendance of 79-year-old Rep. David Scott, D-Ga., the top Democrat on the House Agriculture Committee. Scott faced criticism earlier this year over a lack of public appearances and interviews.

76-year-old Rep. Raul Grijalva, D-Ariz., is the top Democrat on the House Natural Resources Committee. Grijalva vowed that this term would be his last after suffering from cancer. The illness sidelined Grijalva for months. He missed more than 300 roll call votes on the floor between February and this fall and did not conduct interviews.

Late Reps. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Tex., Bill Pascrell, D-N.J. and Donald Payne Jr., D-N.J., were all in office when they passed away this year. Late Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., died in 2023.

Democrats make a lot of noise right now about the agenda of President-elect Trump. It will be incumbent on Democrats to have full attendance to oppose Republicans and generally make life miserable for the majority. But Democrats can only do that if they show up. All the time.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., conducts his weekly news conference in the Capitol Visitor Center on Thursday, May 23, 2024.  (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)

Such was the case when House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., had the votes of every House Democrat on each roll call for Speaker in January and October of last year. Only Rep. David Trone, D-Md., missed a couple of votes because he underwent a surgical procedure. But Trone returned to Capitol Hill later that evening to vote.

Rep. Al Green, D-Tex., was hospitalized this past February. But Green came to the Capitol in a wheelchair in February to help torpedo the initial effort to impeach Mayorkas. Republicans had three defectors on their side. Green’s vote fresh from a hospital gurney forced the GOP effort to fail on the floor and try again.

One factor which was a challenge for the GOP was the health of House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La. Scalise was diagnosed with cancer last year and was out the first part of 2023. Scalise has now recovered. But his absence hamstrung the GOP on big votes like the initial Mayorkas impeachment.

Unfortunately – and inevitably – there will be absences due to health. And God forbid, death. Rarely does a Congress pass without the death of a lawmaker – sometimes unforeseen. Late Rep. Jackie Walorski, R-Ind., and two aides died in a traffic accident during the summer of 2022.

So listen for the attendance bells in the House next year. Check the weather forecast and the flight schedule at Reagan National Airport. Better look at Waze if they’re flying into Dulles. See if the flu or another round of COVID burns through Congress.

Yes. Understanding whether someone is for or against a given bill or amendment is always important in Congress. But what supersedes that is whether they’re actually present.

WASHINGTON —  They tend to gush over each other in public, but their private dealings are often opaque. Both are brazenly transactional, and cling tenaciously to grudges. Each likes to keep everyone around him guessing.

Of all President-elect Donald Trump’s relationships with world leaders — which are coming into sharper focus as he prepares to take office again in less than two months — that with Russian President Vladimir Putin may be the most consequential, and the most fraught.

Trump says his foreign policy motto will be “America first.” Critics fear that Trump will be steamrolled by the former Soviet intelligence officer on Ukraine, on sanctions aimed at curbing Russian aggression, and on the future of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

Whatever his course, he now has a better grasp of the levers of power in the administration he will soon lead than he did in his first term.

“I think maybe Trump has a better idea now of how to be president,” said Kadri Liik, a senior policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations, discussing Trump’s past dealings with Putin. “So let’s see.”

Throughout Trump’s first term in office, his ties to Putin offered an odd leitmotif: the episodes of striking public deference to the Russian leader, Trump’s often-stated assertion that a personal bond with Putin benefited the United States rather than undermining it, his unabated fury over the lengthy federal investigation of Moscow’s interference in the 2016 presidential election on Trump’s behalf.

Back in 2018, at a joint news conference by the two leaders in the Finnish capital of Helsinki, Trump’s declaration that he believed Putin over his own intelligence agencies so alarmed a then-advisor, the Russia scholar Fiona Hill, that she later recounted being tempted to feign a health emergency or pull a fire alarm to stop him.

In Trump’s between-terms interregnum, he and Putin seemingly stayed in touch, with at least seven phone conversations that took place outside the purview of U.S. diplomacy, according to journalist and author Bob Woodward.

This time around, Trump inherits the war in Ukraine, a conflict to which the United States is not a party, but which Putin paints as a potentially direct confrontation with any Western military partner of the Kyiv government. He will also face a loose axis of adversarial powers in which Russia is a junior player to China, but bolsters Moscow’s avowal that a U.S.-led world order has ended.

The Trump-Putin relationship over the next four years could help determine how that axis tilts.

After Trump won November’s election, he and Putin enacted what some analysts described as an elaborate set piece that encompassed elements of both conciliation and jockeying for dominance.

The Russian leader offered up his first public congratulations on Trump’s election win somewhat offhandedly, in a question-and-answer session that followed a lengthy speech. But at the same appearance, he volunteered a compliment guaranteed to endear him to the president-elect, praising Trump’s “manly” reaction to a July assassination attempt that left the then-candidate with a minor ear injury.

Then came an odd kerfuffle over who might have called whom: The Trump team let it be known there had been a congratulatory phone call, but the Kremlin then denied news reports of it. Around the same time, a widely watched program on Russian state TV aired decades-old explicit photos of former and soon-to-be First Lady Melania Trump, a onetime model, while its hosts openly smirked.

Almost immediately after the election, there was a much-parsed comment from Nikolai Patrushev, a Putin aide, who gave an enigmatic reply when asked what Trump’s win portended for Russia.

“To achieve success in the election, Donald Trump relied on certain forces to which he has corresponding obligations,” Patrushev told the business publication Kommersant, in remarks that were amplified by the official Tass news agency. “As a responsible person, he will be obliged to fulfill them.”

While ambiguous, the comment was read by some observers as positing that Trump was somehow beholden to Moscow — but was also typical of a sly, suggestive style often employed in Kremlin propaganda.

Trump, for his part, spent the last few weeks unveiling a series of Cabinet picks that included some notable Russia skeptics, at least in their previous incarnations.

But for one particularly crucial post — the director of national intelligence, who oversees 18 U.S. intelligence agencies that gather and safeguard the nation’s most closely held secrets — he picked Tulsi Gabbard, a former congresswoman whose stated pro-Kremlin views have raised concerns even among Trump’s fellow Republicans.

“The appointment to such a sensitive role of someone with so many questions around them, whose nomination has been welcomed on Russian TV, escalates the concern that many observers have,” Ruth Deyermond, a senior lecturer in post-Soviet security at King’s College London, wrote in an email.

The choice of Gabbard, she said, “confirms existing signals that point to a very pro-Russian White House.”

An early test is likely to be Ukraine. There is a broad expectation that Trump will seek to leverage a threatened weapons cutoff into a deal that might force the government in Kyiv to give up Russian-captured territory and renounce aspirations to join NATO.

On Wednesday, Trump unveiled his choice of a special envoy for Russia and Ukraine: Keith Kellogg, a retired three-star general. A staunch conservative and an advisor in the first Trump administration, he has pushed for a plan under which Ukraine would have to cede some territory to end the war.

But Putin might not be positioned to get his way entirely. Liik, of the European Council on Foreign Relations, said the Russian leader, in seeking to make Ukraine a “vassal state,” could overreach.

“Putin wants more than Trump is ready to offer,” she said. “I’m not sure Trump is ready to go to those lengths, if it makes him look like a loser.”

Still, the president-elect can effect profound changes in the security order even if he does not follow through on every implied threat.

During his first term, Trump routinely denigrated the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and suggested as a candidate that he would let Russia do “whatever the hell they want” to European allies he thought were ducking defense-spending obligations.

“I don’t expect Trump to formally withdraw the U.S. from NATO, but his team’s words and actions to date have already weakened it,” said Deyermond.

Some observers, though, say that with regard to actual policymaking, overall Russian expectations for the coming Trump presidency may be relatively low. After Trump’s first win, in 2016, “pro-Kremlin propaganda mouthpieces openly crowed that the victory was really Moscow’s,” said Alexander Baunov, a senior Eurasia fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

“This time around, things are very different,” he wrote in the digital publication Carnegie Politika. “The jubilation in Moscow is far more muted.”

This week brought an acerbic assessment of both Trump’s and Putin’s personality traits from none other than former German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who wrote in a newly published memoir about her dealings with both of them.

Merkel, who stepped down in 2021, described Trump as “clearly fascinated” by the Russian president, adding that he seemed “captivated by politicians with autocratic and dictatorial traits.”

Putin, on the other hand, was “someone who was always on guard not to be treated badly, and always ready to dish out punishments” — including once bringing a large black Labrador to a meeting with Merkel, knowing she was afraid of dogs.

Describing one of her encounters with Trump, Merkel called him “emotional.” But she counseled that a calm, dispassionate approach worked better with someone like Putin.

“You could find all this childish, reprehensible; you could shake your head at it,” she wrote of Putin’s manipulative style. “But that didn’t make Russia disappear from the map.”