Connect with us

Politics

Column: Reports of the death of Trump's Project 2025 are greatly exaggerated

Published

on

Column: Reports of the death of Trump's Project 2025 are greatly exaggerated

This summer more and more voters have gotten to know the gist of Project 2025, the policy opus intended to guide a second Trump administration, and they thoroughly dislike it. Which explains the project’s purported demise in recent days at the Trump campaign’s hands, just as Democrats have jump-started the presidential contest behind Kamala Harris’ candidacy.

Opinion Columnist

Jackie Calmes

Jackie Calmes brings a critical eye to the national political scene. She has decades of experience covering the White House and Congress.

Advertisement

The ruthlessness with which Donald Trump and his chief campaign lieutenants supposedly severed any ties to the agenda-setting endeavor gave me flashbacks to Trump’s presidency, when he’d abruptly announce a policy switch or Cabinet member’s firing with a tweet.

Just like that, someone or something that once had Trump’s favor was dispatched with the press of two thumbs on a smartphone’s buttons.

“I know nothing about Project 2025,” Trump wrote in a misnamed “truth” on his social media site last month. “I have no idea who is behind it. I disagree with some of the things they’re saying and some of the things they’re saying are absolutely ridiculous and abysmal. Anything they do, I wish them luck, but I have nothing to do with them.” He reiterated that message several times throughout July, blaming “Radical Left Democrats” for “pure disinformation” about his ties to the effort.

As usual, that was all lies, but when the right-wing coalition behind the blueprint, including scores of former Trump advisors, continued to promote it, Trump’s enforcers finally brought out the shiv — a no-holds-barred statement on Tuesday from senior campaign consigliere Susie Wiles and Chris LaCivita:

Advertisement

“President Trump’s campaign has been very clear for over a year that Project 2025 had nothing to do with the campaign, did not speak for the campaign, and should not be associated with the campaign or the President in any way. Reports of Project 2025’s demise would be greatly welcomed and should serve as notice to anyone or any group trying to misrepresent their influence with President Trump and his campaign — it will not end well for you.” (Emphasis mine.)

That same day the once-respected, now MAGA-fied Heritage Foundation, the power behind Project 2025, announced that director Paul Dans was out of his job and that the 2-year-old undertaking would throttle back. The Washington Post reported that some contributing authors, who once saw their involvement as a ticket to a job in Trump 2.0, were asking to have their names scratched from the final product. Theirs isn’t an idle fear: LaCivita had threatened an employment ban if Project 2025 collaborators continued to equate their work with Trump’s agenda.

So that’s the end of that? Be skeptical. Be very skeptical.

For one thing, Trump embraced the effort at its start. In a speech at a Heritage conference in 2022, he said it would “detail plans for exactly what our movement will do … when the American people give us a colossal mandate to save America.” CNN’s review of the contributors found at least 140 former Trump administration officials, including six Cabinet secretaries.

So, sure, Trump can badmouth the Heritage project now that it’s become a bogeyman. But should he win, he’ll surely make use of Project 2025’s policy prescriptions and its database of 20,000 vetted MAGAts to form a government and execute his stated agenda.

Advertisement

Which gets to the second reason Project 2025 should be considered alive and well: Much of it is Trump’s agenda, just with flesh on the policy bones.

Most of the best known and least popular parts of the project’s 900-plus pages, the ones that media accounts and Democrats have spotlighted — “Can you believe they put that thing in writing?” Harris mockingly asks rally crowds lately — are in fact ideas that Trump himself calls for.

Among them: Abolish the Department of Education. Gut the civil service system and return to a spoils system rewarding MAGA loyalists with federal jobs. Tear down the ethics wall that’s blocked White House interference in Justice Department prosecutions and FBI investigations since Watergate so that Trump can deep-six the criminal cases against him and order up new ones against his enemies.

And more: Mount immigration raids nationwide, with the military’s help, and deport millions living and working here without authorization. Repeal climate change mitigation programs and other environmental regulations. End affirmative action. Undo President Biden’s student loan relief program.

Trump has talked about them all. Where he and Project 2025 mainly diverge is on abortion. Like the rest of us, the former president has seen the decisive power of abortion rights voters in every election since his Supreme Court appointees enabled the reversal of Roe in 2022. He’s desperate to duck talk about further federal abortion restrictions and insists he’d leave the issue to the states. Project 2025, however, proposes a number of federal limits on abortion and contraception, and a ban on shipping the pills that account for nearly two-thirds of abortions.

Advertisement

Let’s say Trump, as president, does leave abortion issues to the states. As we’ve seen already, his antiabortion appointees to the federal courts almost certainly wouldn’t hesitate to rule in ways that affect us all. And that still leaves all those other policy areas where Project 2025 reflects his policy wish list.

Get familiar with Project 2025, if you’re not. Trump’s advisors can welcome the reports of its demise, as they say. But the truth is, reports of its death are greatly exaggerated. The only way to put a stake through the thing is to make sure Trump isn’t returned to the White House.

@jackiekcalmes

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Politics

Barack Obama's political career kicked off in the Illinois State Senate, evolved into a two-term presidency

Published

on

Barack Obama's political career kicked off in the Illinois State Senate, evolved into a two-term presidency

Barack Obama was the 44th President of the United States, serving from 2009 until 2017. The former president was born on Aug. 4, 1961, in Honolulu. His parents, Barack H. Obama Sr. and Stanley Ann Dunham, divorced when Obama was 2 years old. 

Obama’s mother married a man from Indonesia, where the young boy spent much of his earliest years before returning to Honolulu to live with his grandparents. 

Obama attended Occidental College in Los Angeles for two years before he transferred to Columbia University to study political science and international relations. He later went to Harvard Law School in 1988. 

‘WE JUST TELL THE TRUTH’: VP HARRIS’ LONGTIME MENTOR REPEATEDLY DEFENDED CONTROVERSIAL OBAMA PASTOR

After his first year of school, he began working at a law firm in Chicago, Sidley & Austin, where he met his future wife Michelle. The two got married in 1992 and welcomed two children together, Malia and Natasha “Sasha.”

Advertisement

Obama’s political tenure began in 1996, when he was elected to the Illinois Senate. In 2004, he was elected to the U.S. Senate, and gave the highly anticipated keynote address at the Democratic National Convention. 

In 2007, Obama announced that he would be running for president. He secured the Democratic nomination against former Republican Senator John McCain. Obama ran with the slogan “Change we can believe in.”

BARACK, MICHELLE OBAMA ENDORSE KAMALA HARRIS FOR PRESIDENT AFTER DAYS OF SILENCE

Obama defeated McCain and became the 44th President of the United States, the first African American elected to the position. He was inaugurated on Jan. 20, 2009.

After four years as president, he ran for a second term. In 2012, he was elected over former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. With the conclusion of his second term in office, he delivered his farewell address to the nation on Jan. 10, 2017, from Chicago. 

Advertisement

Before, during and after his eight years as president, Obama penned four novels. His first, “Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance” was published in 1995. He later published “The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream” in 2006. 

 

In 2010, his book “Of Thee I Sing: A Letter to My Daughters” was released. “A Promised Land,” by Obama, hit bookshelves in 2020. 

Continue Reading

Politics

Georgia activist steals the show after being introduced by Trump at Atlanta rally: 'Incredible'

Published

on

Georgia activist steals the show after being introduced by Trump at Atlanta rally: 'Incredible'

Join Fox News for access to this content

You have reached your maximum number of articles. Log in or create an account FREE of charge to continue reading.

By entering your email and pushing continue, you are agreeing to Fox News’ Terms of Use and Privacy Policy, which includes our Notice of Financial Incentive.

Please enter a valid email address.

Having trouble? Click here.

A Georgia activist stole the show after being introduced by former President Trump at his rally in Atlanta Saturday.

Trump invited Michaelah Montgomery up on stage toward the end of his speech at the Georgia State University Convocation Center. He introduced Montgomery by explaining he met her at a restaurant this year.

Advertisement

Trump said Montgomery, who attended Clark Atlanta University, had recognized him in public and commended him for funding historically Black colleges and universities.

“She looks at me, says ‘It’s President Trump. You saved my college.’ And I said, ‘How the hell do you know that?’ … This one is so smart, so sharp,” Trump recalled.

ALINA HABBA ACCUSES KAMALA HARRIS OF ‘COMMITTING A CRIME,’ COVERING UP BIDEN’S HEALTH

Michaelah Montgomery stole the show after being introduced by former President Trump at his Atlanta rally Saturday. (Getty Images/Fox News)

“She grabbed me. She gave me a kiss,” he added. “I said, ‘I think I’m never going back home to the first lady.’” 

Advertisement

“You were supposed to keep that quiet,” Montgomery laughed.

The former president commended Montgomery, describing her as “incredible” with a “tremendous future,” and told her he would do “whatever I can to help you,” before giving her the podium.

“I do want to add on to some of the remarks that were made by others,” the conservative activist began. “And we do need to do our best to get the message out there. The fight is nothing if all we do is talk about it amongst ourselves.”

Montgomery added that she was a founder of an organization called Conserve the Culture, which helps “mobilize the HBCU students so that they may get this [conservative] message.”

THE ‘WEIRD’ CAMPAIGN: THE STUNNING DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HARRIS AND VANCE COVERAGE

Advertisement
Montgomery smiling at stage

Montgomery attended Clark Atlanta University and had recognized him in public recently. (Fox News)

“Nobody needs this message more than my folks, so do y’all care for real?” Montgomery said to the cheering audience. “Are y’all with us for real?

“I’ma give it back to Big T.”

The rally took place days after Trump was criticized by the White House for statements he made at the recent National Association of Black Journalists convention about Vice President Kamala Harris’ racial identity.

“She was always of Indian heritage, and she was only promoting Indian heritage,” Trump said. “I didn’t know she was Black until a number of years ago when she happened to turn Black. And now she wants to be known as Black. So, I don’t know, is she Indian or is she Black?”

Montgomery waving

At the end of her speech, Montgomery mentioned her organization, Conserve the Culture. (Fox News)

On Wednesday, Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson praised Trump for “answering tough questions” at the conference.

Advertisement

“I commend my friend @realdonaldtrump for going into a hostile environment at @NABJ today and answering tough questions,” Carson said in a post on X.

Fox News Digital reached out to the Trump campaign, but did not immediately hear back.

Continue Reading

Politics

Opinion: Trump proved himself unfit to be commander in chief

Published

on

Opinion: Trump proved himself unfit to be commander in chief

When I was an officer in the U.S. military, I abstained from voting in national elections, one small way to keep the armed forces nonpartisan. Now, to uphold that same value and prevent the military from becoming a political tool, I believe that in November, everyone — civilians, service members, veterans, everyone — should vote for whoever has the best chance to keep Donald Trump out of office.

This is not a political statement. This is a strategic judgment based on fitness to lead — both to defend the United States and to protect the civilian-military balance that has enabled our nation to become the greatest in history.

Today’s U.S. military is the world’s most powerful weapon, and in the wrong hands it could become a potent political tool as well. This weapon must not be placed under an unfit commander in chief, as the former president showed himself to be during the previous administration and as he has vowed to be again if he regains power.

I am neither a Democrat nor a Republican, but an American who has fought in the forces that guard our country and our way of life, in the words of our military’s Code of Conduct. I fought in Iraq, earned two Bronze Stars and taught military strategy at West Point. My commitment to military values and nonpartisanship hasn’t changed since I rejoined civilian life. What’s changed is the choice presented in American politics. There really isn’t one, because one of the two major-party presidential candidates is clearly, demonstrably, irredeemably unfit to serve as commander in chief.

Only one candidate has suggested the execution of a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Advertisement

Only one candidate has called our war dead — specifically, the Marines who fell at Belleau Wood in France during World War I — “suckers” and “losers.”

Only one candidate has suggested putting NASCAR drivers and college coaches in critical national security positions now held by lifelong military professionals who serve as generals and admirals.

All those are awful enough.

But what settles the question altogether is the certainty that former President Trump would end the military’s bedrock contract with the American people: nonpartisanship. He tried last time and came dangerously close.

Nonpartisanship isn’t simply a nice tradition. It’s the two-factor authentication that’s been at the heart of our nation’s defense for decades. The former president instead wants military leadership that mimics the Nazi high command.

Advertisement

“You f— generals, why can’t you be like the German generals?” Trump complained to his chief of staff, retired Gen. John Kelly, in 2018. Trump clarified that he wanted generals who were “totally loyal” and “yes-men,” like the Nazi commanders under Adolf Hitler.

Since America’s founding, there’s been a tension between the military and the rest of the nation’s leadership. The monopoly on violence is necessary. But monopoly means placing immense lethal power in a small, select group.

James Madison worried that “armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.” But the Revolution persuaded George Washington that a competent standing military was necessary for the country’s survival.

Over time a bargain solidified. America permitted a professional military, not loyal to a party or a president, but to all the people through an oath to uphold the Constitution. The country even granted a certain amount of autonomy in strategic matters. In exchange, the military would remain nonpartisan. It would work to earn the nation’s trust and subordinate itself to civilian leadership. Military leaders engage in an “unequal dialogue” with their civilian superiors, in scholar Eliot Cohen’s phrase. This preserves the best military advice possible while staying deferential to America’s civilian leaders. There is, of course, occasional friction between presidents and generals — well worth it to maintain this pillar of national defense.

Trump wanted to destroy that pillar. Given a second term, he probably would. In its place he would enforce a subservience that would end the ability of America’s military to provide its best (or much of any) advice on peace and war. Trump would deploy the military as a political prop in service of his own brand, as he already tried to do. And he would reshape the military and the national security apparatus so that Trumpists would rise and others would not. His second term would be staffed by those prepared to “rigorously review all general and flag officer promotions” based on pro-Trump partisan qualifications, as described in the Project 2025 playbook.

Advertisement

This very same mistake was an enormous Nazi failure: Hitler broke the German generals, and so his decisions went unchecked and included some of the worst strategic moves in the history of warfare.

The immediate threat of a modern commander in chief who favors the Nazi approach would be the inappropriate use of military force on America’s streets (and perhaps even at polling places). The longer threat for this kind of recklessness is unknowable but foreseeable: eroding remaining trust in the military, eviscerating the civilian-military balance, ending America’s centuries-long success story.

“It is easy to destroy an organization,” wrote retired Adm. William McRaven, former commander of U.S. Special Operations Command, “if you have no appreciation for what makes that organization great.” McRaven penned those words five years ago, during the former president’s first term in office, and ended by suggesting that if nothing were to change, someone else must serve as commander in chief.

Nothing about Trump has changed. There is only one choice on Nov. 5.

ML Cavanaugh recently retired after 25 years in the U.S. Army. He co-founded the Modern War Institute at West Point. @MLCavanaugh

Advertisement

Continue Reading

Trending