ReportWire

Tag: Paul Dans

  • The Trump Admin Appointees Who Love Buchanan and Bukele

    [ad_1]

    DURING THE BIDEN PRESIDENCY, Paul Dans—director of Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation–spearheaded plan for the next conservative administration—started on a lesser-known facet of the controversial program. In order to carry out Project 2025’s extensive policy framework for reconfiguring the federal government, Dans began mocking up a personnel database, one he reportedly envisioned as a “conservative LinkedIn” that would provide the next Republican occupant of the White House with thousands of appointment-ready, MAGA-devoted job candidates to fill out the political workforce. To test the ideological mettle of those who wanted to be included in the database, Dans required applicants to fill out a questionnaire that asked for specifics on their political beliefs and the names of public figures they most admired.

    In June, more than 13,000 responses to that survey were obtained and published by Distributed Denial of Secrets, a nonprofit online library of “leaked and hacked datasets.” The responses show that the men and women who bought into the Project 2025 pitch frequently professed extreme beliefs and questionable political affinities, including support for authoritarian leaders abroad, deep respect for racialist thinkers, and severe condemnations of U.S. civil rights law. And in the months since Donald Trump returned to the White House, many of these MAGA hopefuls have taken up positions in the federal government and are implementing the administration’s policies.

    In reviewing the leaked materials, I have identified a number of deeply concerning questionnaire responses that can be connected to people who now hold positions of influence as newly minted assistant secretaries, senior advisers, and policy analysts across the federal government. Such responses offered praise for extremists and authoritarians popular among the new right, including El Salvadoran president Nayib Bukele, Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orbán, and American right-wing thinker Pat Buchanan, and reflected beliefs that might call into question the applicants suitability for government employment. For instance, the man now responsible for running the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights seems to have attacked the “civil rights state,” and many respondents railed against the country’s changing demographics.

    The acting assistant secretary for legislative affairs for the Department of Homeland Security, Dillon McGregor, apparently effusively praised El Salvador’s authoritarian president in one survey response that was included in the leaked database and contained personal information matching McGregor. Nayib Bukele “has imposed his will in defense of the rights of his people, against widespread domestic tyranny and corruption which masqueraded as democracy,” one of the answers states. It then condemned American institutions and implied that the United States needs its own Bukele:

    We are in a similar situation in the US, where the very “democratic” institutions of our republic serve almost solely to undermine the lives of our people and their futures, the integrity of our economy and standing aboard, bleeding our nation dry and poisoning what little blood we have left.

    First elected president of El Salvador in 2019, Bukele has overseen the repeal of the country’s presidential term limits and the erosion of civil liberties, all of which he has justified through the unilateral imposition of an indefinite “state of emergency” that began in 2022. Bukele has also been a close collaborator of President Trump, agreeing to hold in the megaprison he built, CECOT, people deported by the administration—including the illegally deported Kilmar Abrego Garcia. Another detainee, Andry Hernández Romero, a gay hairstylist, reported after being released from CECOT that he was beaten and sexually abused by guards during his incarceration; he described the facility as “hell on earth.” McGregor did not respond to my requests for comment on his apparent praise of Bukele.

    Another questionnaire response listed “the civil rights state” as the public policy issue he was most passionate about in his Project 2025 questionnaire response. This author of this response gave the name Craig Trainor—which is the name of the individual who is now the acting assistant secretary for civil rights in the Department of Education, where in February he authored an especially strident “Dear Colleague” letter to colleges and universities, threatening their federal funding if they ran afoul of the current administration’s interpretation of civil rights law. Trainor also did not respond to my requests for comment, but the personal identifying information in the unredacted version of the database provided to me by DDoSecrets matched his own. The full response maintains that “the 1964 Civil Rights Act and its subsequent innovations has become, what the late Angelo Codevilla called, ‘the little law that ate the Constitution.’” Institutional fruits of the Civil Rights Act, it asserts, “are antithetical to the American founding, its Christian moral foundation and traditions, the Constitution, and a free and well-ordered society.”1

    Support our independent political journalism by signing up for a free or paid Bulwark subscription.


    THE LEAKED DATABASE also connected the names of several current employees at the Office of Personnel Management to politically extreme statements. That office, which functions as a sort of HR department in most administrations, has, in the Trump administration, been the hub of efforts to make it possible to remove civil servants on political grounds, a policy usually referred to as “Schedule F” reclassification. A representative of OPM declined to comment when I asked if the responses represented OPM culture or reflected ongoing discussions within the agency.

    Let’s look at a few of the responses apparently tied to OPM personnel.

    Noah Peters is a DOGE agent who now works as an OPM senior adviser. Questionnaire responses tied to that name praise both Bukele and preeminent paleoconservative Pat Buchanan.2 In particular, Buchanan is put forward as the “one person, past or present,” most responsible for the respondent’s political philosophy, while Bukele is identified as “one living public policy figure” admired by the respondent. “I greatly admire Nayib Bukele, president of El Salvador,” the answer states. “He has done what was thought impossible: successfully curb criminal gang violence in Central America. In doing so, he has given back freedom to his citizens– freedom to walk the streets without fear.” Peters did not respond to my requests for comment.

    According to reporting by the New York Times, Peters was already being considered for a position in the Department of Labor as part of Project 2025 two years ago. In January of this year, 404 Media determined Peters was the likely author of at least one early OPM memo trying to make it easier to fire civil servants and replace them with dedicated partisans.

    Christopher Smith was a policy adviser with OPM until August, according to government monitoring company LegiStorm. A questionnaire answer given under that name and with corresponding personal information also emphasized Buchanan’s influence and specifically praised Buchanan’s 2001 book The Death of the West: How Dying Populations and Immigrant Invasions Imperil Our Country and Civilization as “a biting commentary on the importance of establishing, maintaining, and cherishing national identity.” The respondent credits the book with making him “place a great deal of emphasis on community, shared values, and common history- all of which are rebutted by the modern orthodoxy of multiculturalism, open borders, and a million iterations of America as an ‘idea’ rather than a nation.” Smith declined to comment when contacted.

    Brandon Mayhew has, since May, been a senior adviser at OPM. A set of questionnaire responses submitted under that name argued that authoritarian Viktor Orbán’s regime in Hungary ought to serve as a model for the United States. “I think [Orbán] has the right idea of fusing faith, family, and nationhood to create a very poignant political blend,” said one answer. “This is a political blend that promote [sic] the longevity and security of Hungary as a nation and state (something that can certainly not be said for many western European states who are self-immolating). I think Orban’s simple method is something we should be importing en masse in our own political order.” Mayhew also did not respond to my questions.

    Megan “Meg” Kilgannon, formerly of the right-wing Family Research Council, is now director of strategic partnerships for the Department of Education. Questionnaire answers tied to that name might serve as a synecdoche of the extremism now deemed acceptable for political appointees. Kilgannon declined to comment when reached by phone, but the personal information included in the unredacted version of the database provided to me by DDoSecrets matched hers. The Department of Education did not respond to emails requesting comment on Kilgannon’s apparent responses.

    The answers under Kilgannon’s name heap praise on far-right intellectuals Buchanan and Sam Francis. “The writing and philosophies of Pat Buchanan and Sam Francis have been foundational in my political formation,” one answer reads. “Over the years they are proven right again and again.” Another answer praising one of Buchanan’s books emphasizes that “demographics are drivers of social change, in both positive and negative ways.”

    Kilgannon is just one of many people currently serving in the executive branch who appear to have cited Buchanan as a key influence. But she was the only one I saw who also apparently cited the late Sam Francis, a close friend of Buchanan’s and a major figure on the hard right. In 1995, Francis was let go by the conservative Washington Times, where he had been a columnist, after fellow right-wing provocateur Dinesh D’Souza drew attention to racist comments he’d made at an Atlanta convention. Francis had declared white people needed to “reassert our identity and our solidarity, and we must do so in explicitly racial terms through the articulation of a racial consciousness as whites,” a belief he would continue to espouse until his death a decade later.

    Because of their openly racialist views, Francis and Buchanan over the years were increasingly deemed verboten by the conservative mainstream. In 1992, National Review founder William F. Buckley Jr. wrote that Buchanan was “politically,” if not personally, antisemitic. A few years later, Donald Trump publicly called Buchanan “a Hitler lover” and “an antisemite.” And in a 2022 article in Vanity Fair, Alec Dent wrote that Francis “spent his final years largely confined to the fever swamps of explicitly white supremacist organizations.”

    If, as the Reagan-era maxim goes, “personnel is policy,” then in light of these questionnaire responses we should not be surprised that the second Trump administration continues attacking Americans’ civil rights, undermining free and fair elections, and prioritizing white immigration.


    SEVERAL RESPONSES connected to other people who have staffed the second Trump administration specifically cited a prominent 2020 book critiquing civil rights laws—in one case, referencing the book in support of a claim that the Civil Rights Act of 1965 “essentially replaced the original Constitution.” Another answer mentioned Curtis Yarvin, the neoreactionary monarchist, as one of the “more exciting contemporary thinkers” who’d influenced the respondent. Yet another listed the “demographic transformation of the United States and the Western World” as the respondent’s most important issue.

    While none of the individuals mentioned above confirmed to me that they had filled out the Project 2025 form, despite the matching names and corresponding personal information, three other individuals who self-identified as “liberals” in responses included in the database told me they remembered filling out the Project 2025 questionnaire, either to “gum up” the application process or to keep an eye on the effort. A fourth didn’t respond to an email I sent but had published a YouTube video in September 2023 that showed her filling out the form. Additionally, one conservative whose information was included in the leak agreed with some of the sentiments connected to his name during a brief phone conversation, but stated he couldn’t remember filling out the form and maintained the wording of the answers did not “sound like me.”

    The Heritage Foundation did not respond to my questions about the published database, or answer an earlier request for comment sent by left-leaning news outlet the Intercept.

    Share this story with a friend or family member.

    Share

    1

    The answer, in all fairness, does not condemn the concept of civil rights in toto, and indeed allows that a hypothetical Civil Rights Act of 2025 should still “prohibit intentional discrimination.”

    2

    For the benefit of younger readers, Pat Buchanan had a long career first as a staffer for Republican Presidents Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan, and then as a right-wing pundit—punctuated by three runs for the presidency, in 1992, 1996, and 2000. The 1992 campaign is perhaps most memorable for his inflammatory speech at the Republican National Convention. A prominent far-right thinker, Buchanan has been obsessed with the relative “decline” of European populations for decades, as evinced by his books The Death of the West (2001) and Suicide of a Superpower (2011). In the acknowledgements section of the latter, as progressive nonprofit Media Matters pointed out, Buchanan gives “special thanks” for research assistance to an anti-immigration activist who’d written for the white-nationalist site VDare. A few years earlier, that activist had pleaded guilty to karate chopping a black woman on the head after allegedly calling her the N-word.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Playing In Our Faces: Donald Trump Tries To Distance Himself From #Project2025 Backlash — ‘I Know Nothing’

    Playing In Our Faces: Donald Trump Tries To Distance Himself From #Project2025 Backlash — ‘I Know Nothing’

    [ad_1]

    Source: The Washington Post / Getty

    Donald Trump questionably claims he’s an expert on everything else, but now he expects us to believe he has “no knowledge” of Project 2025 and its oppressive plans to give him unprecedented power as president. After the plan, directed by Trump’s former chief of staff, exploded online, that would make him the last person in the country to hear about it. 

    In his Philly campaign rally speech, Trump stated, “I know nothing about Project 2025. 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.”

    According to AP News, he posted a statement distancing himself from Project 2025 on his social media website. “Anything they do, I wish them luck, but I have nothing to do with them.”

    Wish them luck? PLEASE.

    Project 2025: The Drastic Plan Trump “Doesn’t Know About”

    Let’s break down what Trump is desperately trying to distance himself from. Project 2025 is a 922-page plan that proposes a massive expansion of presidential power. The project includes but isn’t limited to: 

    • firing up to 50,000 government workers to replace them with Trump loyalists (JUST SICK)
    • National abortions ban
    • Birth control, IVF, and STD Testing restrictions
    • Patient Data exposure
    • Eliminating the Department of Education and free school lunch programs
    • Enforcing Christian principles
    • Removing Environmental Protection Agency and protections for endangered species
    • Implementing tax policies that benefit the wealthy
    • Weaken unions and workplace safety regulations
    • End FBI efforts to combat disinformation
    • Repeal Acts for Civil Rights, Voting Rights, Fair Housing
    • End gender equality protections
    • Getting rid of DEI workers and training programs
    • Criminalizing LGBTQ+ rights and homelessness
    • Using the U.S. military against the U.S. citizens

    Yet Trump would have us believe he’s completely in the dark about it. It’s hard to swallow, especially given his past authoritarian actions and statements.

    The Social Media Firestorm

    What’s really pushed Trump into this awkward denial is the social media uproar. Project 2025 has been trending online and on television screens. As BOSSIP previously covered, celebrities such as Taraji P. Henson are taking part in the activism against it.

    Taraji didn’t hold back at the BET Awards, calling the oppressive overthrow of the government for what it is. Her bold move has put even more pressure on Trump and spread awareness of the initiative. Now, he’s backtracking and expecting us to fall for it despite his party’s track record of calling for these extremist policies.

    Trump can try to address the elephant in the room, but his response is far from convincing.

    Trump’s Ties to Project 2025 Figures

    The key players behind Project 2025 are all Trump insiders:

    • Paul Dans, the project’s director, was a former chief of staff at the U.S. Office of Personnel Management under Trump.
    • John McEntee, a senior adviser, was the director of the White House Presidential Personnel Office.
    • Russ Vought, a significant contributor, is on the Republican National Committee’s platform writing committee.

    With such close ties, Trump’s denial is more than just suspicious; it’s strategic.

    Conservative Leaders’ Radical Agenda

    Conservative leaders are openly declaring their revolutionary intentions to drag the U.S. back to the 1800s.

    AP News states that Kevin Roberts, Heritage Foundation President, declared on Steve Bannon’s War Room podcast, “We are in the process of the second American Revolution, which will remain bloodless if the left allows it to be.”

    With over 110 conservative groups involved, they’re pushing policy and personnel recommendations for the next conservative president. This isn’t just about Trump; it’s a full-blown attempt to reshape America.

    Trump’s Extreme Agenda

    Even if he’s trying to sidestep Project 2025, Trump’s own plans are still alarming. Research shows that he’s gearing up for a massive deportation operation and wants to potentially tariff all imports if he gets a second term.

    These proposals, when combined with Project 2025, paint a chilling picture of the future. It’s devastating enough that his SCOTUS picks have lifetime control over our laws and seemingly use it to dismantle more civil rights by the day.

    Trump’s campaign has previously warned outside allies not to speak for him, yet Karoline Leavitt, a campaign spokeswoman, has been featured in Project 2025’s videos. The hypocrisy is staggering.

    It’s as if they want to distance themselves while simultaneously keeping the radical base riled up. Talk about having your cake and eating it, too. 

    Democrats Sound the Alarm

    The Democratic response has been fierce. The Biden campaign has slammed Project 2025 as a “violent revolution to destroy the very idea of America.”

    AP found that Ammar Moussa from the Biden campaign described it as an “extreme policy and personnel playbook for Trump’s second term that should scare the hell out of the American people.”

    On Independence Day, the Biden campaign posted a dystopian image from “The Handmaid’s Tale” on X, captioned, “Fourth of July under Trump’s Project 2025.”

    It’s a clear warning about the dangerous path ahead. 

    What’s Next?

    Trump’s comments come as the Republican Party prepares to draft its party platform, and Project 2025 is gearing up to share a 180-day agenda for the next administration privately.

    As these developments unfold, the American public must stay alert and informed. Trump’s denial might be a tactical move, but the implications of Project 2025 are too significant and dangerous to ignore. 

    This isn’t just about political maneuvering; it’s about the future of our democracy and lives.

    [ad_2]

    Lauryn Bass

    Source link

  • Trump seeks to distance himself from pro-Trump Project 2025

    Trump seeks to distance himself from pro-Trump Project 2025

    [ad_1]

    (CNN) — Former President Donald Trump on Friday sought to distance himself from a closely aligned conservative group’s plans to radically reshape the federal government and American life should the former president win a second term.

    In a post to his social media site, Trump claimed, “I know nothing about Project 2025,” the name given to a playbook crafted by the Heritage Foundation to fill the executive branch with thousands of Trump loyalists and reorient its many agencies’ missions around conservative ideals.

    “I have no idea who is behind it,” Trump continued on Truth Social. “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.”

    The post comes days after the president of the Heritage Foundation, Kevin Roberts, drew widespread backlash from Democrats for saying in an interview that the country was “in the process of the second American Revolution, which will remain bloodless if the left allows it to be.”

    Project 2025 — widely viewed by conservatives as a blueprint for Trump’s second term transition — is run by several former Trump administration officials and includes many policy priorities that are aligned with those of the former president, especially as they relate to cracking down on immigration and purging the federal bureaucracy by making it easier to dismiss civil servants and career officials.

    But it also includes controversial proposals Trump has not discussed, including banning pornographyreversing federal approval of the abortion pill mifepristone, excluding the morning-after pill and men’s contraceptives from coverage mandated under the Affordable Care Act, and making it harder for transgender adults to transition.

    Among the chief objectives of Project 2025, its authors wrote, is: “Restore the family as the centerpiece of American life and protect our children.”

    Trump’s campaign has sought for months to make clear that Project 2025 is not its official policy platform amid an intensifying effort by President Joe Biden and Democrats to tie Trump to its more controversial policies.

    Yet those efforts are complicated by Trump’s extremely close relationship with many of the people who launched Project 2025 or helped contribute to it. Paul Dans, the head of Project 2025, was chief of staff at the Office of Personnel Management during the Trump administration, and the group’s roadmap for the next administration includes contributions from others who have worked for the former president, including his former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson, former acting Deputy Homeland Security Secretary Ken Cuccinelli and former deputy chief of staff Rick Dearborn. John McEntee, Trump’s former director of the White House Presidential Personnel Office and one of his closest aides while in office, is also a senior adviser for the project.

    Trump himself told a gathering of religious broadcasters in February that Roberts was “doing an unbelievable job” and “bringing (Heritage) back to levels never seen.”

    The remarks came at a Nashville conference shortly after Roberts and Dans both addressed the same crowd. Dans shared with the audience it was his intention to serve in a second Trump administration should the former president win in November. Speaking before Trump about Project 2025 that night, Roberts said, “We want no credit” for the groundwork it is laying, and instead wanted “President Trump and his administration to take credit for that.”

    The group has long stated its transition project is a template they hope will be adopted by the next Republican president, something a Project 2025 spokeswoman reiterated in a statement to CNN.

    “As we’ve been saying for more than two years now, Project 2025 does not speak for any candidate or campaign. We are a coalition of more than 110 conservative groups advocating policy and personnel recommendations for the next conservative president. But it is ultimately up to that president, who we believe will be President Trump, to decide which recommendations to implement,” the statement reads.

    A senior Trump campaign adviser told CNN that Trump’s post disavowing the group stemmed from a series of factors, most notably the Biden campaign’s recent messaging campaign tying Trump to the project.

    Project 2025 has long frustrated Trump and his top advisers, who have been annoyed with the amount of coverage its policy platforms have received and the perception that the group is working in tandem with the campaign — despite Project 2025 partnering with a series of top Trump allies.

    The group’s partners include several leading conservative groups with close ties to Trump’s campaign, including those who have been tapped by Trump’s advisers to serve as part of their 2024 ground game strategy in key battleground states, such as Turning Points USA.

    Other high-profile organizations partnered with Project 2025 include the Center for Renewing America, run by Trump’s former director of the Office of Management and Budget, Russ Vought, who is viewed by many in Trump’s orbit as a likely contender for another Cabinet position in a second administration and is helping to lead the GOP platform committee ahead of the Republican National Convention later this month. The Conservative Partnership Institute, run in part by Trump’s former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows and former Sen. Jim Demint, and America Legal First, founded by his immigration adviser Stephen Miller, are also partners.

    The Biden campaign on Friday quickly dismissed Trump’s attempts to keep Project 2025 at arm’s length.

    ​​“Project 2025 is the extreme policy and personnel playbook for Trump’s second term that should scare the hell out of the American people,” Biden campaign spokesman Ammar Moussa said in a statement. “Project 2025 staff and leadership routinely tout their connections to Trump’s team, and are the same people leading the RNC policy platform and Trump’s debate prep, campaign, and inner circle.”

    The Trump campaign has previously pushed back on reports about plans Trump’s allies are looking to implement if Trump wins reelection. Trump’s campaign managers Susie Wiles and Chris LaCivita issued a statement in November arguing that “reports about personnel and policies that are specific to a second Trump Administration are purely speculative and theoretical” and that no outside groups have the authority to speak on behalf of Trump or the campaign.

    LaCivita doubled down further on Friday, tweeting: “Poke the Bear you are going to be bit” while sharing an article titled: “Trump torches Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025.”

    [ad_2]

    CNN

    Source link

  • Loyalists, Lapdogs, and Cronies

    Loyalists, Lapdogs, and Cronies

    [ad_1]

    When Donald Trump first took office, he put a premium on what he called “central casting” hires—people with impressive résumés who matched his image of an ideal administration official. Yes, he brought along his share of Steve Bannons and Michael Flynns. But there was also James Mattis, the decorated four-star general who took over the Defense Department, and Gary Cohn, the Goldman Sachs chief operating officer who was appointed head of the National Economic Council, and Rex Tillerson, who left one of the world’s most profitable international conglomerates to become secretary of state.

    Explore the January/February 2024 Issue

    Check out more from this issue and find your next story to read.

    View More

    Trump seemed positively giddy that all of these important people were suddenly willing to work for him. And although his populist supporters lamented the presence of so many swamp creatures in his administration, establishment Washington expressed pleasant surprise at the picks. A consensus had formed that what the incoming administration needed most was “adults in the room.” To save the country from ruin, the thinking went, reasonable Republicans had a patriotic duty to work for Trump if asked. Many of them did.

    Don’t expect it to happen again. The available supply of serious, qualified people willing to serve in a Trump administration has dwindled since 2017. After all, the so-called adults didn’t fare so well in their respective rooms. Some quit in frustration or disgrace; others were publicly fired by the president. Several have spent their post–White House lives fielding congressional subpoenas and getting indicted. And after seeing one Trump term up close, vanishingly few of them are interested in a sequel: This past summer, NBC News reported that just four of Trump’s 44 Cabinet secretaries had endorsed his current bid.

    Even if mainstream Republicans did want to work for him again, Trump is unlikely to want them. He’s made little secret of the fact that he felt burned by many in his first Cabinet. This time around, according to people in Trump’s orbit, he would prioritize obedience over credentials. “I think there’s going to be a very concerted, calculated effort to ensure that the people he puts in his next administration—they don’t have to share his worldview exactly, but they have to implement it,” Hogan Gidley, a former Trump White House spokesperson, told me.

    What would this look like in practice? Predicting presidential appointments nearly a year before the election is a fool’s errand, especially with a candidate as mercurial as this one. And, whether for reasons of low public opinion or ongoing legal jeopardy, some of Trump’s likely picks might struggle to get confirmed (expect a series of contentious hearings). But the names currently circulating in MAGA world offer a glimpse at the kind of people Trump could gravitate toward.

    One Trump-world figure with a record of deference to the boss is Stephen Miller. As a speechwriter and policy adviser, Miller managed to endure while so many of his colleagues flamed out in part because he was satisfied with being a staffer instead of a star. He was also fully aligned with the president on his signature issue: immigration. Inside the White House, Miller championed some of the administration’s most draconian measures, including the Muslim travel ban and the family-separation policy. In a second Trump term, some expect Miller to get a job that will give him significant influence over immigration policy—perhaps head of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or even secretary of homeland security. Given Miller’s villainous reputation in Democratic circles, however, he might have a hard time getting confirmed by the Senate. If that happens, some think White House chief of staff might be a good consolation prize.

    For secretary of state, one likely candidate is Richard Grenell. Before Trump appointed him ambassador to Germany in 2018, Grenell was best-known as a right-wing foreign-policy pundit and an inexhaustible Twitter troll. He brought his signature bellicosity to Berlin, hectoring journalists and government officials on Twitter, and telling a Breitbart London reporter early in his tenure that he planned to use his position to “empower other conservatives throughout Europe.” (He had to walk back the comment after some in Germany interpreted it as a call for far-right regime change.)

    Grenell’s undiplomatic approach to diplomacy exasperated German officials and thrilled Trump, who reportedly described him as an ambassador who “gets it.” Grenell has spent recent years performing his loyalty as a Trump ally and, according to one source, privately building his case for the secretary-of-state role.

    One job that Trump will be especially focused on getting right is attorney general. He believes that both of the men who held this position during his term—Jeff Sessions and Bill Barr—were guilty of grievous betrayal. Since then, Trump has been charged with 91 felony counts across four separate criminal cases—evidence, he claims, of a historic “political persecution.” (He has pleaded not guilty in all cases.) Trump has pledged to use the Justice Department to visit revenge on his persecutors if he returns to the White House.

    “The notion of the so-called independence of the Department of Justice needs to be consigned to the ash heap of history,” says Paul Dans, who served in the Office of Personnel Management under Trump and now leads an effort by the Heritage Foundation to recruit conservative appointees for the next Republican administration. To that end, Trump allies have floated a range of loyalists for attorney general, including Senators Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, and Josh Hawley; former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi; and Jeffrey Clark, formerly one of Trump’s assistant attorneys general, who was indicted in Georgia on charges of conspiring to overturn the 2020 election (the charges are still pending).

    Vivek Ramaswamy—the fast-talking entrepreneur running in the Republican presidential primary as of this writing—is also expected to get a top post in the administration. Ramaswamy has praised Trump on the campaign trail and positioned himself as the natural heir to the former president. Trump has responded to the flattery in kind, publicly praising his opponent as a “very, very, very intelligent person.” Some have even speculated that Ramaswamy could be Trump’s pick for vice president.

    One source close to Ramaswamy told me that a Trump adviser had recently asked him what job the candidate might want in a future administration. After thinking about it, the source suggested ambassador to the United Nations, reasoning that he’s a “good talker.” The Trump adviser said he’d keep it in mind, though it’s worth noting that Ramaswamy’s lack of support for Ukraine and his suggestion that Russia be allowed to keep some of the territory it has seized could lead to confirmation trouble.

    Beyond the high-profile posts, the Trump team may have more jobs to fill in 2025 than a typical administration does. Dans and his colleagues at Heritage are laying the groundwork for a radical politicization of the federal civilian workforce. If they get their way, the next Republican president will sign an executive order eliminating civil-service protections for up to 50,000 federal workers, effectively making the people in these roles political appointees. Rank-and-file budget wonks, lawyers, and administrators working in dozens of agencies would be reclassified as Schedule F employees, and the president would be able to fire them at will, with or without cause. These fired civil servants’ former posts could be left empty—or filled with Trump loyalists. To that end, Heritage has begun to put together a roster of thousands of pre-vetted potential recruits. “What we’re really talking about is a major renovation to government,” Dans told me.

    Trump actually signed an executive order along these lines in the final months of his presidency, but it was reversed by his successor. On the campaign trail, Trump has vowed to reinstate it with the goal of creating a more compliant federal workforce for himself. “Either the deep state destroys America,” he has declared, “or we destroy the deep state.”


    This article appears in the January/February 2024 print edition with the headline “Loyalists, Lapdogs, and Cronies.”

    [ad_2]

    McKay Coppins

    Source link

  • The Open Plot to Dismantle the Federal Government

    The Open Plot to Dismantle the Federal Government

    [ad_1]

    Of the many targets Donald Trump has attacked over the years, few engender less public sympathy than the career workforce of the federal government—the faceless mass of civil servants that the former president and his allies deride as the “deep state.”

    Federal employees have long been an easy mark for politicians of both parties, who occasionally hail their nonpartisan public service but far more frequently blame “Washington bureaucrats” for stifling your business, auditing your taxes, and taking too long to renew your passport. Denigrating the government’s performance is a tradition as old as the republic, but Trump assigned these shortcomings a sinister new motive, accusing the civilian workforce of thwarting his agenda before he even took office.

    As he runs again for a second term, Trump is vowing to “dismantle the deep state” and ensure that the government he would inherit aligns with his vision for the country. Unlike during his 2016 campaign, however, Trump and his supporters on the right—including several former high-ranking members of his administration—have developed detailed proposals for executing this plan. Immediately upon his inauguration in January 2025, they would seek to convert thousands of career employees into appointees fireable at will by the president. They would assert full White House control over agencies, including the Department of Justice, that for decades have operated as either fully or partially independent government departments.

    Trump’s nearest rivals for the Republican nomination have matched and even exceeded his zeal for gutting the federal government. The businessman Vivek Ramaswamy has vowed to fire as much as 75 percent of the workforce. And Florida Governor Ron DeSantis promised a New Hampshire crowd last month, “We’re going to start slitting throats on day one.”

    These plans, as well as the vicious rhetoric directed toward federal employees, have alarmed a cadre of former government officials from both parties who have made it their mission to promote and protect the nonpartisan civil service. They proudly endorse the idea that the government should be composed largely of experienced, nonpolitical employees.

    “We’re defenders not of the deep state but of the effective state,” says Max Stier, the CEO of the Partnership for Public Service, a nonpartisan organization devoted to strengthening government and the federal workforce. Trump’s drive to eviscerate this permanent bureaucracy, Stier and other advocates fear, will bring about a return to the early American spoils-and-patronage system, wherein jobs were won through loyalty to a party or president rather than merit, and which the century-old laws that created the modern civil service successfully rooted out.

    “I can’t overstate my level of concern about the damage this would do to the institution of the federal government,” Robert Shea, a former senior budget official in the George W. Bush administration, told me. “You would have things formerly considered illegal or unconstitutional popping up all across the government like whack-a-mole. And the ability to fight them would be inhibited.”

    The Biden administration last week proposed new rules aimed at preventing future attempts to purge the federal workforce, which numbers around 2.2 million people. Even if the regulations are finalized, however, they could be undone by the next president. So defenders of the civil service have been looking elsewhere, trying to mobilize support in Congress and among the broader public. But their effort has not gained much traction, and legislation to protect career employees, roughly 85 percent of whom live outside the Washington, D.C., area, has stalled on Capitol Hill. “I don’t know how much attention the public pays to this type of thing,” laments Jacqueline Simon, the director of public policy for the American Federation of Government Employees.

    To Stier, that is precisely the problem. A Clinton-administration veteran who has run the partnership for more than 20 years, he has emerged as perhaps the nation’s most vocal cheerleader of the federal workforce. The partnership bestows awards on top-performing civil servants every year at an Oscars-style gala called the Sammies, and it advises presidential campaigns of both parties—including Trump’s—on the Herculean task of staffing a new administration every four years.

    Stier tries to keep his organization rigidly nonpartisan, but he views the proposals from Trump and his conservative allies as a unique threat. “I have never seen anything remotely close to an effort to convert a very large segment of the federal workforce and return to the patronage system,” he told me. “And that’s effectively what you have here.”

    Stier compared right-wing proposals to overhaul the civil service to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s campaign to weaken the judiciary in Israel. Tens of thousands of Israeli citizens protested in the streets, virtually shutting down the country and forcing Netanyahu to back off. “We have a similar order of threat to our democracy,” Stier said, “and yet not the same level of engagement and involvement as you do there.”


    Perhaps the most striking aspect of the right-wing push to dismantle the federal civil service is how open its conservative leaders are about their designs. They are not cloaking their aims in euphemisms about making government more effective and efficient. They are stating unequivocally that federal employees must give their loyalty to the president, and that he or she should be able to remove anyone insufficiently devoted to the cause. The fundamental structure of the executive branch, and the independence with which many of its agencies have operated for decades, these conservatives argue, represents a misreading of the Constitution and a usurping of the president’s power.

    “We’re at the 100-year mark with the notion of a technocratic state of dispassionate experts,” Paul Dans, who served as chief of staff of the Office of Personnel Management during the Trump administration, told me. “The results are in: It’s an utter failure.”

    Dans is the director of the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, a $22 million effort to recruit an army of conservative appointees and lay the foundation for what the project hopes will be the next Republican administration. He uses terms like “smash” and “wrecking ball” to describe what conservatives have in mind for the federal government, comparing their effort to the 1984 Apple commercial in which a runner takes down an Orwellian bureaucracy by chucking a sledgehammer at a movie screen.

    The project has released a 920-page playbook detailing a conservative policy agenda, including its vision for an executive branch that functions fully under the command of the president. “The great challenge confronting a conservative President is the existential need for aggressive use of the vast powers of the executive branch,” writes Russ Vought, a former director of the Office of Management and Budget under Trump, in one section. The president must use “boldness to bend or break the bureaucracy to the presidential will.” Vought now runs the Center for Renewing America, another organization serving as an incubator for policies that Trump’s allies want to implement if the former president—or another conservative Republican—regains the White House.

    At the top of Vought and Dans’s must-do list for the next president: reissuing an executive order that Trump signed during his final months in office—and which President Joe Biden promptly reversed—that would allow the government to remove civil-service protections from as many as 50,000 federal jobs. The move would create a new class of employees known as Schedule F whom the president could fire at will. It would essentially supersize the number of political appointees in senior positions in the government, currently about 4,000.

    To Trump’s critics, the Heritage project is an effort to provide intellectual cover for the authoritarian tendencies that he exhibited as president—and which some of his primary competitors, including DeSantis and Ramaswamy, have mimicked.

    Vought, however, says the changes are needed to ensure that the government adheres to the results of presidential elections. The federal bureaucracy “is largely unresponsive to the president,” who, he argues, better represents the will of the people. As their prime example of the civil service supposedly run amok, Vought and Dans cite the career of Anthony Fauci, the longtime director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases who had been lionized by presidents of both parties before becoming a conservative bogeyman under Trump during the coronavirus pandemic. In our interview, Vought compared Fauci to Robert Moses, the notorious New York City parks commissioner who for decades during the 20th century used his unelected positions to exert as much influence as mayors and governors.

    “You’ve got to be able to ensure that those actors are no longer empowered,” Vought said, “unless they truly are going to serve the policy agenda of the president that gets elected by the American people.” Fauci’s status as a career civil servant rather than a political appointee made him difficult—although not impossible—to remove. Trump’s Schedule F would have made it easier.

    As OMB director, Vought chafed at the civil service’s opposition to Trump’s decision to bypass Congress and begin building his promised southern border wall by repurposing money appropriated to the Department of Defense. Vought said OMB officials told him the border plan was illegal even after his office’s general counsel had signed off on the idea. “You’re always up against a paradigm shift where people don’t want you to have an opportunity to make policy changes outside of a very clear, confined, very unrisky lane,” Vought said.

    To Shea, a fellow Republican who also served as a senior OMB official, such pushback from career employees was a healthy and crucial part of the job. “It was incumbent on the career staff to keep me out of jail,” he said wryly.

    By the time Vought left his post, at the end of the Trump administration, he had developed plans to convert 90 percent of OMB’s 535 employees to at-will positions. Even the mere talk of Schedule F, he told me, had resulted in a cultural change at the department, as people “for the first time were understanding that there could be consequences for their resistance.”

    No conservative proposal has generated more controversy than the push to remove any separation between the White House and the Department of Justice, where federal prosecutors and agencies like the FBI have long made law-enforcement decisions independently of the president. Jeffrey Clark, the former assistant attorney general who along with Trump was indicted by a Georgia grand jury for his role in attempting to overturn the 2020 election, published a paper online in May titled “The U.S. Justice Department Is Not Independent” for the Center for Renewing America. Paired with Trump’s repeated calls to prosecute Biden and other Democrats, this argument raises the prospect that Trump, if elected again, could effectively order the Justice Department to jail anyone he wants, for no other reason than he has the power to do so as president.

    I asked Dans whether a president should be able to direct prosecutions against specific individuals. He initially deflected the question. “That’s happening right now,” he said, accusing Biden of ordering the charges that the Justice Department has brought in two separate cases against Trump—a claim for which there is no evidence.

    I changed the topic to Mike Pence. Trump has assailed his former vice president for refusing to help him overturn their defeat, but Pence has never been accused of criminal wrongdoing. Could Trump, as president, simply order the Department of Justice to prosecute him under this theory of presidential power? “Whether a president actually gets into identifying people who ought to be prosecuted, I don’t know if we ever get to that stage,” Dans said. He brought up a different example, arguing that a president could direct prosecutors to go after, say, Mexican drug cartels for their role in the opioid epidemic.

    I pressed him one more time on whether Trump could order the prosecution of someone like Pence. The answer wasn’t no.

    “I’m not in law school,” Dans replied. “We’re not going to hypotheticals.”


    The modern civil service dates back to a presidential assassination nearly 150 years ago. On July 2, 1881, an aspiring diplomat named Charles Guiteau shot President James Garfield at a railroad station in Washington, D.C. Guiteau had become enraged after the new president, inaugurated just four months earlier, had refused to offer him a consulship in Europe as a reward for his help in getting Garfield elected. Garfield’s successor, Chester A. Arthur, signed what became known as the Pendleton Act of 1883, which mandated that federal jobs be awarded based on merit and forbade requirements that prospective hires make political contributions.

    Defenders of that system now worry that the escalating vilification of the federal workforce will lead to another outbreak of political violence, this time directed at civil servants. Trump has continued to decry the “deep state” with his customary bellicosity, but advocates were aghast after DeSantis took the rhetoric a step further with his promise to begin “slitting throats.” “They’re going to get somebody killed,” Simon, at the American Federation of Government Employees, told me, ridiculing DeSantis as “a weak little man trying to sound strong and scary.”

    Unions representing federal employees have been lobbying Congress to pass a bill that would prevent future administrations from implementing Schedule F and stripping career employees of their job protections.

    The proposal has received scant Republican support, however. “If we had a floor vote on this today, I don’t know that I could get it passed in either the House or the Senate,” one of the proposal’s lead sponsors, Democratic Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia, told me. Kaine said he is trying to attach the bill to one of the must-pass spending bills that Congress will likely approve before the end of the year, but that appears to be a long shot.

    Senator James Lankford of Oklahoma, the top Republican on the Senate subcommittee overseeing the federal workforce, has criticized the incendiary rhetoric directed toward government workers. But he told me he thinks Congress should debate proposals like Schedule F to determine whether some of the career workforce should be converted to at-will appointees. “There should be more political appointees. I don’t know exactly what that number is,” Lankford said. “It’s not tens of thousands.”

    With Congress unlikely to act, the Biden administration last week unveiled its new regulations aimed at thwarting the return of Schedule F. The proposed rule would “clarify and reinforce” existing protections for civil servants, forbidding changes that would take away a career employee’s status without their consent. It would also establish new procedures that the government would have to follow before converting career employees to at-will appointees. The regulations, Deputy OPM Director Robert Shriver told me, represent “what we think is the strongest action we can take under our existing authority.”

    The likely effect is that once finalized, the new regulations would slow—but not altogether stop—a future Republican administration from implementing Schedule F. “Can it be undone? Yes, it could be undone,” said Stier, who emphasized that legislation was a preferred route.

    Complicating the conservative push to dramatically increase the number of political appointments is the fact that administrations of both parties—and Trump’s in particular—have struggled to hire people to fill the approximately 4,000 appointed positions that already exist. Beyond the concerns about whether an administration should prioritize political loyalty over merit in hiring, former officials say the increase in turnover such a change would bring would simply be bad for the government and, as a result, the public. “We can’t change the leadership of an organization every three or six years and expect the organization to perform in an outstanding way,” says Robert McDonald, the former CEO of Procter & Gamble and a longtime Republican whom President Barack Obama nominated to lead the Department of Veterans Affairs in 2014. “You’ve got to have continuity of leadership.”

    That doesn’t much concern Dans, who downplayed the importance of government experience in his recruitment drive for the next Republican administration. “I’m fully confident that the American people have the skills and have the ability to do these government jobs. It’s not rocket science,” he told me. (“Rocket science may be some of the simpler things they do,” Stier retorted.)

    The fight to defend the very existence of the civil service is particularly frustrating for Stier, who has spent the bulk of his career forging a bipartisan consensus in support of the federal workforce. He and the Partnership for Public Service have pushed the government to improve its performance, especially in areas visible to the public. They’ve advocated for changes that would grant presidents more power over appointments by making fewer positions subject to Senate confirmation. Another idea would increase accountability for civil servants by making them earn the protections of tenured service rather than receiving them automatically a year into their employment.

    “We can do better,” Stier told me. “But doing better is not burning the house down.”

    [ad_2]

    Russell Berman

    Source link