Why Trump Can’t Shake Project 2025

[Fantine]

Wall of text but final conclusion is




Do you agree with the final conclusion that the US would be better off the Trump administration fully embraced 20225

What's Project 20225? I'd be fine if they deferred these crazy ideas 18000 years!

 

[JSRG]

Wall of text but final conclusion is

That's not a wall of text at all--the paragraphs are of quite reasonable length. It might be a bunch of text, but it's not a wall of text. Heck, it's not even that much text either--I didn't quote the whole Project 2025 of the article I linked to (which I do think is quite worth reading, though).

Do you agree with the final conclusion that the US would be better off the Trump administration fully embraced 20225

Well, this question seems largely irrelevant to the points that were brought up. But to try to give an answer to it anyway, I don't know. I haven't read the massive tome that is Project 2025 to try to compare everything in it. But It seems fairly clear that on at least some issues, even Trump's critics would have much preferred what Project 2025 advocated compared to the stuff Trump actually did.

But, in terms of the important thing, the claims that Trump has been deliberately trying to enact Project 2025 just doesn't hold up. There's some crossover between his agenda and its own, but that's what you'd expect from just about any modern Republican president.

 

[perplexed]

What's Project 20225? I'd be fine if they deferred these crazy ideas 18000 years!

18000 years is not that far away. 1 day in the Trump administration counts as 100 normal years

 

[perplexed]

But, in terms of the important thing, the claims that Trump has been deliberately trying to enact Project 2025 just doesn't hold up. There's some crossover between his agenda and its own, but that's what you'd expect from just about any modern Republican president.

??? That is a strange way of looking at it, unless you think the deep state stole the 2020 election from Trump

 

[JSRG]

??? That is a strange way of looking at it, unless you think the deep state stole the 2020 election from Trump

How is it a strange way of looking at it, and what does it have to do with deep state? I legitimately have no idea what you're saying this about my post.

 

[FenderTL5]

He'll never get away from the project, why because they are conservative talking points.

and (so-called) conservative policy objectives.

Tracking Project 2025

 

[BCP1928]

Trump himself is not deeply committed to Project 2025. It's just a list of bones he can throw to his base.

 

[perplexed]

How is it a strange way of looking at it, and what does it have to do with deep state? I legitimately have no idea what you're saying this about my post.

??? Are you saying project 2025 has nothing to do with the deep state?

 

[Laodicean60]

and (so-called) conservative policy objectives.

Are they liberal policies?

 

[BCP1928]

Are they liberal policies?

No, they're not liberal policies either.

 

[JSRG]

??? Are you saying project 2025 has nothing to do with the deep state?

I don't understand what point you're trying to make. Are you saying that Project 2025 comes from the deep state?

 

[perplexed]

I don't understand what point you're trying to make. Are you saying that Project 2025 comes from the deep state?

I am saying I don't understand how you can discuss Project 2025 without discussing the "deep state"
or what it calls the "administrative state"

 

[JSRG]

I am saying I don't understand how you can discuss Project 2025 without discussing the "deep state"
or what it calls the "administrative state"

Okay, either you're doing a bad job communicating, or I'm deficit of understanding (maybe a combination of the two?), because I legitimately cannot understand what point you're trying to make here.

 

[perplexed]

Okay, either you're doing a bad job communicating, or I'm deficit of understanding (maybe a combination of the two?), because I legitimately cannot understand what point you're trying to make here.

OK I will try using chatGPT

USER: Is someone who discusses project 2025 without discussing anything related to the deep state or administrative state (either explicitly or implicitly by discussing related concepts) giving you the whole picture?

ChatGPT:
No, someone discussing Project 2025 without addressing the deep state or administrative state—either explicitly or through related concepts like civil service reform, executive power expansion, or bureaucratic control—is not giving you the whole picture.

Project 2025, a policy agenda spearheaded by the Heritage Foundation and aligned with the broader goals of a potential second Trump administration, places heavy emphasis on reshaping the federal bureaucracy. One of its central goals is to dismantle or significantly weaken the current structure of the so-called “administrative state”, which many of its proponents equate with the "deep state"—a term often used to describe entrenched, unelected government officials who are seen as obstructing elected leaders’ agendas.

Key components of Project 2025 that tie directly to this include:

• “Schedule F” revival: Reclassifying thousands of civil servants to make them easier to fire.
• Centralization of executive authority: Bringing more independent agencies under direct presidential control.
• Mass staffing plans: Creating pre-vetted personnel lists to quickly fill government roles with ideologically aligned individuals.
• Dismantling or curbing powers of agencies like the DOJ, FBI, EPA, and others often seen as resisting conservative agendas.

These actions are all inextricably linked to the idea of rooting out what proponents describe as an unaccountable or overly powerful bureaucracy—exactly what critics and supporters alike refer to as the "deep state" or "administrative state."

So, to summarize: omitting that dimension leaves out a core ideological and operational driver of the entire initiative.

 

[BCP1928]

OK I will try using chatGPT

USER: Is someone who discusses project 2025 without discussing anything related to the deep state or administrative state (either explicitly or implicitly by discussing related concepts) giving you the whole picture?

ChatGPT:
No, someone discussing Project 2025 without addressing the deep state or administrative state—either explicitly or through related concepts like civil service reform, executive power expansion, or bureaucratic control—is not giving you the whole picture.

Project 2025, a policy agenda spearheaded by the Heritage Foundation and aligned with the broader goals of a potential second Trump administration, places heavy emphasis on reshaping the federal bureaucracy. One of its central goals is to dismantle or significantly weaken the current structure of the so-called “administrative state”, which many of its proponents equate with the "deep state"—a term often used to describe entrenched, unelected government officials who are seen as obstructing elected leaders’ agendas.

Key components of Project 2025 that tie directly to this include:

• “Schedule F” revival: Reclassifying thousands of civil servants to make them easier to fire.
• Centralization of executive authority: Bringing more independent agencies under direct presidential control.
• Mass staffing plans: Creating pre-vetted personnel lists to quickly fill government roles with ideologically aligned individuals.
• Dismantling or curbing powers of agencies like the DOJ, FBI, EPA, and others often seen as resisting conservative agendas.

These actions are all inextricably linked to the idea of rooting out what proponents describe as an unaccountable or overly powerful bureaucracy—exactly what critics and supporters alike refer to as the "deep state" or "administrative state."

So, to summarize: omitting that dimension leaves out a core ideological and operational driver of the entire initiative.

I see what happened. Deep state =/= administrative state..

 

[perplexed]

I see what happened. Deep state =/= administrative state..

For the purposes of this thread what is the difference between the deep state and administrative state?

 

[BCP1928]

For the purposes of this thread what is the difference between the deep state and administrative state?

The "administrative state" describes the manner in which the government is organized. It's a technical term of political science. The "deep state" is an imaginary conspiracy of government administrators and bureaucrats to thwart Trump's initiatives

 

[JSRG]

OK I will try using chatGPT

USER: Is someone who discusses project 2025 without discussing anything related to the deep state or administrative state (either explicitly or implicitly by discussing related concepts) giving you the whole picture?

ChatGPT:
No, someone discussing Project 2025 without addressing the deep state or administrative state—either explicitly or through related concepts like civil service reform, executive power expansion, or bureaucratic control—is not giving you the whole picture.

Project 2025, a policy agenda spearheaded by the Heritage Foundation and aligned with the broader goals of a potential second Trump administration, places heavy emphasis on reshaping the federal bureaucracy. One of its central goals is to dismantle or significantly weaken the current structure of the so-called “administrative state”, which many of its proponents equate with the "deep state"—a term often used to describe entrenched, unelected government officials who are seen as obstructing elected leaders’ agendas.

Key components of Project 2025 that tie directly to this include:

• “Schedule F” revival: Reclassifying thousands of civil servants to make them easier to fire.
• Centralization of executive authority: Bringing more independent agencies under direct presidential control.
• Mass staffing plans: Creating pre-vetted personnel lists to quickly fill government roles with ideologically aligned individuals.
• Dismantling or curbing powers of agencies like the DOJ, FBI, EPA, and others often seen as resisting conservative agendas.

These actions are all inextricably linked to the idea of rooting out what proponents describe as an unaccountable or overly powerful bureaucracy—exactly what critics and supporters alike refer to as the "deep state" or "administrative state."

So, to summarize: omitting that dimension leaves out a core ideological and operational driver of the entire initiative.

ChatGPT isn't a reliable source; I learned that after it once told me that James Buchanan was considered one of the worst Supreme Court justices in history (James Buchanan is considered a really lousy President, but was never on the Supreme Court). It certainly has its uses, but it must be used cautiously, and nothing it says trusted without verifying it. All the cautions people give about Wikipedia apply to ChatGPT, but even more so because at least with Wikipedia you can more easily see what its sources are, and errors can be more easily fixed.

But regardless, this is conflating two ideas: The "deep state" and "administrative state". In fairness to ChatGPT, its conflating of these two terms appears to have come from your question's phrasing.

Still, the "deep state" is a conspiratorial idea of secret groups controlling a government. In contrast, the "administrative state" is a term (often pejorative) referring to government agencies that are large and to a degree unaccountable to the three branches of government in practice, which is why some critics call them a fourth branch of government. The existence of the administrative state is not a conspiracy theory; it is undeniably true. One can argue about whether it's actually a problem or not, but it's clearly true. Project 2025 never uses the phrase deep state once that I see, but it does criticize the administrative state.

This issue aside, what's so very confusing about your question is why you think it's so absolutely critical for me to be talking about deep state or administrative state when that's largely irrelevant to the subject that was being discussed. Project 2025 could've been claiming that there's a deep state run by the Romulan Star Empire and that it would be critical we give all our power to the president so he can successfully negotiate with the United Federation of Planets to get rid of them, and it still wouldn't matter for our purposes here. The question is specifically regarding Trump's relation to Project 2025.

Project 2025 was a lengthy writing published in mid-2023 that was created by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, and it was comprised of various policy recommendations that a conservative president should be enacting should they take the presidency in 2025 and how to go about doing it. At some points it doesn't even offer a policy recommendation so much as have two people on opposing sides of a policy issue write their argument on it.

During the 2024 election, a talking point among various liberals was to try to scare people with Trump's alleged connection to Project 2025... and also considerably exaggerate what Project 2025 actually said, as was well explained in this article which I linked earlier which provided a number of examples of such exaggerations.

Anyway, after Trump took office, now people have been trying to pull a "ha! I told you so!" regarding it by trying to draw connections between Trump's policies and Project 2025. Some of this still involves exaggerations or lies about what Project 2025 said (I remember someone in these forums posting a meme image listing things from Project 2025 with a check mark next to ones Trump had implemented, and I noted at least some of the things it was attributing to Project 2025 are not in it at all), but at least some are more reasonable in representing it. Of course, it's easier to draw links between Trump's policies and Project 2025 if you're relying on the things that Project 2025 actually said, rather than exaggerated talking points. Saying "Trump is following Project 2025" is a rather different statement than "Trump is following what liberals claimed (often falsely) was Project 2025 back in 2024".

But anyway, the argument goes that Trump enacted policies that are found in it, which demonstrates he actually is following it, going against the statement of Trump that he didn't really know anything about it and wasn't specifically following it.

The problem with this argument that Trump is following it is, as is again well explained in the other article I linked earlier (part of a larger article, but the link should automatically take you to the relevant portion), that of course you were going to see some conservative policy suggestions enacted by a Republican president. As the linked article noted:

This gives us a fairly simple heuristic you can use to see whether it’s even plausible that Trump got one of his ideas from Project 2025:

1. Did he do it in his last term, before Project 2025 existed? If yes, then it obviously didn’t come from Project 2025.
2. Did he actively campaign on it in 2024, the same campaign where he repudiated Project 2025? If yes, then it obviously wasn’t a secret he foisted on an unsuspecting public, and he probably didn’t get the idea from Project 2025 at all!

But when people try to hold up examples of Trump's supposed connections with Project 2025, the examples constantly fall into these categories.

Interestingly, probably the action Trump took that most was something "foisted on an unsuspecting public" due to not campaigning on it were his suggestions after taking office of possibly annexing Canada and Greenland. Which is not in Project 2025 at all. In fact, this is the grand total of its suggestions on Greenland (from page 190):

Concerning Greenland, the opening of a U.S. consulate in Nuuk is welcome. A formal year-round diplomatic presence is an effective way for the U.S. to better understand local political and economic dynamics. Furthermore, given Greenland’s geographic proximity and its rising potential as a commercial and tourist location, the next Administration should pursue policies that enhance economic ties between the U.S. and Greenland.

I guess someone who is steadfastly dedicated to arguing that Trump is following Project 2025 could claim that making Greenland part of the US would "enhance economic ties between the U.S. and Greenland", but it also obviously isn't what it's actually calling for.

So whether Project 2025 said anything about any deep state--and as noted, it said nothing at all--is totally irrelevant to the point I was making. Hence my confusion as to why you kept bringing it up.

 

[perplexed]

nice try