Subscribe to the Slatest for daily updates filled with sharp insights, critiques, and guidance delivered straight to your inbox.
While Donald Trump is widely recognized for his dishonesty, one of his catchphrases holds a surprising truth: Promises Made, Promises Kept. Regrettably, the promises being fulfilled aren’t solely his; they are the work of the extremists behind Project 2025.
Indeed, Elon Musk stands beside Trump (who’s J.D.?), fervently collaborating with the Department of Government Efficiency and deploying teams of young recruits to determine which aspects of the federal government, including personnel, should remain or be eliminated. However, Musk’s actions, such as mass dismissals and aggressive takeovers, were schemed out long before Trump was elected, articulated clearly in Project 2025.
Though Trump claims to have had “nothing to do with” the far-right agenda shaping his presidency—an assertion undermined by Project 2025’s architects, who are closely aligned with his administration—he is now executing their vision closely.
A month into his presidency, I revisited the Project 2025 “Mandate for Leadership.” The extent to which its strategies aligned with his administration was remarkable—not just in terms of content but also methodology. It emphasizes that newly elected presidents have a brief period to enact their agenda, as indecisiveness can squander valuable time. Trump has certainly acted swiftly, leveraging Project 2025’s detailed plans to maintain momentum.
As Democrats and the general public struggle to keep pace with the Trump administration’s upheavals, it’s easy to get lost in the details. Yet the central message remains critical: Trump is aspiring to rule as a king or dictator, with Project 2025 serving as his royal roadmap.
This is not a challenging position to assert, particularly as Trump now shares images of himself crowned and proclaims, “LONG LIVE THE KING!” This will not stand. Trump is not a monarch, and we should not collectively pretend otherwise, nor should we tolerate unaccountable extremists from the Heritage Foundation or self-important billionaires dictating terms for a diverse America.
The initial section of the “Mandate for Leadership” outlines Project 2025’s fundamental philosophy: envisioning a president with authority resembling that of an autocrat rather than a democratically elected leader. Russell Vought, appointed by Trump as the head of the Office of Management and Budget, provides the main argument that agency or expert “independence”—with independence deliberately quoted—is to be rejected. Vought asserts that the “greatest challenge” involves the “aggressive utilization of the vast powers of the executive branch,” demanding the “boldness to reshape or dismantle the bureaucracy according to presidential directives.”
If Trump has achieved anything thus far, it is dismantling the federal bureaucracy.
The authors of Project 2025 assert that to realize their vision effectively, it is essential to undermine the federal bureaucracy, dismissing career civil servants and anyone lacking loyal allegiance to MAGA. “The new Administration must populate its ranks with political appointees,” the document states plainly. The Office of the White House Counsel, for instance, shouldn’t be a neutral setting for discerning legal assessments; it should operate as an “activist” body, with team members tasked with facilitating the agenda through advocacy and problem-solving. Expertise or qualifications can be disregarded: “While a candidate with prestigious credentials may appear ideal, the best choice will ultimately offer unwavering loyalty to the President and the Constitution.”
A month into Trump’s administration, thousands of federal workers have already been terminated, some supposedly on performance grounds, yet without any evidence provided. Parts of this termination wave may even be unlawful—such as Trump’s firings at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which a judge suspended.
Numerous dismissed employees include veterans or members of military families. Their roles encompass vital tasks such as cancer research, national park management, natural disaster response, aviation safety assurance, and providing healthcare for combat veterans. This rapid and carelessly executed wave of dismissals has led to significant errors, with some individuals being laid off only to later be informed, Whoops, you’re actually still employed! (Some were subsequently terminated again.) The administration wrongly dismissed several Department of Agriculture personnel, only to realize they were integral to bird flu prevention, leading to a hasty reversal of those terminations.
Recruitment has also become more difficult, especially for staffing the administration. It’s challenging to find candidates demonstrating complete devotion to Trump, who aren’t suspected of being ideologically compromised by past roles in the Republican party, or even under previous Trump officials who have lost favor. Purges and loyalty assessments are commonplace; the prerequisite for MAGA allegiance is stringent. In systems like this, competency and qualifications often take a backseat, giving way to mere loyalty over ability.
There must be a term in German that captures the blend of irony and hypocrisy: Conservatives fixate on “DEI” as necessitating the hiring of unqualified individuals, attributing disastrous outcomes to diversity policies while simultaneously neglecting qualifications for evident loyalty. (I’m quite confident in stating that America is not sending forth her best to serve in the Trump White House.)
This method is also a familiar tactic among historical autocrats: render processes absurd. Employ complete incompetents. Value absolute loyalty over true qualifications. Those lacking expertise are aware that their roles and influence depend solely on the autocrat. Without a legacy or prospects to safeguard, they are incentivized to remain loyal.
During his campaign, Trump insisted he had never engaged with Project 2025. I would wager he still hasn’t, given his apparent aversion to reading. Nevertheless, he has surrounded himself with its originators. According to a recent UJ assessment, more than two-thirds of his executive orders appear derived from Project 2025 directives. The mere existence of this guide has enabled this administration to act swiftly and forcefully: the plans were ready to be set in motion.
Though the creators of Project 2025 haven’t obtained their every objective, they hold a disdain for Big Tech that contrasts with the administration, now partly overseen by a tech mogul. Their vision for the U.S. Agency for International Development involves significantly altering it in line with Christian nationalist principles, rather than pursuing its total dismantlement. Generally, however, their strategy is unfolding as intended.
Counteracting this threat poses considerable challenges. Opponents must respond to these incursions wherever and however they arise—the strategy of flooding the zone necessitates that we don’t cede that ground. Democratic party leaders face a distinct responsibility: to make these assaults comprehensible to a weary, worn-down, and largely disengaged American public. The extremists from the Heritage Foundation, MAGA, and DOGE have established their narrative of restoring almost unbridled presidential power, one that implies the president has a mandate to govern, portrays his opponents as foes of not just Trump but of America, and asserts a willingness to disregard any obstacle (even the scant protections of the Constitution) for the sake of action.
Democrats must broaden their perspective and counter with their narrative: this is fundamentally about safeguarding American democracy against a power-hungry mad king and his billionaire boys’ club.
Subscribe to Slate’s evening newsletter.
