Day 4 of reading and sharing my notes on Project 2025 (the long title is Mandate for Leadership 2024: The Conservative Promise, in case you're searching for it). Here’s my approach and biases, as well as why I’m doing this.

MY OPINION

Before we jump into the next section, I wanted to talk a little about Kevin Roberts. I'm not going to do a ton of fact-checking and outside research because other people have done it and I only have so much time I want to devote.

But I was curious about him after reading the first section. I find some of his arguments really compelling, and I have strong disagreements with others.

I was especially interested in his take on "elites," and a lot of what he says I agree with (including that people on the Left can be condescending and force their values on other people).

He doesn't define "elite." It's a slippery term, and you can come at it from different ways. Is it about income? Education? And then your level of education or where you went to school? Where you started out in life?

Roberts is president of a think tank, so that immediately makes me think "elite." But I looked up his bio on The Heritage Foundation's website. He has a doctorate in American History from the University of Texas. So highly educated, but not at an Ivy League school. He was a history professor and then founded a Catholic K-12 school, where he was president and headmaster. Then he became president of Wyoming Catholic College, and he refused to accept federal student loans and grants, "lest it be forced to violate Catholic tenets." So there's some consistency of thought there.

He was also CEO of the Texas Public Policy Foundation, described as "the largest state think tank in the nation."

Now he's president of The Heritage Foundation and president of Heritage Action for America. According to Charity Navigator, he makes $622,489 a year with The Heritage Foundation. Heritage Action for America doesn't have a profile with Charity Navigator, and it has limited information on Guidestar. Its income is significantly less than The Heritage Foundation.

So is he an elite? It depends on how you define it. He's no billionaire, but he makes more than anyone I know.

Anyway.

SUMMARy

We're now in the introduction to the first section: "Taking the Reins of Government." No author is listed.

This paragraph sums up the philosophy of the document so far really well:

"... As we approach our nation's 250th anniversary, which will take place during the next presidency, America is now divided between two opposing forces: woke revolutionaries and those who believe in the ideals of the American revolution. The former believe that America is--and always has been--'systemically racist' and that it is not worth celebrating and must be fundamentally transformed, largely through a centralized administrative state. The latter believe in America's history and heroes, its principles and promise, and in everyday Americans and the American way of life. They believe in the Constitution and the republican government. Conservatives--the Americanists in this battle--must fight for the soul of America, which is very much at stake."

MY OPINION

I think those two extremes exist. But there's also a lot of us who don't fit in either of these categories. I believe America is and always has been systemically racist. I also believe there are and have always been people who have worked for justice for all in this country. I think there is both much worth celebrating and much work to do. And I think fighting for the soul of America means owning our racist and classist past so that we can move forward in a better way. So that's my bias.

SUMMARY

The next bit quotes fairly extensively from the subsequent chapters of this section, so we'll cover it there.

Moving on to Chapter 1, "White House Office," written by Rick Dearborn, who according to his bio at the beginning of the document, "served as Deputy Chief of Staff for President Donald Trump and was responsible for the day-to-day operations of five separate departments of the Executive Office of the President. He also served as Executive Director of the 2016 President-elect Donald Trump transition team." He was also Chief of Staff to Jeff Sessions when he was senator. He was Assistant Secretary of Energy for Congressional Affairs for George W. Bush. And he worked for the National Republican Senatorial Committee, the Senate Republican Conference, and the Senate Steering Committee. He has a B.A. in Public Administration and a minor economics from the University of Oklahoma.

Dearborn outlines the role of the president as defined by the Constitution. He explains the different roles in the White House Office and the qualities needed for their leaders--Chief of Staff, Deputy Chiefs of Staff, Principal Deputy Chiefs of Staff, Senior Advisors, Office of White House Counsel, Staff Secretary, Office of Communications, Office of Legislative Affairs, Office of Presidential Personnel, Office of Political Affairs, Office of Cabinet Affairs, Office of Public Liaison, Office of Intergovernmental Affairs, White House Policy Councils, Office of the Vice President, Office of the First Lady/First Gentleman,

MY OPINION

If you want to know how the White House works, this is actually really interesting in a geeky way. I'm not going to get into it because it's very detailed and mostly isn't talking about policy. The bit on the role of the White House Counsel is partly about policy, but it reads to me more like it's about legal approach (and it does say the president needs to follow ethical guidelines). If you want to take a deep-dive, this section is especially interesting.

SUMMARY

In his section on the role of the White House Counsel, Dearborn suggests changing how communication between the White House and the Department of Justice has been conducted. Here's what he says: "The Office of White House Counsel also serves as the primary gateway for communication between the White House and the Department of Justice (DOJ). Traditionally, both the White House Counsel and the Attorney General have issued a memo requiring all contact between the two institutions to occur only between the office of White House Counsel and the Attorney General or Deputy Attorney General. The next Administration should reexamine this policy and determine whether it might be more efficient or more appropriate for communication to occur through additional channels."

His reasons are to seek opinions on policy and presidential power and privileges and judicial nominees, as well as to keep put to speed on "major ongoing litigation or other pending legal matters that might present a challenge to his agenda." He doesn't address why the barrier was put in place to begin with.

**-In the section on Office of Communications, Dearborn says, "No legal entitlement exists for the provision of permanent space for media on the White House campus, and the next Administration should reexamine the balance between media demands and space constraints on the White House premises."

And "The new Administration should examine the nature of the relationship between itself and the White House Correspondents Association and consider whether an alternative coordinating body might be more suitable."

MY OPINION

This isn't specific, but it raises some red flags for me as a former journalist. Limiting press access and finding "an alternative coordinating body" makes me wonder if they are looking for press who will only ask friendly questions. He doesn't say that, but he also doesn't say why he's suggesting it. This would concern me no matter who was president. Democratic presidents have a long way to go toward transparency, too. But I also have some criticism of the White House Correspondents Association. I think they're way too cozy with their sources and are far too comfortable using anonymous sources instead of making people go on the record.

STILL MY OPINION

If you want to really hate politics (on both sides, because while this is a conservative document, I'm pretty sure it works the same way with Democrats), read the section on the Office of Presidential Personnel. There's so much about making sure the appointments are good political appointments and little about whether they're good at their jobs.

STILL MY OPINION

The assumption that people will commit ethics violations is really frustrating (and I don't think relates to just one party, either). He says this in the section on the Office of Cabinet Affairs: "From time to time throughout an Administration, travel optics, ethics challenges, and Hatch Act issues involving Cabinet members, deputies, and senior staffers can arise."

I love how this is written without blame, just "from time to time," and "can arise." Here's how I'd write it: "Sometimes presidential staff commit ethics and Hatch Act violations, and it's the OCA's job to communicate with and support the people who have to clean up the mess."

SUMMARY (WITH A TINY OPINION)

The section on the Office of Public Liaison explains how the White House works with lobbyists, and it's really interesting.

MY OPINION

Interesting, but not terribly significant, line: "One advantage of the first spouse's taking on hot-button social issues is that any political backlash will be less severe than it would be for the president."

That chapter was really in the woods, but I learned a lot. Tomorrow is Chapter 2, "Executive Office of the President of the United States," written by Russ Vought.