Former director of the OMB for Trump and author of this year's RNC platform, Russell Vought is the insider's insider on Project 2025's second phase: the crushing of federal institutions and the ascendancy of dictatorial powers by the President.
Have a jacket handy when you're watching this 13 minutes--it's chilling to the bone.
The former president of the University of Florida, retired Republican Sen. Ben Sasse, directed millions in university dollars to Republican allies, the Independent Florida Alligator reported.
Sasse, who was university president for 17 months, tripled his office’s spending from $5.6 million to $17.3 million, The Alligator reported. Sasse represented Nebraska in the U.S. Senate before he took the position, which was offered to him by Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis.
The majority of Sasse’s spending was used for contracts with consulting firms and for hiring six of his former Senate staffers and two former Republican officials to remote jobs at the university.
When Sasse took the position in the fall of 2022, he promised a non-partisan presidency amid protests over his GOP past, claiming he would engage in “political celibacy,” reported WUSF Public Media.
Sasse hired Raymond Sass, his former Senate chief of staff, as the vice president for innovation and partnerships at a starting salary of $396,000. The position did not exist before Sasse became UF president.
James Wegmann, Sasse’s former Senate communications director, was hired as UF’s vice president of communications and makes $432,000 a year, The Alligator reported. Both men work remotely from their homes in Washington, D.C.
These hires contributed to a $4.3 million increase in salary expenses compared to UF’s former president Kent Fuchs’ spending.
Sasse also spent nearly $7.2 million in university funds on contracts with consulting firms for advice on how to run a university. The majority of that money was paid to McKinsey & Company, though it’s unclear what specific services the firm provided.
The former senator resigned from his post at UF in July after his wife was diagnosed with epilepsy.
by Andy Kroll, ProPublica, and Nick Surgey, Documented
ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom. Sign up for The Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox.
ProPublica and Documented obtained more than 14 hours of never-before-published videos from Project 2025’s Presidential Administration Academy, which are intended to train the next conservative administration’s political appointees “to be ready on day one.”
Project 2025, the controversial playbook and policy agenda created by the Heritage Foundation and its allies for a future conservative presidential administration, has lost its director. In recent weeks, it faced scathing criticism from both Democratic groups and former President Donald Trump, whose campaign has tried to distance itself from the effort.
But Project 2025’s plan to train an army of political appointees who could battle against the so-called deep state government bureaucracy remains on track. Video trainings like these are one of the “four pillars” of that plan, says Spencer Chretien, the associate director of Project 2025, in “Political Appointees & The Federal Workforce.”
For transparency, we are publishing the videos as we obtained them.
The Heritage Foundation and most of the people who appear in the videos cited in this story did not respond to ProPublica’s repeated requests for comment. Karoline Leavitt, a spokesperson for the Trump campaign, said, “As our campaign leadership and President Trump have repeatedly stated, Agenda 47 is the only official policy agenda from our campaign.”
In “Conserving America,” Matthew Spalding, a vice president at Hillsdale College, sets out the landscape for the Presidential Administration Academy by talking about common conservative principles.
Hillsdale College is a small, Christian liberal arts school in Michigan known both for its great books curriculum, which is centered on reading the classics of the Western canon, and for having been a feeder of staffers for the Trump administration.
In “The History of the Conservative Movement,” Christopher Malagisi, the executive director of outreach for Hillsdale College’s Washington, D.C., campus, gives a history that spans from the early-20th century Progressive Era to the 1964 defeat of Barry Goldwater and the “Reagan revolution.”
In “Why Your Service Matters: How Presidential Appointees at All Levels Impact Policy,” three Heritage Foundation experts discuss the role that political appointees play in making policy.
They talk about the importance of planning ahead to “hit the ground running” and call the first 100 days of an administration a “honeymoon period” for policy implementation.
In “Political Appointees & The Federal Workforce,” Chretien discusses the critical role that he says political appointees play in carrying out the vision of a conservative administration.
Chretien served in the Trump administration as special assistant to the president and associate director of presidential personnel.
In “Presidential Transitions & Appointee Hiring: What You Need To Know,” Ed Corrigan and Rick Dearborn outline how an aspiring political appointee can get a foot in the door during a presidential transition.
Dearborn is a former White House deputy chief of staff in the Trump administration, as well as executive director of Trump’s presidential transition team in 2016.
Corrigan has had a long career as a Senate staffer. He was part of Trump’s transition team and is now the president and CEO of the Conservative Partnership Institute, a prominent think tank based in Washington.
In “Deep Dive on The Federal Background Investigation & Security Clearance Process,” Kirk gives an overview of the federal government’s background check process, including what disqualifies an individual, like substance abuse issues, and what does not.
Kirk, an associate director of Project 2025, served in the Office of Personnel Management during the Trump administration.
In “The Political Appointee’s Survival Guide,” Bethany Kozma, who was the deputy chief of staff at the U.S. Agency for International Development during the Trump administration, talks with six other former Trump administration staffers about what it’s like to serve as a political appointee in the federal government.
In “Time Management for Political Appointees,” Katie Sullivan explains how political appointees can maximize their time in government by vetting whom they meet with and not allowing career civil servants to fill their calendar with meetings.
Sullivan is the former acting assistant attorney general in charge of the Office of Justice Programs, a grant-making agency inside the Justice Department.
In “The Art of Professionalism,” Chris Hayes and Leavitt discuss tenets of how to act with professionalism while serving in government.
Hayes worked for the Leadership Institute, a think tank that offers leadership and management resources for the conservative movement.
Leavitt worked in the Trump White House press office and is now a spokesperson for Trump’s 2024 reelection campaign.
In “How to Staff Your Principal,” Jeff Small discusses the day-to-day work of serving closely with a senior government official like a cabinet secretary.
Small is a former senior adviser to the interior secretary and a chief of staff to Rep. Lauren Boebert, R-Colo.
In “Hidden Meanings: The Monsters in the Attic,” Sullivan and Kozma discuss supposed left-wing code words and biased language that future appointees should be aware of and root out.
In “How to Work With the Media,” Alexei Woltornist talks about how political appointees should navigate the modern media environment, including bypassing mainstream news sources and focusing on conservative outlets because those are the only ones conservative voters trust.
Woltornist is a former assistant secretary for public affairs at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
In “Oversight & Investigations,” Mike Howell, Tom Jones and Michael Ding explain what government oversight entails, the ins and outs of public-records laws and how political appointees should think about when and when not to put sensitive communications in writing.
Howell is the executive director of the Heritage Foundation’s Oversight Project.
Jones runs the American Accountability Foundation, a conservative investigations group.
Ding is a lawyer for America First Legal, which is aligned with Trump.
In “The Federal Budget Process,” Michael Duffey explains key budgetary policies, such as the difference between appropriations and authorization bills and discretionary versus mandatory spending.
Duffey served in the Office of Management and Budget during the Trump administration.
In “The Administrative State: What it is & How to Address the Problem,” Paul Ray explains what the so-called administrative state does and how a conservative administration could use its authority to rein in government regulation.
Ray is a former Trump administration lawyer who served as the administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs during the Trump administration.
In “How to Promulgate a Rule,” David Burton discusses how the federal government’s regulatory process works and the role of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.
Burton is a senior fellow in economic policy at the Heritage Foundation.
In “Taking the Reins: How Conservatives Can Win the Regulations Game,” Roger Severino talks about what lessons conservatives learned about passing new rules during the Trump presidency and how to be more effective in a future conservative administration.
Severino is a vice president for domestic policy at the Heritage Foundation and the former director of the Office of Civil Rights in the Department of Health and Human Services during the Trump administration.
In “Executive Order Drafting & Implementation,” Steven G. Bradbury explains the process of writing and carrying out executive orders, drawing on experience from the Trump presidency.
Bradbury is a distinguished fellow at the Heritage Foundation and a former counsel in the Department of Transportation during the Trump administration.
In “Advancing the President’s Agenda as a Political Executive,” Donald J. Devine and James Bacon discuss different strategies for promoting the president’s policies as a high-ranking political appointee.
Devine is the former director of the Office of Personnel Management under President Ronald Reagan.
Bacon is a former special assistant to the Presidential Personnel Office, serving during the Trump administration.
In “How to Get Your Policy Through the Agency,” Dan Huff talks about how to navigate the policymaking process in the executive branch.
Huff is a former legal adviser in the White House Office of Presidential Personnel, serving during the Trump administration.
In “Congressional Relations: How to work with Members,” Hugh Fike and James Braid talk about what executive branch political appointees should know and expect about working with congressional offices and elected officials.
Fike and Braid both formerly worked on legislative affairs in the Office of Management and Budget during the Trump administration.
In “Building Winning Coalitions to Advance Policy,” Paul Teller and Sarah Makin discuss what strategies political appointees can use to work with pro-life, gun-rights and other outside advocacy groups to pass policies.
Teller is a former special assistant to the president and a senior aide in the Office of the Vice President, serving during the Trump administration.
Makin is a former deputy assistant to the president and former director of outreach in the Office of the Vice President, serving during the Trump administration.
In “Best Practices in Social Media to Advance Policy,” Ben Friedmann explains how political appointees can most effectively use social media to promote conservative policies and messages.
Friedmann is a former deputy assistant secretary for digital strategy in the U.S. State Department.
Videos prepared by Lisa Riordan Seville and Chris Morran.
From MSNBC via Youtube:
Donald Trump rambled and lied for over an hour without any follow up questions or fact-checking. MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell says that while he hopes Vice President Harris answers questions from reporters, after the press conference that Donald Trump turned into a “charade,” Vice President Harris has “absolutely no greater obligation to do so because of what Donald Trump pretended to do today.”
"Never before has a figure with Roberts’s depth and stature within the American Right tried to articulate a genuinely new future for conservatism... We are now all realizing that it’s time to circle the wagons and load the muskets. In the fights that lie ahead, these ideas are an essential weapon."
The Washington Post published an opinion piece the other day by Michelle Adams, who has published a new book on the segregation-friendly role played by the 5-4 decision of the Supreme Court 50 years ago in Milliken v. Bradley.
Even as we consider today the role that presidents play in shaping American social policy (see Trump's role in killing Roe v. Wade), I am eager to read the Adams book and find out how Professor Adams portrayed the role of another racist president, Richard Nixon, in crushing school desegregation.
Nixon's role was crucial, as demonstrated by Gerald Grant's research from the early 2000s. In 2010, I reviewed Grant's book, Hope and Despair in the American City: Why There Are No Bad Schools in Raleigh.
Below is the relevant section of that essay review that reminds us again of the power of the American Presidency to shape American life:
We should never underestimate the power of the presidents. Grant’s book should be required reading for present and potential school board members, as well as for any history or policy course on American education, if for no other reason than the recounting of how Nixon and his White House cabal of Haldeman, Ehrlichman, and Mitchell instituted a segregationist and anti-busing litmus test for any judge to be considered for appointment to the Federal bench, including the U. S. Supreme Court.
For Nixon and his aides, their litmus test would be applied, of course, before any potential judge ever faced the lights of a Senate confirmation hearing. To get to the hearing, in fact, potential judges had to be on the side of segregated schools and segregated public housing. Grant shares transcripts from the Nixon’s White House taping system to show Nixon's active complicity in killing busing within or across districts for the purpose of school integration:
Nixon was making sure the he would not have to ask any nominee about his stand on busing, while directing Mitchell and key aides to apply that test to any potential appointment they brought to the president's desk. Because of the possible retirement of a second justice, Mitchell suggested to Nixon that he might make a "double play."Nixon: Well, even then I don'twant a liberal.
Mitchell: Oh no, no.Nixon: I don't want a liberal.
Mitchell: Absolutely not.
Nixon: I just feel so strongly about that, I mean, when I think what the busing decisions have done to the South, and what it could do with de facto busing [in the North].
Mitchell: I agree.
Before Mitchell left the White House that day, Nixon underlined his instructions once again:
I want you to have a specific talk with whatever man you consider. And I have to have an absolute commitment from him on busing and integration. I really have to. Go out and tell 'em that we totally respect his right to do otherwise, but if he believes otherwise, I don't want to appoint him to the Court.Nixon got the Court he wanted. The four justices he appointed—replacing liberal judges of the Warren Court, including Chief Justice Earl Warren himself, along with Abe Fortas, Hugo Black, and John Marshall Harlan—radically changed the direction of the U. S. Supreme Court and provided the majority to stop desegregation at the city line in the North. The Warren Court had ordered desegregation of city and suburbs in Charlotte in 1968, but Nixon's Court refused to do so in 1974 in Detroit with its majority decision [in Milliken v. Bradley] (pp. 151-152).
The 5-4 decision to strike down Detroit's inter-district desegregation plan helped to seal the fate of urban desegregation efforts nationwide, while demonstrating a willingness by the new Nixon Court majority to flex its judicial muscle for the cause of segregation. By the middle of the next decade, the traceable resegregation of American schools had begun in earnest, and for the past twenty years [now fifty], that pace has only quickened.
