A common belief shared by both critics and admirers of former President Donald Trump is that his decisions were often hindered by the people around him during his first term, and they are determined not to let that happen again.
Trump’s unexpected victory in 2016 left his campaign scrambling to find qualified staff to fill key roles in his administration. Lacking support from traditional institutions and with no concrete plans for a post-election transition, Trump had to rely on individuals from the “Beltway establishment” to staff his administration. This led to internal conflicts and challenges in implementing his populist agenda.
Despite Trump’s promises to shake up the traditional conservative approach, his administration faced resistance from career bureaucrats and unfavorable court rulings. His own advisers often worked against his agenda, leading to inefficiency and disloyalty within the White House.
After leaving office, conservative groups began preparing for Trump’s potential return to power. Organizations like the Heritage Foundation and the America First Policy Institute started initiatives to recruit and train personnel who align with Trump’s vision for America.
These efforts aim to ensure that if Trump is re-elected, his administration will be staffed with individuals who support his policies and can effectively implement his agenda. Recent developments, such as Trump’s selection of J.D. Vance as his running mate, reflect a focus on loyalty and alignment with Trump’s vision.
While these developments have raised concerns among Democrats and the media, there is a belief that the same obstacles that hindered Trump’s first term may continue to limit his actions in a potential second term.
Be Afraid
The Heritage Foundation, once known for promoting conservative policies, has shifted its focus towards supporting Trump and attacking his opponents. This change in direction has caused concern among former members of the organization, who believe it has strayed from its original mission.
The loyalty to Trump displayed by some conservative groups, including Heritage, has raised questions about their priorities and values. The organization’s alignment with Trump, even after controversial events like January 6, 2021, has led to internal conflicts and resignations among top officials.
Many more departures would ensue—some voluntary, others less so.
In contrast, Roberts, who took over from James in late 2021, has appeared unaffected by Trump’s persistent claims that the 2020 election was fraudulent. When asked in a January interview with The New York Times if he believes Biden won the election, Roberts promptly replied “no.” This response came after Trump stated that election fraud of such scale allows for the suspension of rules and even constitutional articles.
Under Roberts, Heritage has adopted a notably authoritarian tone. One staff member wrote in a blog post about Project 2025, stating, “The conservative movement understands the current state of affairs in America. More and more politicians are willing to wield government power to achieve our vision, as neutrality will always lose to the left’s influence.”
Roberts also expressed his views on companies like Google, Facebook, and Disney, demanding that they listen to the people rather than impose their agendas. He labeled the current era as a time to exert control and influence over these entities.
Furthermore, Roberts suggested on the War Room podcast that the country is undergoing a bloodless second American Revolution, which could turn violent if the left does not cooperate. This statement was criticized by a longtime conservative leader as “grotesque and dangerous.”
Despite criticism, Roberts maintained his stance, emphasizing the need for a peaceful revolution through the ballot box. He shifted the blame to the left, citing their history of violence and the importance of a peaceful transfer of power.
Roberts’ leadership at Heritage has also raised concerns about the organization’s alignment with extreme right-wing elements. The National Conservatism Conference featured sessions opposing the separation of church and state, advocating for mass deportations, and calling for the criminal prosecution of political opponents.
The latest Mandate for Leadership reflects a Trump-inspired approach to immigration and exhibits wavering on international trade policies. Heritage’s focus on advancing Trump’s agenda has led to associations with controversial figures like Steve Bannon and Viktor Orbán.
The Heritage Foundation’s involvement with groups like the Bull Moose Project, known for promoting national populism, has further raised eyebrows. The group’s aggressive tactics and alliances with unsavory individuals have drawn criticism.
Despite controversies, Heritage continues to support figures like Tucker Carlson, even after his controversial actions. The organization’s shift towards aligning with extreme elements on the right has sparked concerns about its commitment to conservative principles. However, in June, Roberts made an announcement that he would be appearing with Carlson and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R–Ga.) at an event scheduled for this fall. The stated goal of Project 2025 is to ensure that the right individuals with the right ethos are in place to serve in the next Republican administration. If this is the type of ethos that organizations like Heritage will be seeking as they provide staffing recommendations, it is a cause for concern.
Nevertheless, the prevailing narrative on the right suggests that the first Trump administration faced challenges due to a mix of establishment conservatives who were not fully committed to implementing the president’s vision and MAGA supporters who lacked the necessary expertise to make things happen. The focus for groups preparing to staff a potential second Trump administration seems to be on demanding unwavering loyalty to Trump and his agenda.
While aligning staff ideologically with Trump may address one issue, it may create another problem in terms of competency. Striking a balance between true believers and competent individuals may be challenging due to the limited pool of suitable candidates. Filling government positions with inexperienced individuals from outside the establishment may hinder the effective implementation of an agenda.
Despite concerns about Schedule F and the potential for a mass firing and replacement of federal employees, the practical implications may not be as extreme as feared. Presidents already have the authority to make political appointments, and the idea of filling additional positions with loyal and competent individuals may be unrealistic. The internal dynamics and financial interests surrounding these efforts raise doubts about their ability to succeed.
Overall, while various groups are positioning themselves to assist a possible second Trump administration, there are doubts about their capabilities. Internal conflicts, lack of experience, and financial motives within these organizations may hinder their effectiveness. A recent exposĂ© by The New York Times revealed that the Conservative Partnership Institute, a contributor to Project 2025, engaged in questionable financial practices by paying millions of dollars to corporations led by its own leaders or their relatives. This pattern of “insider transactions” raised concerns about self-dealing within the organization. Individuals motivated solely by financial gain may not possess the skills needed to address complex strategic and administrative challenges effectively.
Another issue arises with President Trump himself, who demands unwavering loyalty from his associates but is quick to distance himself from them when it benefits him. Despite initial support for groups like Heritage and the America First Policy Institute, Trump’s campaign managers have issued warnings against unauthorized personnel making official statements on presidential staffing or policies.
Following negative publicity surrounding the Heritage policy agenda and remarks by Roberts, the former president disavowed Project 2025, claiming ignorance of the project and criticizing its statements as “ridiculous and abysmal.” This move signaled a shift in Trump’s support and raised questions about the influence of established conservative organizations in a potential second administration.
Despite the uncertainty surrounding Project 2025’s future, the departure of its chief Dans and the campaign’s statement distancing themselves from misrepresentations of influence with President Trump suggest a turbulent relationship between the former president and certain conservative groups.
While Democrats portray Project 2025 as a potential tool for Trump’s authoritarian ambitions, the lack of cohesion and discord within MAGA circles undermines this narrative. Even individuals willing to sacrifice conservative principles for Trump’s favor may find themselves discarded in the chaotic aftermath of the former president’s decisions.
The article, originally titled “”Only the Best People,”” highlights the challenges and conflicts within conservative circles as they navigate the shifting dynamics of support and influence in the Trump era.
Source link
