Thursday, April 17, 2025. Annette’s Roundup for Democracy.
The Rule of Law and Donald J. Trump.
First came the plan.
A Dangerous Vision for the Presidency | Brennan Center for Justice
Project 2025 proposes a giant leap for authoritarianism.
Usually politicians pretend to read books they haven’t opened. Donald Trump made news last week when he claimed not to have read a book, one written by his friends and allies. The 887-page doorstopper is the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 book Trump claimed to “know nothing about Project 2025” and have “no idea who is behind it.”
Why that transparent fib? Perhaps Trump wanted some distance from Kevin Roberts, leader of the Heritage Foundation. “We are in the process of the second American revolution, which will remain bloodless,” Roberts declared, “if the left allows it to be.” Perhaps, too, Trump realized that if the public knew what was in the plan, it would send chills.
The Heritage Foundation is a long-standing Washington, DC, think tank. Brennan Center followers know it as an early purveyor of the Big Lie. The foundation continues to claim incessantly and shamelessly that there is widespread voter fraud, despite ample evidence to the contrary. With Project 2025, Heritage is once again thinking big.
Project 2025 is an aggressive and ambitious policy agenda, a blueprint for a vast expansion of presidential power. Trump’s close associates help lead the project. Johnny McEntee, former director of Oval Office operations, was a senior advisor. Another, Russ Vought, who claims we are living in a “post-constitutional time,” may be White House chief of staff. The Trump campaign’s press secretary starred in a recruitment video for Project 2025. The authors’ will to power leaps out from page after page.
For all of this, Project 2025 is a perverse testament to the power of ideas.
Liberals might learn something.
Above all else, it espouses a maximalist version of the “unitary executive theory,” the notion that the president personally controls the executive branch and can act free from checks and balances. It’s a fancy version of what Trump told civics students in 2019: “I have an Article II [of the Constitution], where I have the right to do whatever I want as president.”
This agenda, which would undermine the independence of executive branch agencies, would reverse decades of efforts to depoliticize law enforcement, fiscal policy, and science. Take the FBI. After abuses by J. Edgar Hoover, federal law gave the bureau’s director a 10-year term, thus extending the job across presidential terms and minimizing political involvement. Project 2025 would give the president the power to hire an FBI director loyal only to him. It would upend the Justice Department, the Food and Drug Administration, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and many other critical agencies. It would impose political and ideological control over questions like who should be prosecuted, what medicines are safe, and whether friends of the president should be given a pass on insider trading.
The Project 2025 book sets out in detail the plan to fire tens of thousands of civil servants and replace them with loyalists. Trump tried to implement a similar scheme, known as Schedule F, near the end of his term but ran out of time. Now, the Heritage Foundation writes, “Empowering political appointees across the Administration is crucial to a President’s success.” This may sound bland, but it is a truly radical proposal. No president has ever sought anything like this power. It is inherently corrupt.
The book is stuffed with stratagems to advance Christian nationalist social policies. The authors call the pharmaceutical abortion treatment mifepristone “the single greatest threat to unborn children in a post-Roe world.” They demand “a campaign to enforce the criminal prohibitions” that originated in the 19th-century Comstock Act, which banned the mailing of “abortion-related paraphernalia.” It aims to override most Americans’ preference for abortion rights, and it makes a mockery of right-wing promises to leave such decisions to the states.
In a particularly Orwellian turn, Project 2025 would bar from all federal regulations and contracts terms including “sexual orientation and gender identity (‘SOGI’), diversity, equity, and inclusion (‘DEI’), gender, gender equality, gender equity, gender awareness, gender-sensitive, abortion, reproductive health, [and] reproductive rights.”
This vision of an all-powerful president might read like right-wing fan fiction. But Trump would have more power to implement this than any president in years.
The Supreme Court in Trump v. United States blessed executive lawlessness, astonishingly declaring that presidents have a presumption of full immunity from criminal prosecution if their crimes were part of “official acts.” Other high court rulings would block regulatory agencies from acting below the eye level of the president, using a variety of pseudoconstitutional pretexts to give conservative judges the final say over much of social policy.
Then there’s Congress, which should check an overweening executive. But both parties have largely given up that role when it comes to presidents of their own party. New Republican leadership will be less inclined than before to buck Trump.
This time, Trump would not be surrounded by “adults in the room.” As a novice, he picked a cabinet for reassurance — or because, as with silver-haired Rex Tillerson, they looked the part. Now he is surrounded by skilled ideologues.
Many are awakening to the radicalism of Project 2025 and Trump’s second-term plans. Groups such as the Center for American Progress are releasing detailed critiques. Democratic politicians have begun to decry the plan. It remains to be seen whether a book can become a campaign villain.
In all of this, I do give the Heritage Foundation credit. There is value in setting out what you want to do.
In 1980, Ronald Reagan was seen as a lightweight, and Heritage was only a few years old. Back then, it compiled a detailed and conservative agenda for Reagan to use. Nobody had done that before. Firebrands such as the Environmental Protection Agency administrator Anne Gorsuch (yes, Neil’s mom) implemented its goals. They remade government. “Ideas have consequences” was the mantra of the Reagan Revolution.
Once again, Project 2025 projects a transgressive thrill in its radicalism. In 1986, the president of the Heritage Foundation quoted Vladimir Lenin: “Ideas are much more fatal things than guns.” Michael Waldman, July 10, 2024)
What we are facing.
A White House that doesn’t follow the law.
A man convicted of 34 felonies is in charge. What should we have expected? What should we expect?
Here are some current issues.
Those posts without documentation are sourced from The New York Times.👇
The Associated Press case.
The Associated Press said in a court filing that the Trump administration had defied a court order requiring that the news service’s access to the White House press pool and events involving President Trump be restored.
Lawyers for the The A.P., which had its access to Mr. Trump sharply reduced over its refusal to refer to the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America, wrote that a White House deputy press secretary told A.P. reporters on Monday that they would “continue to be excluded from press pool events because this case is ‘ongoing.’” Last week, a federal judge instructed the White House to restore access “immediately,” writing that the ban violated the First Amendment.
The Case over Deportation Flights.
A Judge finds probable cause to hold Trump officials in contempt over a group of deportation flights.
Judge Boasberg’s finding in the case of the deportation flights came despite the fact that the Supreme Court has vacated the order he claims was likely violated. It ruled that the deportation case he was considering should not have been filed in Washington but rather in Texas, where the Venezuelan men were being held at the time they were flown out of the country. Still, Judge Boasberg wrote that the Supreme Court’s decision “does not excuse the government’s violation,” adding, “It is a foundational legal precept that every judicial order ‘must be obeyed’ — no matter how ‘erroneous’ it ‘may be’ — until a court reverses it.”
A federal judge in Washington threatened to open a high-stakes contempt inquiry after finding that there is “probable cause” to hold that the Trump administration violated an order he issued last month directing officials to stop planes of Venezuelan migrants from being sent to El Salvador. The judge, James E. Boasberg, wrote in an 46-page opinion that the administration had shown a “willful disregard” for his instructions barring officials from sending the planes under the authority of a wartime law called the Alien Enemies Act.
“The court does not reach such conclusions lightly or hastily,” Judge Boasberg wrote. “Indeed, it has given defendants ample opportunity to explain their actions. None of their responses has been satisfactory.
Judge Boasberg’s opinion. 46 pages.
Trump weaponizing the IRS is illegal.
I.R.S. Is Said to Be Considering Whether to Revoke Harvard’s Tax-Exempt Status.
The move would be a major escalation of the Trump administration’s attempts to choke off federal money and support for the leading research university.
The Internal Revenue Service is weighing whether to revoke Harvard’s tax exemption, according to three people familiar with the matter, which would be a significant escalation of the Trump administration’s attempts to choke off federal money and support for the leading research university.
President Trump on Tuesday publicly called for Harvard to pay taxes, continuing a standoff in which the administration has demanded the university revamp its hiring and admissions practices and its curriculum.
Some I.R.S. officials have told colleagues that the Treasury Department on Wednesday asked the agency to consider revoking Harvard’s tax-exempt status, according to two of the people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe internal conversations.
An I.R.S. spokeswoman declined to comment. The Treasury Department did not respond to a request for comment. CNN first reported that the I.R.S. was looking at potentially rescinding Harvard’s tax-exempt status.
Federal law bars the president from either directly or indirectly requesting the I.R.S. to investigate or audit specific targets. The I.R.S. does at times revoke tax exemptions from organizations for conducting too many political or commercial activities, but those groups can appeal the agency’s decision in court.
Any attempt to take away Harvard’s tax exemption would be likely to face a legal challenge, which tax experts expect would be successful.
Harrison Fields, a White House spokesman, said the I.R.S.’s scrutiny of Harvard began before the president’s social media post.
“Any forthcoming actions by the I.R.S. are conducted independently of the President, and investigations into any institution’s violations of their tax status were initiated prior to the President’s TRUTH,” Mr. Fields said in a statement, referring to Mr. Trump’s website Truth Social.
In a statement, Harvard said there is no legal basis for rescinding its tax status.
“Such an unprecedented action would endanger our ability to carry out our educational mission,” the university said. “It would result in diminished financial aid for students, abandonment of critical medical research programs, and lost opportunities for innovation. The unlawful use of this instrument more broadly would have grave consequences for the future of higher education in America.”
Even an attempt at changing Harvard’s tax status would signify a drastic breach in the independence of the I.R.S. and its historical insulation from political pressure.
On Wednesday, the homeland security secretary, Kristi Noem, canceled nearly $3 million in agency grants to Harvard, according to a statement from the Department of Homeland Security.
Ms. Noem also wrote a letter to university officials requesting “detailed records on Harvard’s foreign student visa holders’ illegal and violent activities” by the end of the month, according to the agency statement. Without a response, the university could lose the “privilege of enrolling foreign students,” the statement said.
Trump’s attacks on law firms are unlawful.
From Joyce Vance, Civil Discourse, April 16.
Trump’s gamesmanship [against law firms] threatens the historic independence of the legal profession and the rule of law. The judicial branch can’t do its job of checking the other two branches of government without lawyers to bring cases before it. “To accomplish this, the judiciary needs an independent bar comprising lawyers willing and able to freely and fiercely advocate for every party to a dispute.”
At bottom, if lawyers are afraid to represent certain clients, then the rule of law is undercut. The brief points out that “In recent years, autocratic leaders in Belarus, Turkey, and Iran have attacked lawyers to cement and maintain authoritarian regimes.” The independence of the judiciary depends upon the independence of the lawyers who appear in front of it. Trump’s executive orders are an effort to damage, if not destroy, it.
Trump’s efforts to take away independence from lawyers are, in truth, an effort to undercut the effectiveness of the judiciary as a check on the executive branch.
This is just the beginning. As we discussed Sunday night, where it starts is not where it ends. A law firm may agree to certain conditions today, but that doesn’t mean Trump can’t come in with more demands down the road—demands that if unmet will result in imposing the sanctions he threatened them with in the first place. The amici write, “A firm that can survive only by staying in the President’s good graces has incentives that conflict with its lawyers’ stringent fiduciary duties to remain loyal to the interests of their clients, exercise independent judgment, and be truthful and candid in all dealings with the courts.
These ethical issues will persist as long as the executive orders are enforceable: however a firm responds to the administration’s demands, the President can always declare a firm noncompliant and impose further sanctions.”
Trump is unlawfully freezing funds allocated by Congress.
This is just a Sample.
Climate Nonprofit Sues E.P.A. Over Billions in Frozen Funds.
In a lawsuit, Climate United claims the E.P.A. is illegally withholding funds that have become a target of the Trump administration.
A multibillion dollar dispute between the Environmental Protection Agency and several nonprofit organizations escalated on Saturday when one group sued the E.P.A. and Citibank, seeking access to grant money that has been frozen under President Trump.
Climate United, a nonprofit organization, claimed that the E.P.A. and Citibank have illegally withheld a nearly $7 billion award announced last April.
Citibank has housed the funds as part of a green financing program to finance projects that address climate change.
The funds are part of a larger pot of money, $20 billion, that have been swept up in controversy after Lee Zeldin, the E.P.A. administrator, called the green financing program a “scheme” that was “purposely designed to obligate all of the money in a rush job with reduced oversight.”
Now, some of the nonprofits say, their bank accounts are frozen and that they are struggling to pay staff.
Climate United had planned to loan the money to developers across the country in support of solar power, electric trucks, and energy-efficient affordable housing projects, and said the freeze has meant small businesses and developers are unable to draw down funds they were promised.
“We’re not trying to make a political statement here,” said Beth Bafford, chief executive of Climate United. “This is about math for homeowners, for truck drivers, for public schools — we know that accessing clean energy saves them money that they can use on far more important things.”
An E.P.A. spokesperson said the agency “does not comment on any pending litigation.”
“We have received and are currently reviewing the suit,” Citibank said in a statement. “As we’ve said previously, Citi has been working with the federal government in its efforts to address government officials’ concerns regarding this federal grant program. Our role as financial agent does not involve any discretion over which organizations receive grant funds. Citi will of course comply with any judicial decision.”
Climate United is one of eight nonprofits that collectively received $20 billion from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, also known as “green bank” funding, during the Biden administration.
The money was appropriated through the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act and had been held in recipients’ accounts at Citibank since late last year. The nonprofits have been unable to make withdrawals for more than two weeks.
The funds were frozen after Mr. Zeldin issued a statement linking the grants to a hidden-camera video released in the final weeks of the Biden administration by Project Veritas, a conservative group known for using covert recordings to embarrass its political opponents.
In the video, Brent Efron, then an E.P.A. employee, likens the agency’s efforts to spend federal money on climate change programs before leaving office to throwing “gold bars” off the Titanic.
A lawyer for Mr. Efron said his client was not referring to the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund.
Mr. Zeldin has called for Citibank to return the funds to the E.P.A. and suggested potential fraud. The Department of Justice and the F.B.I. subsequently launched investigations. Denise Cheung, a top federal prosecutor in Washington, D.C. resigned after determining there was not enough evidence to order the funds frozen.
Earlier this week, Mr. Zeldin referred the program to his agency’s acting inspector general for investigation, suggesting a link between fund recipients and Biden administration allies. Some of the nonprofit organizations have received letters from the Justice Department and the acting inspector general seeking more information.
On Monday, the Coalition for Green Capital, which received $5 billion from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, also sued Citibank, becoming the second nonprofit group to file a lawsuit in hopes of unfreezing the bank accounts. The new lawsuit did not name the E.P.A. as a defendant.
In a letter to the E.P.A. sent Tuesday, lawyers for Climate United detailed the organization’s efforts to meet with the agency to discuss the program. They wrote that an agency employee canceled a Feb. 25 meeting after learning Climate United’s lawyers would be present, and the agency never rescheduled.
The $20 billion clawback attempt is part of a sweeping effort by the Trump administration to reduce federal spending through contract cancellations and mass firings. The president’s team has also launched a rapid-fire rollback of climate policies.
Because the grants were legally obligated in September and the funds have already left the government’s coffers, the E.P.A.’s effort to recoup the money is “beyond the scope of what a lot of people thought they would even try and do,” said Jillian Blanchard, vice president of Lawyers for Good Government, a legal advocacy organization that has worked with some of the nonprofits involved in the green financing program.
Reminder. You should demonstrate on Saturday against Trump and for the rule of law.
