One major part of Project 2025 is falling apart
It's estimated that 50,000 people will be subject to the law once they are re-classified from civil service protections to "at will" policy employees. It's pretty obvious that a witch hunt for personnel that any rando MAGA appointee suspects of being a turncoat (or just a Democrat) will soon be fired. The whole idea was to fill the jobs with the kind of people Russell Vought thinks have America's best interests at heart. That means white, Christian nationalists.
The Washington Post reported on this back in 2024, in anticipation of his expected influence in a Donald Trump second term:
Vought also embraces Christian nationalism, a hard-right movement that seeks to infuse Christianity into all aspects of society, including government. He penned a 2021 Newsweek essay that disputed allegations of bias and asked, 'Is There Anything Actually Wrong With 'Christian Nationalism?''
...
Looking at immigration through that lens, Vought has called for'mass deportation' of illegal immigrants and a 'Christian immigration ethic' that would strictly limit the types of people allowed entry into the United States.
Essentially Vought takes the same position as Trump adviser Stephen Miller but he comes at it from a Christian nationalist perspective. All roads lead to persecution of immigrants in the Trump administration.
Vought believes that we are in a "post-constitutional" time which explains a lot about how the administration is going about its work through the courts. In a piece he wrote back in 2023, Vought laid out his critique of what the MAGA types refer to as the "deep state" insisting that a federal government staffed with experts and bureaucrats had taken over the government and usurped the will of the people. It's a bit confusing since he seems to also think that "the Left" has been degrading the Constitution for over a hundred years and that the Congress needs to have more power — but maybe not so much. In any case he concludes with this rousing cri de guerre:
But the long, difficult road ahead of returning to our beloved Constitution starts with being honest with ourselves. It starts by recognizing that we are living in a post-Constitutional time. Our need is not just to win congressional majorities that blame the other side or fill seats on court benches to meddle at the margins. It is to cast ourselves as dissidents of the current regime and to put on our shoulders the full weight of envisioning, articulating, and defending what a Radical Constitutionalism requires in the late hour that our country finds itself in, and then to do it. That and only that will be how American statesmanship can be defined in the years ahead.
A big part of Vought's strategy, as with Miller's, was to legally challenge the prevailing meaning of precedents, rulings and words themselves.
I was reminded of all this when I read this piece by Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo about the coming implementation of Schedule F. As he rightly points out, "it's absurd to think that Congress would create the Civil Service system in such a way that a President could simply reclassify people and suddenly the whole system of protections would disappear." Why would they even have bothered to do it at all?
Marshall observes that such actions as Schedule F (or DOGE or the use of the Alien Enemies Act) rests on "the assumption (quite possibly right) that the federal judiciary would dispense with the plain meaning of the relevant federal workforce laws and substitute novel definitions of key phrases put forward by Trump administration lawyers." I don't think there's any doubt that this is their intention. But Vought, at least two years ago, understood that it might not be that easy.
In that essay about radical constitutionalism, Vought wrote at length about immigration and how it should be understood as an "invasion," which he believed should empower border governors to apprehend migrants and deport them according to Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3 of the Constitution. (It does no such thing.) Vought complained:
My point in bringing this up is that you would be surprised at how hard it has been to get conservative lawyers to see this for no other reason than its novelty. That is what has to change. This is where we need to be radical in discarding or rethinking the legal paradigms that have confined our ability to return to the original Constitution.
It doesn't seem to be taking, at least not in the way Vought hoped. Ian Millhiser of Vox attended a Federalist Society gathering and found the conservative legal community "far more ambivalent about their president's second term than one might expect after such a fruitful partnership."
'They are going to have the same level of success they had in the last administration' with getting rid of long-standing rules and regulations, George Washington University law professor Richard Pierce told the conference, 'which is virtually none.'
Implicit in this critique is a belief that the web of procedural barriers, bureaucratic trap doors, and paperwork burdens that prevent any presidential administration from changing too much, too fast will survive the second Trump administration more or less unscathed. Pierce predicted that many of Trump's deregulatory efforts would simply be struck down in court.
Millhiser says that some of this can be attributed to a turf war — the conservative legal community is not happy with the cavalier treatment of the judiciary by the Trump people. Evidently, they are feeling a bit stroppy about all this unitary executive business now that it's being wielded by an elderly con man and a car manufacturer with a chainsaw.
So far, most judges have been similarly unwilling to go along with Russ Vought and Stephen Miller's mad schemes. But late Tuesday night a district judge in Western Pennsylvania did give them some succor. She held that the Alien Enemies Act had originally applied to pirates and robbers so it does apply to foreign gang members. (She did say they have to be given a hearing within 21 days so at least there's no grant to just shoot them as one imagines would have been allowed in one of those 18th century pirate invasions.)
The case is headed to the Supreme Court where we will almost assuredly see at least two, probably three, of the justices uphold this cockamamie definition. And there are many more cases coming based upon Vought's "radical constitutionalism" which rely on the Supreme Court throwing out the plain meaning of the English language and adopting MAGA extremists' definition of the constitution. I wish I could say with confidence that they won't. Perhaps we just have to hope that Millhiser's observation that the conservative legal fraternity isn't happy about Trump and company treading on their turf will get us out of this mess. For now anyway.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
31 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Your kid is getting a ‘Trump account.' Should you put your money in it?
Republicans' 'big, beautiful bill' includes a gift to millions of families: $1,000 in an investment account for every eligible newborn. The new savings vehicles, akin to Individual Retirement Accounts, are designated for children who are U.S. citizens born from 2025 through 2028. In addition to the one-time government contribution, parents and others can chip in as much as $5,000 a year to the accounts, which beneficiaries can access at 18, with some constraints. Subscribe to The Post Most newsletter for the most important and interesting stories from The Washington Post. The seed money is a boon for recipients and will grow tax-deferred. Financial planners say parents and guardians might do better putting their money into existing investment vehicles such as a 529 plan, a savings plan designed to cover college expenses. But 529s are limited to education, while backers say the new accounts can help their recipients beyond college. Republican lawmakers call the accounts 'Trump accounts,' though the Senate's plan to officially name them after the president did not make it to the final version of the legislation, which was signed Friday. They deliver on an idea that both Democrats and Republicans have floated for years: to invest money for all children at birth. Withdrawals from a 529 are not subject to state or federal taxes as long as the funds go toward qualified education expenses - a feature the new investment accounts don't share. And in the new accounts, parents' deposits don't qualify for a tax deduction, notes Greg Leiserson, a senior fellow at the Tax Law Center at New York University. 'You have this very slight or minimal-to-nonexistent tax benefit,' he said. 'What is the point here?' Financial adviser Amy Spalding of Chapel Hill, North Carolina, said she will continue to steer her clients to 529s. 'It's better from a tax standpoint,' Spalding said. 'And there are more investment options. And then there's a higher contribution limit.' (For 2025, a single person can deposit as much as $19,000 a year into a beneficiary's 529, while married couples can contribute as much $38,000.) Jeremiah Barlow, a financial planner in Santa Barbara, California, said the new accounts could benefit a family that has hit the maximum on their child's 529 and wants to save more, or who like the idea of setting up a fund for their child's first home or as an economic safety net. 'It would likely appeal to our families who want more flexibility for more general-purpose savings for their child's future,' Barlow said. 'You shouldn't rush to just use it because it's out there.' Leiserson cautioned that account holders should understand the tax implications, noting that withdrawals will be taxed at typical income rates, not at the capital gains rate of a taxable brokerage account. 'For most people, this is going to be worse than what they could do in a taxable account,' he said. Though parents don't get a tax deduction when they contribute to a new account, employers can claim a tax break for contributions on behalf of their workers' children or their teenage employees. Nonprofits also can contribute to they accounts. The law requires the new investment accounts to track a U.S. stock index, which means account holders have fewer options than they would in a brokerage account or a 529 plan, which generally offer a range of investment options with varying levels of risk, including stocks, bonds and mutual funds. Leiserson noted that all-stock portfolios come with their own risks, because they're tethered to market conditions. 'If you're saying, 'Okay, I'm going to start school in the fall' - if the market falls over the summer, the planning you were doing about how you were going to pay for college is totally messed up, because the money you thought would be there, isn't." The White House said the accounts 'will afford a generation of children the chance to experience the miracle of compounded growth and set them on a course for prosperity from the very beginning.' While some experts appreciate the premise of the accounts, they also see flaws in the design, such as the requirement that parents opt-in to the account on their tax return, which means people who don't know this might miss out. In addition, the law includes a penalty of at least $500 if a parent mistakenly claims an account, which could scare off some parents. During the grinding process of crafting the massive tax and spending legislation, the accounts changed both superficially - they were renamed from MAGA accounts to Trump accounts to a yet-to-be-determined name - and in substance. Legislators dropped plans to give account withdrawals favorable tax treatment similar to a brokerage account. Account withdrawals will be taxed at ordinary income tax rates, not capital gains rates. Congress also discarded rules that would have prescribed how beneficiaries could spend the money - on college at 18, on starting a business at 25, on buying a house at 30. Instead, account holders cannot touch the funds until they turn 18. After that, the rules are the same as those of an individual retirement account - withdrawals are taxed like income, plus an additional 10 percent tax penalty on any withdrawals before age 59½ except for certain qualified uses. Those uses include paying for college, supporting themselves if they become disabled, or recovering from domestic abuse or a natural disaster. Beneficiaries also can withdraw as much as $10,000 to buy their first home, and up to $5,000 when they have a new baby themselves. Even one of the Trump accounts' biggest proponents in Congress, Rep. Blake Moore (R-Utah), said in an interview that for many parents, the new account design offers more benefits for retirement than for college expenses. 'I would argue that the tax implications of a 529 are far more favorable,' he said, but noted that most families don't have the disposable income to invest in a 529, and the new accounts' $1,000 from the government can benefit people at all income levels. If the account saw a 6 percent rate of return for 18 years, it would be worth $2,854; if the stock market does well, it could be worth even more. 'The most beneficial thing in my opinion about these is that … you're investing from birth into an IRA,' Moore said. 'Most people start investing in an IRA at 30 …. We're talking at birth or at 30. The benefits of investing early into that IRA are significant.' Moore has four sons, and while none will qualify for the government's $1,000 seed money contribution for newborns, the law allows him to open a Trump account as a parent. He says he'll be putting money in it: 'I want my kids having a Trump account so they can take it out when they're 50 or 60 years old.' - - - Jacob Bogage contributed to this report. Related Content Arthur Ashe's knack for reinvention led him to history at Wimbledon Newlywed detained by ICE freed after 141 days and two deportation attempts The Met opens a dazzling wing of non-European art Sign in to access your portfolio
Axios
an hour ago
- Axios
Tariffs return to April rates on August 1 without deals, Bessent says
Countries that don't make trade deals with the U.S. by August 1 can expect tariff rates to return to the levels announced in April, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said Sunday. Why it matters: It's effectively a new deadline for the biggest U.S. trading partners to negotiate an alternative to President Trump 's sweeping global tariffs — even as Bessent insists nothing had changed. Catch up quick: On Friday, Trump said about a dozen countries would receive letters Monday unilaterally setting a tariff rate, with more to come in the following days. Trump has said he preferred those letters to negotiations, after a three-month pause on his most sweeping tariffs netted three deals, rather than the 90 his administration promised. That pause expires this coming Wednesday. What they're saying: Bessent, in an interview with CNN's "State of the Union," said the letters would make clear that absent a deal, the rates would return to the levels Trump announced April 2. "It's not a new deadline. We are saying, this is when it's happening, if you want to speed things up, have at it, if you want to go back to the old rate, that's your choice," he said. The intrigue: Even with the new date in play, Bessent said there will be significant activity in the coming hours, as countries scramble to get something done before the original deadline. "We are close to several deals. As always, there's a lot of foot-dragging on the other side," he said. "I would expect to see several big announcements over the next couple of days." What to watch: Trump's letter threat risks re-igniting the tariff chaos that crushed CEO and consumer confidence earlier this year and sent financial markets plunging.
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Ketanji Brown Jackson turns independent streak loose on fellow justices
To hear Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson tell it, it's a 'perilous moment for our Constitution.' The Supreme Court's most junior justice had pointed exchanges with her colleagues on the bench this term, increasingly accusing them of unevenly applying the law — even if it meant standing on her own from the court's other liberal justices. Jackson has had an independent streak since President Biden nominated her to the bench in 2022. But the dynamic has intensified this term, especially as litigation over President Trump's sweeping agenda reached the court. It climaxed with her final dissent of decision season, when Jackson accused her fellow justices of helping Trump threaten the rule of law at a moment they should be 'hunkering down.' 'It is not difficult to predict how this all ends,' Jackson wrote. 'Eventually, executive power will become completely uncontainable, and our beloved constitutional Republic will be no more.' Her stark warning came as Trump's birthright citizenship order split the court on its 6-3 ideological lines, with all three Democratic appointed justices dissenting from the decision to limit nationwide injunctions. Jackson bounded farther than her two liberal colleagues, writing in a blistering solo critique that said the court was embracing Trump's apparent request for permission to 'engage in unlawful behavior.' The decision amounts to an 'existential threat to the rule of law,' she said. It wasn't the first time Jackson's fellow liberal justices left her out in the cold. She has been writing solo dissents since her first full term on the bench. Jackson did so again in another case last month when the court revived the energy industry's effort to axe California's stricter car emission standard. Jackson accused her peers of ruling inequitably. 'This case gives fodder to the unfortunate perception that moneyed interests enjoy an easier road to relief in this Court than ordinary citizens,' Jackson wrote. 'Because the Court had ample opportunity to avoid that result, I respectfully dissent.' Rather than join Justice Sonia Sotomayor's dissent that forewent such fiery language, Jackson chose to pen her own. The duo frequently agrees. They were on the same side in 94 percent of cases this term, according to data from SCOTUSblog, more than any other pair except for Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, the court's two leading conservatives. Sometimes Sotomayor signs on to Jackson's piercing dissents, including when she last month condemned the court's emergency order allowing the Department of Government Efficiency to access Americans' Social Security data. 'The Court is thereby, unfortunately, suggesting that what would be an extraordinary request for everyone else is nothing more than an ordinary day on the docket for this Administration, I would proceed without fear or favor,' Jackson wrote. But it appears there are rhetorical lines the most senior liberal justice won't cross. In another case, regarding disability claims, Sotomayor signed onto portions of Jackson's dissent but rejected a footnote in which Jackson slammed the majority's textualism as 'somehow always flexible enough to secure the majority's desired outcome.' 'Pure textualism's refusal to try to understand the text of a statute in the larger context of what Congress sought to achieve turns the interpretive task into a potent weapon for advancing judicial policy preferences,' the most junior justice wrote, refusing to remove the footnote from her dissent. Jackson's colleagues don't see it that way. 'It's your job to do the legal analysis to the best you can,' Chief Justice John Roberts told a crowd of lawyers at a judicial conference last weekend, rejecting the notion that his decisions are driven by the real-world consequences. 'If it leads to some extraordinarily improbable result, then you want to go back and take another look at it,' Roberts continued. 'But I don't start from what the result looks like and go backwards.' Though Roberts wasn't referencing Jackson's recent dissents, her willingness to call out her peers hasn't gone unaddressed. Jackson's dissent in the birthright citizenship case earned a rare, merciless smackdown from Justice Amy Coney Barrett, cosigned by the court's conservative majority. Replying to Jackson's remark that 'everyone, from the President on down, is bound by law,' Barrett turned that script into her own punchline. 'That goes for judges too,' the most junior conservative justice clapped back. Deriding Jackson's argument as 'extreme,' Barrett said her dissenting opinion ran afoul of centuries of precedent and the Constitution itself. 'We observe only this: Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary,' Barrett wrote. The piercing rebuke was a staunch departure from the usually restrained writing of the self-described 'one jalapeño gal.' That's compared to the five-jalapeño rhetoric of the late Justice Antonin Scalia, Barrett said, the late conservative icon for whom she clerked. On today's court, it is often Thomas who brings some of the most scathing critiques of Jackson, perhaps most notably when the two took diametrically opposite views of affirmative action two years ago. Page after page, Thomas ripped into Jackson's defense of race-conscious college admissions, accusing her of labeling 'all blacks as victims.' 'Her desire to do so is unfathomable to me. I cannot deny the great accomplishments of black Americans, including those who succeeded despite long odds,' Thomas wrote in a concurring opinion. It isn't Thomas's practice to announce his separate opinions from the bench, but that day, he said he felt compelled to do so. As he read it aloud from the bench for 11 minutes, Jackson stared blankly ahead into the courtroom. Jackson's boldness comes across not only in the court's decision-making. At oral arguments this term, she spoke 50 percent more than any other justice. She embraces her openness. She told a crowd in May while accepting an award named after former President Truman that she liked to think it was because they both share the same trait: bravery. 'I am also told that some people think I am courageous for the ways in which I engage with litigants and my colleagues in the courtroom, or the manner in which I address thorny issues in my legal writings,' Jackson said. 'Some have even called me fearless.'
