Project 2025 architect Paul Dans to challenge Lindsey Graham for Senate in South Carolina
Dans told CNN he will formally launch his campaign with a prayer breakfast Wednesday in Charleston.
Graham, a close friend of President Donald Trump's, is seeking a fifth term and already has the president's backing. Dans, though, said there is room for a Republican candidate to prove they are more loyal to and aligned with Trump than Graham.
'He's a 70-year-old childless warmonger and he has no stake in the future of this country,' Dans said. 'He is the very reason that MAGA started in the first place, and we only have to look at 2016 when he was a vehement Trump hater. A leopard doesn't change its spots.'
Dans went on to rebuke Graham for voting to confirm judicial nominees put forth by Barack Obama and Joe Biden during their presidencies and for his past remarks affirming Russia's attempts to interfere in the 2016 election, signaling some potential future attacks during the primary campaign.
Former South Carolina Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer is also running in the GOP primary against Graham.
A veteran of the first Trump administration, Dans spent the next few years at the Heritage Foundation. There, he spearheaded Project 2025, a right-wing roadmap for the next Republican president put together by more than 100 conservative organizations in the lead up to the 2024 election. It included a 900-page manifesto full of policy prescriptions that provided Democrats with ample fodder to attack Trump during the presidential campaign.
As criticism intensified, Trump distanced himself from Project 2025 and Dans was pushed out of Heritage. However, a CNN review found many of Trump's early actions as president aligned with Project 2025's proposals. Dans suggested the blueprint – once seen as a liability for Trump – could demonstrate his MAGA credentials to South Carolina Republican voters.
'I was able to work with thousands of patriots who came together and put in that labor to make the next conservative president hit the ground day one. And that's what President Trump and his team did,' Dans said. 'It's gratifying to see these ideas preserved and put into action. But to be clear, the battle goes on.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
10 minutes ago
- Fox News
Analyzing fallout from American Eagle's Sydney Sweeney ad campaign
Fox News contributor Katrina Campins, Fox News political analyst Gianno Caldwell and comedian Danny Polishchuk join 'Fox News Saturday Night' to discuss.
Yahoo
38 minutes ago
- Yahoo
4 Types of Workers Could Save Big Under Trump's Overtime Tax Break
President Donald Trump's signature One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) includes a provision that allows employees who work more than 40 hours per week to deduct a portion of their overtime pay from their taxable income. The 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) guarantees pay of at least 1.5 times a worker's regular wages for every hour worked over 40 in a given seven-day period. Traditionally, time-and-a-half pay has been subject to federal income taxes, including those that fund Medicare and Social Security. However, from 2025 through 2028, eligible taxpayers can deduct up to $12,500 in overtime pay, or $25,000 for joint filers, without itemizing, provided they earn less than $150,000, at which point the deduction begins to phase out. However, the FLSA and its numerous subsequent updates have carved out exceptions for executives, administrative and professional employees, those in certain computer and sales occupations and others who are exempt from overtime pay protection. Therefore, many Americans won't benefit from the new rule. This article profiles those who likely will. Check Out: Read Next: Nurses According to the Lore Law Firm, at least 18 states have laws regulating mandatory overtime for nurses. In much of the country, however, these crucial healthcare workers are often required to work more than 40 hours per week, whether they want to or not, to compensate for persistent staffing shortages. As early as 2004, the CDC was reporting on the heavy toll that mandatory overtime was taking on nurses and their patients, citing fatigue, burnout, diminished work performance and increased error rates due to long hours of stressful work. Roughly 20 years later, ShiftMed reported that little had changed. The OBBBA stands to give millions of nonexempt nurses a break — on their taxes, at least, if not at their workplaces. See More: Law Enforcement Like nurses, law enforcement officers play a crucial role in society that often requires them to work overtime. Also like nurses, many seek extra hours voluntarily, but often don't have a choice. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Occupational Outlook Handbook page for police and detectives, 'Paid overtime is common, and shift work is necessary to protect the public at all times.' Tradespeople Overtime is common in many trades occupations. Like police officers and nurses, the nature of their work often makes extra hours an unavoidable part of the job. The following are some of the many circumstances that can keep them working beyond 40 hours per week. Emergency repairs Installations with tight deadlines Frequent calls after regular business hours Spikes in demand during extreme weather events The tradespeople most likely to work overtime — and therefore benefit from the new OBBBA provisions — are: Welders Plumbers Electricians Construction workers HVAC techs Manufacturing Employees According to the BLS, the average manufacturing employee works between 3.6 and 3.7 hours of overtime per week, or roughly 14.6 hours of time-and-a-half pay per month. That's nearly 190 overtime hours per year — much of which will now be tax-deductible. In fact, reliance on overtime is so common in the sector that the industrial staffing firm Traba wrote a report with striking similarities to the ShiftMed report on the nursing crisis. Chronic understaffing as high as 34% in some industries forces manufacturing companies to pay staggering levels of overtime compensation, with some employees racking up 500 overtime hours per year or more. Similarly to nursing, the result is often burnout, diminished performance and preventable accidents, often to the most seasoned and reliable employees. More From GOBankingRates 5 Cities You Need To Consider If You're Retiring in 2025 This article originally appeared on 4 Types of Workers Could Save Big Under Trump's Overtime Tax Break Sign in to access your portfolio
Chicago Tribune
39 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
Seth David Radwell: The emerging schism within the Democratic Party
Much has been written of late about the fate of the Democratic Party after its poor performance last November and with its damaged brand and lack of a coherent strategy. Over the last several years, the party's primary unifying focus has been assailing President Donald Trump and MAGA, while lacking an articulate compelling message or prescriptive platform. Not only has this left the party adrift, but also, Trump has been all too eager to fill the resulting vacuum, imprinting his 'evil' characterization of the party. While myriad efforts within and adjacent to the party are scrambling to advance a winning strategy for 2026, we can already detect competing agendas. The left flank of the party has a resolute hold on the identity issues it keeps front and center, despite persuasive evidence that this strategy alienates working-class voters. In contrast, the center of the party has been coalescing around what some call the 'abundance agenda' — following the launch of the bestselling book 'Abundance' by Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson. The agenda centers on an insightful reckoning: How can the Democratic Party represent itself as the problem-solving party of the working class when its track record exhibits innumerable failures in major cities? Accordingly, the abundance strategy focuses on enabling government to undertake the 'big things' it accomplished yesteryear by liberating it from a maze of bureaucratic obstacles. Perhaps the most credible advocate of this revitalized spirit is Josh Shapiro, the charismatic governor of Pennsylvania. His 'get stuff done' approach has resulted in some tangible wins such as the rapid reopening of Interstate 95 in Philadelphia and the expansion of school breakfast programs. In fact, many Democratic leaders in the center recognize that their rapprochement with the progressive wing in recent cycles has resulted in the party estranging its working-class base. But, the Democratic Party has a more fundamental conundrum based on a contradiction that lies at the heart of progressivism itself. As described in detail in Marc Dunkelman's recent book 'Why Nothing Works,' the reason why our government today cannot build the big things it did in past eras (e.g., the interstate highway system and the Social Security system) is because of this very conflict: On one hand, many progressives deliver a clarion call for government to undertake large-scale solutions to the most pressing current policy problems, such as building green energy infrastructure and affordable housing. But at the same time, these same advocates demand controls that often stymie government from getting anything done. Ever since the Vietnam War, a distrust of the establishment has taken root and grown deep, manifested in a fear of yielding broad powers without adequate controls and limitations. Nonetheless, these two instincts underlying progressivism are at cross purposes: It is hard to have it both ways. How can government solve big problems if it is intentionally designed with diffuse power, easily and frequently obstructed or contested? What is remarkable is that these two opposing impulses frequently operate simultaneously. Millions of young people today call for administrative solutions to the climate crisis, while demanding bodily autonomy free from government intervention. As I describe in my book 'American Schism,' the pendulum has vacillated throughout our entire history between eras characterized by these opposing impulses. At times, centrally designed Hamiltonian solutions (designed by elites) dominated, such as after our founding, in the New Deal and post-World War II periods, and again through Lyndon B. Johnson's Great Society programs. In other epochs, such as when the Federalist party lost influence in the early 19th century, when Reconstruction failed and during the dawning of the Gilded Age, the Jeffersonian demand for curtailed central power reigned supreme. Since the Ronald Reagan era, the wariness of big government has taken hold on the right. But often overlooked is that progressive reformers in recent decades, fearful of the sins of power-hungry leaders such as New York's Robert Moses, have demanded controls on government, which often lead to unwieldy processes and boxed-in government action. Many of these checkpoints, such as mandated constituent input in the policy development process, are warranted. But as a result, government today at all levels feels more like a vetocracy in which citizens or corporate-sponsored interest groups stifle progress at every turn, often via the slow legal system. Even when a major project does get completed, the number of involved commissions and the lawsuits brought by opposing constituents result in skyrocketing costs and years of delay. Perhaps, most ironically, the consequent gridlock has over time eroded faith in public institutions and created the opening for MAGA-style populism. It is this dynamic that is already clashing within the Democratic Party; the centrists' call to tackle big problems may find itself at loggerheads with the fear of elite-designed solutions within the progressive wing. Moreover, such clashes could impede a cohesive and compelling party revival. Dunkleman argues for an adjustment in the belief that we have leaned too far in hamstringing government. However, our history demonstrates that attempts at moderate 'adjustments' usually overcorrect and result in pendulum swings. How any possible Democratic revival manages this underlying contradiction in its road map may determine whether the party can once again attract the populist voters it used to carry. Seth David Radwell is the author of 'American Schism: How the Two Enlightenments Hold the Secret to Healing our Nation' and winner of an International Book Award for Best General Nonfiction. He is a political analyst and speaker in the business community and on college campuses in the U.S. and abroad.
