Ahead of Tuesday’s vice presidential debate, the Democratic National Committee erected a billboard outside Madison Square Garden branding Donald Trump’s running mate, Sen. J.D. Vance, as the “Poster Boy for Project 2025.” As anticipated from campaign emails, during the debate, Kamala Harris’ running mate, Gov. Tim Walz, mentioned this conservative governance plan, highlighting the Harris-Walz campaign’s lack of policy achievements.
Given that most voters are indifferent to this relatively mundane initiative aimed at reducing a cumbersome federal bureaucracy and filling the next Republican administration with effective, loyal personnel, it’s revealing that Democrats are focusing on it as one of their main issues, alongside abortion rights. This suggests that Democrats prioritize expanding the unelected bureaucracy that undermines elected officials like Congress and the president, alongside their contentious stance on abortion.
This also illustrates their consistent strategy of attacking Republicans, even in the event of GOP victories, as Project 2025’s proposals are essentially grounded in common sense. A significant portion of voters, including three-quarters of solid Republicans, perceive the federal government as corrupt—a sentiment that has shifted from earlier progressive ideals of “apolitical experts.” Today, it resembles a politicized entity that undermines elected governance, favoring unelected bureaucratic control over a government accountable to the American people.
Today, outside of iconic @TheGarden, @TheDemocrats
— Abhi Rahman (@abhirahmantx) October 1, 2024
placed innovative digital ads with a QR code linking folks to https://t.co/WGenrrJJuw.
Read more about it, below: https://t.co/FFtYb27ZbIhttps://t.co/o2BCA9J2PQ pic.twitter.com/MMJos5O5ah
While Trump has unexpectedly criticized the Project 2025 initiative, several of its measures are essential for his next presidency to succeed. A Republican administration cannot operate effectively without significantly removing bureaucrats who undermine Trump’s voter coalition and priorities.
Mark Moyar’s book, Masters of Corruption, released this year, illustrates this point vividly. Moyar, a former Trump appointee at the U.S. Agency for International Development, recounts how career bureaucrats sabotaged his whistleblowing on their corrupt practices. His experience underscores that Trump must demonstrate to potential allies that he supports them and that their efforts to advance his agenda will be protected.
Moyar’s own experience reflects this reality. A researcher with military and foreign policy expertise and a PhD, he published his sixth book in 2016. He submitted it for Defense Department review, meticulously adhering to legal and regulatory standards to ensure no classified information was released. After the department failed to review the manuscript within a reasonable time frame, Moyar announced he would proceed with publication.
The book came out without issue—until Moyar became a Trump appointee at USAID two years later and began exposing corruption. At that point, the manuscript review was resurrected, used as an excuse to deny him the necessary security clearance, ultimately leading to his dismissal for not having that clearance. In a recent speech, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. noted that his uncle, President John F. Kennedy, founded USAID to serve U.S. interests, but it has since devolved into a CIA front for regime change.
Throughout this ordeal, no evidence was ever presented showing that Moyar had published classified material in his book that the Defense Department had failed to review. Moreover, senior Trump appointees did not defend him against bureaucratic attacks, leaving him vulnerable. While his security clearance was held up out of spite, he was effectively barred from most positions for which he was qualified.
Moyar’s experience is both Kafka-esque and a mere summary of the complex challenges detailed in his book. The narrative evokes a dread of becoming ensnared in a system populated by individuals who can undermine you out of political animosity.
Moyar’s story affirms the widespread belief among Americans that their government is corrupt and highlights key reasons why. The culture within federal agencies is often dominated by those who trade favors to advance their careers and income. Ethical employees, who refuse to participate in this system at the taxpayers’ expense, are quickly identified and pressured to leave or are removed.
“My experience and research have convinced me that corruption and other unethical behavior are more prevalent in the federal government than most people realize,” Moyar writes. Moyar also notes that at a conference for lawyers of whistleblowers, “not a single lawyer would say that he would recommend to their clients that they report misconduct because retaliation is so prevalent.”
Moyar highlights the troubling reality that the inspectors general of federal agencies are not there to prevent abuse of power but rather to shield government misconduct: “The community of inspectors general and their staffs has become akin to a guild, similar to the guilds of shoemakers and blacksmiths in the Middle Ages. They are reluctant to expose fellow members for misconduct, as even a hint of impropriety could create enemies within the guild, harm its reputation, and attract external scrutiny.”
He recounts numerous instances he observed where corrupt federal employees were exonerated by their agencies’ inspectors general, while whistleblowers faced relentless harassment and were forced out of their positions. Those who misbehave often receive rewards in the form of lucrative positions with government contractors or promotions within federal agencies.
“Few of the victims of inspector general misconduct have been able to get their stories into the public eye — another reason why I decided to write this book,” Moyar says.
Moyar isn’t the only Trump appointee to face such challenges. During Trump’s first term, anti-Trump bureaucrats became the backbone of the so-called “Resistance,” undermining his presidency through the Russia collusion narrative, two impeachments, and various other efforts. These distractions consumed significant time and energy that could have been directed toward meaningful policy achievements.
Moyar highlights that these bureaucrats worked diligently to sabotage the objectives that voters had entrusted Trump to fulfill. They operated within agencies like an internal spy network, using their positions to leak half-truths to the media, often illegally, to hinder Trump’s governance. In Zoom meetings, they shared tactics for obstructing Trump appointees, such as creating excuses for delays, demanding lengthy legal reviews, leaking information to sympathetic journalists, and filing complaints with the inspector general.
Many dedicated individuals who risked their careers to support Trump’s agenda were not only betrayed by their colleagues, as Moyar was, but also targeted by Democrats and subjected to ongoing personal and professional harassment. How can Trump attract “the best people” if he cannot assure them that, should they face retaliation for fighting on behalf of the American people, he won’t abandon them to the vindictive tactics of skilled saboteurs?
Trump is just one person; he cannot oversee the entire federal government alone, even with the support of his family. He requires a large team. Yet, no team will rally behind a leader who fails to support them.
Trump’s rejection of Project 2025 sends the wrong message to the many capable individuals he needs to fill his administration. Conversely, Hillsdale College’s decision to hire Moyar as a professor of military history after his experiences with the bureaucracy sends a positive signal: if you take risks for the country’s betterment, we will support you.
Trump’s recent commitment to appoint Elon Musk to conduct a comprehensive audit of the federal government aligns with this approach. A week later, Musk elaborated, stating, “We have an opportunity for a once-in-a-lifetime deregulation and reduction in the size of government. Besides regulations, America is also facing a rapid financial decline.”
When asked if federal agencies could be cut by “two, three, four, five percent,” Musk replied, “I think we’d need to do more than that.” Yes, more — try at least a factor of ten.
