Dans was the director of Project 2025 at the Heritage Foundation when, midway through the 2024 presidential campaign, he and his program started to become a huge political liability for Trump. Democrats warned of Project 2025’s “radical” agenda, saying it would mean a ban on abortion, elimination of LGBTQ+ rights, and complete presidential power over federal agencies along with the elimination of some of them, including the Department of Education. At the Democratic National Convention, Saturday Night Live’s Kenan Thompson held up a giant-size replica of the 900-page Project 2025 book and quipped, “You ever see a document that could kill a small animal and democracy at the same time? Here it is.”
Dans became a sacrificial lamb. Pressured to resign from Heritage, Dans left in a fit of pique at the end of July, and he later criticized LaCivita and campaign co-head Susie Wiles for campaign “malpractice.”
Now Dans, who lives in Charleston, South Carolina, and works as a lawyer and government relations consultant, is letting bygones be bygones and says he’s delighted with the extent to which Project 2025 has, in fact, become the Trump administration’s playbook.
This week, in his first in-depth interview since Trump returned to the presidency, Dans effectively confirmed what Democrats were saying all along and Trump himself denied: There really is almost no difference between Project 2025 and what Trump was planning all along and is now implementing. And if the White House were to call, he’d be glad to get back on the team.
“It’s actually way beyond my wildest dreams,” Dans said. “It’s not going to be the easiest road to hoe going forward. The deep state is going to get its breath back. But the way that they’ve been able to move and upset the orthodoxy, and at the same time really capture the imagination of the people, I think portends a great four years.”
This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
So as it turns out, the Trump administration’s program and Project 2025 seem to be one and the same. True?
I’m not saying that. I’m saying that directionally, they have a lot in common, but so do great minds. We had hoped, those of us who worked putting together Project 2025, that the next conservative president would seize the day, but Trump is seizing every minute of every hour. I’m not sure that you’d be able to implement Project 2025 without Donald Trump’s ability to bring people together and Elon Musk’s ability to focus the direction of the work. (...)
You’ve said this agenda goes back much further than Trump — you wanted to attack the federal administrative state that you view as populated by liberals, one that started more than 100 years ago under Woodrow Wilson.
Well, that’s right. We are going on our 250th birthday here in a little over a year from now. And the last 100 years have been a great diversion from the enduring constitutional structure of this great American experiment in democracy. That is, we needed to undertake a restoration of democracy by slamming the door shut on the Progressive Era... One federal judge can’t come in and push the secretary of the Treasury aside and say this court knows better how to do your job than you do. To do that and hamstring the president is a naked usurpation of power. A federal court and its three law clerks cannot usurp the power granted to the president, and we are nearing a point when this will need to be resolved. (...)
Is there any way at all in which what Trump is doing is falling short or diverging from your original vision for Project 2025?
It’s actually way beyond my wildest dreams. It’s not going to be the easiest road to hoe going forward. The deep state is going to get its breath back here, but the way that they’ve been able to move and kind of upset the orthodoxy, and at the same time really capture the imagination of the people, I think portends a great four years.
by Michael Hirsh, Politico | Read more:
Image: Francis Chung, Politico
[ed. Repugnant to its core, I read this so you don't have to - unless you're curious to know how bad things can and are likely to get (we're just three months in after all, and another co-author, Russell Vought, is leading OMB). But one thing I found interesting, and no doubt anyone who's ever tried talking sense to a MAGA extremist has experienced, is that when confronted with hard facts and an obvious contradiction in thinking, the evasive response is always something like "I don’t know one way or the other. I get second-hand reports as you do." (direct quote). Nothing penetrates.]
