Short answer:
- follow OMB memos
- Stephen Miller’s paper trail, and,
- JD Vance’s ambition.
Long answer: there’s a triad consolidating power while the showman distracts. And if/when Trump wobbles, the Project 2025 machine keeps moving.
The 60‑Second Recon
- Trump is president; JD Vance is VP. See the White House and the vice‑presidential bio.
- Project 2025 is the governing blueprint. Read Heritage’s Mandate for Leadership 2025 (primary doc, 900+ pages) PDF.
- Russell Vought runs OMB (confirmed Feb. 6, 2025). Coverage: AP, Ballotpedia, and recent Politico note on USAID closeout under Vought here.
- Stephen Miller is shaping the hardest‑edge policy and enforcement, especially on immigration. See Reuters’ profile of his expanded role (July 11, 2025).
- JD Vance’s rise was supercharged by Peter Thiel. Backgrounder: CBS News. Vance has argued to “fire every civil servant…replace them with our people” (Vox).
- Sending troops to “blue cities” to police voters? A federal judge just ruled the LA deployment unlawful under the Posse Comitatus Act: Reuters, WSJ, LA Times. PCA explainer: Brennan Center.
Who’s Actually Running Trump 2.0? (Hint: Not the bozo posting at 2 a.m.)
1) Russell Vought at OMB — the unseen throttle
If you want to know who’s driving the bus, watch who grabs the keys to budget, regs, and personnel. That’s OMB. With Russell Vought confirmed as Director again, the Project 2025 playbook has a command center. Remember, Vought was the lead architect of Project 2025.
And now he has the keys to the vault.
Expect: pocket rescissions, funding choke points, memo-driven “alignment,” and a unitary‑executive style push through the bureaucracy. See confirmation coverage (AP), OMB mission page (White House), and critique of the centralization trend (WIRED).
A pocket rescission is a kind of loophole play:
-
OMB says, “We’re just holding onto this money for review.”
-
They sit on the funds and don’t actually spend them.
-
If the fiscal year ends before the money is released, it expires automatically — gone forever, without Congress ever agreeing to the rescission.
Pocket rescissions become a stealth tool to starve programs they don’t like (climate, foreign aid, blue-state grants) cutting Congress off at the knees.
It’s like OMB hiding your paycheck in a drawer until it’s too late to cash it, then saying, “Oops, guess it’s expired.”
Project 2025’s Mandate for Leadership (the movement’s bible) outlines the interagency heist in plain sight:
- consolidate control of budgets and rules,
- repopulate key posts with loyalists, and,
- rewire the bureaucracy to answer only to the president.
Dictatorship established. Primary doc: Heritage PDF.
2) Stephen Miller — policy architect with a demolition fetish
Miller’s lane is immigration — but his method (legally aggressive, dare‑you‑to‑sue directives) has become the template.
Miller is Hitler in action. The only reason he hasn’t created gas-chamber concentration camps is because he doesn’t think he can get away with it…yet.
Reuters details his expanded clout and street‑level effects (July 11, 2025).
3) JD Vance (and the Thiel Vector) — the ambitious executor
Vance has long signaled support for purging and politicizing the civil service (the Schedule F vision).
His ascent was boosted by Peter Thiel — which matters, because personnel is policy and networks are destiny.
Vought and Miller are the engineers. Vance is the pitchman, selling Project 2025 to voters and creating cover for the administration to keep pushing toward dictatorship.
Examples:
-
On the campaign trail and since January 2025, Vance has leaned into culture-war populism (anti-immigration, anti-“deep state,” anti-woke economy). He talks about these things in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan — places Trump needs.
-
He’s framed Project 2025–style civil-service purges as “common sense” to stop bureaucrats from undermining the president. That’s controversial in DC, but it plays well to his base.
See CBS and Vance’s own words quoted by Vox.
For Schedule F backgrounders: Protect Democracy, Brookings, and POGO.
- Vought centralizes levers (budget/regs/HR),
- Miller supplies aggressive designs and enforcement culture, and,
- Vance markets, legitimizes, and stands in reserve as the continuity plan.
And oligarchs and Tech Bros like Peter Thiel laugh all the way to the bank. (Don’t forget: Peter Theil is a founder of Palantir…)
“What if Trump… falls off the tightrope?” — The Vance Succession Scenario
If Trump resigns, dies, or is removed, the VP becomes President (Twenty‑Fifth Amendment, Section 1). If he’s incapacitated, the VP can become Acting President under Sections 3 or 4. The machinery doesn’t stop. Read the plain‑English primers from the National Constitution Center and CRS.
What changes if Vance takes the helm? Fewer theatrics, faster throughput. In other words, the clown show ends and the dictatorship takes firm hold.
The core agenda (Project 2025) is now institutionalized via OMB + personnel. Expect accelerated implementation of civil‑service reclassification (Schedule F–style), regulatory rollbacks by memo, and sustained enforcement pressure on immigration. (See coverage of Schedule F’s return and law‑review context BU Law Rev.)
Can They Really Send Troops to Blue Cities to Intimidate Voters?
Short answer: not legally to police voters. The Posse Comitatus Act restricts using the military for domestic law enforcement. Fresh off the presses: a federal judge just ruled the LA deployment unlawful — see Reuters, WSJ, LA Times.
Even with Guard federalization or Insurrection‑Act saber‑rattling, legal scholars map real limits. “Troops at polling places” crosses multiple tripwires (criminal statutes and civil‑rights protections). See Lawfare and the Brennan Center’s voter‑intimidation guides (guide, prep lessons).
Keep in mind: It took over a month for the courts to declare the LA deployment unlawful. By that time, the troops had intimidated Americans and were long gone.
If I were Trump, I’d wait until the last week before the election and violate the Constitution by putting M16-carrying troops in every large voting center that is primarily Democratic. What does he care if six weeks later some judge decides his move was illegal? Who’s going to enforce the ruling? Pam Bondi?
HCR’s Warning: Don’t Fight in the Streets — Fight Politically.
Agreed. Here’s How:
Street clashes play into the hands of authoritarians. Ballots, lawsuits, and logistics beat them.
0 Comments