5 ms·
I don't think there is one unified plan to destroy the federal government; however, many influential people in the current administration are motivated to destr
by Centigonal 2y ago
I don't think there is one unified plan to destroy the federal government; however, many influential people in the current administration are motivated to destroy particular parts of the federal government and will not get in each other's way. I believe the result of this is that the current administration will attempt to destroy the union (inclusive OR) of all the agencies that influential individuals within the administration want to destroy.
Here's a quote from the conservative political operative and self-described Christian Nationalist Russ Vought, who is both the current and former head of the Office of Management and Budget under Trump:
“We want the bureaucrats to be traumatically affected. When they wake up in the morning, we want them to not want to go to work because they are increasingly viewed as the villains. We want their funding to be shut down so that the EPA can't do all of the rules against our energy industry because they have no bandwidth financially to do so. We want to put them in trauma.” [1]
This is a visceral and radical statement which has gotten some airtime on the news recently. However, it's interesting to note that Project 2025, which Vought helped lead and authored key sections of, does not advocate for the dismantling of USAID, rather recommending that its mission be narrowly aligned to national security goals[2]. In 2025, however, Elon Musk wanted USAID shuttered, and Vought was happy to oblige in his position as "the nerve center of the federal budget."
However, Project 2025 advocates for eliminating or defunding the Department of Homeland Security, Department of Education, EPA, Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and other government agencies. It's likely that these will also come under fire.
Finally (and this is my opinion), I believe it is impossible to understand this current administration's policy agenda without at least a surface level understanding of the writing of Curtis Yarvin, a software developer and reactionary political blogger. One this topic, Yarvin says the following:
“What is government? A government is just a corporation which owns a country. Nothing more, nothing less. It so happens that our sovereign corporation is very poorly managed and there’s a very simple way to replace that, which is what we do to all corporations that have failed. We simply delete them.”
[1] https://www.propublica.org/article/video-donald-trump-russ-vought-center-renewing-america-maga https://www.propublica.org/article/video-donald-trump-russ-v...
[2] https://static.project2025.org/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf https://static.project2025.org/2025_MandateForLeadership_FUL... (pg 253-255)
[3] https://apnews.com/article/trump-doge-russell-vought-project-2025-f403174299933b7e3a3b6ebd779c146c https://apnews.com/article/trump-doge-russell-vought-project...
- 47282847 2y agoSee also https://project2025.observer/ https://project2025.observer/.
- orblivion 2y agoCould you imagine any Project 2025 type wanting the government to disband the military? I imagine not. So why would they want to lose control of the nukes? I think in the case of the nukes it was just a ham-fisted attempt to downsize the Department of Energy. To that point, last I heard they were scrambling to re-hire those people. Curtis Yarvin isn't a libertarian (anymore), he's a monarchist. I also don't think he would advocate for the government to lose control of the nukes.
- Centigonal 2y agoI think the DoE thing was a mistake. Kind of frightening that nobody in the chain of execution for that decision knew what the DoE actually does, but I don't think that was intentional.
- orblivion 2y agoOkay cool. Well maybe I misinterpreted, but it sounded like the person I was responding to in my initial post was implying that it was on purpose. Or at very least, they would have to imply that it was on purpose for their argument to make sense. That was my point. Perhaps I haven't been clear.
- Centigonal 2y agoI think the person I responded to did insinuate that, and I think that the evidence they provided doesn't support their premise. I am making the argument that the current administration is trying to make government agencies die, but that it isn't one centrally orchestrated conspiracy. I am using different evidence than the parent comment to make that argument. More importantly, the purpose of my original comment is to inform readers of the thread on highly influential second-tier actors (Russ Vought is well-known, but he's not Elon Musk) and help foster a more nuanced discussion of the current administration, its motivations, and its actions.