Podcasts about schedule f

Project 2025 has quickly become the most consequential—and controversial—blueprint for American governance in recent history. Conceived by the Heritage Foundation and launched with a sprawling 927-page policy manual in April 2023, Project 2025's core goal is to reshape the entire federal government according to staunch conservative priorities. It is, as Heritage Foundation president Kevin Roberts puts it, an effort to “dismantle the administrative state and restore presidential control over the executive branch.”Yet behind those words lies an ambitious checklist for the next presidential administration, presuming a Republican—most likely Donald Trump—takes office. Project 2025 is not just a collection of ideas. It is a detailed playbook, complete with executive orders, departmental reorganization timetables, and a so-called 180-day playbook, designed for rapid execution on “Day One.”At the heart of Project 2025 is an unprecedented push to centralize power in the Oval Office. The plan relies on the controversial unitary executive theory, which argues all executive branch employees should be directly answerable to the president. Kevin Roberts has been explicit: “All federal employees should answer to the president.” According to the project manual, entire agencies such as the Department of Justice, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and the Federal Trade Commission would lose their current independence and fall under direct White House control.One of the most sweeping reforms revolves around personnel. The blueprint resurrects the idea of “Schedule F”—a Trump-era category that would allow the president to reclassify tens of thousands of career civil servants as political appointees, instantly stripping them of protections from partisan firing. The National Federation of Federal Employees warns this would “give the president and his loyalists full control of the executive branch for personal and political gain,” hollowing out civil service checks that have traditionally protected against corruption and patronage.Concrete examples illustrate the scale of the changes envisioned. In foreign policy, the State Department chapter recommends that, before January 20, all leadership be dismissed and replaced with ideologically aligned “acting” appointees who bypass Senate confirmation entirely. Kiron Skinner, the former policy planning chief who wrote this section, has called for removing staff she considers too left-leaning, despite admitting she could not name a single time employees substantively obstructed White House policy.The playbook doesn't stop there. Project 2025 proposes slashing federal workforce numbers through forced attrition, with the White House directing agency heads to lay off or consolidate thousands of positions and eliminate entire offices deemed non-essential. For example, agencies like USAID and the CFPB are earmarked for dissolution, their functions either axed or merged into departments more closely monitored by the executive.Critics from organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union highlight how Project 2025 seeks to erode key civil liberties across a range of issues—abortion, LGBTQ rights, free speech, and the environment. The ACLU describes the initiative as “a roadmap for how to replace the rule of law with right-wing ideals.” Meanwhile, labor unions such as AFGE and NTEU have mounted lawsuits to block the executive orders targeting civil service protections, warning of the dangers of introducing broad political loyalty tests into government hiring and firing.Supporters claim these moves would eliminate bureaucratic inertia and bring swift, accountable leadership to Washington. Yet, legal scholars and former officials have called Project 2025 authoritarian, warning it undermines separation of powers and blurs the lines between partisanship and governance.With the November 2024 presidential election looming, Project 2025's fate comes down to political winds and court rulings. The Heritage Foundation and its partners have prepared a rapid-fire battery of executive orders, ready for signature if they get their candidate in office. Milestones to watch include ongoing legal challenges, Congressional resistance, and, above all, the outcome of the national vote.The scope and ambition of Project 2025 are nothing short of historic, representing both a culmination of decades-long conservative advocacy and an inflection point in debates over the very structure of American democracy. Thank you for tuning in, and be sure to come back next week for more.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.ai

Project 2025 began with a clandestine meeting of political strategists and conservative activists in the spring of 2022, their goal clear and unsettling: to engineer a dramatic transformation of American governance. By April 2023, this ambition took written form—a sprawling, 900-page policy blueprint released by the Heritage Foundation and dubbed Mandate for Leadership. Its stated purpose was simple: destroy the so-called “Administrative State” and concentrate presidential power like never before.Supporters of Project 2025 call it a necessary overhaul, arguing that “an unaccountable and biased bureaucracy” has long obstructed the will of the people. The plan's central premise is to place the entire federal executive branch, including agencies like the Department of Justice and the FBI, under direct White House control. As Kevin Roberts, Heritage Foundation president, declared, “All federal employees should answer to the president.” The project's architects are explicit—they want to rid agencies of perceived ideological opponents, filling key roles with loyalists on “Day One.” They envision the president hiring scores of political appointees with no expiration date, using what's known as Schedule F. Under this system, career civil servants could be transferred into politically appointed positions, stripping away their traditional legal protections against arbitrary removal or political interference.Kiron Skinner, who authored the State Department section of Project 2025, was blunt about her intentions: remove all senior staff and bring in conservatives ready to serve the administration's agenda. When interviewer Peter Bergen pressed her in June 2024 to provide examples of bureaucratic resistance, she came up empty handed. Despite this, the plan moves forward.Concrete proposals are sweeping. Project 2025 prescribes eliminating the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the United States Agency for International Development outright. The Department of Government Efficiency, led by Elon Musk, wasted no time, dissolving entire agencies, laying off tens of thousands, and initiating a government-wide return-to-office mandate. These personnel moves layered chaos atop the rollback of existing policy, leaving many agency missions in limbo.In criminal justice, Project 2025's recommendations are transformative and controversial. The agenda calls for the Department of Justice to charge or remove local prosecutors who, in their view, fail to sufficiently prosecute crimes like low-level marijuana possession or shoplifting. This would dismantle the tradition of local prosecutorial discretion, potentially pressuring DAs elected on reform platforms to abandon their priorities for fear of federal retribution. The plan also aims to expand federal law enforcement into local jurisdictions deemed “soft” on crime. According to the Brennan Center for Justice, these changes would shift the balance of power away from local communities and toward a politically driven federal apparatus.Project 2025 extends well beyond law enforcement. Its architects target environmental regulations, labor rights, health policies, and civil liberties. Detractors such as the ACLU warn that this initiative represents “a dystopian view of America,” threatening civil rights, reproductive freedoms, and hard-won democratic norms. The Center for Progressive Reform describes the project as “an authoritarian blueprint” likely to weaken the very institutions meant to protect public health, the environment, and equitable governance.Yet, proponents remain undeterred. They envision a streamlined government, claiming it will be more effective and responsive, a nod to longstanding conservative desires to reduce bureaucracy and entrench executive authority. Critics, however, see dangers in the centralization of power, the erosion of checks and balances, and the removal of expert administrators in favor of partisan loyalists.As the next presidential transition approaches, all eyes turn to the practical impact of Project 2025's prescriptions. Lawsuits and public pushback are already in motion, with labor unions and advocacy groups scrambling to block or mitigate the plan's most far-reaching aspects. Whether this ambitious blueprint will upend American governance or falter in the face of legal and institutional resistance remains uncertain.Thank you for tuning in. Come back next week for more in-depth reporting on the forces shaping the nation's future.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.ai

Project 2025 began quietly in conservative conference rooms but today stands at the center of a storm over the future of American governance. Born from the Heritage Foundation and assembled by over one hundred right-leaning partners, its 900-page “Mandate for Leadership” lays out not just a governing plan for a future Republican administration, but a wholesale reimagining of the federal government itself. Supporters rally around its stated purpose: as Heritage's Kevin Roberts says, “We're going to impose the will of the people through a reinvigorated executive branch.” Critics, however, warn of what the American Civil Liberties Union calls “a blueprint for replacing the rule of law with right-wing ideals.”One of Project 2025's boldest proposals is placing the entire executive branch—agencies like the Department of Justice, the FBI, even the Federal Communications Commission—under direct presidential control. The aim, described by Roberts as “ending the era of the ‘independent' bureaucracy,” is rooted in the controversial unitary executive theory. The project calls for every senior official in the State Department to be replaced by a president's handpicked loyalists, bypassing the usual Senate confirmation process. Kiron Skinner, who authored the State Department chapter, explained her vision by insisting most career employees are “too left-wing” and must make way for “warriors for the conservative agenda.”The methods are as consequential as the proposals. Project 2025 revives the idea of “Schedule F,” a bureaucratic mechanism that lets a president reclassify tens of thousands of civil service jobs, stripping long-held protections. The National Federation of Federal Employees warns that by transforming apolitical government roles into political appointments, Project 2025 would make it nearly impossible for career staff to resist pressure or political overreach. As one union leader put it, “Without civil service protections, federal employees will be powerless to stop them.”The details ripple into almost every corner of American life. A return-to-office mandate for federal workers, for example, upends years of flexible work arrangements, with federal employees ordered back to their offices, often within tight timelines. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, an agency created after the 2008 financial crisis to oversee banks and safeguard consumers, is marked for elimination. Agencies like USAID, which manages American humanitarian aid abroad, have already faced drastic cuts and layoffs, with numbers reaching into the hundreds of thousands according to Challenger, Gray & Christmas.Labor unions also appear squarely in the project's crosshairs, with proposals to ban public-sector unions, eliminate card check elections, and speed up the process to decertify existing unions. Another core promise is what Project 2025 calls the “restoration of the family.” The authors advocate policies that would restrict abortion, curtail LGBTQ+ rights, and reinforce what they describe as traditional values. According to the project's summary, the intent is to make the family “the centerpiece of American life,” a phrase that has triggered heated debate over what counts as a family in today's country.Some experts warn these moves risk upending critical norms. Legal scholars have voiced concern that Project 2025, if realized, could hurry the erosion of separation of powers, spark legal battles over constitutional rights, and bring about what many label the most extensive centralization of power in the modern era. Detractors have called it a “systemic, ruthless plan to undermine democracy,” while supporters argue it's a necessary correction to what they see as runaway bureaucracy.Looking ahead, the nation waits. The next major turning point arrives this November, when voters will decide not only on a president but, indirectly, on whether Project 2025's policies—already mapped, written, and ready for day one—will be greenlit for action. Whichever side prevails, both the vision and the pushback it's generated signal a lasting confrontation over the future shape of American democracy.Thank you for tuning in, and come back next week for more.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.ai

Project 2025 is not just another policy blueprint; it is a sweeping, meticulously detailed playbook designed to overhaul how the federal government operates, reshape the civil service, and realign American governance along sharply conservative lines. Crafted by the Heritage Foundation with contributions from over 100 coalition partners and released in April 2023, the 927-page document, titled “Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise,” outlines concrete steps a newly elected Republican president could take starting from day one in office.Proponents of Project 2025 describe it as a plan to “destroy the Administrative State,” targeting what they argue is an unaccountable bureaucracy captured by liberal interests. Kevin Roberts of the Heritage Foundation put it bluntly: “All federal employees should answer to the president.” The vision centralizes control of the entire executive branch, grounding itself in an expansive interpretation of the unitary executive theory. According to the project's documentation, independence for agencies such as the Department of Justice, the Federal Communications Commission, and others would be eliminated. Leadership at these institutions would be swept clean and staffed by presidential loyalists, many of whom could be installed in “acting” roles that bypass Senate confirmation.A key mechanism enabling this transformation is Schedule F, a controversial classification devised to move large numbers of nonpartisan civil servants into at-will positions. Without traditional civil service protections, these employees could be easily removed and replaced with political appointees. Heritage Foundation writers stress that this is essential to secure rapid, loyal implementation of the president's agenda. Critics, however, warn that the move exposes federal government positions to unchecked political influence and undermines the longstanding principle of impartial public service.Listeners may recognize some of these ambitions from earlier efforts under President Trump. This time, Project 2025 comes armed with a detailed 180-day playbook and ready-to-sign executive orders designed to implement change with unprecedented speed. As reported by Government Executive, the plan's first phase has already resulted in the abrupt dissolution of agencies such as the Consumer Financial Protection Board and USAID, accompanied by mass firings spanning across more than two dozen agencies. Challengers, including federal employee unions like the NTEU, have launched lawsuits, arguing these actions violate long-standing legal protections for government workers.Project 2025 reaches well beyond administrative restructuring. In criminal justice, for example, the document spells out proposals directing the Department of Justice to directly intervene in cases where local prosecutors are viewed as too lenient—potentially removing them from office. The Brennan Center points out that such measures could limit prosecutorial discretion and pressure local officials to abandon reform agendas, particularly in drug or low-level offenses.In the education sphere, the blueprint calls for significant expansion of voucher programs, the empowerment of charter schools, and even the closure of public schools deemed noncompliant with conservative values. Curriculum “censorship” is highlighted as a tool to ensure ideological conformity, and efforts to diminish the role of public education are explicitly connected to broader goals of limiting federal influence at the state and local levels.Reproductive rights are a prominent battleground as well. The project supports creating a national registry to track abortions and calls for nationwide restrictions that leverage statutes like the Comstock Act and reverse FDA approvals of abortion medication.Expert commentary ranges widely on the likely impacts of these reforms. Advocates assert Project 2025 will bring accountability and restore order, claiming decades of bureaucratic drift must be corrected by strong executive leadership. Detractors warn of an “authoritarian presidency,” as noted by the Brennan Center and the ACLU, pointing to risks for democratic norms, the separation of powers, and civil liberties.As the nation watches, key milestones approach. Should a Republican administration prevail in the next election, listeners can expect swift, far-reaching executive actions, many of which are already being tested on a smaller scale in various states. The months ahead promise critical court battles, legislative showdowns, and profound debates about the future of American government.Thank you for tuning in to today's narrative exploration of Project 2025. Join us again next week for more in-depth analysis and vital updates on the changing landscape of American policy and governance.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.ai

Project 2025 is not just a policy blueprint—it's a movement aiming to remake American governance from the ground up. Growing out of the Heritage Foundation's nearly 1,000-page Mandate for Leadership, Project 2025 lays out detailed steps to reshape the federal government in ways that, in its authors' words, will “destroy the Administrative State.” Supporters see it as a plan to bring an unaccountable bureaucracy under control, while critics warn it risks undermining the checks and balances at the heart of American democracy.At the heart of Project 2025 is an ambitious assertion of presidential control over the federal government. The proposal rests on the controversial unitary executive theory—a vision that would give the president direct authority over agencies traditionally considered independent. According to Heritage Foundation president Kevin Roberts, “All federal employees should answer to the president.” That's not an abstract idea; the plan explicitly calls for replacing civil service protections with the so-called Schedule F scheme, permitting mass firings and replacing thousands of current staffers with political loyalists who can be hired—and fired—at will. The stated aim is to ensure government personnel are “aligned with the president's vision,” a move that legal experts like those at the ACLU say could erode the rule of law and the traditional separation of church and state.One of the most consequential aspects of Project 2025 is its Day One playbook—hundreds of executive orders prepared for immediate signature by a new Republican president. These directives aren't vague. The plan recommends, for example, eliminating entire agencies such as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. It also outlines how to dismiss all Department of State leadership before the next inauguration, replacing them with interim officials who are “ideologically vetted,” bypassing Senate confirmation. Kiron Skinner, who contributed to the State Department chapter, told journalist Peter Bergen this summer, “Most State Department employees are too left-wing and must be replaced by those loyal to the president,” though she could not name concrete examples of alleged obstruction.The intended changes go far beyond personnel shuffles. Project 2025 includes proposals for increasing executive control over policy on education, health, and the environment—often with the goal of terminating or rolling back regulations deemed “woke” or outside a conservative agenda. For example, its environmental proposals would gut major climate initiatives and environmental protections, while social policy sections support rolling back abortion rights and LGBTQ protections. Heritage Foundation materials state that these moves are needed to “put the people back in charge,” but organizations like the Center for Progressive Reform warn that such changes could devastate protections for workers, the public's health, and marginalized communities.Concrete steps are already underway. Since January, under the new Department of Government Efficiency, agencies have announced mass layoffs and office closures, with an eye toward shrinking government to its “essential functions.” According to data cited by Government Executive, more than 280,000 federal workers and contractors are facing layoffs or job uncertainty across 27 federal agencies. Office buildings are being consolidated, and a strict return-to-office mandate is being enforced to reduce federal infrastructure, often in a haphazard fashion.Project 2025's vision is not universally accepted even within conservative circles, but its scale and urgency have jolted both supporters and opponents. Critics, from policy experts to civil liberties advocates, argue that replacing career professionals with political operatives risks turning agencies into arms of the executive, threatening not just efficiency but the stability of American institutions. Yet, for its authors, this is precisely the point—a bold, sweeping course correction.Looking forward, the coming months will see critical decision points as Congress, the courts, and public opinion respond to the push to enact Project 2025. Both sides are mobilizing, as legal battles and heated public debates loom. As American governance stands on the cusp of profound change, Project 2025 offers both a rallying cry and a warning—one that demands attention from every corner of the nation.Thank you for tuning in, and be sure to come back next week for more.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.ai

Project 2025 has emerged as one of the most ambitious and controversial blueprints for American governance in recent memory. Initiated by the Heritage Foundation and backed by a coalition of over 100 conservative organizations, the project's stated mission is to radically restructure the federal government and centralize executive power, promising what supporters call a return to accountability and efficiency. Critics, meanwhile, warn of its sweeping threats to democratic norms, federal checks and balances, and the livelihoods of millions.Unveiled in the form of a 900-page manifesto titled “Mandate for Leadership,” Project 2025 provides granular directions, agency by agency, for an incoming administration determined to overhaul how Washington operates. According to the Heritage Foundation, the “heart of the project” is dismantling what they label as an unaccountable bureaucracy that has “drifted too far from the people's will.” Kevin Roberts, Heritage's president, bluntly declared, “All federal employees should answer to the president.” This vision is animated by an expansive concept known as the unitary executive theory, essentially arguing that the president should have direct control over all executive branch agencies, shedding their current independence.For listeners wondering about concrete changes, consider the plan for the Department of State. Project 2025 advocates for the wholesale removal of agency leadership officials before Inauguration Day, replacing them with individuals hand-picked for strict ideological alignment. Kiron Skinner, who penned the State Department chapter, envisioned a department led exclusively by loyalists, aiming to “remove those not aligned with the president's priorities.” This move is designed not just to hasten the implementation of foreign policy goals, but to prevent bureaucratic resistance—a key grievance among the plan's authors.Just as striking is Project 2025's approach to the federal workforce. Its architects call for the resurrection and expansion of “Schedule F,” a controversial employment status for federal employees. Schedule F would classify hundreds of thousands—if not more—career civil servants as political appointees, stripping them of longstanding job protections. The stated goal is a government “purged of entrenched opposition” so that “key decisions reflect the president's will on day one.” Critics like the National Federation of Federal Employees describe this as a “scheme to purge career professionals,” warning it would turn public administration into a partisan machine vulnerable to corruption.The plan doesn't stop at restructuring government jobs. Project 2025 lays out a 180-day playbook, which includes ready-to-sign executive orders to immediately strip environmental regulations, curb civil rights protections, and overhaul social welfare programs. According to the Center for Progressive Reform, executive actions under this strategy have already targeted the rollback of climate rules, weakened worker safety standards, and eliminated agencies altogether. The swift elimination of the Consumer Financial Protection Board and US Agency for International Development, as documented by Government Executive, was meant to signal a new era of “government efficiency” but resulted in “widespread layoffs and institutional chaos.”Project 2025's policy ambitions also extend to social issues. In its blueprint, it calls for curtailing access to abortion, undoing LGBTQ protections, and limiting federal action on racial equity. The ACLU describes these proposals as “an unprecedented rollback of civil rights and liberties,” comparing their scope to a rewriting of American society's basic fabric.Proponents lay claim to a mandate from voters frustrated by government gridlock and what they see as bureaucratic overreach. Opponents counter that this is not reform but a consolidation of power. Legal experts from across the spectrum worry that such an agenda could collapse the traditional American barrier between politics and administration, risking both the appearance and the reality of authoritarian rule.Several milestones now lie ahead. With ongoing lawsuits from labor unions and scrutiny by watchdog groups, the coming months promise court battles and congressional hearings over Project 2025's legality and impact. Congressional Republicans and administration officials are preparing for rapid implementation, while a coalition of civil rights organizations and some lawmakers are vowing organized resistance.The stakes for American governance have rarely been higher. Whether Project 2025 becomes a historical footnote or a defining blueprint for the future will depend on political will, legal battles, and the choices made in the next critical year.Thanks for tuning in to this week's deep dive. Come back next week for more.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.ai

Project 2025 is reshaping the conversation about the role and reach of the federal government in ways that feel both sweeping and personal. Born from the Heritage Foundation's “Mandate for Leadership,” this 900-plus-page policy blueprint divides nearly every federal agency and department into zones of targeted reform, all aimed at what its architects call “destroying the administrative state.” Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts summed up the mood behind it simply, declaring that “every federal employee should answer to the president.” That principle, experts say, guides the project's plans to consolidate power at the top and move swiftly on a series of executive moves from day one.The scale of intended change is hard to overstate. Project 2025 outlines an operational playbook for the first 180 days of a new Republican administration. Its centerpiece is Schedule F—a government job classification that would allow the new president to reclassify tens of thousands of career civil servants as at-will political appointees. That means federal workers, who traditionally hold their positions regardless of party, could be replaced without cause by loyalists. Kiron Skinner, who authored the State Department chapter, suggested clearing out senior career officials before January 20 and quickly installing appointees who share the president's views, bypassing regular Senate confirmation requirements. Skinner argues such moves are necessary to ensure ideological alignment, though when pressed by CNN's Peter Bergen, she couldn't cite a specific past obstruction by career diplomats.Concrete actions have followed rhetoric. When President Trump took office on January 20, he and Elon Musk's newly minted Department of Government Efficiency hit the ground running. According to Government Executive and other outlets, entire agencies like the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and USAID were targeted for elimination through “legally questionable means,” with the stated goal of cutting $1 trillion in spending. Executive orders soon followed, including one mandating that federal agencies may only hire one worker for every four who leave, and requiring return-to-office mandates for a federal workforce that had grown accustomed to remote work during the pandemic.Faced with the threat of losing job protections, over a quarter-million federal workers and contractors were facing layoffs by spring 2025, with forty-seven years of collective bargaining law challenged as unions raced to court. NTEU President Doreen Greenwald put it bluntly, calling it “an attack on the law, and on public service.” Opposition isn't limited to labor groups. The ACLU has charged that Project 2025 is a “roadmap to replace the rule of law with right-wing ideals,” warning that the proposals could undermine legal norms, civil rights, and protections for marginalized groups. Legal scholars from both political parties have raised flags about weakening the separation of powers, endangering environmental and public health safeguards, and risking consolidated, unchecked executive authority.Proponents are equally resolute. They argue that Project 2025 is a necessary corrective to what they view as a bloated, left-leaning bureaucracy unaccountable to the people. Heritage Foundation materials frame the federal government as too large, too costly, and resistant to the priorities of conservative Americans. They cite the sheer scale—over 2.4 million civilian federal employees—and the proliferation of agencies as drivers for dramatic consolidation and workforce reductions.Specific policy proposals go beyond personnel. The project seeks to reset environmental rules, roll back climate policies, and overhaul protections related to health, education, and civil rights. Critics, including groups like the Center for Progressive Reform, warn that these policies will lead to significant negative effects for ordinary Americans—from loss of workplace and environmental protections to sharp changes in immigration enforcement and reproductive rights.As the summer of 2025 progresses, listeners should watch several key milestones. Court cases brought by federal employee unions and advocacy groups could set vital precedents for the separation of powers. Agency heads are evaluating which departments could be merged or eliminated entirely in accordance with new directives. Congress, too, will play an uncertain but pivotal role as many Project 2025 reforms require new legislation or appropriations. Meanwhile, a country already polarized by election-year tensions is bracing for the long-term consequences of this radical experiment in federal power.Thank you for tuning in to this week's deep dive into Project 2025's ambitions and realities. Be sure to come back next week for more crucial stories shaping the nation.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.ai

Project 2025 began quietly in conservative circles, with its origins traced to a Spring 2022 gathering of strategists and operatives in Washington. By April 2023, the Heritage Foundation had unveiled the nine-hundred-plus page blueprint, branding it “Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise.” The document reads less like a policy wish list and more like a regime change manual, spelling out a dramatic vision for American governance under a future conservative administration.Kevin Roberts, president of the Heritage Foundation, captured the mood in a statement: “All federal employees should answer to the president.” This encapsulates the project's signature ambition—greater centralization of executive power—rooted in what conservative legal theorists call “unitary executive theory.” According to analysis in The New York Times, this vision would go farther than any post-Nixon Republican platform by making the entire federal bureaucracy directly accountable to the president, erasing agency independence and civil service barriers that have existed for decades.The Project's approach is methodical. Its 180-day playbook details how agency heads should be replaced immediately after inauguration, with thousands of ideologically vetted appointees stepping into critical roles. The controversial Schedule F personnel policy is central: it seeks to reclassify existing civil servants, strip them of job protections, and replace large swathes with loyalists, allowing the new administration essentially unlimited power to hire and fire across government. According to the National Federation of Federal Employees, this would have unprecedented ramifications—apolitical employees, many with deep expertise, would lose their shields from political interference and could be replaced at will, upending regulatory stability.Examples of proposed reforms are as concrete as they are sweeping. The plan advocates abolishing entire agencies, including the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the U.S. Agency for International Development. According to reporting on the current administration's implementation efforts, the Department of Government Efficiency led by Elon Musk has already moved to shut down both of those agencies, simultaneously laying off over a quarter million federal workers and contractors—27 agencies impacted in total. The chaos of rapid layoffs has led to lawsuits: NTEU President Tony Reardon stated, “For over 47 years, the law has made clear that collective bargaining in the federal sector is in the public interest. We have taken the necessary action to file a lawsuit to uphold the law and stop this attack.”On the policy side, criminal justice stands as a stark example. Project 2025 recommends that the Department of Justice intervene in local cases where it believes “rule of law deficiencies” exist, targeting prosecutors who prefer diversion programs or refuse to prosecute low-level offenses. The Brennan Center underscores that this would politicize local law enforcement and undermine prosecutorial discretion, with potentially chilling effects on criminal justice reform.Economic policy proposals include consolidating the Bureau of Economic Analysis, Census Bureau, and Bureau of Labor Statistics into a single agency—a move that critics, like Democracy Forward, warn would “kneecap the data-collection capacities” essential for planning and transparency. Project 2025 also seeks to dismantle the Economic Development Administration, which recently overseen billions in infrastructure investment and the creation of over 200,000 jobs, threatening significant disruption to federal investment in communities.Supporters argue these measures will “destroy the administrative state,” clearing away what they view as unaccountable power. Critics, from the ACLU to the Center for Progressive Reform, counter that the blueprint's methods—centralized appointment, aggressive deregulation, and sweeping personnel changes—threaten democratic checks and balances, civil rights, and the rule of law.As the country approaches pivotal elections, Project 2025 stands at a crossroads between aspiration and action. The next major milestone will arrive with the inauguration—should the conservative movement prevail, all eyes will be on the new administration's first hundred days, as the fate of agencies, public servants, and the structure of American governance hang in the balance.Thanks for tuning in, and come back next week for moreSome great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.ai

In April 2023, a coalition led by the Heritage Foundation released Project 2025, an audacious blueprint proposing to reshape American governance on a scale rarely seen in modern politics. The plan, spanning nearly a thousand pages, lays out a “Mandate for Leadership” that reaches into the fiber of every federal agency and policy domain, promising dramatic change beginning as soon as January 20, 2025, should the architects gain influence.Project 2025 isn't just another policy playbook. According to The Center for Progressive Reform, it aims to radically restructure the executive branch by concentrating unprecedented power in the Oval Office. By relying on a controversial interpretation of the unitary executive theory, the project proposes to eliminate the independence of the Justice Department, the FBI, the Federal Communications Commission, and the Federal Trade Commission, placing them all directly under presidential control. Kevin Roberts of Heritage proclaimed, “All federal employees should answer to the president,” highlighting the drive for loyalty and ideological uniformity at the highest levels.A significant tool in this restructuring is Schedule F, a hiring scheme that allows for unlimited political appointments without civil service protections. Political loyalists would fill key posts overnight, while thousands of career officials could be dismissed or reassigned. The National Federation of Federal Employees warns this could “destroy the Administrative State,” stripping public servants of their protection and empowering the incoming administration to act with little oversight. Experts note this opens the door to corruption and abuse of power on a level unseen since the patronage systems of the 19th century.Concrete proposals go beyond staffing. Project 2025 calls for dismantling the Consumer Financial Protection Board and the United States Agency for International Development, as seen in recent attempts to eliminate these agencies under the current administration, which has already fired hundreds of thousands of workers. The American Federation of Government Employees and National Treasury Employees Union have filed lawsuits, arguing, “For over 47 years, the law has made clear that collective bargaining in the federal sector is in the public interest. We have taken the necessary action to file a lawsuit to uphold the law and stop this attack.” Meanwhile, chaotic return-to-office mandates and office closures serve a dual purpose: savings, and making remote work, long a civil service perk, much harder.Education policies advocated by Project 2025 are even more sweeping. Brookings experts describe proposals to shutter the Department of Education, eliminate Head Start and Title I funding, privatize the federal student loan program, and rescind protections for LGBTQ+ students. The report's authors, many of whom served in the first Trump administration, envision a landscape where federal enforcement of civil rights is severely curtailed. “This is a great group, and they're going to lay the groundwork and detail plans for exactly what our movement will do,” said former President Trump in 2022, underscoring the project's ambition and alignment with his worldview.Civil liberties groups, including the ACLU, describe Project 2025 as a “blueprint for how to replace the rule of law with right-wing ideals.” Their analysis argues that, from abortion and immigration to free speech and racial justice, recommended actions would erode democratic norms and threaten fundamental rights.As the Heritage Foundation and its allies press forward, the next few months loom large. Will Congress and the courts intervene in time to temper the most sweeping proposals? Could a dramatic overhaul of the federal government become reality on “Day One”? Experts from both ends of the political spectrum agree that, if enacted, Project 2025 would alter the balance of power in Washington – possibly for generations.Thank you for tuning in. Join us next week for a deeper look at how these changes could affect American lives, and what milestones to watch as this bold project unfolds.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.ai

We discuss how ungoverning is the equivalent of a bull in a china shop. We have already seen the destruction of many institutions and many functions of the administrative state, but we don't yet know how much there is still to come.   Nancy's civic action toolkit recommendations are:  1) Don't let unpredictability strip you of your agency 2) Vote in local, county, and state elections   Nancy Rosenblum is the Senator Joseph Clark Professor of Ethics in Politics and Government Emerita at Harvard University, and the co-author of Ungoverning: The Attack on the Administrative State and the Politics of Chaos.     Let's connect! Follow Future Hindsight on Instagram:  https://www.instagram.com/futurehindsightpod/   Discover new ways to #BetheSpark:  https://www.futurehindsight.com/spark    Follow Mila on X:  https://x.com/milaatmos    Follow Nancy on X:  https://x.com/Nlrosenblum    Read Ungoverning:  https://bookshop.org/shop/futurehindsight    Sponsor:  Thank you to Shopify! Sign up for a $1/month trial at shopify.com/hopeful.   Early episodes for Patreon supporters: https://patreon.com/futurehindsight  Credits:  Host: Mila Atmos  Guests: Nancy Rosenblum Executive Producer: Mila Atmos Producer: Zack Travis

Today I'm talking to economic historian Judge Glock, Director of Research at the Manhattan Institute. Judge works on a lot of topics: if you enjoy this episode, I'd encourage you to read some of his work on housing markets and the Environmental Protection Agency. But I cornered him today to talk about civil service reform.Since the 1990s, over 20 red and blue states have made radical changes to how they hire and fire government employees — changes that would be completely outside the Overton window at the federal level. A paper by Judge and Renu Mukherjee lists four reforms made by states like Texas, Florida, and Georgia: * At-will employment for state workers* The elimination of collective bargaining agreements* Giving managers much more discretion to hire* Giving managers much more discretion in how they pay employeesJudge finds decent evidence that the reforms have improved the effectiveness of state governments, and little evidence of the politicization that federal reformers fear. Meanwhile, in Washington, managers can't see applicants' resumes, keyword searches determine who gets hired, and firing a bad performer can take years. But almost none of these ideas are on the table in Washington.Thanks to Harry Fletcher-Wood for his judicious transcript edits and fact-checking, and to Katerina Barton for audio edits.Judge, you have a paper out about lessons for civil service reform from the states. Since the ‘90s, red and blue states have made big changes to how they hire and fire people. Walk through those changes for me.I was born and grew up in Washington DC, heard a lot about civil service throughout my childhood, and began to research it as an adult. But I knew almost nothing about the state civil service systems. When I began working in the states — mainly across the Sunbelt, including in Texas, Kansas, Arizona — I was surprised to learn that their civil service systems were reformed to an absolutely radical extent relative to anything proposed at the federal level, let alone implemented.Starting in the 1990s, several states went to complete at-will employment. That means there were no official civil service protections for any state employees. Some managers were authorized to hire people off the street, just like you could in the private sector. A manager meets someone in a coffee shop, they say, "I'm looking for exactly your role. Why don't you come on board?" At the federal level, with its stultified hiring process, it seemed absurd to even suggest something like that.You had states that got rid of any collective bargaining agreements with their public employee unions. You also had states that did a lot more broadbanding [creating wider pay bands] for employee pay: a lot more discretion for managers to reward or penalize their employees depending on their performance.These major reforms in these states were, from the perspective of DC, incredibly radical. Literally nobody at the federal level proposes anything approximating what has been in place for decades in the states. That should be more commonly known, and should infiltrate the debate on civil service reform in DC.Even though the evidence is not absolutely airtight, on the whole these reforms have been positive. A lot of the evidence is surveys asking managers and operators in these states how they think it works. They've generally been positive. We know these states operate pretty well: Places like Texas, Florida, and Arizona rank well on state capacity metrics in terms of cost of government, time for permitting, and other issues.Finally, to me the most surprising thing is the dog that didn't bark. The argument in the federal government against civil service reform is, “If you do this, we will open up the gates of hell and return to the 19th-century patronage system, where spoilsmen come and go depending on elected officials, and the government is overrun with political appointees who don't care about the civil service.” That has simply not happened. We have very few reports of any concrete examples of politicization at the state level. In surveys, state employees and managers can almost never remember any example of political preferences influencing hiring or firing.One of the surveys you cited asked, “Can you think of a time someone said that they thought that the political preferences were a factor in civil service hiring?” and it was something like 5%.It was in that 5-10% range. I don't think you'd find a dissimilar number of people who would say that even in an official civil service system. Politics is not completely excluded even from a formal civil service system.A few weeks ago, you and I talked to our mutual friend, Don Moynihan, who's a scholar of public administration. He's more skeptical about the evidence that civil service reform would be positive at the federal level.One of your points is, “We don't have strong negative evidence from the states. Productivity didn't crater in states that moved to an at-will employment system.” We do have strong evidence that collective bargaining in the public sector is bad for productivity.What I think you and Don would agree on is that we could use more evidence on the hiring and firing side than the surveys that we have. Is that a fair assessment?Yes, I think that's correct. As you mentioned, the evidence on collective bargaining is pretty close to universal: it raises costs, reduces the efficiency of government, and has few to no positive upsides.On hiring and firing, I mentioned a few studies. There's a 2013 study that looks at HR managers in six states and finds very little evidence of politicization, and managers generally prefer the new system. There was a dissertation that surveyed several employees and managers in civil service reform and non-reform states. Across the board, the at-will employment states said they had better hiring retention, productivity, and so forth. And there's a 2002 study that looked specifically at Texas, Florida, and Georgia after their reforms, and found almost universal approbation inside the civil service itself for these reforms.These are not randomized control trials. But I think that generally positive evidence should point us directionally where we should go on civil service reform. If we loosen restrictions on discipline and firing, decentralize hiring and so forth — we probably get some productivity benefits from it. We can also know, with some amount of confidence, that the sky is not going to fall, which I think is a very important baseline assumption. The civil service system will continue on and probably be fairly close to what it is today, in terms of its political influence, if you have decentralized hiring and at-will employment.As you point out, a lot of these reforms that have happened in 20-odd states since the ‘90s would be totally outside the Overton window at the federal level. Why is it so easy for Georgia to make a bipartisan move in the ‘90s to at-will employment, when you couldn't raise the topic at the federal level?It's a good question. I think in the 1990s, a lot of people thought a combination of the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act — which was the Carter-era act that somewhat attempted to do what these states hoped to do in the 1990s — and the Clinton-era Reinventing Government Initiative, would accomplish the same ends. That didn't happen.That was an era when civil service reform was much more bipartisan. In Georgia, it was a Democratic governor, Zell Miller, who pushed it. In a lot of these other states, they got buy-in from both sides. The recent era of state reform took place after the 2010 Republican wave in the states. Since that wave, the reform impetus for civil service has been much more Republican. That has meant it's been a lot harder to get buy-in from both sides at the federal level, which will be necessary to overcome a filibuster.I think people know it has to be very bipartisan. We're just past the point, at least at the moment, where it can be bipartisan at the federal level. But there are areas where there's a fair amount of overlap between the two sides on what needs to happen, at least in the upper reaches of the civil service.It was interesting to me just how bipartisan civil service reform has been at various times. You talked about the Civil Service Reform Act, which passed Congress in 1978. President Carter tells Congress that the civil service system:“Has become a bureaucratic maze which neglects merit, tolerates poor performance, permits abuse of legitimate employee rights, and mires every personnel action in red tape, delay, and confusion.”That's a Democratic president saying that. It's striking to me that the civil service was not the polarized topic that it is today.Absolutely. Carter was a big civil service reformer in Georgia before those even larger 1990s reforms. He campaigned on civil service reform and thought it was essential to the success of his presidency. But I think you are seeing little sprouts of potential bipartisanship today, like the Chance to Compete Act at the end of 2024, and some of the reforms Obama did to the hiring process. There's options for bipartisanship at the federal level, even if it can't approach what the states have done.I want to walk through the federal hiring process. Let's say you're looking to hire in some federal agency — you pick the agency — and I graduated college recently, and I want to go into the civil service. Tell me about trying to hire somebody like me. What's your first step?It's interesting you bring up the college graduate, because that is one recent reform: President Trump put out an executive order trying to counsel agencies to remove the college degree requirement for job postings. This happened in a lot of states first, like Maryland, and that's also been bipartisan. This requirement for a college degree — which was used as a very unfortunate proxy for ability at a lot of these jobs — is now being removed. It's not across the whole federal government. There's still job postings that require higher education degrees, but that's something that's changed.To your question, let's say the Department of Transportation. That's one of the more bipartisan ones, when you look at surveys of federal civil servants. Department of Defense, Veterans Affairs, they tend to be a little more Republican. Health and Human Services and some other agencies tend to be pretty Democrat. Transportation is somewhere in the middle.As a manager, you try to craft a job description and posting to go up on the USA Jobs website, which is where all federal job postings go. When they created it back in 1996, that was supposedly a massive reform to federal hiring: this website where people could submit their resumes. Then, people submit their resumes and answer questions about their qualifications for the job.One of the slightly different aspects from the private sector is that those applications usually go to an HR specialist first. The specialist reviews everything and starts to rank people into different categories, based on a lot of weird things. It's supposed to be “knowledge, skills, and abilities” — your KSAs, or competencies. To some extent, this is a big step up from historical practice. You had, frankly, an absurd civil service exam, where people had to fill out questions about, say, General Grant or about US Code Title 42, or whatever it was, and then submit it. Someone rated the civil service exam, and then the top three test-takers were eligible for the job.We have this newer, better system, where we rank on knowledge, skills, and abilities, and HR puts put people into different categories. One of the awkward ways they do this is by merely scanning the resumes and applications for keywords. If it's a computer job, make sure you say the word “computer” somewhere in your resume. Make sure you say “manager” if it's a managerial job.Just to be clear, this is entirely literal. There's a keyword search, and folks who don't pass that search are dinged.Yes. I've always wondered, how common is this? It's sometimes hard to know what happens in the black box in these federal HR departments. I saw an HR official recently say, "If I'm not allowed to do keyword searches, I'm going to take 15 years to overlook all the applications, so I've got to do keyword searches." If they don't have the keywords, into the circular file it goes, as they used to say: into the garbage can.Then they start ranking people on their abilities into, often, three different categories. That is also very literal. If you put in the little word bubble, "I am an exceptional manager," you get pushed on into the next level of the competition. If you say, "I'm pretty good, but I'm not the best," into the circular file you go.I've gotten jaded about this, but it really is shocking. We ask candidates for a self-assessment, and if they just rank themselves 10/10 on everything, no matter how ludicrous, that improves their odds of being hired.That's going to immensely improve your odds. Similar to the keyword search, there's been pushback on this in recent years, and I'm definitely not going to say it's universal anymore. It's rarer than it used to be. But it's still a very common process.The historical civil service system used to operate on a rule of three. In places like New York, it still operates like that. The top three candidates on the evaluation system get presented to the manager, and the manager has to approve one of them for the position.Thanks partially to reforms by the Obama administration in 2010, they have this category rating system where the best qualified or the very qualified get put into a big bucket together [instead of only including the top three]. Those are the people that the person doing the hiring gets to see, evaluate, and decide who he wants to hire.There are some restrictions on that. If a veteran outranks everybody else, you've got to pick the veteran [typically known as Veterans' Preference]. That was an issue in some of the state civil service reforms, too. The states said, “We're just going to encourage a veterans' preference. We don't need a formalized system to say they get X number of points and have to be in Y category. We're just going to say, ‘Try to hire veterans.'” That's possible without the formal system, despite what some opponents of reform may claim.One of the particular problems here is just the nature of the people doing the hiring. Sometimes you just need good managers to encourage HR departments to look at a broader set of qualifications. But one of the bigger problems is that they keep the HR evaluation system divorced from the manager who is doing the hiring. David Shulkin, who was the head of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), wrote a great book, It Shouldn't Be This Hard to Serve Your Country. He was a healthcare exec, and the VA is mainly a healthcare agency. He would tell people, "You should work for me," they would send their applications into the HR void, and he'd never see them again. They would get blocked at some point in this HR evaluation process, and he'd be sent people with no healthcare experience, because for whatever reason they did well in the ranking.One of the very base-level reforms should be, “How can we more clearly integrate the hiring manager with the evaluation process?” To some extent, the bipartisan Chance to Compete Act tries to do this. They said, “You should have subject matter experts who are part of crafting the description of the job, are part of evaluating, and so forth.” But there's still a long road to go.Does that firewall — where the person who wants to hire doesn't get to look at the process until the end — exist originally because of concerns about cronyism?One of the interesting things about the civil service is its raison d'être — its reason for being — was supposedly a single, clear purpose: to prevent politicized hiring and patronage. That goes back to the Pendleton Civil Service Act of 1883. But it's always been a little strange that you have all of these very complex rules about every step of the process — from hiring to firing to promotion, and everything in between — to prevent political influence. We could just focus on preventing political influence, and not regulate every step of the process on the off-chance that without a clear regulation, political influence could creep in. This division [between hiring manager and applicants] is part of that general concern. There are areas where I've heard HR specialists say, "We declare that a manager is a subject matter expert, and we bring them into the process early on, we can do that." But still the division is pretty stark, and it's based on this excessive concern about patronage.One point you flag is that the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), which is the body that thinks about personnel in the federal government, has a 300-page regulatory document for agencies on how you have to hire. There's a remarkable amount of process.Yes, but even that is a big change from the Federal Personnel Manual, which was the 10,000-page document that we shredded in the 1990s. In the ‘90s, OPM gave the agencies what's called “delegated examining authorities.” This says, “You, agency, have power to decide who to hire, we're not going to do the central supervision anymore. But, but, but: here's the 300-page document that dictates exactly how you have to carry out that hiring.”So we have some decentralization, allowing managers more authority to control their own departments. But this two-level oversight — a local HR department that's ultimately being overseen by the OPM — also leads to a lot of slip ‘twixt cup and lip, in terms of how something gets implemented. If you're in the agency and you're concerned about the OPM overseeing your process, you're likely to be much more careful than you would like to be. “Yes, it's delegated to me, but ultimately, I know I have to answer to OPM about this process. I'm just going to color within the lines.”I often cite Texas, which has no central HR office. Each agency decides how it wants to hire. In a lot of these reform states, if there is a central personnel office, it's an information clearinghouse or reservoir of models. “You can use us, the central HR office, as a resource if you want us to help you post the job, evaluate it, or help manage your processes, but you don't have to.” That's the goal we should be striving for in a lot of the federal reforms. Just make OPM a resource for the managers in the individual departments to do their thing or go independent.Let's say I somehow get through the hiring process. You offer me a job at the Department of Transportation. What are you paying me?This is one of the more stultified aspects of the federal civil service system. OPM has another multi-hundred-page handbook called the Handbook of Occupational Groups and Families. Inside that, you've got 49 different “groups and families,” like “Clerical occupations.” Inside those 49 groups are a series of jobs, sometimes dozens, like “Computer Operator.” Inside those, they have independent documents — often themselves dozens of pages long — detailing classes of positions. Then you as a manager have to evaluate these nine factors, which can each give points to each position, which decides how you get slotted into this weird Government Schedule (GS) system [the federal payscale].Again, this is actually an improvement. Before, you used to have the Civil Service Commission, which went around staring very closely at someone over their typewriter and saying, "No, I think you should be a GS-12, not a GS-11, because someone over in the Department of Defense who does your same job is a GS-12." Now this is delegated to agencies, but again, the agencies have to listen to the OPM on how to classify and set their jobs into this 15-stage GS-classification system, each stage of which has 10 steps which determine your pay, and those steps are determined mainly by your seniority. It's a formalized step-by-step system, overwhelmingly based on just how long you've sat at your desk.Let's be optimistic about my performance as a civil servant. Say that over my first three years, I'm just hitting it out of the park. Can you give me a raise? What can you do to keep me in my role?Not too much. For most people, the within-step increases — those 10 steps inside each GS-level — is just set by seniority. Now there are all these quality step increases you can get, but they're very rare and they have to be documented. So you could hypothetically pay someone more, but it's going to be tough. In general, the managers just prefer to stick to seniority, because not sticking to it garners a lot of complaints. Like so much else, the goal is, "We don't want someone rewarding an official because they happen to share their political preferences." The result of that concern is basically nobody can get rewarded at all, which is very unfortunate.We do have examples in state and federal government of what's known as broadbanding, where you have very broad pay scales, and the manager can decide where to slot someone. Say you're a computer operator, which can mean someone who knows what an Excel spreadsheet is, or someone who's programming the most advanced AI systems. As a manager in South Carolina or Florida, you have a lot of discretion to say, "I can set you 50% above the market rate of what this job technically would go for, if I think you're doing a great job."That's very rare at the federal level. They've done broadbanding at the Government Accountability Office, the National Institute of Standards and Technology. The China Lake Experiment out in California gave managers a lot more discretion to reward scientists. But that's definitely the exception. In general, it's a step-wise, seniority-based system.What if you want to bring me into the Senior Executive Service (SES)? Theoretically, that sits at the top of the General Service scale. Can't you bump me up in there and pay me what you owe me?I could hypothetically bring you in as a senior executive servant. The SES was created in the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act. The idea was, “We're going to have this elite cadre of about 8,000 individuals at the top of the federal government, whose employment will be higher-risk and higher-reward. They might be fired, and we're going to give them higher pay to compensate for that.”Almost immediately, that did not work out. Congress was outraged at the higher pay given to the top officials and capped it. Ever since, how much the SES can get paid has been tightly controlled. As in most of the rest of the federal government, where they establish these performance pay incentives or bonuses — which do exist — they spread them like peanut butter over the whole service. To forestall complaints, everyone gets a little bit every two or three years.That's basically what happened to the SES. Their annual pay is capped at the vice president's salary, which is a cap for a lot of people in the federal government. For most of your GS and other executive scales, the cap is Congress's salary. [NB: This is no longer exactly true, since Congress froze its own salaries in 2009. The cap for GS (currently about $195k) is now above congressional salaries ($174k).]One of the big problems with pay in the federal government is pay compression. Across civil service systems, the highest-skilled people tend to be paid much less than the private sector, and the lowest-skilled people tend to get paid much more. The political science reason for that is pretty simple: the median voter in America still decides what seems reasonable. To the median voter, the average salary of a janitor looks low, and the average salary of a scientist looks way too high. Hence this tendency to pay compression. Your average federal employee is probably overpaid relative to the private sector, because the lowest-skilled employees are paid up to 40% higher than the private sector equivalent. The highest-paid employees, the post-graduate skilled professionals, are paid less. That makes it hard to recruit the top performers, but it also swells the wage budget in a way that makes it difficult to talk about reform.There's a lot of interest in this administration in making it easier to recruit talent and get rid of under-performers. There have been aggressive pushes to limit collective bargaining in the public sector. That should theoretically make it easier to recruit, but it also increases the precariousness of civil service roles. We've seen huge firings in the civil service over the last six months.Classically, the explicit trade-off of working in the federal government was, “Your pay is going to be capped, but you have this job for life. It's impossible to get rid of you.” You trade some lifetime earnings for stability. In a world where the stability is gone, but pay is still capped, isn't the net effect to drive talent away from the civil service?I think it's a concern now. On one level it should be ameliorated, because those who are most concerned with stability of employment do tend to be lower performers. If you have people who are leaving the federal service because all they want is stability, and they're not getting that anymore, that may not be a net loss. As someone who came out of academia and knows the wonder of effective lifetime annuities, there can be very high performers who like that stability who therefore take a lower salary. Without the ability to bump that pay up more, it's going to be an issue.I do know that, internally, the Trump administration has made some signs they're open to reforms in the top tiers of the SES and other parts of the federal government. They would be willing to have people get paid more at that level to compensate for the increased risks since the Trump administration came in. But when you look at the reductions in force (RIFs) that have happened under Trump, they are overwhelmingly among probationary employees, the lower-level employees.With some exceptions. If you've been promoted recently, you can get reclassified as probationary, so some high-performers got lumped in.Absolutely. The issue has been exacerbated precisely because the RIF regulations that are in place have made the firings particularly damaging. If you had a more streamlined RIF system — which they do have in many states, where seniority is not the main determinant of who gets laid off — these RIFs could be removing the lower-performing civil servants and keeping the higher-performing ones, and giving them some amount of confidence in their tenure.Unfortunately, the combination of large-scale removals with the existing RIF regs, which are very stringent, has demoralized some of the upper levels of the federal government. I share that concern. But I might add, it is interesting, if you look at the federal government's own figures on the total civil service workforce, they have gone down significantly since Trump came in office, but I think less than 100,000 still, in the most recent numbers that I've seen. I'm not sure how much to trust those, versus some of these other numbers where people have said 150,000, 200,000.Whether the Trump administration or a future administration can remove large numbers of people from the civil service should be somewhat divorced from the general conversation on civil service reform. The main debate about whether or not Trump can do this centers around how much power the appropriators in Congress have to determine the total amount of spending in particular agencies on their workforce. It does not depend necessarily on, "If we're going to remove people — whether for general layoffs, or reductions in force, or because of particular performance issues — how can we go about doing that?" My last-ditch hope to maintain a bipartisan possibility of civil service reform is to bracket, “How much power does the president have to remove or limit the workforce in general?” from “How can he go about hiring and firing, et cetera?”I think making it easier for the president to identify and remove poor performers is a tool that any future administration would like to have.We had this conversation sparked again with the firing of the Bureau of Labor Statistics commissioner. But that was a position Congress set up to be appointed by the President, confirmed by the Senate, and removable by the President. It's a separate issue from civil service at large. Everyone said, “We want the president to be able to hire and fire the commissioner.” Maybe firing the commissioner was a bad decision, but that's the situation today.Attentive listeners to Statecraft know I'm pretty critical, like you are, of the regulations that say you have to go in order of seniority. In mass layoffs, you're required to fire a lot of the young, talented people.But let's talk about individual firings. I've been a terrible civil servant, a nightmarish employee from day one. You want to discipline, remove, suspend, or fire me. What are your options?Anybody who has worked in the civil service knows it's hard to fire bad performers. Whatever their political valence, whatever they feel about the civil service system, they have horror stories about a person who just couldn't be removed.In the early 2010s, a spate of stories came out about air traffic controllers sleeping on the job. Then-transportation secretary, Ray LaHood, made a big public announcement: "I'm going to fire these three guys." After these big announcements, it turned out he was only able to remove one of them. One retired, and another had their firing reduced to a suspension.You had another horrific story where a man was joking on the phone with friends when a plane crashed into a helicopter and killed nine people over the Hudson River. National outcry. They said, "We're going to fire this guy." In the end, after going through the process, he only got a suspension. Everyone agrees it's too hard.The basic story is, you have two ways to fire someone. Chapter 75, the old way, is often considered the realm of misconduct: You've stolen something from the office, punched your colleague in the face during a dispute about the coffee, something illegal or just straight-out wrong. We get you under Chapter 75.The 1978 Civil Service Reform Act added Chapter 43, which is supposed to be the performance-based system to remove someone. As with so much of that Civil Service Reform Act, the people who passed it thought this might be the beginning of an entirely different system.In the end, lots of federal managers say there's not a huge difference between the two. Some use 75, some use 43. If you use 43, you have to document very clearly what the person did wrong. You have to put them on a performance improvement plan. If they failed a performance improvement plan after a certain amount of time, they can respond to any claims about what they did wrong. Then, they can take that process up to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) and claim that they were incorrectly fired, or that the processes weren't carried out appropriately. Then, if they want to, they can say, “Nah, I don't like the order I got,” and take it up to federal courts and complain there. Right now, the MSPB doesn't have a full quorum, which is complicating some of the recent removal disputes.You have this incredibly difficult process, unlike the private sector, where your boss looks at you and says, "I don't like how you're giving me the stink-eye today. Out you go." One could say that's good or bad, but, on the whole, I think the model should be closer to the private sector. We should trust managers to do their job without excessive oversight and process. That's clearly about as far from the realm of possibility as the current system, under which the estimate is 6-12 months to fire a very bad performer. The number of people who win at the Merit Systems Protection Board is still 20-30%.This goes into another issue, which is unionization. If you're part of a collective bargaining agreement — most of the regular federal civil service is — first, you have to go with this independent, union-based arbitration and grievance procedure. You're about 50/50 to win on those if your boss tries to remove you.So if I'm in the union, we go through that arbitration grievance system. If you win and I'm fired, I can take it to the Merit Systems Protection Board. If you win again, I can still take it to the federal courts.You can file different sorts of claims at each part. On Chapter 43, the MSPB is supposed to be about the process, not the evidence, and you just have to show it was followed. On 75, the manager has to show by preponderance of the evidence that the employee is harming the agency. Then there are different standards for what you take to the courts, and different standards according to each collective bargaining agreement for the grievance procedure when someone is disciplined. It's a very complicated, abstruse, and procedure-heavy process that makes it very difficult to remove people, which is why the involuntary separation rate at the federal government and most state governments is many multiples lower than the private sector.So, you would love to get me off your team because I'm abysmal. But you have no stomach for going through this whole process and I'm going to fight it. I'm ornery and contrarian and will drag this fight out. In practice, what do managers in the federal government do with their poor performers?I always heard about this growing up. There's the windowless office in the basement without a phone, or now an internet connection. You place someone down there, hope they get the message, and sooner or later they leave. But for plenty of people in America, that's the dream job. You just get to sit and nobody bothers you for eight hours. You punch in at 9 and punch out at 5, and that's your day. "Great. I'll collect that salary for another 10 years." But generally you just try to make life unpleasant for that person.Public sector collective bargaining in the US is new. I tend to think of it as just how the civil service works. But until about 50 years ago, there was no collective bargaining in the public sector.At the state level, it started with Wisconsin at the end of the 1950s. There were famous local government reforms beginning with the Little Wagner Act [signed in 1958] in New York City. Senator Robert Wagner had created the National Labor Relations Board. His son Robert F. Wagner Jr., mayor of New York, created the first US collective bargaining system at the local level in the ‘60s. In ‘62, John F. Kennedy issued an executive order which said, "We're going to deal officially with public sector unions,” but it was all informal and non-statutory.It wasn't until Title VII of the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act that unions had a formal, statutory role in our federal service system. This is shockingly new. To some extent, that was the great loss to many civil service reformers in ‘78. They wanted to get through a lot of these other big reforms about hiring and firing, but they gave up on the unions to try to get those. Some people think that exception swallowed the rest of the rules. The union power that was garnered in ‘78 overcame the other reforms people hoped to accomplish. Soon, you had the majority of the federal workforce subject to collective bargaining.But that's changing now too. Part of that Civil Service Reform Act said, “If your position is in a national security-related position, the president can determine it's not subject to collective bargaining.” Trump and the OPM have basically said, “Most positions in the federal government are national security-related, and therefore we're going to declare them off-limits to collective bargaining.” Some people say that sounds absurd. But 60% of the civilian civil service workforce is the Department of Defense, Veterans Affairs, and the Department of Homeland Security. I am not someone who tries to go too easy on this crowd. I think there's a heck of a lot that needs to be reformed. But it's also worth remembering that the majority of the civil service workforce are in these three agencies that Republicans tend to like a lot.Now, whether people like Veterans Affairs is more of an open question. We have some particular laws there about opening up processes after the scandals in the 2010s about waiting lists and hospitals. You had veterans hospitals saying, "We're meeting these standards for getting veterans in the door for these waiting lists." But they were straight-up lying about those standards. Many people who were on these lists waiting for months to see a doctor died in the interim, some from causes that could have been treated had they seen a VA doctor. That led to Congress doing big reforms in the VA in 2014 and 2017, precisely because everyone realized this is a problem.So, Trump has put out these executive orders stopping collective bargaining in all of these agencies that touch national security. Some of those, like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), seem like a tough sell. I guess that, if you want to dig a mine and the Chinese are trying to dig their own mine and we want the mine to go quickly without the EPA pettifogging it, maybe. But the core ones are pretty solid. So far the courts have upheld the executive order to go in place. So collective bargaining there could be reformed.But in the rest of the government, there are these very extreme, long collective bargaining agreements between agencies and their unions. I've hit on the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) as one that's had pretty extensive bargaining with its union. When we created the TSA to supervise airport security, a lot of people said, "We need a crème de la crème to supervise airports after 9/11. We want to keep this out of union hands, because we know unions are going to make it difficult to move people around." The Obama administration said, "Nope, we're going to negotiate with the union." Now you have these huge negotiations with the unions about parking spots, hours of employment, uniforms, and everything under the sun. That makes it hard for managers in the TSA to decide when people should go where or what they should do.One thing we've talked about on Statecraft in past episodes — for instance, with John Kamensky, who was a pivotal figure in the Clinton-Gore reforms — was this relationship between government employees and “Beltway Bandits”: the contractors who do jobs you might think of as civil service jobs. One critique of that ‘90s Clinton-Gore push, “Reinventing Government,” was that although they shrank the size of the civil service on paper, the number of contractors employed by the federal government ballooned to fill that void. They did not meaningfully reduce the total number of people being paid by the federal government. Talk to me about the relationship between the civil service reform that you'd like to see and this army of folks who are not formally employees.Every government service is a combination of public employees and inputs, and private employees and inputs. There's never a single thing the government does — federal, state, or local — that doesn't involve inputs from the private sector. That could be as simple as the uniforms for the janitors. Even if you have a publicly employed janitor, who buys the mop? You're not manufacturing the mops.I understand the critique that the excessive focus on full-time employees in the 1990s led to contracting out some positions that could be done directly by the government. But I think that misses how much of the government can and should be contracted out. The basic Office of Management and Budget (OMB) statute [OMB Circular No. A-76] defining what is an essential government duty should still be the dividing line. What does the government have to do, because that is the public overseeing a process? Versus, what can the private sector just do itself?I always cite Stephen Goldsmith, the old mayor of Indianapolis. He proposed what he called the Yellow Pages test. If you open the Yellow Pages [phone directory] and three businesses do that business, the government should not be in that business. There's three garbage haulers out there. Instead of having a formal government garbage-hauling department, just contract out the garbage.With the internet, you should have a lot more opportunities to contract stuff out. I think that is generally good, and we should not have the federal government going about a lot of the day-to-day procedural things that don't require public input. What a lot of people didn't recognize is how much pressure that's going to put on government contracting officers at the federal level. Last time I checked there were 40,000 contracting officers. They have a lot of power. In the most recent year for which we have data, there were $750 billion in federal contracts. This is a substantial part of our economy. If you total state and local, we're talking almost 10% of our whole economy goes through government contracts. This is mind-boggling. In the public policy world, we should all be spending about 10% of our time thinking about contracting.One of the things I think everyone recognized is that contractors should have more authority. Some of the reform that happened with people like [Steven] Kelman — who was the Office of Federal Procurement Policy head in the ‘90s under Clinton — was, "We need to give these people more authority to just take a credit card and go buy a sheaf of paper if that's what they need. And we need more authority to get contract bids out appropriately.”The same message that animates civil service reform should animate these contracting discussions. The goal should be setting clear goals that you want — for either a civil servant or a contractor — and then giving that person the discretion to meet them. If you make the civil service more stultified, or make pay compression more extreme, you're going to have to contract more stuff out.People talk about the General Schedule [pay scale], but we haven't talked about the Federal Wage Schedule system at all, which is the blue-collar system that encompasses about 200,000 federal employees. Pay compression means those guys get paid really well. That means some managers rightfully think, "I'd like to have full-time supervision over some role, but I would rather contract it out, because I can get it a heck of a lot cheaper."There's a continuous relationship: If we make the civil service more stultified, we're going to push contracting out into more areas where maybe it wouldn't be appropriate. But a lot of things are always going to be appropriate to contract out. That means we need to give contracting officers and the people overseeing contracts a lot of discretion to carry out their missions, and not a lot of oversight from the Government Accountability Office or the courts about their bids, just like we shouldn't give OPM excess input into the civil service hiring process.This is a theme I keep harping on, on Statecraft. It's counterintuitive from a reformer's perspective, but it's true: if you want these processes to function better, you're going to have to stop nitpicking. You're going to have to ease up on the throttle and let people make their own decisions, even when sometimes you're not going to agree with them.This is a tension that's obviously happening in this administration. You've seen some clear interest in decentralization, and you've seen some centralization. In both the contract and the civil service sphere, the goal for the central agencies should be giving as many options as possible to the local managers, making sure they don't go extremely off the rails, but then giving those local managers and contracting officials the ability to make their own choices. The General Services Administration (GSA) under this administration is doing a lot of government-wide acquisition contracts. “We establish a contract for the whole government in the GSA. Usually you, the local manager, are not required to use that contract if you want computer services or whatever, but it's an option for you.”OPM should take a similar role. "Here's the system we have set up. You can take that and use it as you want. It's here for you, but it doesn't have to be used, because you might have some very particular hiring decisions to make.” Just like there shouldn't be one contracting decision that decides how we buy both a sheaf of computer paper and an aircraft carrier, there shouldn't be one hiring and firing process for a janitor and a nuclear physicist. That can't be a centralized process, because the very nature of human life is that there's an infinitude of possibilities that you need to allow for, and that means some amount of decentralization.I had an argument online recently about New York City's “buy local” requirement for certain procurement contracts. When they want to build these big public toilets in New York City, they have to source all the toilet parts from within the state, even if they're $200,000 cheaper in Portland, Oregon.I think it's crazy to ask procurement and contracting to solve all your policy problems. Procurement can't be about keeping a healthy local toilet parts industry. You just need to procure the toilet.This is another area where you see similar overlap in some of the civil service and contracting issues. A lot of cities have residency requirements for many of their positions. If you work for the city, you have to live inside the city. In New York, that means you've got a lot of police officers living on Staten Island, or right on the line of the north side of the Bronx, where they're inches away from Westchester. That drives up costs, and limits your population of potential employees.One of the most amazing things to me about the Biden Bipartisan Infrastructure Law was that it encouraged contracting officers to use residency requirements: “You should try to localize your hiring and contracting into certain areas.” On a national level, that cancels out. If both Wyoming and Wisconsin use residency requirements, the net effect is not more people hired from one of those states! So often, people expect the civil service and contracting to solve all of our ills and to point the way forward for the rest of the economy on discrimination, hiring, pay, et cetera. That just leads to, by definition, government being a lot more expensive than the private sector.Over the next three and a half years, what would you like to see the administration do on civil service reform that they haven't already taken up?I think some of the broad-scale layoffs, which seem to be slowing down, were counterproductive. I do think that their ability to achieve their ends was limited by the nature of the reduction-in-force regulations, which made them more counterproductive than they had to be. That's the situation they inherited. But that didn't mean you had to lay off a lot of people without considering the particular jobs they were doing now.And hiring quite a few of them back.Yeah. There are also debates obviously, within the administration, between DOGE and Russ Vought [director of the OMB] and some others on this. Some things, like the Schedule Policy/Career — which is the revival of Schedule F in the first Trump administration — are largely a step in the right direction. Counter to some of the critics, it says, “You can remove someone if they're in a policymaking position, just like if they were completely at-will. But you still have to hire from the typical civil service system.” So, for those concerned about politicization, that doesn't undermine that, because they can't just pick someone from the party system to put in there. I think that's good.They recently had a suitability requirement rule that I think moved in the right direction. That says, “If someone's not suitable for the workforce, there are other ways to remove them besides the typical procedures.” The ideal system is going to require some congressional input: it's to have a decentralization of hiring authority to individual managers. Which means the OPM — now under Scott Kupor, who has finally been confirmed — saying, "The OPM is here to assist you, federal managers. Make sure you stay within the broad lanes of what the administration's trying to accomplish. But once we give you your general goals, we're going to trust you to do that, including hiring.”I've mentioned it a few times, but part of the Chance to Compete Act — which was mentioned in one of Trump's Day One executive orders, people forget about this — was saying, “Implement the Chance to Compete Act to the maximum extent of the law.” Bring more subject-matter expertise into the hiring process, allow more discretion for managers and input into the hiring process. I think carrying that bipartisan reform out is going to be a big step, but it's going to take a lot more work. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.statecraft.pub

Project 2025 has become one of the most ambitious—and controversial—proposals to reshape American governance in modern times. Unveiled by the Heritage Foundation and backed by a coalition of over 100 conservative groups, this nearly thousand-page blueprint envisions a sweeping overhaul of the federal government if a Republican president takes office in January 2025. Its stated mission is nothing short of a root-and-branch restructuring: dismantle the so-called “administrative state,” reassert presidential control, and roll back everything from agency independence to civil service protections.As Heritage Foundation president Kevin Roberts put it, “all federal employees should answer to the president.” At Project 2025's core lies an aggressive reading of the “unitary executive” theory, which claims the president should exercise direct oversight of the entire executive branch. The project calls for the elimination of the independence of agencies like the Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Federal Trade Commission, and the Federal Communications Commission. This would mean every official answers directly to the Oval Office, erasing barriers that, until now, protected agencies from political interference.Concrete examples of this ambition spill across the plan's 30 dense chapters. According to the policy document “Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise,” Project 2025 proposes the immediate dismissal of all State Department leadership and their replacement by ideologically vetted appointees. Kiron Skinner, who led the chapter on the State Department, wrote that career officials should be replaced by those more loyal to the president's agenda—noting she considered most State staff as “too left-wing.”The implications run deep for the federal workforce. Project 2025 reinvigorates the controversial “Schedule F” system, which would allow the mass reclassification of up to a million civil service positions to at-will federal jobs. As the National Federation of Federal Employees explains, everyone in these positions could be fired and replaced at the president's discretion. This would gut long-standing protections intended to shield government workers from political retribution or interference, paving the way for a loyalist bureaucracy on “Day One.”Some of the earliest developments since the 2024 election have been dramatic. The new administration, working with an Elon Musk–led Department of Government Efficiency, has already attempted to dismantle entire agencies like the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the U.S. Agency for International Development. According to Politico, Musk's team eliminated the CFPB and USAID, fired tens of thousands of federal workers, and rapidly imposed return-to-office mandates intended to shrink the government's physical footprint. The White House described the effort as making government “more efficient and effective,” with President Trump issuing an executive order for agencies to hire only one new worker for every four who leave.Critics, including the American Civil Liberties Union, warn that Project 2025 poses a grave threat to civil liberties and democratic norms. The ACLU highlights that the blueprint would roll back protections for LGBTQ rights, reproductive rights, and racial equity, while rolling out aggressive new policies on immigration, policing, and free speech. The Center for Progressive Reform is tracking these moves, reporting devastating consequences upon workers, the environment, and the rights of millions as the changes ripple through every U.S. state and territory.Supporters say Project 2025 is necessary to rid Washington of bias, inefficiency, and “woke” influence. Critics counter that it is, in the words of one legal expert for The Atlantic, “an attempt to intellectually retrofit a rationale for Trumpism.” They note that many proposals may require approval from Congress or survive Supreme Court scrutiny, but much of the plan is designed to work through executive action alone.As the country heads toward the 2026 congressional midterms, all eyes are on milestones set by the Project 2025 playbook. Will the courts uphold the expanded executive powers? Can civil service protections be permanently dismantled? And to what extent will Congress shield or resist the transformation underway? More executive orders, agency reshuffles, and legal showdowns are on the horizon, ensuring the fate of Project 2025 will remain a defining issue for the nation.Thanks for tuning in—come back next week for more.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.ai

Project 2025 stands at the center of the most audacious effort to refashion the American federal government in a generation. Announced by the Heritage Foundation in April 2023, it's described by its architects as a “Mandate for Leadership,” a nearly 1,000-page policy blueprint orchestrated for the next conservative administration. Its goal is to radically re-engineer almost every corner of the federal bureaucracy, starting on day one after inauguration.The true scope of Project 2025 emerges in its detailed chapters—each targeting a federal agency, each brimming with concrete proposals and strict timelines. According to Heritage president Kevin Roberts, “We must tear apart the administrative state,” and his words echo through the policy pages. The plan's core principle is to place the executive branch firmly under direct presidential control. This means eliminating the independence of agencies like the Department of Justice, the FBI, and the Federal Communications Commission. Kiron Skinner, the main author of the State Department section, put it bluntly: “Most State Department employees are too left-wing. They should be replaced by loyal conservatives appointed to acting roles with no Senate confirmation required.”Listeners should note the mechanism behind this overhaul: Schedule F. This little-known hiring classification, revived for this project, lets the president move career civil servants into politically appointed roles stripped of traditional protections. As the National Federation of Federal Employees explains, “Schedule F wipes out the guardrails against political overreach or abuse of power.” The vision is clear—on January 20, 2025, the new president would sign a prepared stack of executive orders, dismiss hundreds of agency leaders, and flood offices with handpicked loyalists.Elon Musk's stewardship of the new Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has served as the shock troops for these changes, reports Government Executive. Entire agencies, like the Consumer Financial Protection Board and USAID, have already been eliminated. In tandem, tens of thousands of federal workers have been laid off, with over 280,000 jobs cut or slated for elimination across 27 agencies. This restructuring, according to statements from the American Federation of Government Employees, represents “an attack on the very foundation of public service.” Return-to-office mandates and the downsizing of federal office buildings, often with little coordination, have further upended daily life for civil servants.President Trump's executive order from February 2025 codified much of the Project's ethos. The Department of Government Efficiency must reduce federal hiring to only essential positions, and for every four employees departing, only one replacement is allowed—excluding national security, law enforcement, and immigration. Agencies must draw up plans for large-scale reductions in force. Trump asserts this will shrink the government “for a new era of prosperity and innovation.”But the ambition doesn't stop at workforce reshuffling. Project 2025 targets environmental regulations, civil rights enforcement, and social policies. The Center for Progressive Reform warns that rollbacks across 20 agencies will have “devastating consequences for workers, the environment, public health, and the rights of millions.” Civil rights organizations like the Leadership Conference highlight proposals to gut the enforcement of key laws, eliminate disparate impact as a metric for discrimination, shut down diversity, equity, and inclusion offices, and retool the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to prioritize “religious exemptions” and shield employers from DEIA mandates. The stated goal is to erase what the blueprint calls “managerialist left-wing race and gender ideology.”Supporters say these proposals will reclaim democratic accountability from an unelected bureaucracy and restore presidential power. “All federal employees should answer to the president,” says Kevin Roberts. Critics, however, see the project as authoritarian, calling it an unprecedented centralization of power and a threat to civil liberties, institutional independence, and separation of powers.As the country approaches key decision points in the months ahead, Project 2025 stands ready for rapid, high-impact implementation. It's not just a wishlist—it's a playbook, already in motion, with real consequences unfurling agency by agency and law by law. With court challenges underway and public debate intensifying, listeners can expect major milestones and consequences in the coming weeks.Thank you for tuning in, and be sure to join us next week for more insights and updates on America's changing governance.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.ai

Welcome to episode 201 of Growers Daily! We cover: starting a business from scratch, where asking if corn is a heavy feeder, and “to terrace or not to terrace…” that's a fun lineup.  We are a Non-Profit! 

Project 2025 represents a seismic attempt to reshape the machinery of American governance, guided by a philosophy that seeks to place virtually all executive power directly under presidential control. Initiated by the Heritage Foundation and an alliance of over a hundred conservative organizations, its centerpiece is the “Mandate for Leadership,” a massive policy playbook published in 2023 designed to act as the transition manual for a potential new administration following the 2024 election.At its core, Project 2025 seeks to “destroy the Administrative State,” meaning it aims to strip federal agencies of much of their independence and dismantle what its authors claim are layers of unaccountable and biased bureaucracy. Proponents, such as Kevin Roberts of the Heritage Foundation, argue that “all federal employees should answer to the president,” encapsulating the project's vision of a centralized, powerful executive branch. To achieve this, Project 2025 recommends the widespread dismissal of current senior officials across agencies like the Department of State—and their immediate replacement with individuals selected for their loyalty and ideological alignment, bypassing traditional Senate confirmation hurdles.One of the most controversial levers in the playbook is the resurrection of Schedule F, a proposed employment classification that would allow the president to convert career civil servants into at-will employees, stripping them of long-standing job protections. This maneuver would, according to its critics, allow the White House to purge thousands of nonpartisan officials and replace them with political loyalists—an approach described in detail by advocacy outlets and union leaders as a recipe for “political overreach or abuse of power."The document's scope spans 30 federal departments, each with a dedicated chapter and specific 180-day action plans—right down to pre-drafted executive orders waiting for a president's signature on inauguration day. Concrete proposals include eliminating entire agencies such as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and USAID, mass layoffs affecting hundreds of thousands of federal workers, and strict mandates requiring employees to return to office buildings, often ignoring remote work policies established during the pandemic. Since January 2025, the Trump administration's Department of Government Efficiency, led by Elon Musk, has acted on this blueprint with remarkable speed, eliminating agencies and laying off more than 280,000 federal employees and contractors across 27 agencies in just a few months.In terms of social policy, Project 2025 is unmistakably ambitious. The playbook calls for aggressive curbs on abortion rights, restrictions on LGBTQ protections, and a reversal of progress regarding racial and immigrant rights. Critics such as the American Civil Liberties Union warn that these measures, if implemented, could erode civil liberties and tip the balance of American governance toward an “imperial presidency.” Legal scholars, as referenced by Wikipedia, raise alarms that this model risks undermining the rule of law, the separation of powers, and the independence of key regulatory and law enforcement bodies.Supporters, however, frame these moves as an overdue correction. Kiron Skinner, author of the State Department chapter, claims the agency is overrun by left-leaning officials and needs a leadership overhaul favoring those loyal to a conservative president, though she famously could not cite specific examples of deliberate obstruction during her tenure when pressed in a 2024 interview.The latest developments underscore both the swiftness and controversy with which Project 2025 is moving forward. President Trump's administration is already well underway in executing its most dramatic provisions, facing a slew of lawsuits from federal employee unions and advocacy groups. The legal and partisan battles that loom will determine whether this vision of governance—marked by centralization, sweeping personnel changes, and redefined federal agency missions—becomes a new American reality or stalls amid constitutional challenges and public resistance.Listeners, thank you for tuning in to this deep dive into Project 2025. Stay with us next week for more analysis and updates on the future of American governance.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.ai

As I delve into the intricacies of Project 2025, a sense of profound transformation and potential upheaval in the U.S. federal government becomes increasingly clear. This initiative, born out of a convergence of conservative ideologies and strategic planning, aims to reshape the very fabric of American governance.In the spring of 2022, a group of conservative extremists and political operatives gathered to draft a radical blueprint for government restructuring. This document, known as Project 2025 or "Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise," was released by the Heritage Foundation in April 2023. Backed by 100 advisory coalition partners, including far-right groups and organizations funded by billionaires, this 927-page policy blueprint is nothing short of ambitious.At its core, Project 2025 seeks to "destroy the Administrative State" by consolidating executive power in favor of right-wing ideologies. The plan is rooted in an expansive interpretation of the unitary executive theory, which centralizes greater control over the government in the White House. Kevin Roberts, a key proponent, envisions a system where all federal employees answer directly to the president, a vision that has been gaining traction since the Reagan administration, particularly through the influence of the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation[3].One of the most striking aspects of Project 2025 is its proposal to eliminate the independence of several critical federal agencies. The Department of Justice, the FBI, the Federal Communications Commission, and the Federal Trade Commission are all targeted for direct presidential control. This move is designed to ensure that these agencies align with the ideological stance of the president, rather than operating as independent entities. For instance, Kiron Skinner, who authored the State Department chapter of Project 2025, advocates for the dismissal of all Department of State employees in leadership roles before January 20, 2025, to be replaced by ideologically vetted leaders appointed to acting roles that do not require Senate confirmation. Skinner's rationale is that many State Department employees are too left-wing and need to be replaced by those more loyal to a conservative president[3].The project also includes a detailed 180-day playbook for implementing these reforms, starting with a stack of prepared Executive Orders ready for the new president to sign on the first day in office. This rapid transformation is facilitated by a scheme known as Schedule F, which allows for the hiring of unlimited political appointees without expiration dates. These appointees would not be bound by the usual civil service protections, making them susceptible to political overreach and abuse of power. As outlined in the project, this would enable a president and their political loyalists to have full control over the Executive Branch for personal and political gain[5].The implications of such changes are far-reaching and potentially devastating. For federal workers, the loss of civil service protections could mean a significant erosion of job security and the introduction of a highly politicized work environment. The American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) warns that Project 2025 could lead to the termination of up to 1 million federal workers, dismantling agencies and disrupting essential public services[2].Experts and critics alike are sounding alarms about the potential consequences of these reforms. The Center for Progressive Reform is tracking the executive action proposals across 20 federal agencies, highlighting the devastating consequences for workers, the environment, and public health. The ACLU has also expressed concerns, noting that the re-election of a president aligned with these policies could have immense and far-reaching impacts on civil liberties and the rule of law[1][4].As we approach the 2024 elections and the potential implementation of Project 2025 in 2025, the stakes are high. The project's success hinges on a GOP victory and the willingness of a new administration to execute these radical reforms. The coming months will be crucial, as the public and policymakers grapple with the implications of such a profound shift in governance.In reflecting on Project 2025, it becomes clear that this initiative represents more than just a set of policy proposals; it embodies a fundamental redefinition of the relationship between the executive branch and the rest of the federal government. As the nation moves toward this potential crossroads, it is imperative to engage in a robust and informed discussion about the future of American governance and the values that underpin it. The decisions made in the near future will shape not only the immediate trajectory of the federal government but also the long-term health of American democracy itself.

As I delve into the intricacies of Project 2025, a sense of profound transformation and potential upheaval in the U.S. federal government becomes increasingly clear. This initiative, crafted by a coalition of conservative organizations and political operatives, is more than just a policy blueprint; it is a radical vision for reshaping American governance.Project 2025 emerged in the spring of 2022, when a group of conservative extremists and political operatives gathered to draft a comprehensive plan for a new administration, presuming a GOP victory in the November 2024 elections. This 927-page document, also known as "Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise," was released by the Heritage Foundation in April 2023 and is backed by 100 advisory coalition partners, including far-right groups and organizations funded by billionaires.At its core, Project 2025 aims to "destroy the Administrative State" by radically restructuring each of the 30 federal departments. The plan is divided into detailed chapters, each outlining specific proposals for overhauling these agencies and ensuring that political loyalists fill key positions from "Day One" of a new Republican administration. This is not just a matter of personnel changes; it involves a fundamental shift in how the executive branch operates, with a strong emphasis on centralizing power in the White House.One of the most contentious aspects of Project 2025 is its advocacy for the unitary executive theory, an expansive interpretation of presidential power that seeks to eliminate the independence of various federal agencies. Kevin Roberts, a key figure behind the project, has stated that all federal employees should answer directly to the president. This vision is supported by conservative justices, the Federalist Society, and the Heritage Foundation, which have been instrumental in shaping a stronger unitary executive since the Reagan administration.For instance, Project 2025 recommends dismissing all Department of State employees in leadership roles before January 20, 2025, and replacing them with ideologically vetted leaders appointed to acting roles that do not require Senate confirmation. Kiron Skinner, who authored the State Department chapter of the project, has expressed her belief that most State Department employees are too left-wing and should be replaced by those more loyal to a conservative president. When questioned about specific instances where State Department employees obstructed Trump policy, Skinner admitted she could not name any such occurrences, highlighting the ideological rather than pragmatic basis of these recommendations.The project also includes a 180-day playbook with specific steps for implementing these reforms, starting with a prepared stack of Executive Orders ready for the new president to sign on the first day in office. This rapid implementation is designed to ensure that the new administration can swiftly consolidate power and begin dismantling existing structures.A crucial component of Project 2025 is the use of Schedule F, a scheme that allows for the hiring of unlimited political appointees without expiration dates. This mechanism also enables the transfer of apolitical civil service employees into Schedule F, stripping them of their protections against corruption, political overreach, and abuse of power. As described in the project documentation, this would give the president and political loyalists full control over the Executive Branch, allowing them to act for personal and political gain without checks.The implications of these changes are far-reaching. By placing the entire executive branch under direct presidential control, Project 2025 threatens to undermine the independence of critical agencies such as the Department of Justice, the FBI, the Federal Communications Commission, and the Federal Trade Commission. This centralization of power could lead to a significant erosion of democratic checks and balances, potentially resulting in devastating consequences for workers, the environment, and public health, as noted by the Center for Progressive Reform.Experts and critics alike have sounded alarms about the potential impacts of Project 2025. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has highlighted the immense implications of such a radical shift in governance, particularly if it aligns with the re-election of a president like Donald Trump. The AFL-CIO's American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) warns that the plan could lead to the termination of up to 1 million federal workers, drastically altering the landscape of the federal workforce.As we approach the 2024 elections and the potential implementation of Project 2025 in 2025, the stakes are high. The next few months will be critical in determining whether this vision for a more centralized and ideologically driven federal government becomes a reality. If implemented, Project 2025 would mark a significant departure from the traditional balance of power in American governance, raising fundamental questions about the future of democracy and the role of the executive branch.In the words of those behind Project 2025, this is a "Mandate for Leadership" aimed at reshaping the federal government in a conservative image. However, for many, it represents a dangerous path toward authoritarianism and the dismantling of essential safeguards. As the nation prepares for this potential transformation, it is imperative to engage in a robust and informed discussion about the future of American governance and the implications of such profound changes.

As I delve into the intricacies of Project 2025, a sense of profound transformation and potential upheaval in the U.S. federal government becomes increasingly clear. This initiative, born out of a convergence of conservative ideologies and strategic planning, aims to reshape the very fabric of American governance in ways that are both sweeping and contentious.Project 2025 is the brainchild of a coalition of conservative organizations, notably the Heritage Foundation, and was formalized in a 927-page policy blueprint released in April 2023. This document, often referred to as “Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise,” outlines a radical restructuring of the federal government, with each of its 30 chapters dedicated to a specific department. The overarching goal is stark: to “destroy the Administrative State” and consolidate executive power under the presidency[5].At the heart of Project 2025 lies the unitary executive theory, an expansive interpretation of presidential power that seeks to centralize control over the government in the White House. Proponents argue that this concentration of power is necessary for efficient governance, but critics warn it could lead to an unprecedented erosion of checks and balances. Kevin Roberts, a key figure in this initiative, has stated that all federal employees should answer directly to the president, a notion that resonates with the Federalist Society and conservative justices who have supported stronger executive powers since the Reagan administration[4].One of the most striking aspects of Project 2025 is its plan for the Department of State. Kiron Skinner, who authored the State Department chapter, advocates for the dismissal of all leadership roles within the department before January 20, 2025. These positions would then be filled with ideologically vetted appointees who do not require Senate confirmation. Skinner's rationale is that many current State Department employees are too left-wing and thus need to be replaced by those more loyal to a conservative president. When questioned about specific instances where State Department employees obstructed Trump policies, Skinner admitted she could not provide any examples[4].This approach is not isolated to the State Department; it is part of a broader strategy to ensure that key positions across the federal government are filled with political loyalists. Project 2025 includes a 180-day playbook detailing specific steps for implementing these reforms, starting with a stack of prepared Executive Orders ready for the new president to sign on the first day in office. This playbook is designed to expedite the transition and ensure that political appointees, rather than career civil servants, hold the reins of power[5].A critical component of this plan is the use of Schedule F, a scheme that allows for the hiring of unlimited political appointees without expiration dates. This mechanism also enables the transfer of apolitical civil service employees into Schedule F, stripping them of their civil service protections and leaving them vulnerable to political overreach and abuse of power. This move would grant the president and their loyalists unparalleled control over the Executive Branch, raising significant concerns about corruption and the politicization of federal agencies[5].The implications of these proposals are far-reaching and have sparked intense debate. For instance, Project 2025 seeks to eliminate the independence of various federal agencies, including the Department of Justice, the FBI, the Federal Communications Commission, and the Federal Trade Commission. This centralization of power under the presidency could undermine the integrity and autonomy of these agencies, potentially leading to a loss of public trust and the erosion of democratic institutions[4].Experts and critics alike have sounded the alarm about the potential consequences of Project 2025. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has highlighted the immense impact that such a reorganization could have on civil liberties and the rule of law. The AFL-CIO's Federal Employees union (AFGE) warns that up to 1 million federal workers could be terminated as part of this restructuring, exacerbating job insecurity and destabilizing essential public services[2][4].As we approach the 2024 elections and the potential implementation of Project 2025 in 2025, the stakes are high. The success of this initiative hinges on a Republican victory in the upcoming elections, after which the blueprint's detailed proposals would be swiftly executed. The coming months will be crucial in determining whether this radical vision for American governance will become a reality.In reflecting on Project 2025, it becomes clear that this is not just a policy initiative but a fundamental challenge to the existing structure of the U.S. government. As we move forward, it is imperative to engage in a nuanced and informed discussion about the potential impacts of such profound changes. The future of American governance hangs in the balance, and the decisions made in the next year will shape the course of the country for years to come.

In this episode, Jeff and Becky sit down with Jim Hartman, the 2024 North Carolina Small Farmer of the Year and a dedicated honey producer. Jim shares his journey from military service and corporate life to becoming a full-time “honey farmer” and entrepreneur. His passion for beekeeping and veteran advocacy shines through as he discusses building a farm business from the ground up—debt-free and focused on sustainable growth. Jim offers practical insights into treating a beekeeping operation as a serious business rather than a hobby. He breaks down essential strategies like proper bookkeeping, the importance of filing a Schedule F, and setting clear business goals. Jim also highlights programs and resources available to veterans and new farmers, including the underutilized Veteran Small Business Enhancement Act and the Workforce Innovation Opportunity Act (WIOA). Whether you have 10 colonies or 200, Jim emphasizes the importance of mindset: stop thinking in terms of hobbyist or sideliner—if you're running your bees to make a profit, you're a farmer. His story and advice offer valuable lessons for any beekeeper looking to strengthen their operation and approach their bees with a business-first mentality. Websites from the episode and others we recommend: Secret Garden Bees (Jim's Website): https://secretgardenbees.com Kutik Queens: https://www.betterbee.com/instructions-and-resources/meet-your-kutik-queen.asp Veterans Small Business Enhancement Act: https://www.sba.gov/document/information-notice-veterans-small-business-enhancement-act-2018-faq USDA Farm Service Agency: https://www.fsa.usda.gov/ USDA Emergency Assistance for Livestock, Honeybees, and Farm-raised Fish Program (ELAP): https://www.fsa.usda.gov/resources/programs/emergency-assistance-livestock-honeybees-farm-raised-fish-elap   Honey Bee Health Coalition: https://honeybeehealthcoalition.org The National Honey Board: https://honey.com Honey Bee Obscura Podcast: https://honeybeeobscura.com   Copyright © 2025 by Growing Planet Media, LLC     ______________ Betterbee is the presenting sponsor of Beekeeping Today Podcast. Betterbee's mission is to support every beekeeper with excellent customer service, continued education and quality equipment. From their colorful and informative catalog to their support of beekeeper educational activities, including this podcast series, Betterbee truly is Beekeepers Serving Beekeepers. See for yourself at www.betterbee.com This episode is brought to you by Global Patties! Global offers a variety of standard and custom patties. Visit them today at http://globalpatties.com and let them know you appreciate them sponsoring this episode!  Thanks to Bee Smart Designs as a sponsor of this podcast! Bee Smart Designs is the creator of innovative, modular and interchangeable hive systems made in the USA using recycled and American sourced materials. Bee Smart Designs - Simply better beekeeping for the modern beekeeper.   Thanks to Dalan who is dedicated to providing transformative animal health solutions to support a more sustainable future. Dalan's vaccination against American Foulbrood (AFB) is a game changer. Vaccinated queens protect newly hatched honeybee larvae against AFB using the new Dalan vaccine. Created for queen producers and other beekeepers wanting to produce AFB free queens.  Retailers offering vaccinated queens and packages:  https://dalan.com/order-vaccinated-queens/   More information on the vaccine: https://dalan.com/media-publications/ Thanks to Strong Microbials for their support of Beekeeping Today Podcast. Find out more about their line of probiotics in our Season 3, Episode 12 episode and from their website: https://www.strongmicrobials.com Thanks for Northern Bee Books for their support. Northern Bee Books is the publisher of bee books available worldwide from their website or from Amazon and bookstores everywhere. They are also the publishers of The Beekeepers Quarterly and Natural Bee Husbandry. _______________ We hope you enjoy this podcast and welcome your questions and comments in the show notes of this episode or: questions@beekeepingtodaypodcast.com Thank you for listening!  Podcast music: Be Strong by Young Presidents; Epilogue by Musicalman; Faraday by BeGun; Walking in Paris by Studio Le Bus; A Fresh New Start by Pete Morse; Wedding Day by Boomer; Christmas Avenue by Immersive Music; Red Jack Blues by Daniel Hart; Original guitar background instrumental by Jeff Ott. Beekeeping Today Podcast is an audio production of Growing Planet Media, LLC Copyright © 2025 by Growing Planet Media, LLC

Thursday, May 22nd, 2025Today, the Pentagon has officially accepted the illegal $400M emolument plane from Qatar; a federal judge held a hearing on the men disappeared to South Sudan and found the government violated a court order; a federal judge has blocked Trump's firing of two Democratic members of a privacy oversight board; hundreds of rural hospitals are at risk of closing under Trump policies; Sean Duffy sold stocks right before Trump announced his tariffs; ICE is now dismissing pending immigration cases so they can re-arrest people and remove them faster; a CEO says Trump's IRS pick promised big benefits; and Allison and Dana deliver your Good News.Thank You, PiqueLifeGet 20% off on the Radiant Skin Duo, plus a FREE starter kit at Piquelife.com/dailybeansAG is hosting - NO KINGS Waterfront Park, San Diego - Sat June 14 10am – 12pm PDTDonation link - secure.actblue.com/donate/fuelthemovementMega Happy Hour Zoom Call - you can interact with not just me and Harry Dunn, Andy McCabe, and Dana Goldberg. They'll all be there this Friday at 7 PM ET 4 PM PT. Plus, you'll get these episodes ad free and early, and get pre-sale tickets and VIP access to our live events. You can join at patreon.com/muellershewrote for as little as $3 a month.MSW Media, Blue Wave California Victory Fund | ActBlueGuest: Adam KlasfeldAll Rise NewsAll Rise News - BlueskyAdam Klasfeld (@klasfeldreports.com) - BlueSkyAdam Klasfeld (@KlasfeldReports) - TwitterStories:Immigrant Defenders Law CenterDemocratic senator says he has recordings of favors ‘promised' by Trump's IRS pick | The HillTransportation Secretary Sean Duffy Sold Stocks Two Days Before Trump Announced a Plan for Reciprocal Tariffs | ProPublicaHundreds of rural hospitals are at risk of closing, threatening critical care | CBS NewsPentagon accepts luxury jet from Qatar to use as Air Force One | ABC NewsFederal judge blocks Trump's firing of two Democratic members of privacy oversight board | AP NewsGood Trouble: Please leave a comment opposing Schedule F, which will convert many career federal servants to "at will" employees - easy to fire. Comments are due 5/23/25Federal Register :: Improving Performance, Accountability and Responsiveness in the Civil ServiceFind Upcoming Demonstrations And Actions:50501 MovementJune 14th Nationwide Demonstrations - NoKings.orgIndivisible.orgFederal workers - feel free to email me at fedoath@pm.me and let me know what you're going to do, or just vent. I'm always here to listen. Check out other MSW Media podcastsShows - MSW MediaCleanup On Aisle 45 podSubscribe for free to MuellerSheWrote on SubstackThe BreakdownFollow AG and Dana on Social MediaAllison Gill Substack|Muellershewrote, BlueSky|@muellershewrote, Threads|@muellershewrote, TikTok|@muellershewrote, IG|muellershewrote, Twitter|@MuellerSheWroteDana GoldbergBlueSky|@dgcomedy, IG|dgcomedy, facebook|dgcomedy, danagoldberg.com, Twitter|@DGComedyShare your Good News or Good Trouble:dailybeanspod.com/goodFrom The Good NewsMadnessAmerica, Let Me In – Abrams BooksSolito by Javier Zamora | GoodreadsCarsie BlantonBenton County Health DepartmentAll You FascistsLucas (1986) - IMDbReminder - you can see the pod pics if you become a Patron. The good news pics are at the bottom of the show notes of each Patreon episode! That's just one of the perks of subscribing! patreon.com/muellershewrote Mega Happy Hour Zoom Call - you can interact with not just me and Harry Dunn, Andy McCabe, and Dana Goldberg. They'll all be there this Friday 5/23/2025 at 7 PM ET 4 PM PT. Plus, you'll get these episodes ad free and early, and get pre-sale tickets and VIP access to our live events. You can join at patreon.com/muellershewrote for as little as $3 a month. Federal workers - feel free to email me at fedoath@pm.me and let me know what you're going to do, or just vent. I'm always here to listen.Share your Good News or Good Trouble:https://www.dailybeanspod.com/good/ Check out other MSW Media podcastshttps://mswmedia.com/shows/Subscribe for free to MuellerSheWrote on Substackhttps://muellershewrote.substack.comFollow AG and Dana on Social MediaDr. Allison Gill Substack|Muellershewrote, BlueSky|@muellershewrote , Threads|@muellershewrote, TikTok|@muellershewrote, IG|muellershewrote, Twitter|@MuellerSheWrote,Dana GoldbergTwitter|@DGComedy, IG|dgcomedy, facebook|dgcomedy, IG|dgcomedy, danagoldberg.com, BlueSky|@dgcomedyHave some good news; a confession; or a correction to share?Good News & Confessions - The Daily Beanshttps://www.dailybeanspod.com/confessional/ Listener Survey:http://survey.podtrac.com/start-survey.aspx?pubid=BffJOlI7qQcF&ver=shortFollow the Podcast on Apple:The Daily Beans on Apple PodcastsWant to support the show and get it ad-free and early?Supercasthttps://dailybeans.supercast.com/Patreon https://patreon.com/thedailybeansOr subscribe on Apple Podcasts with our affiliate linkThe Daily Beans on Apple Podcasts

This episode explores the dramatic changes in the US government following Elon Musk's departure and the appointment of Russ Vought. It delves into Vought's strategic moves to overhaul federal operations, emphasizing Schedule F, budget cuts, and policy reforms aimed at streamlining the government. Matt discusses the controversy surrounding these changes, their legal challenges, and the broader implications for government employees and services. He questions the balance between necessary reform and the potential for disruption, urging listeners to consider how much control the government should have over their lives. BUT BEFORE THAT, hear some news on a dollar reset date! About that thing we are doing in Vegas: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WCsH9-05vQzgZf9MAGBpUahyTqBcu9VgVqQ8pcACMT8/edit?tab=t.0 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this podcast episode, Kevin Thompson, founder and CEO of 9i Capital Group, discusses three significant proposals impacting government employees. He explains the potential elimination of the FERS pension supplement, which could financially strain early retirees. Kevin also addresses the proposed shift from a high-3 to a high-5 pension calculation, potentially reducing pension benefits and complicating financial planning. Lastly, he explores the reinstatement of Schedule F, which could reclassify certain federal employees as at-will, removing civil service protections and increasing job insecurity. Kevin emphasizes the importance of staying informed and engaged with these critical issues.Overview of Proposals (00:01:06) Discussion of three main proposals affecting government employees: FERS pension supplement, pension calculation changes, and Schedule F.Elimination of the FERS Pension Supplement (00:02:29) Kevin explains the potential impact of eliminating the pension supplement for new retirees under 62.Impact of Changing from High-3 to High-5 (00:05:21) Details on how changing the pension calculation from the highest three to five years will affect benefits.Reinstatement of Schedule F (00:12:19) Discussion on the implications of reclassifying federal employees to at-will status and loss of job protections.Conclusion and Support for Government Employees (00:16:41) Kevin emphasizes the importance of government employees and expresses support against the proposed changes.NEWSLETTER (WHAT NOW): https://substack.com/@9icapital?r=2eig6s&utm_campaign=profile&utm_medium=profile-page Follow Us: youtube: / @9icap Linkedin: / kevin-thompson-ricp%c2%ae-cfp%c2%ae-74964428 facebook: / mlb2cfp Buy MLB2CFP Here: https://www.amazon.com/MLB-CFP%C2%AE-90-Feet-Counting-ebook/dp/B0BLJPYNS4 Website: http://www.9icapitalgroup.com Hit the subscribe button to get new content notifications. Corrections: Editing by http://SwoleNerdProductions.com Disclosure: https://sites.google.com/view/9idisclosure/disclosure

Newt’s guest is Vincent Vernuccio, president and co-founder of the Institute for the American Worker. They discuss the significant labor policy developments and legislative efforts aimed at increasing transparency and accountability in both public and private sectors. Their conversation covers the introduction of the Start Applying Labor Transparency (SALT) Act, which seeks to amend the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 to ensure greater transparency in financial transactions between unions and labor consultants. Vernuccio also explains the implications of President Trump's executive action, Schedule F, which aims to make certain federal employees at-will to enhance accountability. They also discuss the challenges posed by public sector unions and the potential impact of Senator Josh Hawley's Faster Labor Contracts Act, which could impose arbitration on private sector union negotiations. Vernuccio emphasizes the need for modernizing union models to align with today's workforce demands for flexibility and merit-based advancement.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

We assess the first 100 days of the Trump administration and what we can expect going forward.   Skye's civic action toolkit recommendations are:  Join a dinner for democracy or a coffee for change Resist isolation and say yes to building a future for ourselves.   Skye Perryman is the President and CEO of Democracy Forward, which uses the law to build collective power and advance a bold, vibrant democracy for all people.      Let's connect! Follow Future Hindsight on Instagram:  https://www.instagram.com/futurehindsightpod/   Discover new ways to #BetheSpark:  https://www.futurehindsight.com/spark    Follow Mila on X:  https://x.com/milaatmos    Follow Skye on IG:  https://www.instagram.com/skyeperryman   Sponsor:  Thank you to Shopify! Sign up for a $1/month trial at shopify.com/hopeful.   Early episodes for Patreon supporters: https://patreon.com/futurehindsight  Credits:  Host: Mila Atmos  Guests: Skye Perryman Executive Producer: Mila Atmos Producer: Zack Travis

Send us a textPaying your children through your business is a legitimate and powerful tax strategy that can save you thousands every year!• Reduce taxes by converting business income into deductible expenses with zero tax impact• Children earning under $15,000 (2025 standard deduction) pay no income tax and don't need to file returns• Sole proprietors (Schedule C) and farms (Schedule F) don't pay payroll taxes on wages to children• S-corporations must pay payroll taxes, but strategy remains beneficial for 22%+ tax bracketsThanks for listening! Please share this episode with fellow business owners to help them save on taxes too.Create a STAN Store - Click here to try it out!Here's where you can find us! Follow along on Instagram for lots of free content for business owners daily!Shop our business guides!Our Instagram PageOur family page

In this episode, Alex reminds listeners that Project 2025 exists alongside the chaos of DOGE. As Elon Musk is distancing himself from Trump, it is time for Project 2025 to make things worse. He talks about Schedule F ruining the civil service, AmeriCorps cuts that may rock civil society, worrying cuts to climate research, and more.

Friday, April 25th, 2025Today, Pete Hegseth downloaded Signal on his Pentagon desktop to circumvent classified spaces; President Volodimyr Zalensky rejects Trump's tired Ukraine peace deal; the Trump administration moved a Venezuelan man to Texas despite a federal judge's order; the Pentagon resumes medical care for transgender troops; Trump tells Pam Bondi to launch a criminal investigation into ActBlue; Leland Dudek calls for all SSA offices employees to be converted to Schedule F; Trump's approval rating is in the toilet; the DoJ accidentally files an internal document outlining how much their case against congestion pricing sucks; and Allison delivers your Good News.Thank You, HomeChefFor a limited time, get  50% off and free shipping for your first box PLUS free dessert for life!  HomeChef.com/DAILYBEANS.  Must be an active subscriber to receive free dessert.POLITICAL VOICES NETWORK PRESENTS:  Not The White House Correspondents' Dinner Live PPV April 26, 2025 9pm | MeetHook.live - Steph Miller, Alonzo Boden, Trea Crowder, JoJo from Jerz, Brooklyn Dad Defiant, Frank Coniff, John Fugelsang, Glenn Kirschner, Hal Sparks, Chuck Nice, Frangela, Brian Karem, Dean Obadallah and Elaine Boozler.Guest: John FugelsangTell Me Everything — John FugelsangThe John Fugelsang PodcastSiriusXM ProgressJohn Fugelsang (@johnfugelsang.bsky.social) — BlueskyPre-order Separation of Church and Hate: A Sane Person's Guide to Taking Back the Bible from Fundamentalists, Fascists, and Flock-Fleecing Frauds by John FugelsangStories:Hegseth had Signal messaging app installed on an office computer | The Washington PostNIH guts its first and largest study centered on women | Science | AAASTrump slams Zelenskyy for rejecting Ukraine-Russia negotiations, saying a deal was 'very close' | NBC NewsExclusive: Trump administration moved Venezuelan to Texas for possible deportation despite judge's order | ReutersTrump targets Democratic fundraising powerhouse ActBlue with DOJ probe | CNN PoliticsDudek calls for entire SSA offices to be converted to new Schedule F | Government ExecutiveDOJ accidentally files document outlining flaws with Trump administration's plan to kill NYC congestion pricing | ABC NewsTrump's Approval Rating Has Been Falling Steadily, Polling Average Shows | The New York TimesGood Trouble:ACTION ITEM  Implementation of Schedule F - Jeremy Berg | BlueskyFederal Register :: Improving Performance, Accountability and Responsiveness in the Civil ServiceAlso, you can contact Noah Peters, Senior Advisor to the Director, by email at employeeaccountability@opm.gov From The Good NewsSigns of Justice (@signsofjustice) | IG and MSW Media (@mswmediapods) | IG Toasted MallowShared Umbrellas - BlueSkyMaryland Sheep and Wool FestivalReminder - you can see the pod pics if you become a Patron. The good news pics are at the bottom of the show notes of each Patreon episode! That's just one of the perks of subscribing! Federal workers - feel free to email me at fedoath@pm.me and let me know what you're going to do, or just vent. I'm always here to listen.Share your Good News or Good Trouble:https://www.dailybeanspod.com/good/ Check out other MSW Media podcastshttps://mswmedia.com/shows/Subscribe for free to MuellerSheWrote on Substackhttps://muellershewrote.substack.comFollow AG and Dana on Social MediaDr. Allison Gill Substack|Muellershewrote, BlueSky|@muellershewrote , Threads|@muellershewrote, TikTok|@muellershewrote, IG|muellershewrote, Twitter|@MuellerSheWrote,Dana GoldbergTwitter|@DGComedy, IG|dgcomedy, facebook|dgcomedy, IG|dgcomedy, danagoldberg.com, BlueSky|@dgcomedyHave some good news; a confession; or a correction to share?Good News & Confessions - The Daily Beanshttps://www.dailybeanspod.com/confessional/ Listener Survey:http://survey.podtrac.com/start-survey.aspx?pubid=BffJOlI7qQcF&ver=shortFollow the Podcast on Apple:The Daily Beans on Apple PodcastsWant to support the show and get it ad-free and early?Supercasthttps://dailybeans.supercast.com/Patreon https://patreon.com/thedailybeansOr subscribe on Apple Podcasts with our affiliate linkThe Daily Beans on Apple Podcasts

In this jam-packed edition of the RattlerGator Report, J.B. White brings his signature energy, spiritual insight, and unapologetic fire to one of the most explosive episodes yet. Broadcasting from Tallahassee amid technical chaos and BB-gun vandalism, JB dives into the escalating war inside the Department of Defense, where Trump's America First appointments are triggering panic and leaks among Obama-era holdovers. Anchoring his analysis in a powerful clip from Dan Caldwell's Tucker Carlson interview, JB walks through the impressive team Trump is assembling at the Pentagon, from Pete Hegseth's embattled leadership to rising figures like Elbridge Colby, Dan Raisin Kane, and Troy Mink. He unpacks the deep-state backlash, suggesting a black-ops-style leak campaign is targeting these individuals through the Defense Policy Board, where names like Susan Rice still linger suspiciously. JB speculates on a behind-the-scenes op possibly involving Elon Musk and even hints at double-agent intrigue surrounding Rice. He also reflects on Schedule F's strategic implementation, the broader financial chess game involving Bitcoin and gold, and how Trump's subtle pressure on Jerome Powell may be part of a controlled economic takedown. From Vatican vibes to Supreme Court power plays and the CIA's murky legacy, JB weaves it all together in a riveting hour of geopolitical prophecy and patriot passion. Buckle up, Trump 2.0 is just getting started.

President Donald Trump is moving to reclassify around 50,000 government employees from civil servants to political appointees under Schedule F. This would remove civil service protections from these positions, making it easier for these federal workers to be fired. In a public statement, Trump said this will help him “root out corruption,” and have the government “run like a business.”—Support independent journalism by giving us a 5-star rating.Views expressed on this podcast are opinions of the host and guests and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.

Today's Headlines: Senator Chris Van Hollen revealed new details about Kilmar Abrego Garcia's transfer to a better prison in El Salvador and criticized the Trump administration's misleading photo edits suggesting gang ties. Meanwhile, California sued the administration over sweeping tariffs, and immigration issues escalated—U.S. citizens and refugees are being wrongfully detained or ordered to leave the country, including a New Mexico teen and a Connecticut doctor. The Supreme Court temporarily blocked deportations under the Alien Enemies Act, while also agreeing to hear a case on Trump's executive order to end birthright citizenship. Trump is also pushing to reclassify 50,000 federal workers under Schedule F, making them easier to fire, and is seizing control of Penn Station's $7B renovation. On trade, no deals have been finalized despite meetings with global partners, casting doubt on the administration's rushed timeline. Resources/Articles mentioned in this episode: CNN: Sen. Chris Van Hollen says Abrego Garcia described being ‘traumatized' at CECOT, has been moved to different detention center Yahoo: Trump Posts Photoshopped Image of Kilmar Abrego Garcia's Knuckle Tattoos With Disputed ‘MS-13' Interpretation Miami Herald: Despite refugee status in the U.S., young Venezuelan was deported to Salvadoran prison  AZPM: U.S. citizen in Arizona detained by immigration officials for 10 days - AZPM  NBC News: American doctor receives email from immigration officials telling her to leave the country immediately NY Times: Trump Administration Asks Justices to Reject A.C.L.U. Request to Pause Deportations SCOTUS Blog: Justices will hear arguments on Trump's effort to end birthright citizenship AP News: Trump moves to invoke Schedule F to make it easier to fire some federal workers NBC News: Trump faces imposing timeline to broker 75 trade deals in less than 90 days CBS News: Trump administration taking control of Penn Station renovation  Morning Announcements is produced by Sami Sage alongside Bridget Schwartz and edited by Grace Hernandez-Johnson Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

President Trump advanced his plans to make it easier to fire tens of thousands of federal workers. He said he would move forward with a rule, previously known as Schedule F, allowing agencies to quickly remove employees from critical positions. White House correspondent Laura Barrón-López reports. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders

President Trump advanced his plans to make it easier to fire tens of thousands of federal workers. He said he would move forward with a rule, previously known as Schedule F, allowing agencies to quickly remove employees from critical positions. White House correspondent Laura Barrón-López reports. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders

JB White returns with a fiery episode of the RattlerGator Report, diving headfirst into the power moves, psyops, and strategic warfare shaping Trump 2.0's offensive. From General Flynn's no-holds-barred call for treason arrests, including Obama, Brennan, and Rice, to the revival of Schedule F as the ultimate deep state-clearing weapon, JB lays out the real battle plan behind the chaos. He unpacks the escalating trade war with China, spotlighting Kevin O'Leary's bombshell radio appearance and the strategic pressure on Chinese firms exploiting U.S. legal loopholes. JB doesn't hold back on media wordplay either, torching the left's narrative about a “mistaken removal” of an MS-13 member and dismantling DOJ disinfo one rhetorical grenade at a time. There's also an impassioned defense of Stephen Miller and General Flynn, a breakdown of why normies are finally catching on to the Sun Tzu-style Trump doctrine, and a big-picture analysis of how Schedule F is being tactically reshaped to gut entrenched bureaucracy without firing a shot. From shout-outs to Badlands' upcoming Plymouth stop to a few hilarious tangents about styes, football, and “Pip Jennies,” this episode is classic RattlerGator...unfiltered, unrelenting, and unapologetically America First.

Independent investigative journalism, broadcasting, trouble-making and muckraking with Brad Friedman of BradBlog.com

Thursday, January 30th, 2025Today, the White House has rescinded it's illegal impoundment order for federal spending; the AFGE and NTEU have recommended against federal employees accepting the deferred resignation sent out to all federal employees until they can gather additional information; Elon Musk lackeys have taken over the office of personnel management; the administration has been hit with yet another lawsuit this time over Schedule F implementation; Democrats have flipped a deep red Iowa state senate seat; the USDA Inspector General that was investigating Musk has been physically escorted out of her office; Trump has signed an executive order creating a concentration camp on Guantanamo; US Senator Bob Menendez has been sentenced to 11 years in prison; and Allison and Dana deliver your Good News.Thank You Helix SleepGo to HelixSleep.com/dailybeans for 20% Off Sitewide plus 2 Free Dream Pillows with mattress purchase.Guest: Leigh McGowanThe PoliticsGirl Podcast@politicsgirl.bsky.social - BlueskyPoliticsGirl (@IAmPoliticsGirl) - TwitterFederal workers - feel free to email me at fedoath@pm.me and let me know what you're going to do, or just vent. I'm always here to listen. The Breakdown - Allison Gill | SubstackStories:Trump White House rescinds order freezing federal spending, reversing course - Jeff Stein and Tony Romm | The Washington PostExclusive: USDA inspector general escorted out of her office after defying White House - Rachael Levy | ReutersElon Musk Lackeys Have Taken Over the Office of Personnel Management | WIREDTrump Administration Hit With Another Lawsuit Over Schedule F Order - Matt Cohen | Democracy DocketGood Trouble Call Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins, Mitch McConnell, and Bill Cassidy and tell them to vote NO NO NO on RFK Jr. Also, it might be a good idea to remind fetterman to vote no. Call all five of them, then please ask a friend to call all five of them. Contacting U.S. SenatorsStates in the SenateHave some good news; a confession; or a correction to share?Good News & Confessions - The Daily Beanshttps://www.dailybeanspod.com/confessional/From The Good NewsZIMMER WINS Senate District-35Reminder - you can see the pod pics if you become a Patron. The good news pics are at the bottom of the show notes of each Patreon episode! That's just one of the perks of subscribing! Check out other MSW Media podcastshttps://mswmedia.com/shows/Subscribe for free to MuellerSheWrote on Substackhttps://muellershewrote.substack.comFollow AG and Dana on Social MediaDr. Allison Gill Substack|Muellershewrote, Twitter|@MuellerSheWrote, Threads|@muellershewrote, TikTok|@muellershewrote, IG|muellershewrote, BlueSky|@muellershewroteDana GoldbergTwitter|@DGComedy, IG|dgcomedy, facebook|dgcomedy, IG|dgcomedy, danagoldberg.com, BlueSky|@dgcomedyHave some good news; a confession; or a correction to share?Good News & Confessions - The Daily Beanshttps://www.dailybeanspod.com/confessional/ Listener Survey:http://survey.podtrac.com/start-survey.aspx?pubid=BffJOlI7qQcF&ver=shortFollow the Podcast on Apple:The Daily Beans on Apple PodcastsWant to support the show and get it ad-free and early?Supercasthttps://dailybeans.supercast.com/Patreon https://patreon.com/thedailybeansOr subscribe on Apple Podcasts with our affiliate linkThe Daily Beans on Apple Podcasts

The Trump administration is reclassifying federal workers as Schedule F, making them easier to fire, and put a stop to remote work. In hopes of compelling federal employees to quit, and thereby shrink the government workforce. Heaton makes the case that if your goal is to shrink government, this is a counter productive way to do it.

It's Casual Friday! Sam and Emma speak with Krystal Ball, co-host of Krystal, Kyle, & Friends and Breaking Points, to round up the week in news. First, Sam and Emma run through updates on Trump's assault on civil servants, his attempt to overturn birthright citizenship, the arrival of federal troops to the southern border, Trump's dangerous empowerment of ICE, the likely confirmation of Pete Hegseth, more Trump pardons, Meta's anti-abortion actions, Mike Johnson's request of Casey Hutchinson, and Trump's halting of police reform agreements, before expanding on the role of Trump's “Schedule F” attack on civil servants, and watching Jeff Merkley come right at Russ Vought for his desire to trap sick people in poverty. Krystal Ball then joins, diving right into Trump's clear and active effort to exercise his plan of maximalist lawlessness, with blanket pardons to violent January 6th rioters, blatantly unconstitutional acts like overturning birthright citizenship, and the launching of a shady cryptocurrency to hide backroom dealings. Expanding on this, Ball explores the particular role the Big Tech oligarchy plays in backing the Trump regime, with mass amounts of wealth stored in and funding the world of AI and cryptocurrency – two institutions whose primary uses are in bolstering and protecting exploitation – and why this political move by the industry is a necessity in an era where they are becoming more and more representative of the massive, unproductive hoards of wealth tied up among elite capitalists. After tackling the particular role the Democratic Party played in making this era of Big Money and Big Tech a bipartisan one, and how that, alongside the corporate capture of the media, has created an environment with utterly weakened opposition to fascism – with Dems having capitulated to the Trump worldview in the hopes of bringing about a kinder, gentler fascism –  wrapping up with the need to stay clear about the anti-fascist and anti-oligarchy messaging, and the environmental, social, and economic impacts they create. Sam and Emma also touch on Trump's recent actions to overturn the federal pledge to not discriminate in federal contracts, and the snitch-order sent out over federal DEI practices. And in the Fun Half: Sam and Emma unpack the immediate impact of Trump's severe mass criminalization and threat of deportation of undocumented migrants, with farmers in the citrus and dairy industries seeing their workforce disappear overnight, before talking with Kieth from Chicago about Trump's NIH shutdown and the collective nature of science, and exploring Trump's crackdown on the administrative state with the perspective of USDA worker Leo from CA. Elon sycophants Ben Shapiro and PBD jump to his defense over the “did a literal Sieg Heil at the inauguration” allegations, and the MR Team reflects on videos from the Aldaghma family in the wake of a tentative ceasefire in Gaza, plus, your calls and IMs! Follow Krystal on Twitter here: https://x.com/krystalball Check out Krystal, Kyle & Friends: https://krystalkyleandfriends.substack.com/ Check out Breaking Points here: https://www.youtube.com/c/breakingpoints Donate to the Gaza Bakery here: https://www.gofundme.com/f/gaza-bakery-feeding-displaced-families Become a member at JoinTheMajorityReport.com: https://fans.fm/majority/join Follow us on TikTok here!: https://www.tiktok.com/@majorityreportfm Check us out on Twitch here!: https://www.twitch.tv/themajorityreport Find our Rumble stream here!: https://rumble.com/user/majorityreport Check out our alt YouTube channel here!: https://www.youtube.com/majorityreportlive Gift a Majority Report subscription here: https://fans.fm/majority/gift Subscribe to the ESVN YouTube channel here: https://www.youtube.com/esvnshow Subscribe to the AMQuickie newsletter here: https://am-quickie.ghost.io/ Join the Majority Report Discord! https://majoritydiscord.com/ Get all your MR merch at our store: https://shop.majorityreportradio.com/ Get the free Majority Report App!: https://majority.fm/app Go to https://JustCoffee.coop and use coupon code majority to get 10% off your purchase! Check out today's sponsors: Ritual: Essential for Men is a quality multivitamin from a company you can actually trust. Get 25% off your first month for a limited time at https://ritual.com/MAJORITY. That's https://ritual.com/MAJORITY for 25% off your first month. Sunset Lake CBD: Head on over to https://SunsetLakeCBD.com and use code Tincture to save 35% on tinctures. See their site for terms and conditions. Follow the Majority Report crew on Twitter: @SamSeder @EmmaVigeland @MattLech @BradKAlsop Check out Matt's show, Left Reckoning, on Youtube, and subscribe on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/leftreckoning Check out Matt Binder's YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/mattbinder Subscribe to Brandon's show The Discourse on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/ExpandTheDiscourse Check out Ava Raiza's music here! https://avaraiza.bandcamp.com/ The Majority Report with Sam Seder - https://majorityreportradio.com/

In this episode of the "How to Protect the Ocean" podcast, host Andrew Lewin discusses the significant executive actions Donald Trump took on his first day in office that will impact ocean policies. The episode highlights several key policies that were revoked or altered, which pose threats to the ocean environment: Revocation of Biden's Executive Orders: Trump rescinded multiple executive orders from the Biden administration to protect public health and the environment and address the climate crisis. This included orders that directed federal agencies to confront climate change and protect marine ecosystems. Removal of Offshore Exploration Protections: Trump's actions included the removal of protections against offshore oil and natural gas exploration on the outer continental shelf. This could lead to increased drilling activities, which are detrimental to marine environments. National Energy Emergency Declaration: Trump declared a national energy emergency, which expedited the review and permitting processes for new oil and gas production. This declaration is seen as favoring fossil fuels over renewable energy sources, despite the latter being more cost-effective and environmentally friendly. Halting Offshore Wind Projects: In a contradictory move, Trump issued a temporary withdrawal of all areas on the outer continental shelf from offshore wind leasing. This decision undermines the development of renewable energy sources that could help mitigate climate change. Dismantling of the Civil Service: The reinstatement of Schedule F allows for the conversion of career civil servants into political appointees, which could weaken the scientific integrity and effectiveness of agencies like NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) and BOEM (Bureau of Ocean Energy Management). Withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord: Trump's decision to pull out of the Paris Agreement removes the U.S. from international climate negotiations, limiting its ability to influence global climate policy and potentially exacerbating ocean-related issues. The episode emphasizes the importance of public engagement and advocacy to counter these policies, urging listeners to contact their representatives to express support for ocean protection initiatives. Link to article: https://www.southernfriedscience.com/how-donald-trumps-day-1-executive-actions-impact-the-ocean/  Follow a career in conservation: https://www.conservation-careers.com/online-training/ Use the code SUFB to get 33% off courses and the careers program.   Do you want to join my Ocean Community? Sign Up for Updates on the process: www.speakupforblue.com/oceanapp   Sign up for our Newsletter: http://www.speakupforblue.com/newsletter   Facebook Group: https://bit.ly/3NmYvsI Connect with Speak Up For Blue: Website: https://bit.ly/3fOF3Wf Instagram: https://bit.ly/3rIaJSG TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@speakupforblue Twitter: https://bit.ly/3rHZxpc YouTube: www.speakupforblue.com/youtube  

Within hours of Donald Trump's inauguration, numerous executive actions were signed and over 1500 pardons were issued for nearly all of the January 6th defendants, despite his vice president and attorney general nominee suggesting a more refined approach. So, on this first full day of Trump's second term, hosts Andrew Weissmann and Mary McCord review the blunt nature of these pardons, especially for those convicted of violent acts that day. Then they turn to pardons issued by President Biden in his final hours in office to shield those targeted by Trump for retribution- including members of Congress, those who testified in the J6 investigation, and members of his own family. And finally, Mary and Andrew dive into the myriad of executive actions signed by Trump as legal challenges begin to mount around things like getting rid of birthright citizenship, using the military domestically at our border, undoing the TikTok ban and the creation of DOGE.Further reading: Here is Mary's recent write up in the Atlantic: A Sweeping January 6 Pardon Is an Attack on the JudiciaryWant to listen to this show without ads? Sign up for MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts.

With Cliff Schecter. The Dark Ride begins again. Donald pardons all 1,500 insurrectionists. Elon Musk's Nazi salute. The billionaires in attendance. Donald reinstated Schedule F, so he can fire and replace federal workers without cause. Donald has been sued over DOGE. Did he confess to rigging the election? Six in 10 Americans are optimistic about the second Trump term. Donald rescinded executive order to lower prescription drug prices. MAGA fans left out in the cold. A word to our trans friends. With music by Monday Favors, Rebel Queens, and more!See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

This special series is a joint production by David Pepper and Resolute Square. The book, “Trump's Project 2025: Up Close And Personal” by David Pepper, is available for purchase at https://a.co/d/adWcJ4S. To start, special guest host Stuart Stevens weighs in on day one of the confirmation hearings and the abomination that is the slate of nominees Trump has put forward for some of the most important positions in the Executive Branch. In Chapter 3, the fact-based fictional story of Dr. Yvette Hardman and JJ Newsom depicts the dismantling of expertise and science-based decision making in the federal government under a possible second Trump administration guided by Project 2025. Dr. Hardman, an experienced infectious disease expert, is removed from her position at the CDC and replaced by JJ Newsom, an unqualified political loyalist with no relevant experience. This reflects Project 2025's plan to fill government positions with partisan appointees rather than nonpartisan experts. The new administration rejects science-based pandemic response recommendations from Dr. Hardman instead prioritizing political and economic considerations over public health. This aligns with Project 2025's directives to limit the CDC's ability to make public health recommendations. The story highlights the Trump administration's hostility towards science and the displacement of experienced civil servants, which Project 2025 seeks to accelerate through measures like the "Schedule F" executive order to reclassify and fire federal employees. Overall, the narrative illustrates how a second Trump term guided by Project 2025 would undermine the role of expertise and independent scientific advice in government, with potentially disastrous consequences for public health and safety. Trump's Project 2025: Up Close and Personal is available on all the podcast apps and at 2025pod.com. We'd also like to thank all the artists who volunteered their time to make this episode: CCH Pounder, Richard Schiff and Jason Kravits who read the chapters and Omid Abtahi, Tom Nichols, Laurie Burke and Joanne Carducci who did the voices. Sound design by Marilys Ernst and Jon Moser. Trump's Project 2025: Up Close and Personal was written by David Pepper and produced by Pepper, Melissa Jo Peltier and Jay Feldman and is a production of Ovington Avenue Productions and The Bill Press Pod. Follow Resolute Square: Instagram Twitter TikTok Find out more at Resolute Square Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this episode, Dinesh reveals the significance of Schedule F, a mechanism for Trump, Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy to clean out the waste and excess in the federal bureaucracy.  Debbie and Dinesh discuss crime in New York, the backstory on presidential pardons, and Australia's new law banning social media access for young people under the age of 16, and a preview of a very special children's book by our friend Terrence Williams.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Thursday, December 5th, 2024Today, Trump considers replacing Hegseth with either Ron DeSantis or Jonie Ernst for Secretary of Defense; the CEO of United Health was shot in New York; we have the main takeaways from Supreme Court oral arguments over gender affirming care for trans teens; Ken Chesebro moves to vacate his guilty plea in Georgia; Rudy Giuliani is getting desperate as he asks Judge Beryl Howell for more time while representing himself; Trump asks to have his entire Fulton County case thrown out; Jerry Nadler is stepping down as ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee and endorsing Jamie Raskin; Democrats flip the final House seat up for grabs setting up a razor thin majority for Republicans; today in fuck around and find out, union members are upset that Trump has signaled that he's canceling a steel export deal; and Allison delivers your Good News.Thank You HomeChefFor a limited time, HomeChef is offering you 18 Free Meals PLUS Free Dessert for Life and of course, Free Shipping on your first box! Go to HomeChef.com/DAILYBEANS.If you want to support what Harry and I are up to, head to patreon.com/aisle45podStories:Takeaways from the Supreme Court arguments on transgender health care ban: Conservatives skeptical (Lindsay Whitehurst | AP News)The Hidden Danger of the Supreme Court's New Trans Rights Case (Mark Joseph Stern | Slate)Hegseth strikes defiant tone as Trump weighs several options for replacing him (Caitlin Yilek, Ed O'Keefe, James LaPorta, Alan He | CBS News)Police hunt for gunman after UnitedHealthcare CEO killed in New York City (CNN)'Gut punch': Trump upsets local union leaders by opposing U.S. Steel-Nippon deal (Ryan Deto | Trib Live)Guest: Dan Goldman - U.S. House of RepresentativesCongressman Dan Goldman - House.gov@repdangoldman - Blue Sky@danielsgoldman - Twitterrepdangoldman - InstagramHave some good news; a confession; or a correction to share?Good News & Confessions - The Daily Beanshttps://www.dailybeanspod.com/confessional/From The Good NewsMurder in Her First Degree (Red Brick Mysteries Book 1) eBook : Bentham, Lizzie (Amazon)Dogs Trust (dogstrust.ie)Dogs Trust USA (dogstrustusa.org)REVOLUTIONARY WOMEN IN MUSIC|LEFT OF CENTER (rockhall.com)The Seed Theatre (b4ck.org)Osage Nation (osagenation-nsn.gov) Check out other MSW Media podcastshttps://mswmedia.com/shows/Subscribe for free to MuellerSheWrote on Substackhttps://muellershewrote.substack.comFollow AG and Dana on Social MediaDr. Allison Gill Substack|Muellershewrote, Twitter|@MuellerSheWrote, Threads|@muellershewrote, TikTok|@muellershewrote, IG|muellershewrote, BlueSky|@muellershewroteDana GoldbergTwitter|@DGComedy, IG|dgcomedy, facebook|dgcomedy, IG|dgcomedy, danagoldberg.com, BlueSky|@dgcomedyHave some good news; a confession; or a correction to share?Good News & Confessions - The Daily Beanshttps://www.dailybeanspod.com/confessional/ Listener Survey:http://survey.podtrac.com/start-survey.aspx?pubid=BffJOlI7qQcF&ver=shortFollow the Podcast on Apple:The Daily Beans on Apple PodcastsWant to support the show and get it ad-free and early?Supercasthttps://dailybeans.supercast.com/Patreon https://patreon.com/thedailybeansOr subscribe on Apple Podcasts with our affiliate linkThe Daily Beans on Apple Podcasts

Watch The X22 Report On Video No videos found Click On Picture To See Larger PictureThe [DS] rushed to get climate regs in to make more difficult for Trump to remove, big fail. Rates cuts had no effect on inflation, inflation is rising. DOGE has been formed and now Elon and Vivek will cut and cut govt waste. [CB] panicking. The [DS] is being very nice to Trump, they want a smooth transition, they want to help, when criminals are nice to your face they are planning something. The [DS] ran a war game simulation for Trump's second term. Trump has nominated the dream team, remember the head fake. Trump is ready to drain the swamp, panic in DC, remember schedule "f".   (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:13499335648425062,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-7164-1323"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="//cdn2.customads.co/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs"); Economy White House: We Rushed to Get Climate Regulations in So They'd Be Harder to Repeal  White House National Climate Adviser Ali Zaidi stated that “we really ran early this year to finalize” many climate regulations “before May, which, really, I think, ensures durability relative to this arcane statute, the Congressional Review Act. So, I think, because of that foresight, we have, actually, quite a durable regulatory regime going into the next few years.” Host Joumanna Bercetche asked, [relevant exchange begins around 2:10] “Well, there are still a couple of months left, as well, of the administration. I do wonder if there's anything that can be done on the regulation front, because regulation can swing quite quickly and it's set at the federal level. Is there anything that your administration is focusing on to make sure that the climate regulation stays intact as well?” Zaidi responded, “Yeah. One of the things we're making sure that we do on the spending front is to get as many of those resources in the hands of communities, nine out of every ten dollars in the investment agenda, already into the bloodstream. On the regulatory front, we really ran early this year to finalize a lot of the key regulations before May, which, really, I think, ensures durability relative to this arcane statute, the Congressional Review Act. So, I think, because of that foresight, we have, actually, quite a durable regulatory regime going into the next few years.” Source: breitbart.com https://twitter.com/KobeissiLetter/status/1856694768765411760 https://twitter.com/KobeissiLetter/status/1856700864615878691   7. Hospital Services Inflation: 3.9% 8. Food Away From Home Inflation: 3.8% Both headline and Core CPI inflation are now higher than they were 2 months ago. The US economy added the least amount of jobs in October since the pandemic in 2020. Consumers are struggling. Mexico is preparing to engage in trade wars with the US Mexico's government   signaled that it planned to hit back with trade restrictions of its own if President-elect Donald J. Trump followed through on his threats to impose sky-high tariffs on Mexican exports to the United States. “If you put 25 percents tariffs on me, I have to react with tariffs,” Marcelo Ebrard, Mexico's economy minister, told a radio interviewer on Monday. “Structurally, we have the conditions to play in Mexico's favor,” he added. Such moves could send shock waves through the economy of Mexico, which is exceptionally dependent on trade with the United States, exporting about 80 percent of its goods to its northern neighbor. But an array of sectors in the United States, including farmers and manufacturers of semiconductors and chemicals, also relies on exporting to Mexico, which last year eclipsed China to become the largest trading partner of the United States. Complex supply chains also intertwine the economies of both countries,

What are recess appointments? And with Republicans controlling the Senate, will President-elect Trump's nominees face any hurdles in their confirmation process? In an excerpt from a new episode of the CAFE Insider podcast, Preet Bharara and Joyce Vance discuss Trump's ongoing nominations of cabinet members and other high-profile positions. Despite Republicans controlling the Senate, Trump has called on candidates vying to replace Republican leader Mitch McConnell to permit his nominees to take office without confirmation votes using the recess appointments power. In the full episode, Preet and Joyce discuss: – How Trump's return to the White House will likely mark the end of his criminal prosecutions, with the federal election interference case and sentencing in Manhattan already facing new delays;  – The expected reinstatement of Trump's “Schedule F” executive order, which would reclassify many federal staff members as at-will employees; and – The charges filed by the Department of Justice against an Iranian man for allegedly plotting to assassinate Trump. CAFE Insiders click HERE to listen to the full analysis. To become a member of CAFE Insider head to cafe.com/insider. You'll get access to full episodes of the podcast and other exclusive content. This podcast is brought to you by CAFE and Vox Media Podcast Network. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The Democratic Party has traditionally been pro-union and relied on the support of the working class. But the results of yesterday’s election show the tide may be turning. We’ll get into how President-elect Trump enamored these voters to win another term in the White House and how we can expect a new Trump administration to shake up the economy and defy democratic norms. Plus, we’ll talk about some of the trailblazers elected to Congress and state offices. Here’s everything we talked about today: “Who is Bernie Moreno, Ohio's new GOP senator-elect and crypto champion?” from The Washington Post “Sarah McBride becomes the first out transgender person elected to Congress” from NBC News “How markets are responding to the prospect of another Trump presidency” from Marketplace “Black women notch historic Senate wins in an election year defined by potential firsts” from AP News “Meet the history-makers of the 2024 elections” from CNN Politics “How could the return of Trump-era ‘Schedule F’ job appointments reshape the federal workforce?” from Marketplace “Donald Trump Has Tools to Fire Powerful Financial Regulator in Term Two” from Bloomberg Send us all your thoughts, feelings and questions about the election. You can email us at makemesmart@marketplace.org or leave us a voicemail at 508-U-B-SMART.

The Democratic Party has traditionally been pro-union and relied on the support of the working class. But the results of yesterday’s election show the tide may be turning. We’ll get into how President-elect Trump enamored these voters to win another term in the White House and how we can expect a new Trump administration to shake up the economy and defy democratic norms. Plus, we’ll talk about some of the trailblazers elected to Congress and state offices. Here’s everything we talked about today: “Who is Bernie Moreno, Ohio's new GOP senator-elect and crypto champion?” from The Washington Post “Sarah McBride becomes the first out transgender person elected to Congress” from NBC News “How markets are responding to the prospect of another Trump presidency” from Marketplace “Black women notch historic Senate wins in an election year defined by potential firsts” from AP News “Meet the history-makers of the 2024 elections” from CNN Politics “How could the return of Trump-era ‘Schedule F’ job appointments reshape the federal workforce?” from Marketplace “Donald Trump Has Tools to Fire Powerful Financial Regulator in Term Two” from Bloomberg Send us all your thoughts, feelings and questions about the election. You can email us at makemesmart@marketplace.org or leave us a voicemail at 508-U-B-SMART.

An estimated 50,000 civil service jobs were slated to become political appointments under a Trump-era executive order. If Donald Trump returns to the White House, there’s a chance he’ll reinstate it, leading to the biggest federal workforce shakeup in nearly 150 years. Also in this episode: A new resource for farmers market pricing and the key to sustainable wage growth.

An estimated 50,000 civil service jobs were slated to become political appointments under a Trump-era executive order. If Donald Trump returns to the White House, there’s a chance he’ll reinstate it, leading to the biggest federal workforce shakeup in nearly 150 years. Also in this episode: A new resource for farmers market pricing and the key to sustainable wage growth.