“Put Them in Trauma”: Inside a Key MAGA Leader’s Plans for a New Trump Agenda in the U.S.
“Put Them in Trauma”: Inside a Key MAGA Leader’s Plans for a New Trump Agenda in the U.S.
Private videos reveal Trump adviser Russ Vought’s “shadow” plans for using the military on protesters, defunding the EPA and villainizing civil servants.
- In Trauma”: A key Trump adviser says a Trump administration will seek to make civil servants miserable in their jobs.
- Military: In private speeches, he laid out plans to use armed forces to quell any domestic “riots.”
- 1776 and 1860: He likened the country’s moment to those fractious periods in American history.
A key ally to former President Donald Trump detailed plans to deploy the military in response to domestic unrest, defund the Environmental Protection Agency and put career civil servants “in trauma” in a series of previously unreported speeches [short videos can be watched on the linked site] that provide a sweeping vision for a second Trump term.
Vought does not hide his agenda or shy away from using extreme rhetoric in public. But the apocalyptic tone and hard-line policy prescriptions in the two private speeches go further than his earlier pronouncements.
[...]
Policies mentioned by Vought dovetail with Trump’s plans, such as embracing a wartime footing on the southern border and rolling back transgender rights. Agenda 47, the campaign’s policy blueprint, calls for revoking President Joe Biden’s order expanding gender-affirming care for transgender people; Vought uses even more extreme language, decrying the “transgender sewage that’s being pumped into our schools and institutions” and referring to gender-affirming care as “chemical castration.”
[...]
Vought said he was spending the majority of his time helping lead Project 2025 and drafting an agenda for a future Trump presidency. “We have detailed agency plans,” he said. “We are writing the actual executive orders. We are writing the actual regulations now, and we are sorting out the legal authorities for all of what President Trump is running on.”
[...]
Vought laid out how his think tank is crafting the legal rationale for invoking the Insurrection Act, a law that gives the president broad power to use the military for domestic law enforcement. The Washington Post previously reported the issue was at the top of the Center for Renewing America’s priorities.
“We want to be able to shut down the riots and not have the legal community or the defense community come in and say, ‘That’s an inappropriate use of what you’re trying to do,’” he said.
[...]
Vought’s preparations for a future Trump administration involve building a “shadow” Office of Legal Counsel, he told the gathered supporters in May 2023. That office, part of the Justice Department, advises the president on the scope of their powers. Vought made clear he wants the office to help Trump steamroll the kind of internal opposition he faced in his first term.
[...]
Another priority, according to Vought, was to “defund” certain independent federal agencies and demonize career civil servants, which include scientists and subject matter experts. Project 2025’s plan to revive Schedule F, an attempt to make it easier to fire a large swath of government workers who currently have civil service protections, aligns with Vought’s vision.
“We want the bureaucrats to be traumatically affected,” he said. “When they wake up in the morning, we want them to not want to go to work because they are increasingly viewed as the villains. We want their funding to be shut down so that the EPA can't do all of the rules against our energy industry because they have no bandwidth financially to do so.
“We want to put them in trauma.”
[Edit typo.]
You're viewing a single thread.
Taken wholly out of context, a legal office to work with the president to ensure their orders are legally sound and hard to challenge sounds like a good thing. Does that not already exist?
The rest of this nonsense can cease along with his whole campaign, and the world would be better because of it.
I disagree. Presidents dont usually need an office to see if their orders are legally sound, as other than Trump presidents don't typically suggest doing illegal things. Making it easier for anyone in power to ram through illegal orders is a bad thing.
I disagree with the disagreement; there’s a rich history of Presidents attempting to do legally unsound things. Usually it’s up to their advisors, who have traditionally been experts in their areas of executive governance, to steer the President correctly.
Trump has changed things by appointing sycophants as his advisors instead of experts. So the office is essentially a formalization of what most Presidents did as the obvious course of action.
An office to consult with could have helped pushed some of Biden's things, especially regarding student loan forgiveness. It's not always clear what is and isn't legal, and ideally a president would try to push the boundaries as much as they can to accomplish what they believe is best for the country.
Trump is just a uniquely bad dude. Give him a hammer and he'll turn it into a weapon before he builds anything productive with it.
You need to read this in context. They want the office to help Trump "steamroll the kind of internal opposition he faced in his first term."
This office is not to make the president's moves 'legally sound' but rather to the opposite. They want to defund the agencies (it isn't "legally sound" to "traumatize" EPA and other officials), to erase any reference to climate change so that "our energy companies" can work, and many other things.
Just read Project 2025: https://www.25and.me
Of course, in context it's a lot different. Conceptually, it's interesting, but only taken without the context that the goal is clearly to subvert the balance of powers between the different branches of government and turn it into an authoritarian government.
If anyone reasonable were to suggest it, it wouldn't be so terrible though. It's just that we know how Trump would abuse that office to push his own agenda.
This is already a thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Legal_Counsel
They want a "shadow" version of it (meaning not officially sanctioned), that will just draft legal justifications, not actually interpret legality.
That makes more sense. Thanks for sharing.