This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Project 2025 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 30 days

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

United States: Presidential elections High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (assessed as High-importance). Politics: American High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as High-importance). Conservatism High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Donald Trump High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Donald Trump, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Donald Trump on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Donald TrumpWikipedia:WikiProject Donald TrumpTemplate:WikiProject Donald TrumpDonald Trump articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Sexology and sexuality Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. LGBT studies This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles Pornography Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pornography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of pornography-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PornographyWikipedia:WikiProject PornographyTemplate:WikiProject PornographyPornography articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Why does this page read like an alt right conspiracy theory? 153.33.235.26 ( talk) 16:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC) reply

It's an alt-left conspiracy theory. Those just seem to get promoted more here. 2A00:23C7:80C:8201:A54A:D65D:1635:524D ( talk) 02:24, 5 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Alt-left conspiracy theory? This article's primary sources are The Guardian, a centrist newspaper, The Washington Post, a gently right-leaning newspaper, and the Heritage Foundation itself saying "here's what we intend to do". 207.164.2.98 ( talk) 03:04, 30 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Because it's one crappy proprosla from one crappy conservative think-tank. STOP acting like it's official policy. 71.89.70.233 ( talk) 14:08, 25 January 2024 (UTC) reply

If you look at the Project 25 website you will see that it is a consortium of many well known right wing groups. It's the expressed policy prescriptions of the movement. Any new conservative president will be pressured to adopt it. 74.69.130.29 ( talk) 15:19, 30 January 2024 (UTC) reply

this is all of what Trump ran on in 2016, recycled talking points to manipulate the social outcry of a trump presidency 2600:1702:59E0:F050:5195:FFB6:90A9:B024 ( talk) 02:52, 21 February 2024 (UTC) reply

To be absolutely clear with everyone here, Project 2025 is simply the latest Mandate Of Leadership proposal from the Heritage Foundation. Every Republican President since Reagan has received and followed their Mandate Of Leadership proposal from the Heritage Foundation. The Heritage Foundation has gone on record to say that Reagan, the Bush's, and Trump have all followed their previous Mandate Of Leadership proposals. Not "to the T", but to a reasonable degree that "satisfies" the organization.

To call this a conspiracy theory would be to ignore the past actions of both the organization and Presidents. Does it come off as sensationalizing in some places? Yes. The proposals laid out in the published 900 page document that you can read on the Heritage Foundations website is patently absurd to read through, but the Mandate Of Leadership itself does not fall under a "alt-left" (not a real political tendency far left people just call themselves communists or whatever tendency they fall under) conspiracy theory. For it to be a conspiracy theory it would need to meet certain criteria of lacking in legitimacy that this document does not. Yeastmobile ( talk) 02:28, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I think the complaint here is not that Project 2025 is itself a conspiracy theory that doesn't exist, but that the claims this article makes about what it will do are. Indeed, when I read this article, and when I read through the Project's documents and website, I don't find anything remotely similar. I tried to talk about this issue more here. In short, there's a huge disconnect between what these sources on this article claim and what appears to be reality. There's quite a few talk page messages about this, but nothing is being done about it. 76.178.169.118 ( talk) 21:04, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply

WaPo is certainly not a gently right leaning media. Suggesting it is gives some kind of false balance to your argument. Guardian is also not particularly centrist, IMO, but I do realize that some people think it is. 76.178.169.118 ( talk) 21:00, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply

How is this even an official Wikipedia page? “Project 2025” doesn’t exist. There is no factual evidence proving anything said in this summary, and this Wikipedia page is the only online source besides the actual website that spouts this nonsense. 2600:1700:FFD0:57A0:6022:B893:1438:E1E3 ( talk) 01:58, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

You might be interested in reading Project 2025#References, which contains 57 citations. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 02:05, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

This page is mainly speculation and innuendo. Citing second hand sources. I do not think it is worthy of being an page here. I have been looking for information on Project 2025 and could not find much except what people are speculating about what it is. The references you cite are not really references, but other posts and articles that are also speculating. 114.24.203.71 ( talk) 16:46, 27 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Can you provide details on the inaccuracies or unsubstantiated claims? For further reference you can read the information directly at project2025.org where you can read the book online. 2601:CD:C600:CC00:89E4:A98A:7AE2:A442 ( talk) 23:42, 27 February 2024 (UTC) reply

I looked at the section "Mass deportation of immigrants". Those claims I did not see substantiated by Project 2025. I looked at "Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise", I assume that is the book you referenced on their site.

That section talked about "deputizing National Guard" and deputizing DEA, ATF local police and sheriffs. There was only one footnote that even mentioned the "Drug Enforcement Administration" in the whole thing.

The section talked about deportation, yet deportation was only mentioned twice in the document. I looked for similar terms like 'removal' and saw nothing like what was described.

Claims about Project2025 should be taken from the book or from statements put out by the organization. What we have here is editors speculation on what could , possibly, maybe be happening in a project from some other people speculating on the internet. 114.24.203.71 ( talk) 09:43, 28 February 2024 (UTC) reply

I assure you fellow wikipedian that if you go to the site, read through the proposals, and simply read the documents as they are nothing in this article is a "claim". If you would like to propose specific edits or corrects to the article please quote the documents related to the relevant department and how it conflicts with the text of the article. Each Federal Department is a separate document on the project2025.org website and they are each pdfs that you need to click through and read. Yeastmobile ( talk) 02:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

You can read it in full in one link: https://static.project2025.org/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf.

Taking IP user 114.24.203.71's words on the "Mass deportation" section as an example: When you search that document for key terms like "National Guard", "deport", "deputize", "homeless", "police", "sheriff", etc. (and grammatical variants), you do not find anything like the claims of this article's section. This section is apparently based on Axios's innuendo-filled article "this guy said this, and then he was talking to this guy, who's an advisor on project 2025" at so on. They don't even try to summarize Project as it defines itself. Then there's the Atlantic, which is paywalled, and looks like from the intro that it's about Trump having said something once, which is not the topic "Project 2025".

As I usually tend to say in these situations, what WP consistently calls GREL is really unbelievable sometimes. The section does state what Axios says, but Axios is full of shit. Nowhere does anything in that massive Project 2025 tome does it say anything close to the claims Axios makes. They is playing games, like mere association that one guy says something once casually, and the audience was an advisor on the project, then they go "coincidence???" It's really very silly.

When I scroll through the topics in that book, I see some pretty ho-hum conservative talking points and policy wants. What's different about the project itself, as compared to other conservative policy statements, is the explicit ambition to "conversatize" the government, in response to it having been "liberalized" over the previous decades. This is certainly a paradigm shift in conservative thinking, from belief in non-partisan bureaucratic operation to belief that it is not possible, therefore it should be conservative. It's really not all that surprising, and can be easily juxtaposed with the fact that numerous liberal politicians have been talking about and doing this for years when they were able to do it. WP leaves you with your hands tied, because none of your precious GREL sources are talking about that. So much of this article highlights WP's biggest issue: most of your GREL sources are in fact not GREL, and SYNTH, SECONDARY, and VERIFY work against you from just writing an article about reality.

But what you can do is have an honest conversation about this. WP is 90% discussion. Unfortunately, when it comes to this specific issue, you all plug your ears. I can understand it, since it looks pretty existential, but it's really not. There's still a massive number of articles that WP is actually good at. Modern politics ain't one of them. 76.178.169.118 ( talk) 23:27, 5 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Please provide us with specific instances where the claims conflict with the book/wesbite source, so we can review it. CVDX ( talk) 17:46, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Well, he did ... But I've illustrated it further above, if you'd like to "review it". 76.178.169.118 ( talk) 23:28, 5 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I saw your reply on my deleted talk page on this article, i'm 100% sure its the same IP address. excuse me but "lets give change a chance?" Nothing about here are positive changes for democracy and America.

If you want to complain about the quality do it out of pure critiscm and not dishonest talking points, it clearly shows where you stand and why you want this article deleted.

I'm proposing this article to be mantained no matter what. Theres no other way to let people know what and from where are these vile plans came from. Benfor445 ( talk) 16:39, 20 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I read through this entire article, and I'm astonished this is even allowed to be here. The "citations" are sketchy and based off mere opinion pieces and editorials. So now we can write something and use our own writings to back it up? What a joke. This entire article is garbage. 2600:1702:4FCF:1900:BDDA:DA69:3042:BBA7 ( talk) 20:11, 21 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I honestly think it's a conspiracy and I've never seen this, even when Trump left the presidency from,we haven't seen this in 2022 Kilrk0 ( talk) 02:36, 3 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I would like to know why it's impossible to find any background information, or just general information, on the 3 people who comprise the "Project 2025 Team" (Paul Dans, Spencer Chretien, Troup Hemenway)

https://www.project2025.org/about/about-project-2025/

That seems pretty odd to me... Any thoughts? 2600:6C51:437F:F9E2:F88A:E1F9:6568:47A6 ( talk) 08:24, 11 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I added links to Heritage Foundation's bios of team members mentioned in the article. While cursory, they're better than nothing; I'm sure internet and, conceivably, LinkedIn searches provide further insight on those two. A quick google search located several references on Troup Hemenway (the third principal - whom the article doesn't mention), noting his work with the Trump administration, his recent graduation from college and an article that provides some background on his admiration for Viktor Orban: https://www.hungarianconservative.com/articles/interview/troup-hemenway-trump-would-give-back-to-the-americans-what-the-democrats-took-away/ Jetpower ( talk) 01:06, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply

This is not a forum to discuss the article topic, it's a place to discuss changes to or improving of the article. XeCyranium ( talk) 00:59, 12 March 2024 (UTC) reply

If you would like to propose changing the article to attribute project 2025 as being a conspiracy theory, then please provide a credible source clarifying that it is so and the source will be reviewed. Yeastmobile ( talk) 02:33, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Your reply to someone alleging that Project 2025 is a conspiracy theory is to tell the poster to prove it's a conspiracy, rather than telling the writer of the article to prove that it is NOT a conspiracy? How does that make sense? 2601:985:4A81:F060:3064:2D57:176B:878A ( talk) 07:06, 30 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I only wrote here for you to debate if it's conspiracy or reality but I don't think you understood a bit. 190.167.249.170 ( talk) 19:13, 31 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I don’t think anything will happen. I don’t like this article; if you ask me, 2028 is going to come around and this will be a useless article about a plan that never happened. LuxembourgLover ( talk) 01:40, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply

refers to the project, not the project document

I did not "add the opinion of a former offical describing this as such," I added the current Project director Paul Dans describing it as such quite emphatically. and it was already further down in the lead anyway.

please restore the content, Bringjustthefactsplease

https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Project_2025&diff=prev&oldid=1215510692

soibangla ( talk) 20:06, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Where may we view the source of this comment from Dans?

Previously you provided the direct quote "systematically preparing to march into office and bring a new army, aligned, trained, and essentially weaponized conservatives ready to do battle against the deep state."

I'm struggling to find the source of this quote, thank you Bringjustthefactsplease ( talk) 20:52, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

it is in this edit that I made in response to your removal

https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Project_2025&diff=prev&oldid=1215459274

search the article on deep state and you will find the quote and source were already further down in the lead

soibangla ( talk) 21:05, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

1) the AP source does not provide this as a direct quote from Dans

2)the new republic source links to a CSPAN video, located here, where they claim this quote originated

3) reading and searching the transcript of his interview does not yield a result for keywords of this alleged quote (like 'army' or 'battle' or 'march') or, from what I can see, the quote that New Republic has cited. It appears the quote they provided in that op-ed does not appear in the source New Republic provides as evidence.

I cannot find evidence of Dans making this statement in the provided citations. Please provide a timestamp of when this quote was uttered in the cited material if I have overlooked this. Bringjustthefactsplease ( talk) 21:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

TNR is a reliable source, it quotes Dans, and the piece is not an op-ed.

also, in ref #2 you cited a project document, a primary rather than a secondary source, which is particularly inappropriate here. and the ref is mangled, btw. soibangla ( talk) 22:00, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

For clarity:

The source TNR(acknowledged as very biased)links to as evidence of the quote in question does not actually contain the quote.

The TNR article's quote they attribute to Dans is not supported by the source they provide. There is currently no evidence Dans made that statement outside of this article. Bringjustthefactsplease ( talk) 22:30, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Ensuring that the deep state cannot disrupt the work that the American people elected a president to do is precisely one of the top aims of Project 2025. [1]

soibangla ( talk) 22:53, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

That article is indeed quite clear. Propose this link be used as a reference for that language and not the other two links Bringjustthefactsplease ( talk) 23:18, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Bringjustthefactsplease please would you replace your ref #2 with a properly formatted secondary source? soibangla ( talk) 06:25, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply

As far as I know, the only source for this is WaPo. An editor previously raised the challenge [2] that this was not enough for the lead section, considering no such plans were included in the released project.

Considering this is a WP:CONTENTIOUS topic, I've changed the text to include attribution of the source, and date, as per WP:ATT. What do you make of this?

I believe there's an overarching problem with this article: the overview section includes numerous sections referenced with sources reporting on the behind-the-scenes machinations of Project 2025, but in some nearly no content referencing the actual text of the proposal is present. I think it would be wise to add content based on it as well.

For example, regarding the immigration policy sections, a cursory glance of the Project itself finds nearly no mentions of deportation, and none that would substantiate the other sources, but this is not stated in the article.

CVDX ( talk) 17:41, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

CVDX, your edit in November 2023, prior to the project's release [3] is incorrect. It was released in April 2023. [4] Please revert.

Odd that two editors are independently making the same assertion that is quickly and easily disproven. [5] Both editors have also shown a preference for citing the P25 document, a primary source, rather than secondary sources. For precisely the reason this topic is contentious, quality secondaries are far more preferable here. soibangla ( talk) 21:28, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

It's not at all odd that a supposed WP GREL source is not at all reliably describing something political. I've outlined the issue further just above in "Delete this" section. It boils down to two options: WP needs to have a real and honest discussion about how so many of their GREL sources are actually not reliable at all on modern politics, or delete all modern politics articles like this one, since the sources used are publishing broad swaths of false information and innuendo. 76.178.169.118 ( talk) 23:35, 5 April 2024 (UTC) reply

This article is just left wing propaganda. The first linked "citation" I clicked was an interview with Trump that was taken totally out of context. In that interview, he stated that Biden's administration has turned the executive branch into a political assassination operation. He used himself as an example, "If I were president I could go after my political enemies." The article's author(s) used that single out-of-context quote as evidence that Trump plans to go after his political enemies, even though it was clear that he was actually indicating how out of control the Biden administration has been. 2601:985:4A81:F060:3064:2D57:176B:878A ( talk) 06:58, 30 March 2024 (UTC) reply

ok, I think I see what you're getting at here. his narrative all along is that he is being wrongfully prosecuted persecuted and it's election interference, and in the Univision interview [6] he says this has set a precedent ("the genie out of the box") that allows him to respond in kind if he is reelected ("they have done something that allows the next party. I mean, if somebody if I happen to be president and I see somebody who's doing well and beating me very badly, I say go down and indict them").

but he is being legitimately prosecuted by Bragg, Smith and Willis based on evidence, a compelling amount of which is in plain public view, and there is no indication of "a political assassination operation" by Biden or anyone else, despite his insistence there is. he insists on many things, including the election was stolen, which is just plain false. that's not a particularly surprising defense from someone who is facing multiple criminal charges that could send him to prison like he is, and his base is the primary audience for that argument.

but he has said "I am your retribution" and a key part of P25 is eliminating DOJ independence and placing it under direct control of the White House so, as WaPo reports, "Donald Trump and his allies have begun mapping out specific plans for using the federal government to punish critics and opponents should he win a second term, with the former president naming individuals he wants to investigate or prosecute..." [7] soibangla ( talk) 08:10, 30 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Trump has "civil" charges why most of the trials he goes to apart from being biased clearly Trump will not go to prison why one thing is a civil trial and another is the criminal lawsuit why You are risking your freedom, Trump will not go to jail but they will confiscate his properties in New York 190.167.249.170 ( talk) 01:15, 31 March 2024 (UTC) reply

he is criminally charged in NYC, Georgia and Florida. soibangla ( talk) 01:21, 31 March 2024 (UTC) reply

The intro sentence says, "Project 2025 (officially the Presidential Transition Project) is a collection of policy proposals to reshape the executive branch of the U.S. federal government in the event of a Republican victory in the 2024 U.S. presidential election." There are two different things: (a) a collection of policy proposals; (b) a list of conservatives around which an effort will occur to get them installed in the federal gov't in a new administration. Is Project 2025 both of those, or is it more the list of people, while Mandate for Leadership is the collection of policy proposals. Novellasyes ( talk) 14:30, 30 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Its the first only. If it does happen (which seems fanciful), the "list of conservatives" would be fluid, shrinking and depending on how far the individuals wish to go. Ceoil ( talk) 01:38, 31 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I hadn't previously looked at the Project 2025 website, but FWIW they claim that Project 2025 consists of four pillars. The four pillars are (a) a policy agenda, which is the " Mandate for Leadership", (b) a personnel database, (c) training, which they call their "Presidential Administration Academy" and (d) a 180-day playbook. The introductory sentence as it currently stands only refers to one of these four pillars, namely, the part that has to do with "a collection of policy proposals". Novellasyes ( talk) 12:50, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Novellasyes: I'm fairly certain those four pillars are all examples of policy proposals, so the existing wording is accurate. –– FormalDude (talk) 02:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply

The article for Agenda 47 has a section that is lifted directly from the primary source without any synth. Very straightforward and matter of fact. I wonder why we can't do that here? Numerous editors here have noted that the claims in the sources used on this article don't appear to be in the material put out by Project 2025 itself. Especially in light of that, a "list of proposals" would be a great move toward NPOV for this article. After that, it would be nice to have a source or two noting that these sources' claims don't appear to be in the Project's own documents. 76.178.169.118 ( talk) 23:08, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Per WP:RSPRIMARY, Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources, i.e., a document that relates to or discusses information originally presented elsewhere. –– FormalDude (talk) 03:14, 21 April 2024 (UTC) reply

The lead states that The plan proposes slashing U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) funding, dismantling the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security, gutting environmental and climate change regulations to favor fossil fuel production, and eliminating the cabinet Departments of Education and Commerce.

This is sourced to a Guardian article that states: Key components of Project 2025 include slashing funding for the Department of Justice, dismantling the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security, and killing the education and commerce departments

The problem is that these statements regarding the FBI and the departments are misleading, inconsistent, or downright inaccurate. We can see this within the Guardian article itself, which simultaneously claims that the project will be dismantling the FBI yet will try to install trusted loyalists in top posts at the DoJ and the FBI, permitting Trump more leeway to exact revenge on foes. This inconsistency is repeated within the rest of the Wiki article, which quotes Michael Bromwich stating that the supposedly dismantled FBI will somehow also be weaponized against political rivals, based on the same Guardian article. There is no mention of the FBI (or any of the departments mentioned as getting dismantled/eliminated) getting dismantled in the body, which goes against MOS:LEAD.

The reason for that may be because, looking at the Mandate for Leadership, there isn't much backing to support a dismantled FBI, nor an eliminated Department of Commerce. There is backing for a dismantled/eliminated Department of Homeland Security and Department of Education. The article should be reworded to only include Homeland and Commerce.

The Mandate states wrt the FBI: Align the FBI’s placement within the department and the federal government with its law enforcement and national security purposes, not "dismantling" it. In fact, it proposes moving offices to the FBI: Office of Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction be moved to the FBI.

For an actual dismantling, the Mandate states wrt Homeland: Our primary recommendation is that the President pursue legislation to dismantle the Department of Homeland Security, where a number of proposals to move offices to other areas are made.

The Mandate states wrt Commerce: The above policies, strategies, and tactics will set a new Administration on firm footing that allows the Department of Commerce to assist the President in implementing a bold agenda that delivers economic prosperity and strong national security to the American people. Again, we see proposals from Proj 2025 to move offices to the supposedly "eliminated" department: Move ED’s statistical office, the National Commission for Education Statistics (NCES), to the Department of Commerce’s Census Bureau.

For an actual elimination, the Mandate states wrt Education: the federal Department of Education should be eliminated, with proposals to move offices to other areas. KiharaNoukan ( talk) 20:32, 27 April 2024 (UTC) reply

hot off the wire

What Trump’s war on the ‘Deep State’ could mean: ‘An army of suck-ups’ soibangla ( talk) 21:28, 27 April 2024 (UTC) reply

This seems akin to citogenesis moment, given the near complete parallels in wording, with no exploration of policy proposals. This doesn't resolve the contradictory claims of "dismantled" agencies that are somehow also being used to pursue lawfare against political opponents. KiharaNoukan ( talk) 22:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC) reply