Project 2025 — The Separation of Powers
“It is crucial that all three branches of the federal government respect what Madison called the “double security” to our liberties: the separation of powers among the three branches, and the separation of powers between the federal government and the states.”
(Paul Dans and Steven Groves)
Section I (Taking the Reins of Government) of The Conservative Promise contains three chapters: 1) The White House Office, 2) Executive Office of the President of the United States, and 3) Central Personnel Agencies: Managing the Bureaucracy.
In some respects, Chapter 1 on the White House Office might seem like a throwaway chapter. Written by Rick Dearborn, the chapter generally sets out descriptions of the various positions inside the White House in support of the President. To anyone who follows US politics, these job titles and job descriptions might seem quite familiar:
What we recognize as the modern Chief of Staff began in 1946, under Dwight Eisenhower due to the increasing complexity of the White House. The Chief of Staff manages the staff at the White House Office and the staff of the Executive Office of the President. Further, the CoS will have a few deputies to help sort through and prioritize actions. Nothing new there. During the 8 years of the Obama administration, he had 5 Chiefs of Staff (the average time spent as CoS is about 18 months). They included Rahm Emanuel, Pete Rouse Bill Daley, Jack Lew, and Denis McDonough. During the 4 years of the Trump administration, he had 4 Chiefs of Staff, including Reince Priebus, John F. Kelly, Mick Mulvaney, and Mark Meadows. (Only two of these [Priebus and Meadows] have endorsed Trump in the 2024 campaign.)
The White Hose Office has Senior Advisors. They’ve been around awhile. They know stuff. They consult with the President.
A significant role is given to the Office of the White House Counsel. Though the WHC is NOT the President’s personal attorney, she or he advises the President on the lawfulness of the policy agenda the President hopes to follow. The WHC must also determine that all personnel inside the White House abide by legal and ethical standards. (That function seemed to be lacking in the Trump administration. Consider, for example, that Kellyanne Conway was found to violate the Hatch Act at least 50 times. No action was taken on any of those violations.) Further, the WHC must ascertain that those working in the WHO make financial disclosures, report gifts, and so on. (Another function that has been lacking.)
But here’s where Dearborn raises the important issue: The WHC should facilitate the President in enacting policy and must not “erect roadblocks out of an abundance of caution; rather, they should offer practical legal advice on how to promote the President’s agenda within the bounds of the law.
Many will recall the incident the Bush administration when Deputy Assistant Counsel John Yoo and WHC Alberto Gonzales drafted the “torture memos” authorizing the “enhanced interrogation techniques” at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. Gonzales was, eventually and reluctantly, let go by Bush. As Robert Scheer writes: “the truth is that Bush promoted Gonzales because of his assaults on the Constitution and not in ignorance of that sorry record.” Only public condemnation moved the needle. Gonzales and Bush still believed that they were in the legal clear.
OK, the WHC sometimes pushes boundaries to assist the President in furtherance of his agenda. Not OK. I’m not condoning it. Perhaps, though, the WHC should put up “roadblocks” if the President is breaking the law. PHC the WHC sshould act with a little more “caution.” But the WHC really does serve at the pleasure of the President.
But what Dearborn writes of next is the most worrisome:
Also created by Eisenhower, the Office of Legislative Affairs serves as a liaison between the White House and Congress. Dearborn writes:
“The White House also relies on Congress to enact reforms promised by the President on the campaign trail, whether those promises relate to health care, education, or national defense” (30).
Dearborn, and Project 2025, see the Congress as a complement to the President. That’s a problem. In fact, the three branches of government — Executive, Legislative, and Judicial — are meant, by design, to be somewhat adversarial. They are meant to be checks and balances on one another. The Congress is not there to further the President’s agenda. In such a case, then the Legislative branch would not be a check or a balance. We would have lost a key component of the three-branch government. And it is clear that the MAGA Republicans in Congress see themselves as enacting the President’s agenda.
Further, and related, research conducted by the Pew Foundation in 2019 suggests that Republicans are more open to the idea of expanded Presidential powers. While the majority of US citizens find the idea of expanding Presidential power “too risky” (66%), among Republicans, however, the idea that it would be dangerous dropped by 19% (from 70% — 59%) over the past year. And the percentage of Republicans who agreed that the President could operate more efficiently without worrying about Congress increased by 16% (from 27% to 43%). In other words, the Republican voters agree that Congress should NOT be a check on the President. Among Democrats, those numbers remain at 81% (too dangerous) and at 16% (could be more effective).
Recent Supreme Court rulings have also given more power to the office of the President. Although the Supreme Court is intended to be an equal power to the Executive branch, although it is intended to perform a check on both the Legislative and Judicial branches, the John Roberts Court is consolidating power in the hands of the President.
For example, in Trump v. U.S., the court handed a great deal of power to the President:
“Trump v. U.S. astounds in its implications. It grants the president the power of a monarch. Richard Nixon defended his conduct in Watergate, telling interviewer David Frost, ‘When the president does it, that means it’s not illegal.’ Effectively, the Supreme Court’s supermajority has now enshrined that brazen claim.”
So, the conservative court is handing more power to the Office of the President, and the Legislative branch is meant to rubber-stamp the President’s agenda (all handily drafted out by the Heritage Foundation). That is NOT a representative government. That is NOT a three-part government.
That is a monarchy.
Indeed, on July 26, 2024, Donald Trump told rally-goers that they would only have to vote ONE MORE TIME:
“at a Friday event hosted by the conservative Christian organization Turning Point Action [Trump] urged the Christians to vote — and then he said they would not have to do it again because ‘We’ll have it fixed so good, you’re not going to have to vote.’ ‘You won’t have to do it anymore. Four more years, you know what, it will be fixed, it will be fine, you won’t have to vote anymore, my beautiful Christians,’” and also “‘In four yours, you won’t have to vote again, we’ll have it fixed so good you’re not going to have to vote.’”
In Chapter 2, on the Office of the President, Russ Vought writes that, although the Constitution vests Executive power in the President, today the Executive bis distributed throughout the branch. He argues that too many staff, too many departments, and too many NGOs are following their own agenda. The power needs to be returned to a central point. Now here, Vought says that power needs to be returned to “the People.” That’s despite the fact that he JUST said the power resides in the President. What he really wants is for one person, the President — and especially a conservative president — to focus and wield all of the power of the Executive branch. And when the other two branches capitulate to the Executive, we’re left with one consolidated power.
Despite invoking Madison and the importance of three distinct branches of federal government, The Conservative Promise intends to place unprecedented power in the hands of the next conservative president.
Democracy would be gone, replaced by a monarchy.
Ritch Calvin is an Associate Professor of Women’s, Gender, and Sexuality Studies at SUNY Stony Brook. He is the author of Queering SF: Readings (Aqueduct Press), Feminist Epistemology and Feminist Science Fiction (Palgrave McMillan) and edited a collection of essays on Gilmore Girls (McFarland). His most recent book (2024) is Queering SF Comics: Readings (Aqueduct Press).
