Project 2025’s Success Rate So Far Will Terrify You

This time last year, Donald Trump was swearing through his teeth that he wasn’t affiliated with Project 2025. But little more than half a year into his second administration, the initiative is reportedly already 47 percent complete.

The Project 2025 Tracker, which labels itself as a “comprehensive, community-driven initiative” to follow the implementation of the 900-page far-right manifesto, has counted the progression of 115 “complete” proposals out of the project’s 317 total. Some federal agencies—such as the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and USAID—have already been entirely reworked according to Project 2025’s goals. Project 2025 had six goals for USAID.

The White House, for which Project 2025 had 13 listed objectives, is currently 92 percent complete, according to the tracker.

Another 64 proposals are currently “in progress,” according to the tracker, including initiatives at the Department of Homeland Security, the Defense Department, the Energy Department, and the Department of Commerce. They include policies that would require federally funded schools to administer military entrance tests to all students, adding citizenship questions to the census, rescinding elements of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, phasing out federal funding for low-income children in schools, classifying K-12 studies relating to “gender ideology” as sexual offenses, allowing companies to skirt overtime pay, and abolishing the Federal Reserve, among dozens of others.

Trump faced enormous blowback from conservatives last summer after he was accused of being tied in with the Heritage Foundation, the christo-nationalist group that drafted the manifesto. But he managed to change the opinion of American voters by lying repeatedly.

“I know nothing about Project 2025. I have no idea who is behind it,” Trump wrote on Truth Social in July 2024. “I disagree with some of the things they’re saying, and some of the things they’re saying are absolutely ridiculous and abysmal. Anything they do, I wish them luck, but I have nothing to do with them.”

Since Inauguration Day, Trump has packed his administration with Project 2025 appointees, including its architect, Russell Vought, whom Trump tapped to run the Office of Management and Budget.

The Department of Justice says it wants to release transcripts of grand jury testimony from Jeffrey Epstein’s and Ghislaine Maxwell’s criminal trials. But Maxwell and her legal team, who have been meeting with the Trump administration and are angling for a pardon, filed a response Tuesday opposing the release.

“Jeffrey Epstein is dead. Ghislaine Maxwell is not,” the court filing begins. “Whatever interest the public may have in Epstein, that interest cannot justify a broad intrusion into grand jury secrecy in a case where the defendant is alive, her legal options are viable, and her due process rights remain.”

According to the filing, Trump’s DOJ said that Maxwell could review the transcripts of her trial’s testimony before they were published but “the Court denied that request.” Because of this, the testimony might contain information that could damage Maxwell’s ongoing legal case, and should be kept secret, the filing argues.

Last month, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche met with Maxwell in an attempt to gain more information about the Epstein case. Those who are skeptical of Trump’s motives worried that Maxwell might lie to clear his name in exchange for a pardon. The administration is still deciding whether it will release the audio of these meetings.

Maxwell is currently petitioning to appeal her case before the Supreme Court and overturn her conviction, arguing that a non-prosecution agreement Epstein made with federal prosecutors in Florida should apply to her conviction.

A new CNN report reveals that the Trump administration possesses recordings of the Justice Department’s much-scrutinized closed-door meetings with Ghislaine Maxwell.

The recordings, per CNN, are now being transcribed and digitized, and “discussions over potential publication of the transcripts and audio” are ongoing. If the transcript is released, portions “that could reveal sensitive details like victim names” will likely be redacted.

Last month, Trump’s former personal attorney and current Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche met with Maxwell, who is serving a 20-year sentence for helping Jeffrey Epstein sexually abuse underage girls.

Blanche said the point of the meeting—an apparent attempt to quell the furor over Trump’s lack of transparency on Epstein—was to ask Maxwell, “What do you know?”

After day one of the interview, which stretched over two days, Blanche wrote on X that the DOJ “will share additional information about what we learned at the appropriate time.” Maxwell’s attorney called it a “productive day.”

But many critics saw the meetings as a breeding ground for corruption, as Maxwell may have been incentivized to clear the name of the president—a former friend of Epstein whose name reportedly appears multiple times within the files—in exchange for clemency or a pardon.

Trump, meanwhile, distanced himself from Blanche’s meetings with Maxwell.

“I don’t know anything about it. They’re going to, what? Meet her?” Trump said when asked about the meeting late last month. “I don’t know about it, but I think it’s something that be—sounds appropriate to do, yeah.… I didn’t know that they were going to do it. I don’t really follow that too much.”

Trump has done little to dispel concerns that he may use Maxwell as a way out of the Epstein scandal, repeatedly reminding reporters that he’s “allowed” to grant her a pardon.

Releasing the Maxwell interviews might be a good first step for the self-proclaimed “most transparent” presidential administration to resolve the ongoing controversy.

But it would still fall far short of persistent demands to simply release the Epstein files in full. To do so, the president could waive his privacy rights to allow the mentions of him in the files to be unredacted—though I wouldn’t hold my breath.

Laura Loomer’s conspiratorial followers are already cannibalizing her for participating in “the swamp.”

Just a day after reports emerged that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth had tapped the far-right “9/11 truther” to help identify leakers among his staff, Loomer has now herself become the subject of intense scrutiny. Some conspiracists are accusing her of being a “plant” for pharmaceutical companies concerned about administration policies that could cut into their bottom dollar, reported The Bulwark.

The self-appointed “loyalty enforcer” has had enormous success influencing the Trump administration from the safety of her X account: An analysis by The Daily Beast found that at least 16 individuals were fired from the federal government after Loomer singled them out as covert Democratic agents.

But now her intraparty success is coming back to bite her. At issue is the recent firing of Dr. Vinay Prasad, who until last week was in charge of the Food and Drug Administration division that oversees vaccines and gene therapies. Prasad resigned from his position after Loomer accused him of being disloyal to the president, alleging he owned a Trump voodoo doll. (The claim is a mischaracterization of a rhetorical anecdote Prasad spelled out in a podcast episode.)

Of note for far-right influencers: Prasad was in the midst of duking it out with Massachusetts-based drug manufacturer Sarepta over the company’s drug Elevidys, which treats Duchenne muscular dystrophy. The FDA put Elevidys’s clinical trials on hold last month after two patients died while taking the drug, and after another individual passed away while taking a related treatment. All three people died from acute liver toxicity.

Shortly before Prasad resigned, the FDA reversed course on its decision, deciding that some patients who still had the ability to walk could receive the drug.

Loomer’s peers considered the connection between her attacks on Prasad, the new FDA decision, and Prasad’s firing fairly obvious.

Right-wing Big Pharma critic Kevin Bass accused Loomer of being a “plant” to “oust FDA official Vinay Prasad.” American Majority CEO Ned Ryun wrote that Loomer was “funded by Sarepta Therapeutics to take Vinay out,” referring to the influencer as “completely nuts.”

“The reason I find this and you so loathsome is that this behavior is the antithesis of the MAGA and MAHA movements,” Ryun added.

Loomer has rejected the claims, writing to her 1.7 million followers on X that she hasn’t accepted any money from Big Pharma.

Last week, Representative Delia Ramirez, a Guatemalan American representing Illinois’s 3rd district, spoke at the second Panamerican Congress in Mexico City. A snippet of her remarks has infuriated MAGA commentators, lawmakers, and even the Department of Homeland Security.

But the outrage stems from an apparent mistranslation by right-wing news site The Blaze, which reported that Ramirez said: “I’m a proud Guatemalan, before I’m an American.”

A video of the event shows Ramirez, who began her speech in English, saying she wanted to conclude her remarks with a few words in Spanish (“...quiero terminar diciendo unas palabras en español…”), because she is “very proudly Guatemalan” (“...porque yo soy guatemalteca con mucho orgullo…”). But, she continues, “Primero que soy americana”—which translates roughly to “First, I am American.”

While the latter statement is oddly worded, making a direct translation difficult and leaving some ambiguity in Ramirez’s meaning, The Blaze’s version is evidently quite a leap (and also strips the remark of its context).

But, as Mark Twain is often falsely quoted as saying: “A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes.” The Blaze’s snippet and translation was shared far and wide in the MAGA-sphere.

Fox News published a story on it. Senator Mike Lee asked his followers on X, “Are you comfortable with this?” Representative Andy Ogles demanded that Ramirez be denaturalized, deported, and removed from the House Committee on Homeland Security, posting, “We know where her allegiances lie.” The DHS’s official X account shared the snippet with a Theodore Roosevelt quote about there being “no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism.”

As the bad-faith right-wing firestorm blazed, Ramirez issued a statement calling the attacks “a weak attempt to silence my dissent and invalidate my patriotic criticism of the nativist, white supremacist, authoritarians in government.”

“Anyone who denies our claim on this country simply because we dare to honor our diverse heritage and immigrant roots only exposes how fragile and small-minded their own idea of America really is,” Ramirez said.

This story has been updated.

There’s only one person who Americans hate more than Benjamin Netanyahu: Elon Musk.

In a Gallup favorability poll on 14 U.S. and global figures released Tuesday, Musk came in with the lowest net favorability rating at -28 points. Benjamin Netanyahu, the far-right prime minister of Israel and champion of the country’s genocidal campaign in Gaza, is slightly less hated at -23 points.

Multiple officials in Donald Trump’s administration, including Trump, have fallen in popularity: JD Vance, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Marco Rubio, Musk, and Trump himself have all lost favorability since January’s poll.

Rubio is down 24 points, from a positive eight-point net favorability in January to -16 in the latest poll, which Gallup suggests could be linked to his key role in shutting down USAID. Musk, who is also precipitously down 24 points, now has a nearly two-to-one negative image: 33 percent of people surveyed view Trump’s ex-BFF favorably, and 61 percent view him unfavorably.

Trump, Kennedy, and Vance have all experienced declines of 13 or 14 points since January. Biden, who also has a negative net favorability (tied with Vance for -11), is actually slightly up in favorability since January—likely due to the fact he’s not president anymore.

At the top of the list? The Chicago pope himself, Pope Leo XIV. The pope has a +46 net favorability, far ahead of the second- and third-most-favorable figures, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy and Bernie Sanders, who come in at 18 and 11 points, respectively.

The writing’s on the wall: The American public doesn’t look kindly upon mass starvation, but there is no sin greater than the Tesla Diner.

The Republican-led House on Tuesday issued subpoenas to the Justice Department and high-ranking officials for files related to convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. But there was one notable name missing from the list of subpoenas: President Donald Trump.

House Oversight Committee Chair James Comer issued 11 subpoenas in total, including some to prominent politicians from Republican and Democratic administrations: Bill and Hillary Clinton, former FBI Director James Comey, multiple former attorneys general including Merrick Garland and William Barr, and former special counsel Robert Mueller, according to The Washington Post.

But Trump himself is notably absent from that list.

The subpoenas are a result of a bipartisan effort on behalf of the House to release the files. On July 23, Democratic Representative Summer Lee of Pennsylvania brought a motion to subpoena the DOJ, which passed in the House Oversight Federal Law Enforcement subcommittee with three Republicans joining Democrats in the vote.

Trump’s former Labor Secretary Alexander Acosta is also missing from the list of subpoenas. In 2008, as U.S. attorney in Miami, Acosta gave Epstein a secret plea deal for soliciting a minor for prostitution—a crime that, if charges had been brought federally, could have resulted in a life sentence. Acosta resigned from the Trump administration in 2019 amid scrutiny during Epstein’s sex-trafficking case.

Despite the public’s overwhelming interest in transparency regarding Epstein, Trump has denied and deflected, blaming the controversy on a Democratic hoax and belittling members of his base who are still interested in seeing the files. Before the Justice Department issued a “case-closed” memo last month, Attorney General Pam Bondi reportedly told Trump that his name was in the files, which isn’t a surprise to anyone who’s seen the mountain of evidence that Trump and Epstein were friends.

This story has been updated.

Deciding to condition FEMA aid on support for Israel has not panned out well for the Trump administration.

Grant orders issued by the agency directed states and cities to certify that they would not avoid or end “commercial relations specifically with Israeli companies” while receiving the federal disaster relief funds, Reuters reported Monday, citing official notices it had obtained. But in the wake of the news, fierce bipartisan backlash effectively forced the White House to nix the operation.

MAGA influencers including Candace Owens, Nick Fuentes, and Matt Walsh came out in staunch opposition to the effort, accusing Donald Trump of failing to put “America first.”

“Remember to pledge allegiance to Israel before your house is destroyed by a fire or hurricane, it could save your life,” wrote Fuentes on X.

Owens, meanwhile, claimed that Trump had “fully betrayed America” for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. “If you cannot see that now you are completely blind,” the talk show host wrote. “Best 100 million Miriam Adelson ever spent.”

Walsh simply stated, “There is just no way to reasonably claim that this qualifies as ‘America First’.”

Hours after initial reports broke about the conditioned aid, the Department of Homeland Security issued a statement insisting that “there is NO FEMA requirement tied to Israel in any current NOFO.”

But that doesn’t mean that future funding is protected from similar efforts. The notice underscored DHS’s ability to deny funds to any entity it deemed affiliated with the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement, which aims to curb Israel’s violence in Gaza by peeling financial support away from the nation and its businesses.

“No states have lost funding, and no new conditions have been imposed,” the notice reads. “FEMA grants remain governed by existing law and policy and not political litmus tests. DHS will enforce all anti-discrimination laws and policies, including as it relates to the BDS movement, which is expressly grounded in antisemitism. Those who engage in racial discrimination should not receive a single dollar of federal funding.”

But a review of the order shows that it did indeed originally contain language conditioning aid on support for Israel. Following the backlash, the language was quietly edited to remove the reference to anti-Israel boycotts.

And as journalist Saagar Enjeti noted on X, “the DHS … makes it clear the admin reserves the right to deny these funds … based on the Anti-Boycott Act.”

“They still might do it. They’re just not saying it out loud right now,” he added.

The off-color FEMA order was just the latest in a long line of warnings from the Trump administration regarding its alliance with Israel and Netanyahu. The Department of Homeland Security announced in April that boycotting Israel was forbidden for any state or city intending to receive federal funding, and the White House has rescinded billions of dollars from universities around the country for failing to meet Trump’s metric of support for America’s genocidal Middle Eastern ally.

President Trump faced a surprisingly tough interview on CNBC’s Squawk Box Tuesday morning, as host Joe Kernen, who has often praised the president in the past, grilled him on his ousting of the commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics over his claims that the job numbers were “rigged.”

Trump fired accused the former commissioner, Erika McEntarfer, last week after accusing her of propping up former President Biden and attempting to undermine himself. The firing came after an abysmal July job report, leading many to the reasonable conclusion that Trump is shooting the messenger while wrecking the economy, and now plans to install a lackey to replace McEntarfer.

On Squawk Box, Kernen noted that Elaine Chao, a former Trump transportation secretary and Bush II labor secretary, had said there’s no way that McEntarfer could have rigged the numbers.

“She said the commissioner doesn’t even really get involved with the actual minutiae of putting all these things together and there’s no way she could have chosen to rig these numbers to make ’em look bad,” Kernen said. “It’s just a big leap to go to rigged—and also it makes, Mr. President, it makes anyone you pick—critics are going to say, ‘Hey, he’s picking a guy or gal that’s giving him the numbers he wants.’ So it undermines confidence in the system to some extent.”

Trump replied: “I think when somebody says the commissioner is not involved, I don’t want to get into any arguments with anybody—why should I? She’s a very nice woman. But when they say that nobody is involved, that it wasn’t political—give me a break.”

Earlier in the interview, Kernen also fact-checked Trump on his claims that the BLS put out fake jobs numbers to help Kamala Harris in the 2024 election.

“And so they gave phony numbers in order to win the election,” Trump said. “After I won the election—I said, ‘Too big to rig’—but, after I won the election, then they announced a downward number. In other words, to bring them back to reality. And I said, ‘Wow, supposing I would have lost, I would have blamed that and people would have said I was a conspiracy theorist.’”

In reality, that narrative is completely backward. The November BLS jobs report, released just days before the 2024 election, showed “weak growth” of 12,000 jobs for the month prior, as well as downward revisions for September and August. (Trump’s campaign even seized on this with a statement that said it showed “how badly Kamala Harris broke our economy.”) However, a month after the election, the October figure was revised upward.

And, as Kernen pointed out, Trump’s claim of a downward revision of “almost 900,000” (actually 818,000) came months prior to the election, in August 2024. (Trump, at the time, baselessly hailed this routine revision as evidence of Biden and Kamala Harris “fraudulently manipulating job statistics.”)

President Donald Trump claimed in a CNBC interview Tuesday that he had “nothing to do with” Attorney General Pam Bondi’s grand jury probe into Obama officials—but he’s certainly not mad about it.

Anchor Joe Kernan asked the president, who called in to the program, “You’ve talked about how you want success, not retribution. The Justice Department is now tapping a grand jury to look into the intelligence community’s assessment of what was happening with Russia [in the 2016 U.S. election]. You have nothing to do with directing the Justice Department in that?”

“Nope, I have nothing to do with it. Pam is doing a great job,” Trump responded. “I will tell you this: They deserve it. I was happy to hear it,” he continued.

Years after a bipartisan Senate panel and the CIA confirmed that Russia interfered in the 2016 election, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard declassified documents that she claimed proved otherwise. Now Bondi plans to subpoena Obama-era officials for their purported role in what Trump has deemed the Russia “hoax.”

Whether or not Trump directed Bondi to relitigate an already-closed chapter of his history—conveniently launched at the same time he’s being walloped by his base for his mishandling of the Jeffrey Epstein files and documented proximity to the dead pedophile—we can’t say for sure. But it’s certainly in line with the years of disinformation he’s spread about the matter, and his appetite for revenge.

Speaking of relitigating, Trump continued in his response to Kernan, claiming that multiple elections have been “rigged”: “What they did with the election—what they did with the last election too, but it was too big to rig—what they did in the 2020 election is grotesque, I mean that was a rigged election 100 percent.”

Kernan laughed, responding, “We can’t relitigate that. We can’t relitigate that.”

Hearing his interviewer’s casual comeback, Trump observed, “You know, a year ago you would’ve been upset if I said that. Today it’s different. Now I say it all the time: It was a rigged election.”

He’s not wrong. Trump’s relentless lies have browbeaten the American people into submission, and his administration’s claims that there was no Russian interference in the 2016 election are just another example, whether Trump’s behind the probe or not.