1. VIDEO OVERVIEW

Title: “Oversight & Investigations”

Runtime: 31:05

Speaker: Mike Howell, Tom Jones, and Michael Ding

YouTube: Project 2025 Private Training Video: Oversight and Investigations (Transcript)

This video, part of Project 2025’s Presidential Administration Academy, focuses on preparing conservative political appointees for the realities of government oversight and investigations. The speakers, Mike Howell (Executive Director of the Heritage Foundation’s Oversight Project), Tom Jones (President of the American Accountability Foundation, a conservative watchdog group), and Michael Ding (lawyer for America First Legal, a conservative legal organization aligned with Trump), offer a blend of practical advice and ideological framing. They discuss the types of oversight that appointees might face, the intricacies of public records laws, and strategies for managing investigations, all while subtly promoting a culture of secrecy and distrust towards those seeking accountability.

The video’s significance lies in its attempt to equip conservative appointees with the tools and mindset to evade or obstruct oversight efforts, potentially undermining transparency and accountability within the government. It reflects a broader conservative distrust of oversight mechanisms, particularly those led by Democrats or perceived as politically motivated, and a desire to shield a future conservative administration from scrutiny.

2. KEY THEMES & FRAMEWORKS

  • Oversight as a “Weapon”: The speakers frame government oversight, particularly from Congress, as a “weapon” used by political opponents to attack conservative administrations and to advance a liberal agenda. This framing fosters a defensive posture and encourages appointees to view oversight as a threat rather than a legitimate function of government.
  • Public Records Laws as a “Tool of Harassment”: The video portrays public records laws, such as the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), as tools of “harassment” used by journalists, activists, and political opponents to obtain sensitive information and to embarrass the administration. This framing discourages transparency and encourages a culture of secrecy.
  • Minimizing the Paper Trail: The speakers emphasize the importance of minimizing the paper trail, suggesting that appointees should avoid putting sensitive information in writing, especially in emails or text messages, to avoid creating records that could be subject to public disclosure. This advice could hinder transparency and accountability, making it more difficult to track decision-making processes and to hold officials accountable for their actions.
  • “Circle the Wagons” Mentality: The video promotes a “circle the wagons” mentality, encouraging appointees to be loyal to the administration, to avoid cooperating with investigators, and to challenge the legitimacy of oversight efforts. This approach could undermine the effectiveness of oversight mechanisms and could shield wrongdoing from scrutiny.
  • “Weaponizing” Oversight Against the Left: While portraying oversight as a threat when directed at conservatives, the speakers suggest that a future conservative administration should use oversight aggressively to target liberal opponents and to expose their “corruption” and “misconduct.” This reflects a double standard and a willingness to use the same tools they criticize when used against them for partisan purposes.

3. DETAILED BREAKDOWN

3.1 Introduction: The “Weaponization” of Oversight

Howell begins by framing government oversight as a “weapon” that has been “increasingly used” against conservative administrations. He argues that oversight has become “politicized” and is often used to “harass” and “intimidate” conservative officials, rather than to promote accountability.

Quote: “Oversight has become a weapon in the hands of the left. They use it to attack conservatives, to score political points, and to advance their agenda.”

3.2 Types of Oversight

The speakers discuss the different types of oversight that political appointees might face, including:

  • Congressional Oversight: Hearings, investigations, and requests for information from congressional committees.
  • Inspector General Investigations: Investigations by independent inspectors general within federal agencies.
  • Media Scrutiny: Reporting and investigations by journalists.
  • FOIA Requests: Requests for information from the public under the Freedom of Information Act.

3.3 Public Records Laws: A “Tool of Harassment”

Jones focuses on public records laws, particularly FOIA, arguing that they are often used as “tools of harassment” by journalists, activists, and political opponents to obtain sensitive information and to embarrass the administration. He suggests that these requests are often frivolous and burdensome and that they can distract from the administration’s work.

Quote: “FOIA has become a weapon for the left. They use it to harass and intimidate conservatives, to tie up our time and resources, and to try to find something, anything, that they can use to attack us.”

3.4 Minimizing the Paper Trail: “Think Before You Write”

Ding emphasizes the importance of minimizing the paper trail, suggesting that appointees should avoid putting sensitive information in writing, especially in emails or text messages. He argues that these records can be easily obtained through FOIA requests and can be used to “twist” the administration’s words or to create a false narrative.

Quote: “Think before you write. Anything you put in writing can and will be used against you. The left is very good at taking things out of context and creating a false narrative.”

3.5 Managing Investigations: “Don’t Cooperate”

The speakers offer advice on how to manage investigations, suggesting that appointees should be cautious in their interactions with investigators and should avoid cooperating with requests for information. They argue that investigators are often biased and that they are looking for any excuse to “get” the administration.

Quote: “Don’t cooperate with investigations. They are not your friends. They are looking for anything they can use to attack you.”

3.6 “Weaponizing” Oversight Against the Left

While portraying oversight as a threat when directed at conservatives, the speakers suggest that a future conservative administration should use oversight aggressively to target liberal opponents and to expose their “corruption” and “misconduct.” They argue that this is necessary to “drain the swamp” and to “hold the left accountable.”

Quote: “When we’re back in power, we need to use oversight to hold the left accountable. We need to investigate their corruption, their waste, and their abuse of power.”

3.7 Conclusion: “Be Prepared for Battle”

The speakers conclude by urging potential appointees to be “prepared for battle” against the “forces of the left” who will use oversight to attack them. They encourage appointees to be vigilant, to be loyal, and to be prepared to fight back against what they perceive as unfair and politically motivated attacks.

Quote: “Be prepared for battle. The left is going to come after you. They are going to use oversight to try to destroy you. But we are going to fight back, and we are going to win.”

4. POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

  • Limit the Scope of FOIA: Narrow the scope of the Freedom of Information Act to make it more difficult for journalists, activists, and political opponents to obtain information from the government.
  • Increase Penalties for Leaks: Increase penalties for leaking classified or sensitive information to the media or to the public.
  • Defund Congressional Oversight Committees: Reduce funding for congressional committees that are responsible for overseeing the executive branch.
  • Appoint Loyal Inspectors General: Appoint inspectors general who are loyal to the President and who will not aggressively investigate the administration.

5. STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES

  • Evade and Obstruct Oversight: Equip conservative appointees with the tools and strategies they need to evade and obstruct oversight efforts from Congress, the media, and other entities.
  • Promote a Culture of Secrecy: Encourage a culture of secrecy within the government, discouraging transparency and making it more difficult to hold officials accountable.
  • Discredit Oversight Mechanisms: Portray government oversight as a “weapon” used by political opponents to attack conservatives, undermining public trust in these mechanisms.
  • “Weaponize” Oversight Against the Left: Use oversight aggressively to target liberal opponents and to advance a conservative agenda.

6. HISTORICAL CONTEXT

The speakers draw on the experience of the Trump administration, which faced numerous investigations and oversight efforts from Congress, the media, and special counsel Robert Mueller. They portray these investigations as politically motivated “witch hunts” and suggest that a future conservative administration will face similar attacks.

7. POTENTIAL IMPACTS

  • Reduced Transparency and Accountability: The video’s recommendations could lead to a significant reduction in transparency and accountability within the government, making it more difficult for the public to know what the government is doing and to hold officials accountable for their actions.
  • Increased Corruption and Abuse of Power: A lack of oversight could create opportunities for corruption and abuse of power, as officials operate with less scrutiny and are less fearful of consequences.
  • Erosion of Trust in Government: The video’s portrayal of oversight as a “weapon” and its encouragement of a “circle the wagons” mentality could further erode public trust in government institutions.

8. CRITICISMS & COUNTERARGUMENTS

  • Undermining Democratic Accountability: Critics might argue that the video’s recommendations would undermine democratic accountability by making it more difficult for Congress, the media, and the public to hold the executive branch accountable.
  • Promoting a Culture of Secrecy: Opponents might argue that the emphasis on minimizing the paper trail and avoiding cooperation with investigators would create a culture of secrecy within the government, shielding wrongdoing from scrutiny.
  • Double Standard on Oversight: Critics might argue that the speakers’ willingness to use oversight aggressively against their opponents while simultaneously portraying oversight as a threat when directed at conservatives reveals a double standard and a lack of commitment to genuine accountability.

9. KEY QUOTES

  • “Oversight has become a weapon in the hands of the left. They use it to attack conservatives, to score political points, and to advance their agenda.” This quote reflects the video’s framing of oversight as a political weapon.
  • “FOIA has become a weapon for the left. They use it to harass and intimidate conservatives, to tie up our time and resources, and to try to find something, anything, that they can use to attack us.” This quote portrays public records laws as tools of harassment.
  • “Think before you write. Anything you put in writing can and will be used against you. The left is very good at taking things out of context and creating a false narrative.” This quote encourages a culture of secrecy and discourages transparency.
  • “Don’t cooperate with investigations. They are not your friends. They are looking for anything they can use to attack you.” This quote promotes a defensive and adversarial approach to oversight.
  • “When we’re back in power, we need to use oversight to hold the left accountable. We need to investigate their corruption, their waste, and their abuse of power.” This quote reveals a willingness to use oversight for partisan purposes.

10. RHETORICAL ANALYSIS

The speakers in the video use a combination of fear-mongering, us-vs.-them rhetoric, and appeals to authority to persuade their audience. They portray government oversight as a threat to conservative values and goals, while suggesting that conservatives are the true victims of a biased and unfair system. They also present themselves as experienced insiders who can provide valuable guidance on how to navigate the treacherous waters of Washington, D.C.

11. SUMMARY & SIGNIFICANCE

The “Oversight & Investigations” video is a disturbing example of Project 2025’s broader agenda to undermine democratic accountability and to create a more secretive and less transparent government. It encourages conservative appointees to view oversight as a threat, to minimize the paper trail, and to resist cooperating with investigators. This approach, if implemented, could lead to a significant erosion of transparency and accountability within the government, potentially increasing the risk of corruption and abuse of power.

The video’s partisan framing of oversight and its call for a more aggressive use of oversight against political opponents raise serious concerns about the potential for a future conservative administration to weaponize oversight mechanisms for partisan purposes, further eroding trust in government institutions and undermining the rule of law.