One day when I was working at the White House, I got summoned to the Oval Office along with John McEntee and James Bacon. The president was unhappy. A certain agency had been working on an important policy change for 3 years and it still wasn’t finished. The president told us to take it over, go bolder and get it done. We completed it start to finish in just 14 days.

And when I say start to finish, I don’t mean we produced an executive order directing something be done or a proposed rule or an interim rule. I mean an actual final rule published in the federal register having the force of law and we did it in 14 days. People couldn’t believe it. So how did we do it? In this lesson, I’ll reveal actual tricks of the trade that will allow you to get big things done fast.

In the eyes of many in the world, this every 4 year ceremony we accept as normal is nothing less than a miracle. In America, we understand that a nation is only living as long as it is striving. Only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger. This great nation will endure as it has endured, will revive, and will prosper. Whether we go forward together with courage or turn back to policies that weakened our economy, diminished our leadership in the world, America’s future will be in your hands.

So congratulations. You’ve just been appointed to a senior policy making role in agency. You’ve been thinking about this moment for years thinking, man, these guys are idiots. If only I were in charge, well, now your dream’s a reality. It’s showtime.

So what now? How do you deliver? Well, the first thing to recognize is that the title of this course is a misnomer. It’s captioned how to get your policy through the agency but it isn’t your policy. It’s the president’s policy And this is a material distinction for two reasons.

1st, it is essential that you surround yourself with people who believe in the president’s agenda. This isn’t about loyalty. It’s about efficacy. People who believe in the agenda will go the extra mile to get it done. In any substantive endeavor, you’re going to encounter bureaucratic and legal hurdles.

Some expected, others unexpected. If you’re dutifully but unenthusiastically carrying out your bosses orders, you’ll say sir, you know, we tried. This came up. We can’t do it. But if you’re passionate about the policy reform, if you’re invested in making it happen, if you want to see it done, you’ll be undaunted and unrelenting.

You’ll think creatively about how to get it done, how to clear the hurdles. And that right there is often the difference when it comes to big things between success and failure. So surround yourself with ideological allies both by hiring them if you’re able to and by forging relationships across the agency particularly in components that you’re gonna need sign up from in order to implement your reforms. For example, general counsel’s office. The second reason this distinction is important is that DC has too many people who think they run the president instead of the other way around.

The primary goal for them is not to implement the president’s agenda but to resume build. They may even sabotage the president’s agenda with lies and leaks and inaction in order to ingratiate themselves with what Tucker Carlson calls permanent Washington. For example, according to Axios, senior officials who opposed president Trump’s plans to withdraw forces from the Middle East and Afghanistan, quote, deliberately deceived, end quote, deliberately deceived him about troop levels. So think about that. That’s why it’s really important you gotta have people who back you.

Otherwise, they’ll get undermined and you’ll be less efficient. Now the next republican administration will be the most important one of our lives. There’s too much to do. There’s no time to lose and the stakes are too high. The left has used this monopoly over education, media, and culture to crack the pillars of American society.

I’m talking about free speech, meritocracy, a national faith, and the unique excellence of our self governing republic. So in the name of diversity, equity, and inclusion, DEI’s, they call it the democrats are lowering standards in every aspect of modern life most alarmingly in medicine. They’re brainwashing the next generation with a dangerous fiction that America is systemically racist and they’re false but pervasive propaganda stokes resentment, fuels chaos in our cities, and robs us of the self confidence that we have a civilization worth defending. I mentioned this because if the next Republican president does not execute a dramatic course correction, there may never be another chance. So if you’re not on board with helping implement a dramatic course correction because you’re afraid it’ll damage your future employment prospects, it’ll harm you socially.

Look. I get it. That’s a real danger. It’s a real thing. But please, do us all a favor and sit this one out.

We only need to fill 5,000 administration positions and there are tens of millions of conservative voters to choose from. If you’re not prepared to be bold, we can manage without you. Trust me. I used to help run the office of presidential personnel at the White House. Now that said, if you’re watching this video, you’re probably precisely the kind of dedicated person we need.

So in this next section, I’m gonna get into the technical details of how to get big things done fast. Let’s start with background on the process. It’s dry but it’s important to understand. Now as you’ll recall from your high school civics class, congress makes laws, judges interpret laws, and the executive branch through various agencies enforces laws. Now in practice, congress typically passes vague statutes and leaves it to the agencies to fill in the, the details of the policy.

So there are two principal ways that agency policy gets expressed, regulations and guidance documents. Now regulations impose legally binding obligations or prohibitions, sort of more formal, and guidance documents, they merely explain how the agency will exercise its broad enforcement authority. So for example, DACA. Right? President Obama’s amnesty for illegal aliens.

It was issued as guidance, not regulation. So guidance can do real things but it’s sort of in a different category and and there’s a reason that DACA was issued, as guidance because agency regulations require a lot of process and guidance documents do not. So let’s look at the process for agency regulations. The the process for that’s governed by the Administrative Procedures Act. That’s the term you’re probably gonna hear, APA.

And the APA creates 2 tracks. The first is called formal rule making and that establishes a, a trial like hearing process in which a rule is developed. This is almost never used. I just bring it up in case, you know, someone tosses around that term formal rule making. Making.

You can forget about it. But the second option, the second track, that’s technically known as informal rule making. The thing is it’s a total misstomer. There’s nothing informal about it at all. It’s a tangle of official steps and requirements and because it’s primarily used, we’ll focus on that process but it is not informal.

It’s a huge pain in the tail. Regulations begin with a policy idea that’s been put in a written form. You think about a problem, you think about ways to solve it and then you gotta start drafting. And the draft typically has several parts. First, the preamble.

Preamble contains a summary, date, contact information, and supplementary information. So the summary explains the planned actions and why they’re necessary and the contact information is for the public to submit comments on the rule. We’ll get to that in a minute. And the supplemental information includes sort of a lengthier discussion of the merits of the proposal, the legal foundation, supporting data, the agency’s choices and reasoning. And then following the preamble, the agency prints the actual regulatory text which, when finalized will, ultimately appear in a standing body of agency law that’s known as the code of federal regulations.

It’s another term you’re gonna hear, CFR. So most new regulations will amend existing rules in the CFR. So you’re gonna have to do some cross referencing for conforming amendments. This is all sort of in the drafting stage. But practical tip number 1, if you need to draft a regulation yourself, ask the general counsel’s office for a template and then just focus on the summary of the rule and the supplemental sections that explain the policy.

The rest is standard pretty boilerplate. It can be filled in quickly. Don’t concern yourself with that. You should also check with the subject matter experts in your office to assist with the conforming amendment so that all the necessary changes to the CFR are made. So again, you know, you’re writing a rule that does x y z but it touches, you know, 15 other spots.

You really need to talk to people in the office who will know where those are so you can say you can change table of contents, you can point in the right direction. It’s sort of minor and technical but you’ll need some experts to assist you on that. You just focus on the substantive policy explaining that, in this model order. So once you have a draft, you’ll need to get internal agency sign off. Now agencies will have different internal procedures but, like, broadly speaking, the agency components whose operations may be affected by your rule want an opportunity to weigh in.

So you’ll have to confer with your colleagues, refine your draft and typically this will be done under the supervision of the chief of staff and consultation with the general counsel’s office. They’re gonna wanna take a look at it too, and they’ll be pretty involved in the in the drafting process and everything that happens after. Now major regulations also require review by the White House. In the 19 eighties, congress established a special agency for that. Now the office of information and regulatory affairs, OIRA.

It’s a component within the office of management and budget, which is in within the executive office of the White House. So it’s a White House component. They review the regulations and the rule is that agencies must submit major regulations which is defined as those having an annual economic impact of over $100,000,000. Those are the regulations we have to go to Ira for review before the rules can be made public. What’s the Ira gonna do?

Well, Ira is gonna review the regulation. They’re gonna ask you some questions. They may run a cost benefit analysis if that’s appropriate and they’re also gonna ensure the other agencies affected by this rule have a chance to weigh in. Now once everyone signs off, the regulation will go back to your agency, be signed off by the appropriate official there, which usually be the secretary or assistant secretary, and then it’s going to be published on a government run publicly accessible database of regulations known as the Federal Register. Now all this does not mean the rule is final.

This is actually just the first step. There’s way more to go. So the APA, which again is the law that governs how agencies make rules, requires that the public have an opportunity to comment on proposed rules. Now nowadays, these comments are submitted electronically and the public typically is given 60 to 90 days to submit them. Agency staff then have to review and sort and categorize and prepare responses to each unique point raised.

The agency might also alter the rule in response to the feedback. Yeah. That’s a pretty good point. I hadn’t thought of that. We need to we need to address that.

So that happens. But the point of this whole process is to try and prevent, the regulation from being overturned in court on the grounds that the agency failed to consider some policy angle. Because what’ll happen is people go into court and say, well, the agency didn’t consider the x y z comment and they’ll be able to say, no, no, we did. See right here. So you really wanna make sure to cover all those things.

That’s the way that the, that the agencies try to proceed. So they try to provide comments, responses to all the comments. And once the comments have responses and any changes have been made, then the rule is again submitted, for OIRA review and the interagency process. They gotta look at it again. They looked at it when it was proposed.

There’s the comments and they’re gonna look at it again. Now once everyone has signed off on the rule second time, the rule is again published in the federal register. This time was what’s called a final rule. And then 30 days after this publication, the rule becomes effective and acquires the force of law. Now at this point, the rule that you drafted is also going to be immediately subject to judicial review.

Now, it’s not obvious because a lot of times you have to wait until something’s enforced to actually challenge it. But here under the APA, you can get what’s called pre enforcement review. So obviously, this process is quite cumbersome. It can take months, even years, and certain controversial rules can receive tens of thousands of comments. In fact, I think there was a rule on net neutrality years ago that held the record with 23,000,000 comments.

Point being, it’s a huge pain. The process for guidance documents is much simpler. It doesn’t require notice and comment which is major. I mean, that’s the major thing. You do not need to go through the notice and comment process but the guidance is also effective immediately and often.

It doesn’t even need to be published in the federal register. It’s also not typically subject to the pre enforcement review and all of that makes it much more attractive to make policy changes via guidance. Now the same is true in in reverse and sort of eliminating regulations or guidance. Repealing a Repealing a regulation is a form of regulatory action that requires going through that same process. By contrast, getting rid of guidance can often be done simply by just taking the thing off the website or issuing some kind of countermanding memo.

So that’s a lot of background but the main point is agencies act through regulations and guidance. Guidance is easy. Regulations are hard and this, of course, suggests an order of operations when it comes to getting big things done fast and is to that that we will turn next. There’s a school of thought that when you get into office, your power’s at its apex so you should tackle the hardest thing first. Now I think that’s a big mistake because the bigger issues tend to be more complicated and having more surface area is easier for your opponents to find ways to bog you down.

Instead, my view is start with some quick victories to build some momentum and signal to everyone that you’re a skilled operator who gets things done. So my advice is that your first target should be the low hanging fruit of some liberal agency guidance and there are, a mountain of examples of this. It’s a target rich environment. So for example, one of the signature initiatives on the left is DEI, diversity, equity, inclusion. Now every agency is gonna have documents on their website referring to DEI initiatives, DEI offices, and all those things can just be taken down immediately on day 1.

You have similar things, at HUD. HUD has a guidance document that says, you know, landlords might be liable for running criminal background checks on prospective tenants because these background checks disproportionately ding minorities. And again, this can be removed without notice or comment. And the examples of these types of things are legion. I’ll give you another one.

The Department of Education wrote letters to schools saying that disciplining students, disciplining students in the classroom could violate civil rights laws because the discipline could be disproportionately affecting minorities. As you prepare to start work at your agency, just peruse their website. Do some research. Figure out what they have up there. What are they talking about?

Try to look for some of this DEI stuff, for example, and then consult the project 2025 policy agenda. Try to figure out which major policy issues are here that maybe agencies have, been operating through guidance that could be undone simply through the process I described without having to do the rule making, without having to do notice and comment. And this way, you’ll know exactly where to hit right early on day 1. The DEI agenda I example I gave is it’s high visibility. But the truth is you need to clear out all the underbrush.

You gotta all the liberal guidance has to go. Let nothing live. And the reason I say this is that a key element of the liberal strategy has been to gradually but steadily move the law to the left through guidance documents and strategic lawsuits over time. So as you have a statute, but they interpret it in a certain way and no one’s kinda looking and over time, they shifted very far away from where it started. And an excellent treatment of this is in justice Thomas’s dissent in a case called Texas against inclusive communities.

And in the dissent, he details how activists and their liberal allies at agencies subtly but steadily transform statutory prohibitions on purposeful discrimination into a ban on policies that just have a disproportionate impact. So in other words, they took things which said basically, you know, you can’t discriminate in housing and said, well, if you run a background check or a credit check that is also a violation because even though you had no intent to discriminate against anyone, you’re just trying to, you know, not have criminals in your house that could have a disproportionate impact on some populations. That’s very much not what Congress intended when it first came out there. And they essentially got they they were able to shift it to that through these guidance processes. Now ultimately, the Supreme Court blessed it.

But the point is that it only got to that point because over a period of many years, they slowly the agent the bureaucrats in the agency slowly crept toward that. And this disparate impact idea would never have passed congress and in fact, it didn’t. It was all done by administrative agencies. And these gradual shifts, the way they do them, they’re done through guidance documents and policy interpretations. So if you go in there and you tear that stuff down, all that underbrush, you’re gonna disrupt their whole game because you’re eliminating the fundamental documents.

You’re gonna put them back to square 1. Next thing, When you get rid of the guidance, try to do it all at once. The reason is it’s much harder for the opposition to stymie you when they have to fight a multi front war. I mean, think about it. Right?

There’s a newspaper article that says agency eliminated is a and b and c and d and e. Like, how do you focus? Where do you go first? Create confusion. Do it all at once.

And like I said, because it can be done quickly, you can accomplish it in one fell swoop. Okay. So you’ve eliminated all the liberal guidance documents, right? Okay. Good.

So now that you’ve done that, turn your attention to grant conditions. Each year, agencies dole out 100 of 1,000,000,000 of dollars in taxpayer money in the form of grants. These grants go to organizations, they go to states, they go to corporations and there’s always strings attached. Now here’s the thing, the left is adept and totally unabashed about using grant conditions to implement their radical agenda. And I’m gonna give some detailed examples because they’re important points of reference for grant conditions when we want to attach them.

So example 1, the bipartisan chips act made available over $50,000,000,000 in subsidies to US semiconductor manufacturers. The administration was supposed to use the funding to spark a renaissance in American semiconductor manufacturer like bring manufacturing back. Instead, the Biden Commerce Department is using it as a vehicle to impose its woke agenda. Whole sections of the 75 page funding notice are devoted to requiring applicants to make all sorts of commitments regarding equity, childcare, fair housing. So look, some job owning is to be expected from liberal administrations but this was extreme.

So for example, in a bid to boost minority hiring, the funding notice said, I think this is a quote, strongly encourages applicants to eliminate college degree requirements. So you wanna hire people, you don’t really need a college degree because, you know, that could have a disparate impact. The CHIPS act also requires grantees to make community investments and workforce training and employment opportunities. And the funding notice advises applicants that, quote, ideal investments would be financing or building affordable housing or providing housing vouchers. This is a novel requirement.

Nowhere in the CHIPS Act is there any reference to low income housing. But it’s a priority for the left, so they they shoehorned it into the CHIPS Act. Another example is also from the CHIPS Act. Right? As part of the workforce training requirements, the Biden administration is demanding that grantees, specify what they call a wraparound services.

They want them to provide wraparound services. And this is another phrase that’s found nowhere in the chipset. But the department says what’s a wraparound service? It’s a it basically means businesses paying for services for workers and employees, services such as adult care, transportation assistance, housing assistance, and emergency cash assistance. All these things have been shoveled into the chips act grant.

You want the grant? You do this. What’s another liberal priority? Free childcare. Right?

So the department, in order to get chips act, is requiring firms that want more than a $150,000,000 in funding to provide childcare. But the department didn’t stop there. Even firms that are not seeking a 150 men, they’re looking for some smaller amount are, quote, strongly encouraged to provide access to childcare for both the construction workers who build the facility and the employees who work there. And it means nothing that some of these demands are presented as suggestions rather than requirements. The funding notice is very clear.

It reminds applicants that the award decision of the department’s, quote, grant officers are final and may not be appealed. So the grant applicants know to whom they have to bow. I’m spending time on these chipset grant details because it’s a perfect illustration of how the left uses every lever of power to advance its agenda. If we wanna start winning, we need to do the same. No one on our side would ever have thought to connect semiconductor grants to fair housing or cash assistance.

Right? We need to start making those connections for the things we care about and we should be equally unapologetic about it. I’ll give you another example. The Obama Justice Department required jurisdictions that receive law enforcement grants to conduct trainings on implicit bias which has Heather McDonald who’s a tremendous scholar. She demonstrates in her book Diversity Delusion is a sort of a fake pseudoscience reporting to prove systemic bias.

It’s fake because it doesn’t even have the basic characteristics of a scientific result, Namely, replicability. The same person can take the test twice and have wildly different results. But no matter, you can’t get one of these justice department grants if you don’t brainwash your police force with this destructive nonsense about inherent bias. I’ll give you another example. Again, these are important.

The National Science Foundation has dedicated 1,000,000 of dollars to develop a bias awareness intervention tool and to remediate microaggressions and implicit biases in engineering classrooms. Another example. In April 2020, the National Institute of Health and the Center For Disease Control, the CDC, they announced the availability of grants to increase the diversity of biomedical research labs. Now consider this is like right in the middle of covid and this is what these people are are worried about, diversity in the in the research labs. Then later in 2021, CDC director Francis Collins, he was still there, announced a new requirement for entities receiving certain neuroscience grants.

They’ve got to submit a plan showing how they will enhance diverse perspectives and empower individuals from groups that are underrepresented in biomedical research. And then there’s an additional 30,000,000 that they dedicated to addressing the impact of structural racism and discrimination on minority health. These are all grants. Another example. In May 2022, a physician scientist lost her NIH funding for a drug trial because the trial population did not contain enough blacks even though it was a disease that blacks rarely get.

So I’m belaboring the point here because you must understand that democrats are absolutely shameless about using federal grants to advance their radical agenda and we will not win unless we do the same. So this grant approach could work for almost any priority. But for purposes of illustration of how we would do it, let’s just assume that as a movement, the next republican president wants to dismantle the DEI agenda root and branch. And let’s say you’re the staffer in charge of making it happen at each agency. So how do you do it?

Well, the first thing you do is stop the bleeding. Day 1, no more diversity based grants made by any agency, which done is done but you’re now totally out of that business. Well, okay. But how do you find which grants are which? Well, one thing you could do is you could check what they call the NOFA’s.

When an agency issues a grant, it starts with a notice of funding availability. It’s an acronym, NOFA. And that sets forth the grant conditions, the application procedures, and then you also have the final grant agreement between the agency and the recipient and it’ll contain the provisions that govern the funding. So start by scouring those documents for any DEI based terms so you know which grant programs need to be paused and canceled. Then next thing you could do is you could look at the Department of Education.

You tell that department that it will require that each school as a condition of receiving federal grants must certify that it’s gonna make admissions and hiring decisions solely on the basis of merit and that no performance tenders are gonna be lowered to achieve any particular demographic balance. And you could say look, this is gonna promote educational excellence and it’s gonna be in conformance with that recent supreme court case. The fair admission’s Then, and this is really important, to keep the schools honest, grant recipients should be required to have a meritocracy officer who will sniff out any hint of circumvention of the ban on race based decision making. This meritocracy officer would have to submit quarterly reports to the department. And I know that, you know, there’s a place for conservatives to eliminate the Department of Education altogether.

But, like, until that happens, let’s use its billions to undo the left’s brainwashing apparatus. You know, this is a specific example that the same model of a ban on race based hiring coupled with a meritocracy officer to monitor compliance could be used by every agency for the grants it gives. You can say no affirmative action in hiring for police forces that receive justice department grants and so on and so forth. And these conditions would be included in the NOFA’s and the grant contracts. If pursued unrelentingly, which is exactly what the left would do in our position, it could be used to take down the entire DEI apparatus across all sectors of the economy.

So think about this. Using just federal grant conditions, you would not just halt but reverse one of the less most significant initiatives. And this was just but one example. The grand power is immense and we have to use it to our advantage. So think about what you wanna do and think about how to attach it to a grand condition.

That’s how the left does so much of theirs mischief and that’s how we need to get our initiatives done. Many grant conditions can be effectuated without going through a more formal rule making process, which again, remember is technically called an informal rule making because it’s done through notice and comment not through a hearing procedure. But some changes will require a rule. Another great source of leverage for implementing the president’s agenda is by imposing the policy agenda on federal contractors as a condition of working for the government. Now again, the left is absolutely shameless about this.

So So for example, president Biden ordered federal agencies to include in their contracts a new clause requiring federal contractors to comply with vaccine mandates. President Obama banned federal contractors from discriminating based on gender identity. And this was all before the supreme court had weighed in on these issues. So returning to my DEI example, every agency should prohibit companies that receive federal contracts from engaging in race based hiring or diversity trainings. They should also be required to hire a meritocracy officer to monitor compliance.

Again, this would be tied to the supreme court decision in preventing service standards from being lowered. And it wouldn’t be limited to just, you know, defense contractors, which is what people normally think of when they think of, you know, agreements with government contractors. Even though the government is brimming with lawyers, for example, it often hires large private law firms to handle certain matters. So you can touch a lot of different people with this. It’s not when you talk about government contractors, it covers a huge set of, private entities.

If you remember nothing else from today’s lecture, remember this, matters relating to agency grants or contracts or benefits are exempt from the notice and comment requirements of the APA. And people might not believe you about this. So just remember the citation in the US legal code. It’s 5 USC 553a2. I’m a say it again.

5 USC 553a2 because this this could wind up being your best friend at the agency. So again, in my DEI example, if you hear someone say, oh, man. We have to issue a regulation to eliminate the DEI offices or to require a meritocracy officer to change our contracting requirements. No problem. A, that might not be true.

But even if it is, the rule can be issued quickly because there’s a it’s a matter relating to an agency grant or an agency contract. And as such, it is exempt from the notice and comment procedure, which again is that process where people submit comments and you have to reply and it takes a very long time. You don’t have to do any of that. It’s right in the statute. Everything else besides notice and comment can be done quickly as long as, you know, OIRA and the White House are on board with the effort, which again, you know, they should be in the example I’ve given.

So this exception is little known and it is invaluable. So people are aware, I should add, you know, about a couple of other exceptions to the APA from the notice and comment where it would and and those are where it would be impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. That’s the actual, phraseology in the statute. And this sounds broad, but courts have interpreted those provisions so that they are exceedingly narrow and basically useless. So they say impracticable means that, you know, responding, to you have to respond to an immediate threat to public safety and therefore, you know, notice and comment would be impracticable, but that’s what it means.

It has to be an immediate threat to public safety. Unnecessary means that the rule is insignificant in nature and impact And, you know, the public interest means that there’s an acute health or safety risk or some surprise to an industry which creates a danger of market manipulation. So again, they interpret the 3 other acceptances in the APA very narrowly. But by contrast, the APA unambiguously exempts agency matters relating to grants, contracts, and benefits from notice in common. And it’s not an afterthought.

It’s it’s purposeful because congress did not want agencies bogged down with process and litigation when it come to how they spend taxpayer money. In fact, in the 19 sixties, the Administrative Conference of the US which ACHIS they call it, which advises on regulatory issues, they urged Congress to repeal this exemption. But Congress wisely refused. They said, no. We don’t want all this process to encumber the agencies when they’re talking about grants.

So I’m gonna tell you a story about how we use this exception to accomplish a signature feat of repealing and replacing the major rule that I referenced in my introduction. It took just 14 days. So we’re called in the president’s office. He wants us to get rid of this rule. This rule was the a f f h rule, affirmatively furthering fair housing.

What that rule basically did under, Obama was it said if you take federal grant money, you’ve got to, you’ve got to build low income housing in suburbia. You essentially have to change your zoning laws, eliminate your local zoning so that we can build high density, low income, buildings, all over the country in in, suburban America. And, you know, it was sort of a weird combination of activists who wanted this, but there was also a political angle. Right? They wanted to to basically turn red areas blue and they passed this regulation and it was something that, you know, when the Republicans came in there had been a lot of talk of getting rid of, but HUD had worked on it for 3 years.

They hadn’t been able to really make much progress. They had a proposition but it was it was, you know, fairly bland. The president didn’t like it. President Trump says to us, go get rid of this. And this is in the summer and we’re thinking, well, how are we gonna do this?

So I went back and I looked and I realized finally that this is a matter relating to an agency grant because I never watched this video so I didn’t know that that was a thing. But I figured it out and I couldn’t believe it and I I I we drafted the regulation real quick, talked to OIRA and I remember I was sitting in the office of the, White House counsel and he says, well, what about noticing comments? I said, well, we don’t have to do this. He says, what are you talking about? And I showed him this and people were astonished.

They didn’t even know about this. They couldn’t believe it. So the key to the whole thing, of course, was just realizing that this exception applied And that is the power of reading the fine print. And, you know, if I not really wanted to get this thing done, if I hadn’t been committed to it, I would’ve just been like, oh, I’m sorry, mister president. How about an executive order?

It’s gonna take too long. We don’t have the time. But I but because I cared deeply about achieving this, I thought creatively and I figured this out. And that’s the importance of hiring people and having people around you who are one with the mission and really will go the extra mile. Now when you bring this thing up about, the exception that, you know, matters relating agency grants.

People might try to challenge you and if you try to invoke it. What they’ll say is one problem they might say is that some agencies foolishly subject matters relating to grants to notice and comment for seekers. They do it voluntarily even though it’s not required. Now fortunately, those agencies typically will also give the secretary the authority to waive any internal agency rule for good cause. So at those agencies, you need the secretary to waive the internal rule and say we’re not gonna subject this grant issue to notice and comment and that’s how you would get it done there.

But I would also say when you first get into the agency, take a look at this and if you’re one of those agencies that has these provisions, get rid of it. And for that, you probably will have to go through the actual regulatory process of notice and comment. So it could take you, you know, 2 months or so but it don’t belabor it. All you have to say is, listen, we wanna move quickly. This thing slows us down.

It’s not required by the APA, so we’re getting rid of it. And you put that in the federal register. And you get some comments and then you do it. And then, you know, 3 months into your the administration, you can just do all of these things without having to go through notice and comment. It will pay many dividends later.

It will give you tremendous flexibility. So you wanna remember that and if there’s anything in your own agency rules that would prevent you from doing that, just eliminate that regulation. Bottom line, if your agency does not require notice and comment for grants, you’re off to the races. Get going. Move quickly.

And if your agency does, there’s a workaround. Have the secretary waive it and also longer term just try to eliminate the regulation that requires that. Now because so many agency regulations are tied to money and grants, for example, Department of Education and so forth, using this tool, this exception, invoking this will allow you to accomplish a lot of what you wanna do. You can say, hey, this is a grant matter. This is a government contract matter.

I don’t you notice in comment doesn’t apply. You use that, that’ll solve most of your problems most of the time. But because there are policy changes that do not fit this exception, in the next section, I’m gonna offer some tips that will help. So you have to draft a regulation and you can’t take advantage of the, exceptions. So you’ve got to go through notice and comment.

Here’s some here’s some of Huff’s rules on on how you do that. Number 1, you gotta get your hands dirty. You gotta know when to get into the weeds yourself to overcome obstacles. Now you’re watching this video because you’re passionate about implementing the conservative agenda but your subordinates may not be. They may not be as motivated to think of creative ways to clear hurdles.

Managers in general don’t like to get into technical details, but sometimes doing that, getting in the weeds can be the difference between success and failure. You know, the AFH example is a gooder. Right? If the president could have been told, it’ll take forever to do it. But because I really wanted to get it done, I found that exception and that allowed me to clear that hurdle and get it done for the president.

Returning to my f f h example, everyone told the president that it would take months to make changes. But because I wanted to make it happen, I looked carefully for a workaround and found it. When you get a project threatening problem, you gotta dig into the details yourself. Doesn’t matter if you’re not a lawyer, you just need to think rationally and be able to read. And I think in fact that one of the issues with senior officials is that some the higher up they get, they do less technical work.

And so it’s easily for their opponents to outmaneuver them. So if you hear something that’s slowing you down on an important matter, you’ve gotta look at it yourself because there’ll probably be a work around when you’re passionate about trying to make it happen. So that’s rule number 1. Rule number 2, think bold. There’s a a tendency with conservatives towards half measures.

In order not to seem extreme or to avoid confrontation, but the fact is that bold solutions are often the most elegant and the easiest to justify an architect. And the reason for this is that they’re the most rational. Think again about my AFFH example. The prior efforts on the rule basically been tinkering at the margins. They wanted to substitute essentially one complicated framework that was tied to a racial balancing with another slightly less complicated grantee reporting and compliance system that was tied to socioeconomic status.

If you take federal funds, you have to do all this reporting. You have to balance things out. But my argument was that the whole thing was unnecessary. All the law requires is that people receiving the grants certify that they are firmly further or fair housing, which means that they are using the money, in the manner which was intended. It’s basically to build houses and not to go out, you know, and buy Tyco with the money.

That’s the point of it. All you have to do is that. And so there was no intent to impose any broad substantive obligation. Basically, our point was just like just get rid of the whole thing. And because of its simplicity, it was so much easier to draft.

It was easier to explain to people and it was easier to justify. Otherwise, I would’ve been spending pages and pages comparing the burdens of this approach to that approach. No. You don’t have to do any of this. This is just a lot of the bureaucrats trying to find a hook to build a whole universe of obligations based on one little phrase in the law.

So point is, sometimes go simple. Okay. Next rule. Watch your language. What I mean by that is phraseology matters.

The way you talk about something affects the way you think about it. Don’t use the left’s euphemisms in any agency documents or communications. For example, HUD loves to talk about affordable housing. Now what they really mean is low income housing. So say that.

It’s another example. HHS, the state department, they’ll talk about gender affirming care. No. Sex changes. Don’t let them get away with this.

Now you might be tempted to say, well, why make a fuss? I don’t wanna be confrontational. But ask yourself this, why do they care so much about it? If they’re getting heated about it, it’s for a reason. It’s because they understand.

The left cares about it because they know how important it is. In fact, you know, as part of the in one of the course repositories, there’s a segment titled hidden meanings, the monsters in the attic. And it’s just a fantastic presentation by Katie Sullivan and she gets into this and it’s excellent on this language issue and I urge all of you to watch it. Alright. Next rule.

Focus on common sense. So this might be a little controversial but economic arguments are easy for courts to disagree with. Right? So I’m talking about, you know, what are you gonna put into your rule? What’s the justification for your rule?

If you put in an economic argument, you know, the opponents are just gonna go out. They’re gonna find some contrary study. They’re gonna hire some expert. And all of a sudden, the evidence is ambiguous and the court will say, the agency didn’t consider, you know, this study, this argument. Sometimes you need them but, you know, try to avoid them.

And a good example is work requirements to receive certain government benefits. Now this is something this is something that would, you know, they try to do during the Trump administration at various agencies. Now some agencies try to justify the work requirements to receive the benefits on the grounds that it’s actually better for the recipients in the long run if they’re having work requirements and they’ll they’ll, earn wages and go off of the benefits and so on and so forth. And look, that might be true. That hopefully is true.

But the courts really dissected that proposition and said, well, but what if there’s a recession and you can’t find a job and on, so on and so forth. And what about this analysis? And the bottom line is those efforts to impose work requirements were overturned. But when the HUD secretary asked me to write a work requirement rule for people and and subsidized housing, you want to, you know, if you’re in subsidized housing, you should have to, you actually have some sort of work requirement. I took a different track.

My argument my argument was essentially fairness. If you’ve worked all your life and you get fired and you’re on unemployment, you still have to show you’re looking for a job every week to keep getting the money flowing. Right? You have to submit something to the, to the agency. So shouldn’t someone in the public housing be held to no less of a standard?

Right? Like, they weren’t even working. They’re in public housing. They should at least be having to look for a job. And and that was it.

No fancy study. No problems of, you know, varying how how you know, but you have to be working with the regional unemployment rates. But it’s just it was a lot harder to attack because there were fewer ambiguities to exploit. So keep it simple. Keep it common sense.

Now none of these tips are gonna get you out of the consuming notice in common obligation, but but they can help move it faster. Particularly, you know, keeping it bold and simple so that it can be reviewed faster by colleagues. Also OIRA and the other agencies. So less surface area means less to dissect and attack. It’s one of the great advantages of bright lines.

Bright lines avoid getting bogged down in gray areas. So you’ve got your guidance, you’ve got your rules, but as you try to implement the president’s agenda, you’re gonna constantly hear, oh, what if we get sued? And look, there’s something to that. The greatest danger to the conservative agenda is litigation. The left will absolutely run to the courts to stop you and there’s no shortage of activist judges to help them.

Just think about that, disruption at Stanford. Right? There was a sitting federal judge going to speak and he was shouted down for presenting a conservative viewpoint. And these are future judges at one of the most elite law schools, and they literally cannot bear to hear the other side. So it’s a problem.

But past Republican administrations have totally failed to counter this litigation, and its effects have been devastating. Think about the travel ban in the early days of the Trump administration. It was immediately halted. 3 years later or something, the supreme court upheld it. But but then it was too late.

The momentum was lost. The policy energy of the administration had already been sapped. So how do you deal with that? You know, prior administrations, they’ll rail against the activist judges, the unfairness of it all. You know, they’ll send out fundraising letters, but no one’s devised or implemented any solutions.

Ultimately, they just sit there and take it, and we cannot have that. So here’s what we need to do. We need to seek injunction bonds. Basically, when you go in a court and you’re challenging a rule, what they’ll often ask for is an injunction. They want the court to say you can’t do that and say, look, we have to have a whole trial on it and investigate it further, but, like, at least to start, we’re gonna temporarily enjoin it.

We’re gonna say the agency can’t enforce the law right now because we have to look at it further. And pending further analysis, we’re gonna block it. That’s called an injunction. However, there’s something that you normally do when a court issues an injunction that for some reason in litigation like this, they never ever do and the government doesn’t bother to ask for. And that is an injunction bond, which means the party seeking the injunction, has to actually put money up in escrow, a bond in case the thing is later overturned.

So I’ll read you the exact rules. The federal rules of civil procedure which govern how litigation proceeds in federal court and rule 65 c in caption security says the following, the court may issue a preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining order, which is what I’m talking about here. Right? You know, blocking a rule from being implemented only if I’m gonna repeat that. Only if the movement, meaning the per party seeking, it gives security in an amount that the court considers proper to pay the cost and damages sustained by any party found to have been wrongfully enjoyed or restrained.

In other words, you want an injunction, you gotta put some money in case after further analysis the court determines, you know what, the agency did have the authority to do it. Think about the Hawaii example. They told Trump he couldn’t do it. 3 years later, they told him he could. Well, too late now.

Well, if there were an injunction bond, that would really have helped. So these injection bonds, they’re actually designed for sort of 2 basic functions. 1 is to deter frivolous litigation. Right? Do I really wanna bring this case if I’m gonna have to put up a couple $1,000,000?

And the second thing is to actually compensate for, you know, injury to a party when it was erroneously enjoined from doing what it wanted to do. And, you know, courts have looked at this. They say, look, the rule is mandatory and unambiguous. It’s very clear that they should be seeking injunction bonds, and yet it isn’t done. So when the appellate courts have looked at this, the district courts have looked at this, basically what the left has done and they’re sort of fellow traveler judges is they say, well, in public interest litigation, which is like their code word for like activists suing to block big policy moves, what they say is, well, you don’t need to post an injunction bond, or perhaps you do, but you’re posting the bond at 0.

So, yes, the court is saying that there has to be a bond but we’re setting the bond at 0. So we’re not violating the law. The law says you can issue an injunction if you if you set a bond. We did set a bond but we set it at 0. Well, what kind of corrupt intellectual nonsense is that?

But this is what they do and we’re sort of just sitting there and taking it. So if if we were to insist upon injunction bonds, it would be extremely effective. There was a lot of your article I read from the 19 eighties. I’m not that old. I just read the article from that.

And it was discussing that it’s usually, like, quite difficult for public interest litigants to fulfill bond requirements. So in other words, the point of this article was, gosh, we really shouldn’t require these people to have to post bond because if we did, it would stop all the this all this public interest litigation. Well, imagine how valuable that is. It’s this litigation which has been killing us in area after area after area. And if we could stop that by requiring the post bond, it would be fantastic.

All this liberal litigation would grind to a halt. And yet, republican justice departments don’t seek them. I asked about this. I was at the White House and I was, well, you know, it’s hard to value what the what the cost would be to us so we don’t even seek it. What are you talking about?

We have an army of economists in the government who can estimate the cost of regulations. They can also estimate the cost of delaying things. They can be a little creative about it. So this is really important. Insist that in any policy litigation, your agency demands an injunction bond.

And if the bond is denied, you can appeal it. A lot of times you can’t appeal what they call interlocutory orders, things that happen during the trial until it’s over. But this is appealable. You don’t have to wait till the end of the litigation to appeal the denial of an injunction bond, so do it. And it can make a huge difference.

Think about the travel ban case and like so many others. The activists, they they can’t post to the $100,000,000 bond and they might lose. And then that money is gone. If you have to go up and appeal it, this would stop all of this injunction nonsense dead in its tracks. The next thing you need to do is you need to look at your grantees because a lot of times what’s going on at these agencies is that the the grantees from the agency are turning around and suing the agency on some policy thing.

There’s a reason why that happens. You have to get standing to bring a case. An idea of that is that you should, like, have some real concrete interest in the issue, so that you’ll present the arguments, you know, sharply. And so courts won’t hear a case unless the person bringing the case has what they call standing. And it’s a little easier to get standing if you’re a grantee because you sort of, like, involved in those issues.

But the point is we’re feeding the dogs that are trained to kill us. So, let me give you an example. The National Fair Housing Alliance, a sort of liberal housing group, they got a $1,000,000 from HUD for some fair housing initiative program in 2018. While at the very same time, they were trying to stymie, like, a modest effort to change some rules regarding, grantees in in certain jurisdictions. So they’re they’re challenging HUD in court.

They’re arguing with HUD’s policy change. At the same time, HUD’s just handing them out money. So, again, feeding the dogs that are trained to kill you. This is public policy litigation. These entities shouldn’t be doing that.

And even the same issue in immigration cases, for example, with the travel ban. Who were the people who were suing over the travel ban? Well, one of them was HIAS, the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society. They sued them in Maryland. Well, HIAS is a grantee of the d of DHS, that department.

So again, you just you’re taking the agency’s money, then you’re turning around and suing the agency. And not something like very specific, like, you know, you didn’t pay me or you harmed a specific person. You’re basically suing them, the agency, because you don’t like the policy that they’re doing. You’re trying to frustrate and undermine their policy implementation, and they’re dumb enough to keep paying you. So the question is how do we stop this?

If you impose a grant condition that you can’t sue the agency with any grant money, that could work. Again, it could get litigated. You might lose, but I think you might win as well. And it would be very, very important. But even then, there’s a many different ways, a myriad of possibilities to make the lives difficult for the grantees.

And I’ve seen the grantees don’t wanna lose the money and they’re scared of standing up to, the agency. I mean, think about the chip sector example I gave. Companies are not going to the commerce department and complaining about all their, you know, liberal add ons. They want the money. They’re not gonna make trouble.

And, you know, you gotta remember that. So point now, it’s a little bit different when you’re dealing with activist, groups that, you know, are sort of born to born to make trouble. But my point is that there’s many ways you can make this difficult for them. For example, you don’t certain grants don’t need to be made at all. So listen, here’s the money and there’s like, you know, what they call like an interim clause.

You can’t challenge it. If you can’t if you challenge it and some court agrees with you, that’s it. We’ll just eliminate the program. Enough of this. And once you make that clear, there’s many different ways to do it.

It it will be a a huge help to the cause. Next point. For purposes of litigation, it’s important to honest in the justification for why you created a regulation. Like, sort of the canonical example of why, you know, where this went wrong was the citizenship question on the, on the census. Right?

Now it was a 5 4 decision by the Supreme Court Commerce Department against New York and, they blocked the citizenship question from the, from the census. Now why? The the the the chief justice, Roberts, he wrote the opinion. He said we cannot ignore the disconnect between the decision made and the explanation given. So what had happened there was that the Commerce Department went into the Supreme Court and they said, listen, we need to include this question because the Justice Department asked us to include it so that we could enforce the Voting Rights Act, but that’s not actually what happened.

The Commerce Department called the Justice Department said, hey, Justice Department. We wanna include this question. So can you just, like, ask us if we will do it for VRA purposes, voting rights enforcement purposes? So, like, we can have that as a cover. I mean, that’s, you know, that’s, what happened.

And the Supreme Court said, no. This isn’t good. You can’t do that. As they said, the reason explanation requirement of administrative law, this is chief justice talking, after all is meant to ensure that agencies offer genuine justifications for important decisions. Reasons can that can be scrutinized by courts and the interested public and accepting contrived reasons would defeat the purpose of the enterprise.

So don’t lie because it’s gonna create problems later. And especially if it’s a big ticket item, like, it’s it’s gonna have a good explanation. People wanted it. They voted for it. Like, be proud to tell that story.

Essentially, what happened was they were afraid of saying, you know, why they wanted it. So they made up something else that they thought would be more like pull it pat palatable and it came up and it bit them. Don’t do that. If you’re doing it, you’re doing it for a reason. Be proud.

Tell that story. So lastly, and this is also important when you think about litigation, they’re going to sue you anyway because at that point, it’s sort of the left’s only defense. They don’t control the White House. They don’t control the agencies. That’s where a lot of work is done.

So it’s inevitable that they’re gonna sue you. It’s not like if you do something more reasonable, they’re not gonna sue you. So, like, diluting your, you know, initiative to make it more, like, reasonable to the left won’t make them more reasonable. Like, now if they tell you, listen, we really don’t want you to do this, but if you if you do something more moderate, we, like, we’ll put $50,000,000 in escrow and if escrow and if we sue you, you can have it. Like, okay.

Fine. Then do it. But it’s not gonna happen. It’s never gonna happen. You’re gonna wind up with the worst of both worlds.

You’re gonna go light and they’re still gonna sue you. So don’t even think about it. And, you know, in terms of if you hear that at the agency from the general counsel or some, you know, fretting political, we’re gonna be sued. Don’t worry about it. Biden wasn’t afraid of it.

Think about this case. Remember, there was a rule from the CDC. They issued an eviction ban. You can’t ban people because of COVID, etcetera, etcetera. Went up to the Supreme Court.

Justice Kavanaugh was deciding a vote. He said, listen. CDC shouldn’t have issued this, but I’m not I’m not gonna overturn it because it’s gonna expire in, I was like, a week or 2. So what did the Biden administration do? They went out and they renewed it, At which point the court had to step in again and stop it and say, okay.

Well, this time we’re actually overturning it. Now think about that. President Biden, the Biden administration, they knew they were gonna get sued. They knew they would lose. And they they they promulgated the rule anyway.

So don’t let anyone object to you on the grounds of, wow, we might get sued. You’re in a much better position than the Biden administration was when it decided to renew the eviction moratorium. Just tell them you don’t wanna hear Our country was founded on free speech principles but we’re living in a time where the wrong words are said and your career is ruined ruined by a ferocious mob. And so of course, people are afraid to speak. It reminds me of a line from the famous poem, The second coming by William Butler Yeats.

We’re living in a time when the best lack all conviction while the worst are full of passionate intensity. So in that climate, you think about like what makes the best political appointee. I mean, we can teach you the tactics. That’s part of what we’re doing right now. But the most important quality for a political appointee is having a high heat tolerance, being able to stand up to the media and the woke mob.

And it it sounds simple enough, but it’s actually quite difficult. Otherwise, everyone would be doing it. Courage can’t be taught because it’s inherent, but it can be discovered. It can be honed. So here’s a little pep talk.

In, book 7 of Herodotus’ Histories, he records the bravery of certain participants in the battle of Thermopylae. Right? It talks about Dionysus the Spartan who’d heard from a certain Phrygianian that the Persians’ arrows were so numerous that they would blot out the sun and he laughed it off and he said well so much the better than we shall fight in the shade. And that was life or death and that’s the attitude we’re looking for and that’s the one you must cultivate because the left is a nuclear bomb. They have a death ray.

What is it? Anything they don’t like, they call racist. And if you can’t stand up to that, you can’t take on DEI, you can’t take on the lowering of standards, you’re a dead letter. You can’t do anything. In fact, I remember there was a certain political appointee, not just a political appointee but a senate confirmed appointee who said to me, wow, you know, we haven’t had a negative article in, you know, my division of the agency in 3 months.

I wanna fire this person. You’re not you’re not getting a negative article because you’re not doing anything. What did Harry Truman say? You can’t stand the heat. Get out of the kitchen.

So that’s all good and well but you’re probably thinking, well, alright. But, like, how do you steel yourself? You wake up in the morning. There’s, you know, newspaper articles bad about you. Like, how do you steel yourself to this?

And I think the answer actually is humility. That’s the secret. It’s like, remember, you know, you instead of your life, you think everyone’s paying attention. Nobody’s paying attention. People don’t know who the vice president is.

Outside of the Washington Beltway, nobody cares. You came here to do a job. They’ll write some bad articles. No one’s reading them. You go home, no one will have heard of it.

Trust me. Like, you’re not that big a deal. That’s how I think you can say don’t worry about it. Yeah. It’s a little annoying.

The people you know, they read the articles, but in most of America, nobody has any idea who the general deputy assistant secretary is for x y z. Trust me. We turn now to the wisdom of Sun Tzu, the ancient Chinese warrior and strategist who said know your enemy. So how does the left react to conservative policy actions? Well, remember how, like, in high school or college physics, there was this idea of proportional relationships in nature.

Right? So for example, the proportionality laws for the intensity of light. The intensity of light varies inversely with the square of of the distance. They’re related. Well, this isn’t true in politics with liberals.

There is no proportionality. It’s totally disproportionate. The left’s tactic is to become hysterical at any conservative change, and and this accomplishes 2 things. The first thing it does is it makes the political staff think that, like, some policy change is having a big effect. It makes you think that you’re doing something.

And I’ve seen this work, at HUD, again, the affirmatively furthering fair housing, the AFFH rule. I was talking to, somebody about it and saying, you know, this really doesn’t do anything. It’s very weak. We need to make it stronger. And the and the reaction there and at someone, I spoke to at the white house was the same.

Well, you know, I mean, it must be something because the left is going nuts, so it must be doing a great deal. But again, these are senior officials who don’t have time to review the details. So they think something’s happening when it’s not because they read the, you know, the 2 sentence summary and they see all the press and everyone getting upset and like, wow. This is this is really great, but it’s not. Nothing’s happening.

And so you have to bear that in mind. And that’s one thing. It’s basically it’s a sigh up. It’s making you think you’re doing something when you’re not. And there’s a second element.

The other reason they get hysterical is because it actually scares people out of taking, you know, bolder action. And that’s a real thing. I mean, you know, people come here. I I remember a certain very senior person told me he said he was a cabinet secretary. And this this person said to me, you know, it’s an amazing thing that president Trump takes all this heat.

I don’t know how he does it. And this is a person who took, you know, strong amount of heat, himself. And he he was basically saying, like, no one else could could could sit and see this. Like, every day you’re reading about yourself. And I know I said before it doesn’t matter, but it’s hard.

It’s hard when you’re, you know, when that sort of your life and everyone around you reads these things and sees what they’re saying and you feel it’s exhausting. It’s absolutely exhausting. And you might think to yourself, you know what? I don’t need this. I did something modest and they went crazy.

If I do something greater, it’s gonna be even worse. I guess I’m too tired. I can’t fight this fight. And it works. I’ve seen it work.

And that’s why the left does it. So you have to watch out for that. So what do you do? Well, obviously, you don’t cave into it, but here’s what you do. You’ve gotta teach them the lesson that if they complain about it, it’s gonna make it worse.

So let’s say there’s a, policy continuum. Like, 1 is the most modest thing you could do. 10 is super bold. You do a one and they react like it’s an 8. So you know what you do?

You say, alright. I’ll get rid of the 1 and I’ll do the 8. Make them pay the price. And this worked in the a f f h thing. I know I keep coming back at it, but it’s a very good example.

When HUD had kinda proposed their initial version, which is saying it was very weak and just tinkered at the edges, the left went crazy. This is the worst. It undermines the purpose of the agency. This is Jim Crow on and on and on. They they, you know, they want a full blown 10 and it was really like a 3.

So when Jim James Bacon and I actually wrote the law that was really fantastic, the regulation that rolled it back, they were left with nowhere to go. We wrote in a regulation that was a 10, but they had nowhere to go because they’d already said it was a 10. And so they couldn’t get angrier than they already were without looking ridiculous. And it was very effective. So you can basically use it as like a judo move.

You can you can use their own anger against them by saying, alright. Well, now that you’ve gotten so angry and acted like I did a 10, I’m gonna do a 10 and that imposes cost. You did it a couple times. They’ll stop. And again, just to underscore how, like, thoroughly we rolled it back.

It was really a 10 on this AFFH. And we had a friend of ours who worked at HUD and was talking to, a, a career person who’d been there many years. And this person said, wow. You guys didn’t just replace the Obama rule. You literally returned the regulation to the statute’s original meaning.

You essentially got rid of 50 years of liberal accretions. Remember I talked about how they kind of move things broader and broader and broader in their direction? We put it all the way back to the original meaning of the statute. The guy was astonished. He couldn’t believe it.

This guy had hut. My point being, this was a 10. But because they’ve complained about the regulation that was like a a 4, they couldn’t complain anymore about the regulation that was the 10. We all know that the hour is late and the work is immense. The country’s had a precipice and we haven’t much time.

We need to act bold. We need to act fast. And the way to do that is by implementing policies through the paths of least resistance and those are, as we’ve studied, guidance documents, grant conditions, and provisions in government contracts. Now sometimes you may need a regulation to change a provision in a grant document or a government contract. But remember, those changes do not require notice and comment and so can be done very quickly.

C 5 USC 55382. And just remembering that, it’s gonna allow you to do 90% of what you need boldly and quickly. Once the policy is in place, though, expect that you’ll be sued. That’s where you hit them with the injunction bond. They won’t be expecting that.

It’s explicit in the statute. The law’s on our side, and we just have to win early once to set the tone for the entire administration. They won’t be able to sue us. They won’t be able to afford it. It’s a huge problem solved.

The left thinks long term and we have to as well. And the fact that you’re taking the time to watch this proves that you understand the significance of preparing early. And so I thank both heritage for hosting and you for watching. It is an honor to assist in this patriotic endeavor and I’m happy to help. So please do contact me danhuff1776@gmail.com.

God bless America. I yield back.