Remember he said he didn’t know anything about it?

Not only is this the playbook Trump is following to the letter, but it perfectly fits his personal need for power and control.

The hypocrisy that stands out above the rest is aligning Trump with religion, family values, moral and ethical behavior or any of the behaviors toward others supported by religions.

The Heritage Foundation’s “Project 2025” is broadly centered on the idea that a conservative president should dramatically expand control over the executive branch and rapidly reshape the federal government around conservative political and social priorities.

The project’s overall themes include:

• Strong presidential authority
  It promotes the “unitary executive” theory — the idea that the president should have much greater direct control over federal agencies and the bureaucracy.
• Reducing the size and independence of the federal government
  The plan calls for shrinking or restructuring parts of the federal bureaucracy, removing many career civil servants, and replacing them with more politically aligned appointees.
• Conservative social policy
  It emphasizes traditional conservative positions on issues such as abortion, gender identity, education, and family policy.
• Immigration enforcement
  The blueprint advocates much tougher immigration enforcement, expanded deportation efforts, and tighter border controls.
• Energy and environmental deregulation
  It favors expanding fossil fuel production and rolling back many climate and environmental regulations.
• Religious and cultural conservatism
  The document frames many political debates as part of a broader cultural struggle over religion, family structure, and national identity.
• Economic deregulation
  It supports reducing regulations on businesses and limiting the role of some federal agencies.

The plan is organized as a large policy blueprint and staffing effort intended for a future conservative administration.

Supporters describe it as a way to make government more accountable to elected leadership; critics argue it could weaken institutional checks and increase politicization of government agencies.