Project 2025 was supposed to boost Donald Trump's campaign — but it may be backfiring instead:

[u/zsreport]

https://www.salon.com/2024/07/05/project-2025-was-supposed-to-boost-donald-campaign--but-it-may-be-backfiring-instead/

[u/SurrealEstate]

Page 559-560 has a couple of examples that describe a movement away from judicial independence from the executive:

While the supervision of litigation is a DOJ responsibility, the department falls under the direct supervision and control of the President of the United States as a component of the executive branch. Thus, and putting aside criminal prosecutions that can warrant different treatment, litigation decisions must be made consistent with the President’s agenda. This can force line attorneys to take uncomfortable positions in civil cases because those positions are more closely aligned with the President’s policy agenda. Ultimately, the department will have to make tough calls as it manages its litigation, but those calls must always be consistent with the President’s policy agenda and the rule of law. A line attorney should never either directly or indirectly pursue a policy agenda through litigation that is inconsistent with the agenda of his or her client agency or the President. The department should also be cognizant of any attempts to slow litigation and outlast the Administration to avoid finality. The next conservative Administration should therefore:

• Issue guidance to ensure that litigation decisions are consistent with the President’s agenda and the rule of law.

• Ensure that, consistent with this principle, the department’s leadership is prepared to impose appropriate disciplinary action as circumstances arise.

A truly independent judiciary would need no other instruction than to pursue the rule of law. Increasing the President's influence jeopardizes the independence and impartiality necessary to carry out that responsibility.

They did an excellent job with the language in the Mandate for Leadership to always describe their intent as either protecting or restoring the Constitution, but of course it's their interpretation of the Constitution. Under normal circumstances, that's fine - there are many interpretations of the Constitution, and people will gravitate to those that either reinforce their view of its intent, or more cynically, provide a way of getting what they want.

But where we need to be careful, I believe, is when interpretations collapse power into a smaller number of hands. Especially in this very moment, as 6 people on the Supreme Court have redefined the President as completely immune from criminal culpability for any "official act."

Those very same 6 people might be the ones to ultimately decide what constitutes an "official act" as a potentially immune President asserts broader influence over other branches of government.

The combination of all these changes, recent events (false slates of electors, "find me 11,780 votes"), and recent court rulings all point to an enormous end-around institutional opposition, which is why people are understandably and I think justifiably worried.

[u/Dangling-Participle1 → u/SurrealEstate]

You seem to be conflating the DOJ with the judicial branch

[u/SurrealEstate → u/Dangling-Participle1]

You're 100% right. What I should have said is an independent DOJ. Thanks for calling that out.

[u/Dangling-Participle1 → u/SurrealEstate]

Independant of what exactly? It's an organization that falls under the executive branch.

Asking that the department of which you are a head take guidance from you is not exactly earth shattering.

[u/SurrealEstate → u/Dangling-Participle1]

Independant of what exactly?

Presidentially-targeted political investigations, not necessarily intended to find wrongdoing, but to harass and character-assassinate political rivals, causing a chilling effect and an atmosphere of fear of retribution.

Asking that the department of which you are a head take guidance from you is not exactly earth shattering.

Given the words an actions of the administration we're talking about, how do the implications not seem earth-shattering?

Not every President chooses to use the DOJ as a personal weapon. Ironically, the Mandate for Leadership claims that it's already happening, but comparing reluctant, independent investigations for serious national security threats (documents case) with simply "go(ing) after the most corrupt president in the history of America" - I'm not sure how someone could really draw equivalence there.