Much of the administration's agenda for research is in Proj. 2025's 900+page doc
nature.com
nature.com
It seems like during the campaign there was this basic question that people wrote authoritatively on trying to in a binary way say “this was his plan” vs “his plan was agenda 47”
I suspect this is just he crucial hard question in the age of misinformation, but like, there are times when I see certain opinions on social media, where I think “things are bad, but not that bad, but I see how they could become that bad.
You can rationalize any catastrophizing, but most catastrophe’s won’t come to be.
It’s sort of both unsolvable, and deeply responsible I think for much of the polarization in society.
By the way, this could be said about COVID and climate change and the national debt and the economy and every issue that people feel deeply about.
It's a fair observation, but I personally don't think we should take a wait-and-see approach to the breathtaking corruption and everything else going on.
If a reporter were to write a report saying "I think that Trump is likely to implement Project 2025, because half of his staff worked on the project, and he regularly goes to meetings with the people who work on it" This would be an inference.
But the inference is probably more true than the objectively true statement.