Curtis Yarvin's Concepts Were Once Marginal. Today, They're Influencing Trump's Washington.
In a discussion regarding JD Vance, Trump's second term, and the implications for democracy, one participant remarks, “In almost every way, JD is perfect.”
TroibNews 
During the weekend of Donald Trump’s inauguration, neo-reactionary blogger Curtis Yarvin made his way to Washington, D.C., to attend the Coronation Ball. This extravagant gala was hosted by the ultraconservative publishing house Passage Press and took place at the Watergate Hotel, celebrating the rise of a new conservative counter-elite emerging from Trump’s reelection. Yarvin, a significant figure in shaping the ideology of this developing group, was recognized as an informal guest of honor.
The essence of the ball's title reflected Yarvin's considerable impact on the Trumpian right. Over the past decade, Yarvin, an ex-computer programmer who transitioned into blogging, has advocated for the notion that American democracy is fundamentally broken and should be replaced by a Silicon Valley-style monarchy. He believes it is time to discard current democratic systems and centralize political power in a single "chief executive" or "dictator." His concepts, known as "neo-reaction" or "the Dark Enlightenment," once belonged to the fringes of the internet but have gained traction in Washington post-Trump’s reelection.
In a recent conversation about the upcoming Trump administration, Yarvin shared that during his time in Washington, he had friendly exchanges with Vice President JD Vance—who has publicly praised his work—had lunch with Michael Anton from the State Department, and caught up with young conservatives influenced by his writings now stepping into the new administration.
While Yarvin harbors doubts about Trump's ability to implement the kind of regime change he envisions, he acknowledged signs that the new administration is committed to concentrating power within the executive branch. Prior to the Trump administration's announcement of a significant federal aid program freeze, he highlighted the forthcoming struggle over impoundment as a crucial test of the administration's intent to expand executive power. He also sensed a newfound boldness and assertiveness within Trump’s GOP.
“Every time the old Republicans wanted to do something, it was like the nebbish guy asking the hot prom queen out for a date — they were just terrified that they were going to ask and the answer is going to be ‘no,’” he remarked. “That attitude does not seem to be present here.”
The following has been edited for length and clarity.
**You were in Washington during Trump’s inauguration. How was the mood among the people you spent time with?**
The mood is really good. You’re definitely dealing with a lot of people who have spent the last four or eight years thinking about why the first Trump administration basically did not achieve anything for its supporters as opposed to its lobbyists. I’m not talking to the high strategic command or whatever, but just my impression from my connections among low- and mid-level people is that they’ve figured some things out.
The first and most important thing they’ve figured out from a political standpoint is that the situation Trump is in resembles something from *Dune*.
**We’re talking *Dune* here.**
Yeah. There’s a little bit of landing on the mostly enemy planet D.C. You’re landing there, and one of the general assumptions of the controlled opposition — the old Republican establishment — is that this is not really a symmetric political system.
Instead of a left party and a right party, we have an inner party [a bipartisan elite] and an outer party [the anti-establishment insurgents]. This outer party is essentially there to collect and market the votes of unfashionable America.
**You’re saying that the conservative elite in D.C. have become newly aware of themselves as a vanguard of the outer party, and they’re starting to act like one?**
Basically, the deal when you’re a Republican in office is that you receive certain things to showcase to your constituency as proof that you’re genuinely Republican, but you’re primarily there to play ball and help the system function. What Trump and his team have now realized is that the best defense is a good offense. He’s not merely engaging in small gestures to appease his supporters; he’s actively trying to manipulate all mechanisms of the government that he can.
**From the neo-reactionary perspective, what is the best-case scenario for a second Trump administration?**
I often think about what can be done with presidential powers as untangling the Gordian knot. I often say, “Look, D.C. is run by Congress, not by the president.” The president waves his hands in front of it and observes, but the real decisions come from funding decisions made by Congress or the agencies. If the White House didn’t exist, America would still operate.
**Do you think that a second-term Trump can untie the Gordian knot?**
That fundamental question is intriguing, as what he’s doing is not at all aligned with what I would do in this situation. However, I think what I would do might not be feasible.
**What would you do?**
I would cut the Gordian knot. For example, a straightforward approach would be to assert, “Look, the Federal Reserve is clearly under executive authority.” It doesn’t belong to the legislative or judicial branches, so it’s part of the executive branch. Since the Fed controls the monetary system, I can order it to mint the trillion-dollar coin or instruct the Fed to buy assets. By ordering the Fed to buy assets, I can also direct it to purchase notes issued by new institutions.
This realization brings me face-to-face with two fundamental truths: the U.S. doesn’t truly possess an executive branch; it’s more of an oligarchical Congress governing an administrative apparatus.
The second reality is that when I assess any segment of the federal government through a startup lens, I quickly conclude that the optimal way to address any problems is simply to establish a new organization.
Some government sectors have clearly defined roles that remain non-politicized. If the president had exclusive power over the Coast Guard, I would choose to utilize the existing Coast Guard. However, with the State Department, I can’t be so certain.
**Why do you believe Trump is hesitant to pursue your suggested approach?**
I think he’s unprepared. I also believe that America is unprepared for that level of change.
**I want to get your perspective on the widening divide between the tech right and the populist-nationalist right, or what you’ve termed the “rationalists” and the “traditionalists.” How substantial do you perceive this divide to be, and what do you think underlies it?**
I developed a Tolkien-esque classification of social dynamics in America today, identifying two types of people.
**Ah yes, the elves.**
Yes. There are the elves — the blue-state, professional managerial class, ruling-class individuals — and the hobbits, the lower-middle-class who are ruled over. The elves fear the hobbits will organize and pose a threat — because there are indeed a lot of hobbits.
When you have individuals who are considered elves by education or background, aided by a system that promotes this elite through college, you encounter a subset of people like me, the dark elves, who dissent from the progressive worldview. They no longer subscribe to the state religion.
So there’s a conflict between the dark elves and the hobbits, but conflicts should ideally be reconciled, right? I think the conflict arises when attending events like the Passage Press party, where I see Steve Bannon, who evidently feels it’s appropriate to attend a formal gathering looking disheveled.
**You’re apparently on his enemies list now.**
Am I on his enemies list? I don’t know.
**Do you see Steve Bannon as an enemy?**
No, no, my God. I mean, I’ve never met or communicated with him. I don’t view him as an enemy. Why would he be an enemy? It’s somewhat amusing to discuss someone whose revenue comes from *Seinfeld.* Nevertheless, Bannon has a genuine connection with MAGA world. He connects with the great American hobbit, which is fitting.
The relationship between the dark elves and the hobbits should acknowledge that the hobbits have channeled their energy, hope, and fear into ineffective systems for years.
**Do you believe this tension within the MAGA coalition can be managed, or is one faction destined to prevail?**
It can be effectively managed. Trump is showcasing that, by reactivating the rusty, broken mechanisms of the top-down control from the New Deal, the president can indeed effect change. The president has the power to revoke the 1965 affirmative action executive order, and legally, he can just do that. Imagine suggesting such a thing during the Bush administration; you’d be swiftly ousted. The MAGA supporters will soon recognize that progress is underway.
**You’ve mentioned that your relationship with Vance has been exaggerated by the media. What is your connection with him?**
I interacted with Vance once since the election. I encountered him at a party, and he remarked, “Yarvin, you reactionary fascist.” I responded, “Thank you, Mr. Vice President, and I’m glad I didn’t impede your election.”
**He said that to you?**
That’s what he said. I don’t think it was intended negatively, nor positively.
**Do you communicate regularly?**
No, definitely not. And I don’t view that as a critical connection. [The New Right] serves as a vanguard, which means it still operates with an oligarchical structure in many respects. There’s a figure in D.C. with a significant residence where many of the revolutionary vanguard congregate.
**Are we discussing Peter Thiel? Who are we referencing?**
No, no, this is someone you’ve never heard of.
**Who is it?**
I can’t disclose that. He’s not a government official; he’s a lawyer. This reflects a longstanding tradition in D.C., like the House of Truth — where Oliver Wendell Holmes and John Hay gathered [during the Progressive Era]. In a place like D.C., you often find a community of young, intelligent people. When visiting this space, you might encounter a clerk for Clarence Thomas or someone similarly connected. Many of the individuals in their 20s and 30s arriving in D.C. now are not averse to traditionalist views — in fact, while some are Christians, they lean towards TradCath rather than cradle Catholicism.
The crucial aspect is the atmosphere among the staff and aides. A group of newcomers to Washington does not possess the traditional fear of the old establishment.
Let’s return to my Gordian knot analogy: I’m like, “Okay, cut the Gordian knot. Where’s the sword?” But we’re not quite ready for that; instead, they’re currently tugging at the knot.
**When you mention tugging at the Gordian knot, are you suggesting they’re taking incremental steps toward systematic political change — a revolution, for lack of a better word?**
Yes, I’m asserting — America simply has a really ineffective government and requires a new one.
**Do you think Vance is better suited than Trump for that type of work, given his background and intellectual disposition?**
That’s an interesting question. I believe they will form an extraordinary team because, in almost every respect, JD is ideal. One of his primary advantages is his deeply American background, combined with his complete resocialization into the American elite. It’s akin to the Marines teaching him how to navigate high-society etiquette; he’s graduated from Yale Law School and knows how to participate in elite liberal circles with ease, whereas Trump is nonchalant about such environments.
There’s an old blog post from 2011 where I discuss kingship and the essence of being a king. I essentially argue that the person in America who embodies this quality is Donald Trump — well before his political career was seriously considered, if I may pat myself on the back for that. Trump possesses incredible energy — he doesn’t fall for the nonsense.
**What is Vance’s strength within that framework?**
JD is more analytical. Being younger, he retains more mental acuity. As one ages, you sense cognitive decline, but it often gets replaced with wisdom.
**And he has a greater inclination to manipulate the strings of the knot?**
JD possesses a strong sense of honor, which runs very deep within him. I don't believe he’d ever be satisfied with a life of grifting. The troubling aspect of outer-party Republicans is that people enter intending to make a difference, only to discover they’ve become grifters.
**Even among a professional mercantile class, might they consider becoming a dark elf instead?**
Think about the elf career path. If you aim to work in government, you typically attend Harvard, then intern in D.C., gradually advancing in the ranks over a decade. It's a tough process. Meanwhile, those who, by virtue of engaging with Curtis Yarvin in middle school, find it easier to secure jobs due to a lower candidate-to-position ratio.
**I recently had lunch with Mike Anton at a coffee shop across from the State Department —**
Michael Anton, incoming senior State Department official, for the record.
**Yes, incoming senior State Department official. I mentioned an academic position that could be filled and asked if anyone had considered it. They indicated no thoughts were given, so I suggested a potential candidate. They agreed he would be perfect, and just like that, it was settled.**
**They adopted your staffing recommendations, is what you’re suggesting?**
Well, we'll see — but the pathway is more accessible. Transitioning from "I’m a maverick dark elf" to "I hold a position with this administration" is suddenly much simpler — the competition is significantly less fierce.
**There’s a debate about the extent of your influence in Washington. How do you assess your impact now compared to four or eight years ago?**
My influence has certainly increased since four years ago, but I try not to gauge it. In my initial six years of blogging from 2007 to 2014, I hardly discussed these ideas with anyone. Eventually, I began receiving correspondence from Washington noting, “It seems like you’re addressing the same D.C. that I inhabit, yet nobody talks about these things.” While a few academics were aware of topics like the civil service, deep state, and administrative state, those subjects were largely absent from the broader discourse.
Proclaiming, “Oh, I communicate daily with the vice president,” or “I facilitated this guy getting a job” — that’s not my role as an intellectual. Others excel in that realm. The responsibility of an intellectual is to cast one’s bread upon the water — often, the more personal involvement gets, the less favorable it is.
**In practice, many of your ideas lean towards centralizing substantial power in the executive branch. What would need to occur for you to believe the Trump administration is committed to that aim?**
There’s no doubt that Donald Trump is deeply sincere about asserting, “I’m going to utilize all the power I possess to make America great again.” He absolutely believes that. I don’t think he aspires to be a grifter in any way. The critical issue lies within the limits of what can actually be accomplished.
**But what practical measures are you advocating for? Is it revitalizing impoundment authority, for instance?**
Exactly, look at Russ Vought at the Office of Management and Budget — another person I’ve maybe barely met but not talked to. Impoundment serves as an excellent example; during the first Trump administration, the Office of Legal Counsel would typically have claimed, “Oh, you can’t do that — there’s a law.” But is that law constitutional? I don’t believe it is; I consider it a direct violation of the Constitution.
The courts remain a question here, and while it may seem that we control the court — I doubt any Supreme Court justice would agree with that characterization, especially concerning the centrist bloc. One of Trump’s errors in his first term was appointing three centrists to the Supreme Court; thus, I’m uncertain whether Amy Coney Barrett would entertain revisiting the birthright citizenship issue. Nevertheless, when addressing the anti-impoundment act, it seems plausible to get that through the Supreme Court. Even if it’s difficult, asking is worthwhile.
**Every time the old Republicans wanted to do something, it was like the nebbish guy asking the hot prom queen out for a date — they were terrified of being rejected, and that fear was debilitating. That energy does not seem to exist here.**
**And if the courts respond negatively, then what?**
I believe that if the courts reject their moves, more pressure will be exerted by the Trump administration on Congress. As the machine acquires momentum, minor victories will require building upon one another. You achieve these small successes, and before long, you’re drafting legislation in the White House and sending it to Congress for approval.
**Should they ignore the court if that isn’t an available option?**
That’s a question whose answer heavily relies on the circumstances.
**Under what conditions should they consider it?**
It needs to feel appropriate. If defying the court is the path taken, it must come across as unifying. If you declare, “You know what? Marbury v. Madison was wrongly decided. The Constitution doesn’t specifically delineate the precedence between branches; judicial review is merely a construct that was invented,” it requires the right timing. If the situation is framed as “This is the first volley in a civil war between red and blue America,” it becomes problematic.
**For example, I think they’ve adjusted this somewhat, but initially, at the start of the campaign, the Trump team seemed unsure about JD’s role and attempted to position him somewhat like Sarah Palin 2.0. I thought, “Oh my God, this is a disaster.” JD possesses the ability to engage with The New Yorker and effectively counter caricatures of MAGA, bridging divides.**
**Have you conveyed this perspective to him?**
Um — he’s aware that I hold this view.
**You mentioned you spoke with him once since the election?**
I reached out once over a minor issue and then exchanged pleasantries at a party, recognizing the importance of greeting dignitaries.
**But he knows your viewpoint, specifically that he could serve as a unifying figure for divisive issues?**
Yes, particularly for the American ruling class.
**Is he receptive to that?**
I can’t say. The dynamic when engaging with influential individuals should involve them becoming acquainted with you — not the other way around. I’m not a journalist.
**Can you envision a scenario in the coming four years where an intention to disregard a Supreme Court ruling could be perceived as unifying rather than divisive?**
Let me think.
**I understand it’s hypothetical.**
It’s challenging to conceive. It would likely necessitate a situation where Trump had achieved substantial gains vis-a-vis ordinary mechanisms, visibly altering circumstances for people. Fix New York City. Fix San Francisco.
What the elves must comprehend is that their anxious *Handmaid’s Tale* fantasy, in which hobbits from Ohio form a new Hobbit fundamentalist regime and enslave their daughters, is implausible.
**Is there a scenario looming in the next four years where the Republican political elite can realize the kind of regime change you’re proposing?**
I’d classify that as highly unlikely. You would have to achieve a straight flush, perhaps even a royal straight flush. Yet, royal straight flushes have been known to occur — randomness is inherent in card games.
James del Carmen for TROIB News
The essence of the ball's title reflected Yarvin's considerable impact on the Trumpian right. Over the past decade, Yarvin, an ex-computer programmer who transitioned into blogging, has advocated for the notion that American democracy is fundamentally broken and should be replaced by a Silicon Valley-style monarchy. He believes it is time to discard current democratic systems and centralize political power in a single "chief executive" or "dictator." His concepts, known as "neo-reaction" or "the Dark Enlightenment," once belonged to the fringes of the internet but have gained traction in Washington post-Trump’s reelection.
In a recent conversation about the upcoming Trump administration, Yarvin shared that during his time in Washington, he had friendly exchanges with Vice President JD Vance—who has publicly praised his work—had lunch with Michael Anton from the State Department, and caught up with young conservatives influenced by his writings now stepping into the new administration.
While Yarvin harbors doubts about Trump's ability to implement the kind of regime change he envisions, he acknowledged signs that the new administration is committed to concentrating power within the executive branch. Prior to the Trump administration's announcement of a significant federal aid program freeze, he highlighted the forthcoming struggle over impoundment as a crucial test of the administration's intent to expand executive power. He also sensed a newfound boldness and assertiveness within Trump’s GOP.
“Every time the old Republicans wanted to do something, it was like the nebbish guy asking the hot prom queen out for a date — they were just terrified that they were going to ask and the answer is going to be ‘no,’” he remarked. “That attitude does not seem to be present here.”
The following has been edited for length and clarity.
**You were in Washington during Trump’s inauguration. How was the mood among the people you spent time with?**
The mood is really good. You’re definitely dealing with a lot of people who have spent the last four or eight years thinking about why the first Trump administration basically did not achieve anything for its supporters as opposed to its lobbyists. I’m not talking to the high strategic command or whatever, but just my impression from my connections among low- and mid-level people is that they’ve figured some things out.
The first and most important thing they’ve figured out from a political standpoint is that the situation Trump is in resembles something from *Dune*.
**We’re talking *Dune* here.**
Yeah. There’s a little bit of landing on the mostly enemy planet D.C. You’re landing there, and one of the general assumptions of the controlled opposition — the old Republican establishment — is that this is not really a symmetric political system.
Instead of a left party and a right party, we have an inner party [a bipartisan elite] and an outer party [the anti-establishment insurgents]. This outer party is essentially there to collect and market the votes of unfashionable America.
**You’re saying that the conservative elite in D.C. have become newly aware of themselves as a vanguard of the outer party, and they’re starting to act like one?**
Basically, the deal when you’re a Republican in office is that you receive certain things to showcase to your constituency as proof that you’re genuinely Republican, but you’re primarily there to play ball and help the system function. What Trump and his team have now realized is that the best defense is a good offense. He’s not merely engaging in small gestures to appease his supporters; he’s actively trying to manipulate all mechanisms of the government that he can.
**From the neo-reactionary perspective, what is the best-case scenario for a second Trump administration?**
I often think about what can be done with presidential powers as untangling the Gordian knot. I often say, “Look, D.C. is run by Congress, not by the president.” The president waves his hands in front of it and observes, but the real decisions come from funding decisions made by Congress or the agencies. If the White House didn’t exist, America would still operate.
**Do you think that a second-term Trump can untie the Gordian knot?**
That fundamental question is intriguing, as what he’s doing is not at all aligned with what I would do in this situation. However, I think what I would do might not be feasible.
**What would you do?**
I would cut the Gordian knot. For example, a straightforward approach would be to assert, “Look, the Federal Reserve is clearly under executive authority.” It doesn’t belong to the legislative or judicial branches, so it’s part of the executive branch. Since the Fed controls the monetary system, I can order it to mint the trillion-dollar coin or instruct the Fed to buy assets. By ordering the Fed to buy assets, I can also direct it to purchase notes issued by new institutions.
This realization brings me face-to-face with two fundamental truths: the U.S. doesn’t truly possess an executive branch; it’s more of an oligarchical Congress governing an administrative apparatus.
The second reality is that when I assess any segment of the federal government through a startup lens, I quickly conclude that the optimal way to address any problems is simply to establish a new organization.
Some government sectors have clearly defined roles that remain non-politicized. If the president had exclusive power over the Coast Guard, I would choose to utilize the existing Coast Guard. However, with the State Department, I can’t be so certain.
**Why do you believe Trump is hesitant to pursue your suggested approach?**
I think he’s unprepared. I also believe that America is unprepared for that level of change.
**I want to get your perspective on the widening divide between the tech right and the populist-nationalist right, or what you’ve termed the “rationalists” and the “traditionalists.” How substantial do you perceive this divide to be, and what do you think underlies it?**
I developed a Tolkien-esque classification of social dynamics in America today, identifying two types of people.
**Ah yes, the elves.**
Yes. There are the elves — the blue-state, professional managerial class, ruling-class individuals — and the hobbits, the lower-middle-class who are ruled over. The elves fear the hobbits will organize and pose a threat — because there are indeed a lot of hobbits.
When you have individuals who are considered elves by education or background, aided by a system that promotes this elite through college, you encounter a subset of people like me, the dark elves, who dissent from the progressive worldview. They no longer subscribe to the state religion.
So there’s a conflict between the dark elves and the hobbits, but conflicts should ideally be reconciled, right? I think the conflict arises when attending events like the Passage Press party, where I see Steve Bannon, who evidently feels it’s appropriate to attend a formal gathering looking disheveled.
**You’re apparently on his enemies list now.**
Am I on his enemies list? I don’t know.
**Do you see Steve Bannon as an enemy?**
No, no, my God. I mean, I’ve never met or communicated with him. I don’t view him as an enemy. Why would he be an enemy? It’s somewhat amusing to discuss someone whose revenue comes from *Seinfeld.* Nevertheless, Bannon has a genuine connection with MAGA world. He connects with the great American hobbit, which is fitting.
The relationship between the dark elves and the hobbits should acknowledge that the hobbits have channeled their energy, hope, and fear into ineffective systems for years.
**Do you believe this tension within the MAGA coalition can be managed, or is one faction destined to prevail?**
It can be effectively managed. Trump is showcasing that, by reactivating the rusty, broken mechanisms of the top-down control from the New Deal, the president can indeed effect change. The president has the power to revoke the 1965 affirmative action executive order, and legally, he can just do that. Imagine suggesting such a thing during the Bush administration; you’d be swiftly ousted. The MAGA supporters will soon recognize that progress is underway.
**You’ve mentioned that your relationship with Vance has been exaggerated by the media. What is your connection with him?**
I interacted with Vance once since the election. I encountered him at a party, and he remarked, “Yarvin, you reactionary fascist.” I responded, “Thank you, Mr. Vice President, and I’m glad I didn’t impede your election.”
**He said that to you?**
That’s what he said. I don’t think it was intended negatively, nor positively.
**Do you communicate regularly?**
No, definitely not. And I don’t view that as a critical connection. [The New Right] serves as a vanguard, which means it still operates with an oligarchical structure in many respects. There’s a figure in D.C. with a significant residence where many of the revolutionary vanguard congregate.
**Are we discussing Peter Thiel? Who are we referencing?**
No, no, this is someone you’ve never heard of.
**Who is it?**
I can’t disclose that. He’s not a government official; he’s a lawyer. This reflects a longstanding tradition in D.C., like the House of Truth — where Oliver Wendell Holmes and John Hay gathered [during the Progressive Era]. In a place like D.C., you often find a community of young, intelligent people. When visiting this space, you might encounter a clerk for Clarence Thomas or someone similarly connected. Many of the individuals in their 20s and 30s arriving in D.C. now are not averse to traditionalist views — in fact, while some are Christians, they lean towards TradCath rather than cradle Catholicism.
The crucial aspect is the atmosphere among the staff and aides. A group of newcomers to Washington does not possess the traditional fear of the old establishment.
Let’s return to my Gordian knot analogy: I’m like, “Okay, cut the Gordian knot. Where’s the sword?” But we’re not quite ready for that; instead, they’re currently tugging at the knot.
**When you mention tugging at the Gordian knot, are you suggesting they’re taking incremental steps toward systematic political change — a revolution, for lack of a better word?**
Yes, I’m asserting — America simply has a really ineffective government and requires a new one.
**Do you think Vance is better suited than Trump for that type of work, given his background and intellectual disposition?**
That’s an interesting question. I believe they will form an extraordinary team because, in almost every respect, JD is ideal. One of his primary advantages is his deeply American background, combined with his complete resocialization into the American elite. It’s akin to the Marines teaching him how to navigate high-society etiquette; he’s graduated from Yale Law School and knows how to participate in elite liberal circles with ease, whereas Trump is nonchalant about such environments.
There’s an old blog post from 2011 where I discuss kingship and the essence of being a king. I essentially argue that the person in America who embodies this quality is Donald Trump — well before his political career was seriously considered, if I may pat myself on the back for that. Trump possesses incredible energy — he doesn’t fall for the nonsense.
**What is Vance’s strength within that framework?**
JD is more analytical. Being younger, he retains more mental acuity. As one ages, you sense cognitive decline, but it often gets replaced with wisdom.
**And he has a greater inclination to manipulate the strings of the knot?**
JD possesses a strong sense of honor, which runs very deep within him. I don't believe he’d ever be satisfied with a life of grifting. The troubling aspect of outer-party Republicans is that people enter intending to make a difference, only to discover they’ve become grifters.
**Even among a professional mercantile class, might they consider becoming a dark elf instead?**
Think about the elf career path. If you aim to work in government, you typically attend Harvard, then intern in D.C., gradually advancing in the ranks over a decade. It's a tough process. Meanwhile, those who, by virtue of engaging with Curtis Yarvin in middle school, find it easier to secure jobs due to a lower candidate-to-position ratio.
**I recently had lunch with Mike Anton at a coffee shop across from the State Department —**
Michael Anton, incoming senior State Department official, for the record.
**Yes, incoming senior State Department official. I mentioned an academic position that could be filled and asked if anyone had considered it. They indicated no thoughts were given, so I suggested a potential candidate. They agreed he would be perfect, and just like that, it was settled.**
**They adopted your staffing recommendations, is what you’re suggesting?**
Well, we'll see — but the pathway is more accessible. Transitioning from "I’m a maverick dark elf" to "I hold a position with this administration" is suddenly much simpler — the competition is significantly less fierce.
**There’s a debate about the extent of your influence in Washington. How do you assess your impact now compared to four or eight years ago?**
My influence has certainly increased since four years ago, but I try not to gauge it. In my initial six years of blogging from 2007 to 2014, I hardly discussed these ideas with anyone. Eventually, I began receiving correspondence from Washington noting, “It seems like you’re addressing the same D.C. that I inhabit, yet nobody talks about these things.” While a few academics were aware of topics like the civil service, deep state, and administrative state, those subjects were largely absent from the broader discourse.
Proclaiming, “Oh, I communicate daily with the vice president,” or “I facilitated this guy getting a job” — that’s not my role as an intellectual. Others excel in that realm. The responsibility of an intellectual is to cast one’s bread upon the water — often, the more personal involvement gets, the less favorable it is.
**In practice, many of your ideas lean towards centralizing substantial power in the executive branch. What would need to occur for you to believe the Trump administration is committed to that aim?**
There’s no doubt that Donald Trump is deeply sincere about asserting, “I’m going to utilize all the power I possess to make America great again.” He absolutely believes that. I don’t think he aspires to be a grifter in any way. The critical issue lies within the limits of what can actually be accomplished.
**But what practical measures are you advocating for? Is it revitalizing impoundment authority, for instance?**
Exactly, look at Russ Vought at the Office of Management and Budget — another person I’ve maybe barely met but not talked to. Impoundment serves as an excellent example; during the first Trump administration, the Office of Legal Counsel would typically have claimed, “Oh, you can’t do that — there’s a law.” But is that law constitutional? I don’t believe it is; I consider it a direct violation of the Constitution.
The courts remain a question here, and while it may seem that we control the court — I doubt any Supreme Court justice would agree with that characterization, especially concerning the centrist bloc. One of Trump’s errors in his first term was appointing three centrists to the Supreme Court; thus, I’m uncertain whether Amy Coney Barrett would entertain revisiting the birthright citizenship issue. Nevertheless, when addressing the anti-impoundment act, it seems plausible to get that through the Supreme Court. Even if it’s difficult, asking is worthwhile.
**Every time the old Republicans wanted to do something, it was like the nebbish guy asking the hot prom queen out for a date — they were terrified of being rejected, and that fear was debilitating. That energy does not seem to exist here.**
**And if the courts respond negatively, then what?**
I believe that if the courts reject their moves, more pressure will be exerted by the Trump administration on Congress. As the machine acquires momentum, minor victories will require building upon one another. You achieve these small successes, and before long, you’re drafting legislation in the White House and sending it to Congress for approval.
**Should they ignore the court if that isn’t an available option?**
That’s a question whose answer heavily relies on the circumstances.
**Under what conditions should they consider it?**
It needs to feel appropriate. If defying the court is the path taken, it must come across as unifying. If you declare, “You know what? Marbury v. Madison was wrongly decided. The Constitution doesn’t specifically delineate the precedence between branches; judicial review is merely a construct that was invented,” it requires the right timing. If the situation is framed as “This is the first volley in a civil war between red and blue America,” it becomes problematic.
**For example, I think they’ve adjusted this somewhat, but initially, at the start of the campaign, the Trump team seemed unsure about JD’s role and attempted to position him somewhat like Sarah Palin 2.0. I thought, “Oh my God, this is a disaster.” JD possesses the ability to engage with The New Yorker and effectively counter caricatures of MAGA, bridging divides.**
**Have you conveyed this perspective to him?**
Um — he’s aware that I hold this view.
**You mentioned you spoke with him once since the election?**
I reached out once over a minor issue and then exchanged pleasantries at a party, recognizing the importance of greeting dignitaries.
**But he knows your viewpoint, specifically that he could serve as a unifying figure for divisive issues?**
Yes, particularly for the American ruling class.
**Is he receptive to that?**
I can’t say. The dynamic when engaging with influential individuals should involve them becoming acquainted with you — not the other way around. I’m not a journalist.
**Can you envision a scenario in the coming four years where an intention to disregard a Supreme Court ruling could be perceived as unifying rather than divisive?**
Let me think.
**I understand it’s hypothetical.**
It’s challenging to conceive. It would likely necessitate a situation where Trump had achieved substantial gains vis-a-vis ordinary mechanisms, visibly altering circumstances for people. Fix New York City. Fix San Francisco.
What the elves must comprehend is that their anxious *Handmaid’s Tale* fantasy, in which hobbits from Ohio form a new Hobbit fundamentalist regime and enslave their daughters, is implausible.
**Is there a scenario looming in the next four years where the Republican political elite can realize the kind of regime change you’re proposing?**
I’d classify that as highly unlikely. You would have to achieve a straight flush, perhaps even a royal straight flush. Yet, royal straight flushes have been known to occur — randomness is inherent in card games.
James del Carmen for TROIB News
