Each time the Trump administration introduces a new initiative, a familiar feeling of déjà vu washes over those who have been close to the power corridors of U.S. politics, reminiscent of secretive maneuvers at the highest levels of government. This sensation is not without precedent; it echoes a past of covert operations and unspoken agendas, particularly within the Supreme Court during the late 1980s.

As a former clerk for Justice Sandra Day O’Connor during the 1989 Term, I found myself at the center of whisper networks and strategic litigations aimed at overturning landmark decisions like Roe v. Wade. Dubbed the "abortion clerk," my role inadvertently made me a magnet for the Federalist Society’s Supreme Court cabal—a group that, even then, orchestrated their moves away from the public eye, aiming to reshape longstanding legal landscapes quietly.

Their methods were not isolated to mere legal debates but were part of a broader pattern of operating in shadows, a modus operandi that seems to permeate certain factions of the current administration. This approach was starkly evident in Project 2025, a strategic blueprint developed by the Heritage Foundation in conjunction with the Federalist Society. The project, aimed at establishing a "unitary executive," was strategically leaked during the 2024 campaign, only to be quickly disowned by Trump amidst widespread criticism. Yet, the underlying strategies and goals of Project 2025 continue to guide this administration, as evidenced by their policy rollouts that seem as premeditated as they are opaque.

The current administration’s handling of policy announcements, which often come as sudden and unexplained decrees, mirrors the clandestine gatherings of the past. Whether it’s the aggressive deportation policies that sweep up contributing members of society alongside intended targets, or the relentless consolidation of presidential power, the tactics are the same: operate in secrecy, minimize public discourse, and implement far-reaching changes quietly.

The philosophy underlying these actions appears to be that the ends justify the means, regardless of the constitutional, legal, or moral questions they raise. This approach has led to a series of controversial decisions, from suppressing dissent to unilaterally altering the landscape of civil rights, often leaving the public and even key government stakeholders in the dark until after the fact.

Moreover, the administration's tendency to eschew transparency extends to culturally and politically sensitive areas as well. Over the years, public sentiment has increasingly favored progressive stances on issues like LGBTQ rights and abortion. However, the administration, guided by Project 2025's playbook, seems determined to impose a conservative agenda, sidestepping public opinion and legislative debate.

This pattern of governance not only raises questions about the democratic process but also about the very principles of governance that allow for public involvement and open debate. The secretive nature of both the Supreme Court’s cabal from decades past and today’s political strategies under the Trump administration reveal a troubling continuity. They suggest a preference for opacity and control over the messier, yet more democratic, processes of public discourse and transparent policymaking.

As history shows, and as current events confirm, such strategies may yield short-term gains for specific agendas but at the cost of undermining trust and integrity in the political system. The challenge for the electorate remains to remain vigilant, informed, and vocal, particularly when the familiar patterns of the past threaten to shape the future.