While that's not an unreasonable assumption, it's also not unreasonable to assume that his associates have advised him that they have created P2025, that they have advised him the contents will provide guidance as he enters his 2nd term.

Except this thing was published in April of 2023 - eight months before even the first caucus of the Republican primary. It wasn't made for Trump. This was just Heritage doing what it does every election cycle - publishing their Big Book of What Heritage Thinks is Grand so that they can seem important and relevant.

Plus, Trump isn't one to take kindly the idea that people are going off and deciding things for him. Again, it's that narcissist thing. No one's opinion matters but his, no one's ideas matter but his, no one other than him can do it well or right. The scenario you've described just doesn't mesh with that overwhelming aspect of his personality.

The whole Project 2025 thing is good for media shows, but it's useless for the campaign. You want to argue that Trump wants to gut the civil service and replace them with his loyal flunkies? You don't need to go through the rigamarole of reading that in P2025, doing lots of research and convulsions to create a scenario where it might be possible that Trump might have had a hand in it, then argue that because Trump had that role that this reflects his position.

Why don't you need to do that? Because Trump literally created a video, where he said he was going to do that straight into the camera, and posted it on his website!

YouTube: JUST IN: Trump Unveils Plan To 'Dismantle The Deep State' As Possible Indictment Looms (Forbes Breaking News)

None of this is new! None of this is a secret! Trump posted most of the worst stuff in his "Agenda 47" videos - he just comes out and says that he wants to do nearly all of the major things that are in Project 2025 - more than a year ago:

apnews.com - Trump policies agenda election second term

Which is why this is good for media outlets, but pointless for the campaign. The Trump show is a rerun. Reruns are boring. It's hard to get an audience engaged in stuff that's already happened. For an attack ad, it doesn't matter that the content is old. All those Agenda 47 videos are all you need. But if you've got a "five heads in boxes" panel on a talk show, you can't be bringing up some video that Trump posted a year and a half ago and get your viewers to pay attention. It's got to be something you're discovering now.

Again, it will be an enormous waste of time and resources if the campaigns bother with this.