NY Times reporter roasted after 'unitary executive theory' flub in Trump OMB nominee story

It drew sharp criticism on social media and among conservative analysts who argued the description of the theory was fundamentally untrue.

In the years after Trump's first term, the Times report says, Vought founded a conservative think tank and served as an architect of Project 2025, described in the report as an effort by conservative groups to help advance executive branch power. 

The report says the legal underpinning of Project 2025 is "a maximalist version of the so-called unitary executive theory that rejects the idea that the government is composed of three separate branches" and "argues that presidential power over federal agencies is absolute." 

Though the article has since been updated to describe the unitary executive theory as three "separate but equal branches," the article was panned by conservatives and others who disagreed with the Times' characterization of the legal theory.

It was the second part of the statement in particular that sparked backlash from conservative commentators, including National Review editor Charles Cooke, who argued in an op-ed that the Constitution and its wording, in his view, is explicit about how the executive, legislative and judicial branches can exercise power and about the limitations of the executive branch. 

"The United States is a democratic republic in which elected officials are held accountable for their decisions," Cooke wrote in an op-ed for the National Review. 

"The only elected official who holds power within the executive branch is the president. For anyone else to exercise power without the permission or endorsement of the sole electee would be to create a fourth branch of government, unmoored from oversight, and thereby to undermine the whole apparatus."

Others also took aim at the article on social media, arguing the Times reporter fundamentally misunderstood the unitary executive theory. 

The New York Times did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital's request for a response.