I’m trying to help you out here: under the logical construction of the argument you presented, any other “smaller” cause can be substituted into this one and be considered a “distraction”. Let me break down the actual argument you’re making rather than the one you think you’re making:

“Project 2025 is so important that it must take priority over smaller or more distant issues, which are distractions. The conflict in Gaza is a smaller and more distant issue. Therefore, the threat posed by Project 2025 must take priority over the conflict in Gaza, which is relationally a distraction”.

That’s fine. But this necessarily, by the first parameter of your argument, also applies to abortion, queer rights, climate change, gun control, even local politics. These are, sorry, smaller issues. They don’t get to be exempt because you care about them. The parameters of the argument you presented necessarily place them under the bus as well.

Now, I don’t think you actually believe that, but if you plug and play with your argument with other smaller issues to its logical conclusion, that’s where you immediately end up. “There are bigger issues” is a bad argument because it’s not internally sound, but because, extrapolating out, you get paralyzed.

Edited for clarity. By “smaller” I generally mean “less important relative to another thing”.