No, I don't. That is exactly my point. Or rather, I don't agree with what they're actually doing, which is to only include words derived from old Germanic languages. E.g. modern Germanic languages have had words like Congress/kongress/Kongress for centuries. I'd be happy with a language trying to stick to words closer to the consensus of modern Germanic languages.

If you want a mid-point between modern Germanic languages, stripping the language of imports does not work, as then you're creating friction for speakers of other Germanic languages which have also imported those words, not reducing it. I don't see any value in that.

It's fine that this is not Anglish' goal - they can do what they want -, but it makes it unsuitable as an attempt at a shared Germanic language. Their translation of names in particular is outright obnoxious and goes in the opposite direction of a trend to reduce the use of translated names in a lot of languages and reduces understanding rather than increasing it. That's their choice, but it's a very different one.

If I were to try to create a mid-point out of English, I'd narrow the focus massively to deprecate words that have decent Germanic replacements in common use in the other languages, and aim to shift meanings to accommodate it, such as e.g. giving "stool" the same broad meaning as a replacement for "chair" as its cognates have in other Germanic languages. And I'd leave words that have close cognates in other Germanic languages entirely alone, irrespective of the source, such as congress, because they're more likely to be understood by other Germanic speakers than many of the Anglish replacements.