Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Project 2025: Anti-Abortion Blueprint Quietly Taking Hold

Opinion

Project 2025: Anti-Abortion Blueprint Quietly Taking Hold

A stethoscope and gavel.

Getty Images, ATU Images

Last spring and summer, The Fulcrum published a 30-part series on Project 2025. Now that Donald Trump’s second term has started, Part 2 of the series has commenced.

While the national spotlight often falls on state-level abortion bans or Supreme Court rulings, a quieter but more transformative effort is underway in Washington. In his second term, President Donald Trump is not simply revisiting past culture war battles—he’s enacting a structural overhaul of federal reproductive health policy, rooted in a sweeping plan known as Project 2025.


Drafted by The Heritage Foundation, Project 2025 offers a comprehensive playbook for reshaping the federal government in alignment with hardline conservative priorities. On abortion, its recommendations are stark: revoke FDA approval for abortion medications, criminalize the mailing of reproductive health supplies, defund key providers like Planned Parenthood, and reorient public health policy around a singular “pro-life” vision.

But this isn’t just rhetoric—it’s already being translated into action.

Since January, the Trump administration has moved swiftly to implement some of the plan’s most impactful anti-abortion provisions. One of President Trump’s first acts was to reinstate the Mexico City Policy, blocking federal funds from reaching international organizations that even mention abortion in their family planning services. Shortly after, he signed Executive Order 14182, which reaffirmed the Hyde Amendment’s ban on federal funding for most abortions and repealed Biden-era protections for reproductive healthcare access.

Perhaps most telling is how the Department of Justice has scaled back enforcement of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act, the federal law that safeguards clinics and patients from threats or blockades. In an even bolder signal, Trump pardoned several activists previously convicted under the FACE Act, indicating a new era of tolerance—or even approval—for anti-abortion extremism.

Meanwhile, federal agencies are taking steps that align closely with Project 2025’s long-term goals. The administration has backed away from defending abortion access in emergency care scenarios. It recently dropped its legal opposition to an Idaho law that bans nearly all abortions, even when necessary to stabilize a pregnant person in crisis—an alarming shift that could undermine emergency protections nationwide.

Other components of Project 2025 are gaining traction behind the scenes. While the FDA has not formally revoked approval of mifepristone and misoprostol, the administration has moved to dismiss a high-profile lawsuit challenging the drugs, possibly as a strategy to pursue regulatory rollback through more favorable channels. Efforts to defund Planned Parenthood by cutting Title X family planning grants are also in progress, with the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) freezing about $65.8 million in grants for reproductive healthcare—these grants did not fund abortion services, rather they funded birth control, cancer screenings, STI testing, and other low-income health care services.

Project 2025 also envisions the HHS being renamed the “Department of Life,” complete with a new agency to replace existing reproductive health programs. Though such rebranding has not yet occurred, early personnel appointments suggest the ideological groundwork is being laid.

All told, the administration is executing a deliberate, phased implementation of a far-reaching anti-abortion strategy—one that has flown largely under the radar. These aren’t isolated policy changes; they are building blocks in an intentional restructuring of federal health governance.

While a nationwide abortion ban or criminalization of contraception may still seem like political outliers, the infrastructure is being quietly put in place. And that makes this moment more urgent than ever. What’s unfolding in Washington isn’t just a rollback of Roe-era protections—it’s a federalization of a deeply restrictive reproductive policy regime.

If Americans believe that abortion rights have simply been returned to the states, they’re missing the bigger picture. Through Project 2025, the federal government is being weaponized to restrict reproductive autonomy from the top down. And unless this quiet revolution is met with equally organized resistance, the consequences could reverberate for generations.

Kristina Becvar is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and executive director of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.


Read More

Latino Voter Landscape Shifts as Economic Pressures Reshape Support for Both Parties

Your Vote Counts postid

Latino Voter Landscape Shifts as Economic Pressures Reshape Support for Both Parties

New polling and expert analysis reveal a shifting and increasingly complex political landscape among Hispanic and Latino voters in the United States. While recent surveys show that economic pressures continue to dominate voter concerns, they also highlight a broader fragmentation of political identity that is reshaping long‑standing assumptions about Latino electoral behavior. A Pew Research Center poll indicates that President Donald Trump has lost support among Hispanic voters, with 70% disapproving of his performance, even though 42% of Latinos voted for him in 2024, a ten‑point increase from 2020. Among those who supported him, approval remains relatively high at 81%, though this marks a decline from earlier polling.

At the same time, Democrats are confronting their own challenges. Data comparing the 2024 American Electorate Voter Poll with the 2020 American Election Eve Poll show that Democratic margins dropped by 23 points among Latino men, raising concerns among party strategists about weakening support heading into the 2026 midterms. Analysts argue that despite these declines, sustained investment in Latino voter engagement remains essential, particularly as turnout efforts have historically influenced electoral outcomes.

Keep ReadingShow less
Compassion and Common Sense Must Coexist in Immigration Policy
Changing Conversations Around Immigration
Leif Christoph Gottwald on Unsplash

Compassion and Common Sense Must Coexist in Immigration Policy

I am writing this not as a Democrat or a Republican, but as an American who believes that compassion and common sense must coexist. I understand why many people feel sympathy for those who come to the United States seeking safety or opportunity. That compassion is part of who we are as a nation. But compassion alone cannot guide national policy, especially when the consequences affect every citizen, every community, and every generation that follows.

For more than two centuries, people from around the world have entered this country through a legal process—sometimes long, sometimes difficult, but always rooted in the idea that a nation has the right and responsibility to know who is entering its borders. That principle is not new, and it is not partisan. It is simply how a functioning country protects its people and maintains order.

Keep ReadingShow less
SCOTUS Tariffs Case: Representative Government vs Authoritarianism.
scotus rulings voting rights, disclosure
scotus rulings voting rights, disclosure

SCOTUS Tariffs Case: Representative Government vs Authoritarianism.

The Supreme Court Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump (Tariffs) and consolidated related cases relate to the following issues:

(1) Whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) authorizes the tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump; and

Keep ReadingShow less
Immigration Was the Loudest Silence in Trump’s State of the Union

U.S. President Donald Trump delivers the State of the Union address during a joint session of Congress in the House Chamber at the Capitol on February 24, 2026 in Washington, DC.

Immigration Was the Loudest Silence in Trump’s State of the Union

President Donald Trump spoke for 108 minutes during the 2026 State of the Union — the longest address in American history. He covered the economy, foreign policy, manufacturing, and national pride. But for all the words, one of the most consequential issues facing the country was reduced to a single statistic and then set aside.

Immigration — one of the administration’s signature issues — was nearly invisible in the address. A Medill News Service analysis shows the president devoted less than 10% of his remarks to the topic, amounting to roughly ten minutes in total.

Keep ReadingShow less