Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Project 2025: A cross-partisan approach

Former President Donald Trump

The Heritage Foundation's "Project 2025" is a blueprint for another Trump administration. The Fulcrum will offer a cross-partisan alternative.

The Washington Post/Getty Images

On June 4, The Fulcrum published “ Project 2025 is a threat to democracy,” written by University of Iowa professor emeritus Steve Corbin. The article had a tremendous impact on our readers and quickly became the most popular post of the year.

For those who have not heard of Project 2025, it is a playbook specifically created for Donald Trump to use as a guideline for his first 180 days in office should he win the November election.


The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, proudly takes credit for facilitating the creation of the 887-page documentary.

Project 2025’s two editors were assisted by 34 authors, 277 contributors, a 54-member advisory board, and a coalition of over 100 conservative organizations (including ALEC, The Heartland Institute, Liberty University, Middle East Forum, Moms for Liberty, the NRA, Pro-Life America and the Tea Party Patriots).

Project 2025 consists of 30 sections on important federal government agencies or issues, such as the Federal Election Commission, Department of Defense, Department of Homeland Security, Department of State, Executive Office of the President and Department of Education.

While an in-depth analysis of what works and doesn't work in our democracy is a laudable and much-needed task, unfortunately Project 2025 is a biased political report designed to build a case for conservative solutions, using inductive reasoning to support preconceived opinions. What we need is deductive reasoning that analyzes the problem and offers solutions to the problem regardless of whether the solutions fit into a conservative, moderate or progressive mold.

As a result, Project 2025 has many potential dangers that would, at the very least, set back our country and, at worst, subvert our democracy.

The Fulcrum believes that a version of Project 2025 approached from a cross-partisan perspective, void of pre-determined left or right solutions, would serve as a guide for citizens and our elected representatives to ensure the healthy democratic republic we all desire.

In the words of the late management guru Peter Drucker: “I am not in favor of big government. I am not in favor of small government. I am in favor of effective government.”

And that is what The Fulcrum works in support of — effective government.

If we are to have a healthy and thriving democratic republic, we need a “Cross-Partisan Project 2025,” and starting next week, The Fulcrum will launch our version: an unbiased approach to the pressing issues that our nation must address. We will use a solutions journalism approach that focuses on:

  • What's dividing Americans on critical issues?
  • Which information presented by Project 2025 is factual and to be trusted, and what is not?
  • What is oversimplified about Project 2025’s representation and perspective, and what is not? What are alternative solutions?
  • What do people from all sides of the political spectrum need to understand to address salient points of Project 2025 in a critical-thinking manner?
  • What are the questions nobody's asking?

Simply stated, we will explore the nuances and complexities of the subjects and issues covered in the Project 2025 plan. In the coming weeks, The Fulcrum staff and a selection of The Fulcrum’s regular contributors will report on components of Project 2025 from the above perspective.

We will not shy away from Project 2025’s most controversial components and will call attention to dangerous thinking that threatens our democracy when we see it. However, in doing so, we are committing to not employing accusations, innuendos or misinformation. We will advocate for intellectual honesty to inform and persuade effectively.

The Cross-Partisan Project 2025 series offers The Fulcrum a unique opportunity to provide reporting that banishes the old ways of demonizing “the other side.” We will be committed to implementing critical thinking, reexamining outdated assumptions, and using reason, scientific evidence, and data in formulating and testing public policy for 2025 and beyond. Our reporting and analysis will be based on a philosophy that seeks out diverse perspectives and experiences to find common ground.

Our nation needs to reshape our collective sense of civic responsibility, community building and political engagement. We must nurture new generations of thoughtful citizens and committed leaders who will promote a multidimensional approach to America's most important domestic and foreign policy issues.

That is the goal of The Fulcrum’s Cross-Partisan Project 2025.

More articles about Project 2025


    Read More

    Tensions were High as Representatives Debated Allegations Against the Southern Poverty Law Center

    Members of the House Judiciary Committee during the hearing on the Southern Poverty Law Center.

    Credit: Olivia Ardito

    Tensions were High as Representatives Debated Allegations Against the Southern Poverty Law Center

    WASHINGTON, D.C. – The House Judiciary Committee held a hearing last Wednesday examining claims that the Southern Poverty Law Center had funded the very hate groups the center aims to dismantle. Tensions were high as Republicans and Democrats fired back at each other. Noticeably absent was a representative from the center, a non-profit that since 1971 has fought for racial justice and against white supremacy.

    The hearing came after the Texas Attorney General Ken Pax­ton announced last Monday that he was investigating the center. The U.S. Justice Department indicted the Southern Poverty Law Center in April for allegedly funneling money to people associated with violent extremist groups. The group has flatly rejected the accusations. While Republicans backed these claims, Democrats viewed the allegations as part of the Trump-backed efforts to hinder “DEI” and other racial justice initiatives.

    Keep ReadingShow less
    Trump Is Protecting Insurrectionists But Not Your Kids

    An analysis of gun violence, political extremism, Islamophobia, and community resilience in America after the San Diego Islamic Center shooting.

    GemaIbarra / Getty Images

    Trump Is Protecting Insurrectionists But Not Your Kids

    Last Monday, two teenage gunmen opened fire outside the Islamic Center of San Diego, murdering three Muslim men. Unfortunately, this is the type of horror Americans have been conditioned to expect. After years of political stagnation on gun safety and ongoing hateful acts of violence, our president has signaled once again to children, to the Muslim community, and to everyone else: he does not care if you get shot.

    Gun violence has been on the rise in the United States for too long. Perhaps the most harrowing consequence is that gun violence is now the leading cause of death among children. Whether from school shootings, homicides, suicides, or accidents, the gun-death rate for children is nearly five in every 100,000. In fact, the number of domestic deaths due to gun violence is about as many as U.S. military deaths in every war since World War I combined. More children have been lost to gun violence since 2020 than troops lost since 9/11. Yet even with such a striking death toll—and one affecting children no less—happening on our own soil, Vice President J.D. Vance calls it a “fact of life.

    Keep ReadingShow less
    The dome of the United States Capitol Building in Washington, D.C., stands tall against a blue sky with the American flag waving proudly

    Congress faces growing pressure to pass redistricting reform as lawmakers debate banning gerrymandering, independent commissions, and mid-decade map changes amid renewed national controversy over fair elections.

    Getty Images, aire images

    Congress's Missed Opportunities on Redistricting Reform

    On April 29, Issue One posted an image on Facebook and Instagram: CONGRESS CAN FIX THIS WITH THREE SIMPLE STEPS:

    1. Establish Clear National Criteria for Fair Maps
    2. Require Independent Redistricting Commissions in Every State
    3. Ban Mid-Decade Redistricting.

    Issue One added below: “… but it needs 60 Senate votes to do it.”

    Keep ReadingShow less
    Open Letter to Justice Roberts: Partisan Gerrymandering Is Unconstitutional
    beige concrete building under blue sky during daytime

    Open Letter to Justice Roberts: Partisan Gerrymandering Is Unconstitutional

    The Supreme Court, in holding that partisan gerrymandering is permissible—unless it "goes too far"—stated that the argument made against this practice based on the Court's "one person, one vote" doctrine didn't work because the cases that developed that doctrine were about ensuring that each vote had an equal weight. The Court reasoned that after redistricting, each vote still has equal weight.

    I would respectfully disagree. After admittedly partisan redistricting, each vote does not have an equal weight. The purpose of partisan gerrymandering is typically to create a "safe" seat—to group citizens so that the dominant political party has a clear majority of the voters. It's the transformation of a contested seat or even a seat safe for the other party into a safe seat for the party doing the redistricting.

    Keep ReadingShow less