Skip to content
Project 2025
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories
U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN)

Trump’s Plan to Strip Rep. Omar of Her Citizenship Is Unconstitutional and a Threat to All of Us

JD Vance

JD Vance Tells Republicans Who America’s Real Birthright Citizens Are

Group of voters stand in line

Six Key Voting Blocs Hold the Balance of Power on Nov. 3

Five men sitting on one side of a table, as a panel at an event.

Congressional Inaction Raises Constitutional Change Alternative

One hundred dollar bills

The $5,000 Question — Campaign Promise or Something Congress Should Worry About?

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
The Fulcrum
By The FulcrumJun 14, 2024
The Fulcrum
The Fulcrum staff.
See More Writings by author

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


    Latest news

    "I Voted" sticker
    Elections

    New Tool Reveals Which Americans Hold Outsized Voting Power

    Man dressed in jaguar costume
    Community

    Why Language Access Matters for Indigenous New Yorkers

    Texas Democratic Senate candidate James Talarico
    Elections

    Are Independent Voters About to Flip Texas?

    Woman sitting and typing on laptop on her lap.
    Media & Technology

    AI’s Information Crisis: Why Trust Is Harder to Sustain Than Ever

    Read More

    An empty grocery cart in a market.

    NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani proposes five city-run grocery stores. See the arguments for and against, from food deserts to bodega concerns and the $70M cost.

    Getty Images, Kwangmoozaa

    Government-Owned Grocery Stores: Accessible Nutrition or Government Overreach?

    Issue Introduction

    Over the past few years, affordability has become the most central issue affecting Americans and the quality of life in the United States. The prices of groceries and basic necessities have risen 25-30% since the COVID-19 pandemic and are projected to rise another 3.2% in 2026. At the same time, the exodus of grocery chains from rural and low-income areas has scattered food deserts throughout individual states. Recent mass closures include Grocery Outlet’s shuttering of 36 stores and continued shut-downs of many Albertsons locations. These factors have led politicians to make affordability a major campaign issue.

    During his progressive campaign for mayor of New York City, Zohran Mamdani raised the idea of opening grocery stores owned and operated by the city government to provide New Yorkers with affordable groceries. In his April 2026 public address that marked his first 100 days in office, Mayor Mamdani announced plans for the first of five city-run grocery stores. Mamdani’s proposed initiative will use $70 million in capital funding to build five city-owned municipal stores–one in each borough–and place them under control of the New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC). NYCEDC will then select third-party operating staff in accordance with city standards for affordability and proper labor practices. Public opinion following the announcement continues to be divided between uproar and support.

    Keep ReadingShow less
    ​U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth

    U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth testifies during a Senate Committee on Appropriations hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., on July 21, 2026. Hegseth is crafting a strong and masculine identity for his audience as he reportedly contemplates a presidential run.

    (Alex Wroblewski/AFP/Getty Images/TNS)

    Politicians Can’t Just ’Give the People What They Want’

    For reasons that will baffle my many detractors, I am often asked for advice about being an opinion journalist. One of my standard responses is: You have to be willing to disappoint your biggest fans.

    What I mean is that if you start to see your job as telling fans what they want to hear, you risk becoming an entertainer rather than a thinker, and eventually you become a caricature. I’ve seen it happen numerous times. Patrick Buchanan was a brilliant columnist and a serious person. But over the course of his career, he listened too much to the people who said, “Go Pat, go!” and too little to friends who said, “I think that’s taking it too far.”

    Keep ReadingShow less
    White marble exterior of the United States Capitol, often called the Capitol Building, is the home of the United States Congress and the seat of the legislative branch of the U.S. federal government

    Congress approval is at a record-low 10%. Moderation and consensus-building, not partisan theatrics, are how Washington gets problems solved.

    Richard Sharrocks / Getty Images

    Reclaiming the Politics of the Possible

    Washington is stuck in a cycle of performative conflict. The incentives seem to reward outrage, not outcomes that last; purity tests, not problem‑solving. So it’s no surprise that after three shutdowns in less than a year, public approval of Congress collapsed to just 10 percent this spring. (Gallup, April 2026.) But the country we live in — where many middle-income families report persistent financial strain and businesses are navigating unprecedented technological upheaval — cannot be governed by theatrics. Breaking this cycle requires moderation, consensus‑building, and a cooperative approach to governance.

    This is not a call for centrism as an ideology. Instead, this is a call for transformative leaders to embrace moderation as their governing strategy, recognizing that in a pluralistic country of nearly 350 million people durable solutions require broad and stable alliances. Ultimately, this is a call for the 240 million of us who are eligible to vote in November to elect consensus-builders instead of bomb-throwers, and healers instead of arsonists.

    Keep ReadingShow less
    Adult man holds a microphone while asking a question during a town hall meeting.

    Congress ignored 90% of public support for background checks. Learn how citizen assemblies and sortition helped Ireland break gridlock and could work in the US.

    SDI Productions/Getty Images

    Consensus Without Power: How Sortition Could Break America's Legislative Gridlock

    In April 2013, four months after the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting killed twenty children, the US Senate voted on the Manchin-Toomey Act to expand background checks and to include gun-show and internet sales of firearms. Roughly nine in ten Americans, including a majority of gun owners, supported the bill—a figure that has held steady across more than a decade of polling. It fell short of the 60-vote threshold by six votes. This was not an outlier. On complex issues, representatives often fail to translate public consensus into reality. Research shows that legislators consistently vote in line with donor and interest group preferences over constituent opinion. Before the vote, the National Rifle Association (NRA) warned every senator it would “rate” their vote on its annual rating system, and a low NRA rating could cost senators their next primary. Consequently, the bill died 54-46, and the majority of Americans watched, powerless, as their consensus was overridden by self-interested representatives.

    Liberal democracies need a method to bypass electoral incentives that run counter to public opinion. One already exists: Ireland faced the same stalemate on complex issues before it instituted a process called sortition. The beauty of sortition lies in its removal of the primary pressure that misaligns representatives’ interests from public interest: reelection. Much like jury duty, citizens are randomly drawn from the population. An independent body then stratifies the pool, so the final group mirrors the country by age, gender, geography, and income. The group meets over weeks or months, hearing from experts and the public, as well as debating frequently. At the end, it issues a recommendation that parliament may then put to a referendum or pass into law.

    Keep ReadingShow less
    © Copyright 2026