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

    United States Capitol building and blurred American flag against blue sky

    America’s aging Congress has no maximum age limit. Could a constitutional amendment create age limits for lawmakers and better represent younger voters?

    TGI /Tetra Images

    Congress Has an Age Floor and No Ceiling. That's Backwards for Gen Z.

    Senator Dianne Feinstein's visible decline in her final years in office. Senator Lindsey Graham's sudden death. Senator Mitch McConnell's own recent hospitalization, and his halting explanation of it afterward. Three senators, three separate incidents, no obvious connection between them, except that the saga of these three senators is really one story about the problem of not knowing when to step down. That framing asks the right question of individual leaders. But it assumes the problem is a matter of personal judgment, each senator, in his or her own time, finding the wisdom to recognize the moment has passed. I think that gets the American version of this problem backwards. Congress's age problem is not a string of individual judgment calls. It is a structural feature of the Constitution itself, and it is quietly reshaping who gets represented in American government.

    The Constitution sets a floor for federal office and no ceiling. A representative must be at least twenty-five. A senator must be at least thirty. A president must be at least thirty-five. Nothing in the document says how old is too old. Combine that asymmetry with the enormous advantages of incumbency, better name recognition, fundraising networks, committee seniority, and the result is predictable: a Congress that can start young but can never age out. It can only age up. The 119th Congress is now the third oldest in American history, with an average member age of nearly fifty-nine and a Senate averaging in the mid-sixties. This is not a temporary blip. It is the natural output of a system with a gate on one end and no gate on the other.

    Keep ReadingShow less
    The Enduring Illusion of Article the first
    a large white building with a flag on top of it

    The Enduring Illusion of Article the first

    This is the third and final installment of our series on “Article the first.” Previous parts examined the history of the single inverted word that turned an intended floor into a ceiling and its impact on the amendment’s failed ratification. This concluding part outlines the path forward for enlarging the House today.

    Part 3 — The Path Forward

    Keep ReadingShow less
    The Enduring Illusion of Article the first

    Painting from 1856 by Junius Brutus Stearns of George Washington at the Constitutional Convention of 1787.

    The Enduring Illusion of Article the first

    This is the second of a three-part series on the First Amendment proposed by Congress in 1789—often called “Article the first”—which was never ratified. Part 1 explained how a single inverted word in the text created a mathematical absurdity that has been misread for 237 years. This second part explores the untold history of how that defect affected the original ratification process in state legislatures.

    Part 2 — The Untold History

    Keep ReadingShow less
    Bill of Rights
    Happy 230th birthday, Bill of Rights
    leezsnow/Getty Images

    The Enduring Illusion of Article the first

    This is the first of three parts exploring “Article the First,” the forgotten proposal in the original Bill of Rights. For 237 years, a single, inverted word has created a “semantic illusion,” leading historians and policymakers to misread the founders' intended guarantee of a growing House as a ceiling. This series uncovers the error, tracks its consequences, and explores why reclaiming the founders’ original vision is the path to meaningful representation reform.

    Part 1 — The Inverted Word

    Keep ReadingShow less