Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

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

    Veterans’ Care at Risk Under Trump As Hundreds of Doctors and Nurses Reject Working at VA Hospitals
    Photo illustration by Lisa Larson-Walker/ProPublica

    Veterans’ Care at Risk Under Trump As Hundreds of Doctors and Nurses Reject Working at VA Hospitals

    Veterans hospitals are struggling to replace hundreds of doctors and nurses who have left the health care system this year as the Trump administration pursues its pledge to simultaneously slash Department of Veterans Affairs staff and improve care.

    Many job applicants are turning down offers, worried that the positions are not stable and uneasy with the overall direction of the agency, according to internal documents examined by ProPublica. The records show nearly 4 in 10 of the roughly 2,000 doctors offered jobs from January through March of this year turned them down. That is quadruple the rate of doctors rejecting offers during the same time period last year.

    Keep ReadingShow less
    Protecting the U.S. Press: The PRESS Act and What It Could Mean for Journalists

    The Protect Reporters from Excessive State Suppression (PRESS) Act aims to fill the national shield law gap by providing two protections for journalists.

    Getty Images, Manu Vega

    Protecting the U.S. Press: The PRESS Act and What It Could Mean for Journalists

    The First Amendment protects journalists during the news-gathering and publication processes. For example, under the First Amendment, reporters cannot be forced to report on an issue. However, the press is not entitled to different legal protections compared to a general member of the public under the First Amendment.

    In the United States, there are protections for journalists beyond the First Amendment, including shield laws that protect journalists from pressure to reveal sources or information during news-gathering. 48 states and the District of Columbia have shield laws, but protections vary widely. There is currently no federal shield law. As of 2019, at least 22 journalists have been jailed in the U.S. for refusing to comply with requests to reveal sources of information. Seven other journalists have been jailed and fined for the same reason.

    Keep ReadingShow less
    Democrats Score Strategic Wins Amid Redistricting Battles

    Democrat Donkey is winning arm wrestling match against Republican elephant

    AI generated image

    Democrats Score Strategic Wins Amid Redistricting Battles

    Democrats are quietly building momentum in the 2025 election cycle, notching two key legislative flips in special elections and gaining ground in early polling ahead of the 2026 midterms. While the victories are modest in number, they signal a potential shift in voter sentiment — and a brewing backlash against Republican-led redistricting efforts.

    Out of 40 special elections held across the United States so far in 2025, only two seats have changed party control — both flipping from Republican to Democrat.

    Keep ReadingShow less
    Policing or Occupation? Trump’s Militarizing America’s Cities Sets a Dangerous Precedent

    A DC Metropolitan Police Department car is parked near a rally against the Trump Administration's federal takeover of the District of Columbia, outside of the AFL-CIO on August 11, 2025 in Washington, DC.

    (Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)

    Policing or Occupation? Trump’s Militarizing America’s Cities Sets a Dangerous Precedent

    President Trump announced the activation of hundreds of National Guard troops in Washington, D.C., along with the deployment of federal agents—including more than 100 from the FBI. This comes despite Justice Department data showing that violent crime in D.C. fell 35% from 2023 to 2024, reaching its lowest point in over three decades. These aren’t abstract numbers—they paint a picture of a city safer than it has been in a generation, with fewer homicides, assaults, and robberies than at any point since the early 1990s.

    The contradiction could not be more glaring: the same president who, on January 6, 2021, stalled for hours as a violent uprising engulfed the Capitol is now rushing to “liberate” a city that—based on federal data—hasn’t been this safe in more than thirty years. Then, when democracy itself was under siege, urgency gave way to dithering; today, with no comparable emergency—only vague claims of lawlessness—he mobilizes troops for a mission that looks less like public safety and more like political theater. The disparity between those two moments is more than irony; it is a blueprint for how power can be selectively applied, depending on whose power is threatened.

    Keep ReadingShow less