Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Project 2025: Department of Homeland Security

Project 2025: Department of Homeland Security

Soldiers guard Capitol Hill as a helicopter patrols the air.

Getty Images, ninjaMonkeyStudio

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

When it came to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Project 2025’s main goal was to dismantle the entire department. Other recommendations included reforming some of the subdepartments, eliminating some programs, and putting much of their responsibilities directly under the White House.


President Donald Trump has not taken Project 2025’s main recommendation for DHS. In fact, he has done quite the opposite. Since Project 2025’s suggestions would have made America much less safe, Trump should be praised for not following them.

Instead of breaking DHS apart, as Project 2025 suggested, Trump is directing more resources to DHS.

Trump’s pick for DHS secretary, former South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem, shared the following in her welcome remarks to DHS staff on January 28, “We will be the first line of defense for anybody that's in the American homeland. We will do everything that we can to protect the American people.”

Noem also promised to provide the necessary resources to accomplish the agency’s goals.

So, at least from the top, the focus is consistent with DHS’ mission statement, which after September 11, 2001, exclaimed: “We rallied together for our common defense, and we pledged to stand united against the threats attacking our great Nation, fellow Americans, and way of life.”

Prior to her confirmation, Noem told the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee that “several DHS components have lost track of their missions and are in need of sweeping reforms” and promised to reshape their focuses.

Trump ran his 2024 reelection campaign in part on border security and immigration. Many, including me, believe he won because this issue was of utmost importance to many Americans, so it comes as no surprise that he is using DHS to secure the border even further than it was during the last year of former President Biden’s administration.

According to a memo obtained by CBS News, DHS has authorized law enforcement agents from across the federal government to partake in “investigating, determining the location of, and apprehending undocumented migrants.”

The directive allows federal law enforcement agents to conduct immigration-related enforcement actions that are usually reserved for officials under DHS.

The memo, authored by acting Homeland Security Secretary Benjamine Huffman, says DHS will grant "the functions of an immigration officer" to several Justice Department law enforcement agencies, including the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, and the U.S. Marshals Service.

Several days later, there was additional reporting on a memo that Noem sent out on February 7, which extends the above directive to Internal Revenue Service (IRS) officers. Noem asked Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent to deputize qualified IRS agents for certain immigration enforcement efforts and noted their “tasks could include, among other things, auditing employers accused of hiring illegal immigrants, investigating trafficking organizations and seizing properties tied to immigration-related offenses.”

Trump’s and Noem’s move to increase the number of agents involved in immigration enforcement has raised concerns about potential civil rights abuses and inter-agency competition. Other critics argue that these actions have gone beyond the intended scope of DHS’ authority and have raised legal and ethical questions.

One area that Project 2025 and the current administration agree on is the level of bureaucracy and governmental “wokeness.”

Ken Cuccinelli, the author of Project 2025’s chapter on DHS, described the department as “bloated, bureaucratic, and expensive.” He went on to write “DHS has also suffered from the Left’s wokeness and weaponization against Americans whom the Left perceives as its political opponents.”

In one of his first actions, Trump signed an executive order entitled “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity,” which terminates all Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs in all federal agencies, which of course includes DHS, as well as all federal contractors.

Cuccinelli also wrote in Project 2025 that the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), which is a component of DHS, should “immediately end their counter-mis/disinformation efforts.”

This effort has seemingly been adopted by the new administration and goes even further as the Associated Press (AP) reported on February 10 that “staffers at the nation’s cybersecurity agency (CISA), whose job is to ensure the security of U.S. elections, have been placed on administrative leave, jeopardizing critical support provided to state and local election offices across the country.”

When I wrote the piece on Project 2025’s recommendations for DHS back in July 2024, I suggested that if the next conservative president were to disassemble DHS, as Project 2025 advocated for, the country would be much less safe. Trump has not followed the primary recommendation that the President pursue legislation to dismantle the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

When looking only at their leading proposition, Trump has done the opposite of what Project 2025 advised. Instead of tearing it apart, Trump is strengthening DHS by dedicating more resources to its charge, specifically toward immigration and border security.

Samples of Phase 2 articles about Project 2025

Samples of Phase 1 articles about Project 2025

Lynn Schmidt is a columnist and Editorial Board member with the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. She holds a masters of science in political science as well as a bachelors of science in nursing.


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