Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
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

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