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

US Capitol building
The United States Capitol building with its white dome against a blue sky

Would Congressional Term Limits Make Congress Better—or Worse?

Starting in the 1990’s, the idea of putting term limits on members of Congress became a recurring idea to reform the institution and improve democracy. The idea was born out of the theory that replacing the current crop of legislators with a new batch would produce a better Congress. More than 30 years later we now have quantitative and qualitative data showing the impact of term limits.

Twenty-one state legislatures have enacted some kind of term limit on legislators since 1990. Since then, dozens of academic studies have examined the impact on such factors as: complexity of legislation, influence of lobbyists and staff on legislative outcomes, and interactions with constituent. Here are some key findings.

Keep ReadingShow less
Hand points to the word tax on a screen

Data calculations

Getty Images

Inconvenient Numbers Are a Sign the System Works

Earlier in October, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that consumer prices rose 3.7 percent over the past year, a little higher than the month before, with gasoline accounting for more than half of September's increase. Rising prices are the kind of news no incumbent politician wants weeks before an election. The report was published anyway, on schedule. That is the quiet discipline of a trustworthy statistical system. It tells us what is true even when the number is unwelcome to whoever holds power.

So, do Americans trust government data? We do. But that trust is incomplete, and it has room to grow.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Pennsylvania state capitol building.

The Pennsylvania state capitol building.

jimfeng/Getty Images

Pennsylvania’s Bipartisan Exchange Is Rebuilding Trust in Governance

The University of Pittsburgh Institute of Politics has nearly 40 years of experience working with legislators from different political parties, and it is building on this history by drawing on lessons from the successful American Congressional Exchange model, begun in 2018 at the Bipartisan Policy Center, and from state exchanges now underway in Minnesota and Michigan. The University of Pittsburgh Institute of Politics, in collaboration with the Bridge Alliance, has launched the Pennsylvania Legislative Exchange.

This state-based, systematic approach is designed to foster better relationships and build trust across the political aisle with the following guiding principles:

Keep ReadingShow less
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