Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Project 2025: The Department of Justice

Department of Justice building
Bo Shen/Getty Images

Becvar is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and executive director of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund. Nevins is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.

This is part of a series offering a nonpartisan counter to Project 2025, a conservative guideline to reforming government and policymaking during the first 180 days of a second Trump administration. The Fulcrum's cross partisan analysis of Project 2025 relies on unbiased critical thinking, reexamines outdated assumptions, and uses reason, scientific evidence, and data in analyzing and critiquing Project 2025.

The preamble of the Constitution sets up our national aspiration of a government by “We the People” as the basis of a democratic republic predicated on “justice.”


These powerful words have withstood the test of time for over 250 years:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

And of course, in the Pledge of Allegiance, we describe a nation that provides “justice for all.”

Justice, and how we define and implement it, is critical to the health of our democracy. Yet, to this day, our nation has many diverging views on what “justice for all” truly means and how this justice should be implemented in the laws of the land. This debate is not only a matter for our legislators but has also been a focal point for philosophers and theologians for centuries.

In the abstract, justice is simply fairness. However, when it comes to specifics, the debate rages across the land on what fairness means with respect to race, sexual orientation, gender and more.

Nowhere is this debate more apparent than in Project 2025, an 887-page manifesto prepared by the conservative think tank Heritage Foundation. The playbook, designed as a guide for the first 180 days of a future Trump administration, highlights the Department of Justice as a critical battleground for establishing a conservative vision of justice.

Chapter 17, titled “The Department of Justice,” argues that reforming the DOJ is crucial to the success of the entire agenda outlined in Project 2025. The authors make a bold claim:

"Not reforming the Department of Justice will also guarantee the failure of that conservative Administration’s agenda in countless other ways.”

Kevin Roberts, president of the Heritage Foundation and a key architect of Project 2025, underscored this priority when he told The New York Times in January, “[W]e just disagree wholly that the Department of Justice is independent of the president or the executive branch.” This perspective is emblematic of a broader strategy to bring the DOJ under close control of the executive, emphasizing that “the DOJ must be refocused on the rule of law and away from its current role as a political weapon.”

Robert’s statement on the DOJ’s use as a “political weapon” by the current Democratic administration stands in direct contrast to a statement he made regarding the department and the 2020 election:

“With respect to the 2020 presidential election, there were no DOJ investigations of the appropriateness or lawfulness of state election guidance. ... The Pennsylvania Secretary of State should have been (and still should be) investigated and prosecuted for potential violations.”

This juxtaposition speaks to the vast reach and changes proposed in Project 2025 for the Justice Department, the essence of justice in America and what “justice for all” might come to mean.

Project 2025’s proposed reforms include replacing career civil servants with a "vast expansion" of political appointees, overturning the current “politicization and weaponization” of the DOJ, and conducting a thorough review of the FBI. The vision is to shift the DOJ towards a more conservative interpretation of law enforcement and justice, which includes prosecuting voter fraud, transferring responsibility to the DOJ's criminal division, and halting investigations of groups engaged in lawful and constitutionally protected activities.

How might some of these reforms be specifically implemented? The answer is exemplified in this one radical sentence: "Promptly and properly eliminate ... all existing consent decrees.”

The Justice Department typically hands down consent decrees to local jurisdictions following investigations into police wrongdoing. As just one example, these decrees have historically compelled jails to improve their conditions or police departments to consider their tactics and report back to the Justice Department. This change would drastically impact the oversight of local law enforcement and the protection of civil rights.

The implications of Project 2025 on justice in America extend beyond the DOJ. The cultural agenda embedded within the project is also significant. As stated on the fourth and fifth pages of the playbook:

“The next conservative President must make the institutions of American civil society hard targets for woke culture warriors. This starts with deleting the terms sexual orientation and gender identity (‘SOGI’), diversity, equity, and inclusion (‘DEI’), gender, gender equality, gender equity, gender awareness, gender-sensitive, abortion, reproductive health, reproductive rights, and any other term used to deprive Americans of their First Amendment rights out of every federal rule, agency regulation, contract, grant, regulation, and piece of legislation that exists.”

Understanding how the proposed changes to the Department of Justice intersect with Project 2025’s cultural agenda is crucial. Together, they have the potential to fundamentally alter and undermine the application of justice in America, challenging the very foundation of our Constitution’s preamble: “to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”

More in The Fulcrum about Project 2025


      Read More

      People wearing vests with "ICE" and "Police" on the back.
      The latest shutdown deal kept government open while exposing Congress’s reliance on procedural oversight rather than structural limits on ICE.
      Getty Images, Douglas Rissing

      Where Can Immigration Enforcement Take Place?

      This nonpartisan policy brief, written by an ACE fellow, is republished by The Fulcrum as part of our partnership with the Alliance for Civic Engagement and our NextGen initiative — elevating student voices, strengthening civic education, and helping readers better understand democracy and public policy.

      The Origins: The Clinton Administration

      Keep ReadingShow less
      The Iran war could shape American policy for decades

      U.S. forces patrol the Arabian Sea near M/V Touska on April 20, 2026, after firing upon the Iranian-flagged vessel that the U.S. accused of attempting to violate the U.S. naval blockade of Iranian ports near the Strait of Hormuz.

      (U.S. Navy/Getty Images/TNS)

      The Iran war could shape American policy for decades

      The war with Iran that never really ended is back on. Like everybody else, including the Trump administration and the Iranian regime, I have no idea how it will end. But it eventually will, and how it will be remembered will matter enormously.

      Politics is about many things, but whether you call it “spin,” “framing” or “narrative competition,” storytelling is never far from the heart of it. As the philosopher Richard Rorty observed, “Competition for political leadership is in part a competition between differing stories about a nation’s self-identity, and between differing symbols of its greatness.”

      Keep ReadingShow less
      Presidential powers: Corporate abuses big concern after SCOTUS move

      An oil production operation is shown in North Dakota. With the U.S. Supreme Court granting more presidential powers to the executive branch, environmental groups warned key agencies will have a harder time going after polluters.

      (Adobe Stock)

      Presidential powers: Corporate abuses big concern after SCOTUS move

      A U.S. Supreme Court opinion issued last month expands presidential power over independent federal agencies, prompting warnings from environmental advocates about potential implications for states such as North Dakota.

      The court’s conservative majority said President Donald Trump had the authority to fire a former Federal Trade Commission member without cause. Legal observers countered the opinion nullifies longstanding precedent involving the role of Congress in insulating certain federal agency officials from direct presidential control.

      Keep ReadingShow less
      6 US Cities that Show America What Independent Leadership Looks Like

      Image: Downtown Riverside, California. By Matt Gush on Alamy.

      Provided: Image license obtained and used exclusively by IVN Editor Shawn Griffiths.

      6 US Cities that Show America What Independent Leadership Looks Like

      Independent candidates face structural barriers at every level of American politics—ballot access restrictions, fundraising disadvantages, and the near-total dominance of two-party infrastructure. The problem is only getting more stark with recent rulings such as this week’s NRSC v. FEC, where the Supreme Court ruled that First Amendment considerations bar limits on how much money political parties can spend in support of their candidates.But the absence of independent officeholders is not absolute. At the local level, a number of mayors governing major American cities have been elected outside of party structures, winning competitive races and building governing records, showing American voters what independent leadership can mean.

      While some of these officeholders are more closely affiliated with major parties than others, they have all publicly spoken on their independence.

      Keep ReadingShow less