Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Project 2025: The Department of Homeland Security

Photo of the Department of Homeland Security seal
Celal Gunes/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images

Schmidt is a syndicated columnist and editorial board member with the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

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 The Fulcrum's cross partisan analysis of Project 2025 relies on unbiased critical thinking, reexamines outdated assumptions, and uses reason, scientific evidence, and data in analyzing and critiquing Project 2025.


Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation’s blueprint for a second Trump administration, aims to completely dismantle the Department of Homeland Security, apply draconian reforms, and put much of its responsibilities directly under the White House in order to advance the next “conservative President’s” agenda. All of this would make our homeland much less secure.

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

That last line certainly wasn’t the last where Cucinelli lobs political accusations without offering a basis for his attacks.

If the project were to be successful in dismantling DHS, it would break up the department along its mission lines, while many offices would be eliminated. In order to understand why this plan would be a mistake, one needs to understand the history of the department.

Eleven days after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge was appointed as the first director of the Office of Homeland Security in the White House. The office oversaw and coordinated a comprehensive national strategy to safeguard the country against terrorism and respond to any future attacks. The Homeland Security Act was passed by Congress in November 2002 and DHS was created through the combination of 22 different federal departments and agencies into a unified, integrated department. DHS opened its doors in March 2003 as a way to coordinate and communicate our national homeland security efforts.

The main point to remember is that DHS was established so that all of our intelligence agencies would communicate more effectively with one another in order to facilitate intelligence sharing and connect the dots. This is just one reason that breaking up the department and separating its parts could have catastrophic consequences.

There were a couple of potentially positive suggestions within the chapter, like privatizing the Transportation Security Administration. However, Congress would need to hold hearings and analyze the costs and benefits rather than rely on suggestions that have not been fully researched.

Similarly, Project 2025 suggests increased congressional funding for facility upgrades at strategic land ports of entry, including expanding state-of-the-art technology such as non-intrusive inspection equipment. But for the most part, the Project 2025 section on Homeland Security is terribly irresponsible.

Perhaps the most alarming of all of the recommendations is moving front-office functions under the Office of Presidential Personnel, “which is not reliant on detailees from other parts of the department, to help ensure the completion of the next President’s agenda.”

It also suggests bypassing the constitutionally mandated Senate confirmation of agency leadership and placing their nominees as “actings” as well as removing lower-level positions from Senate confirmations. This would take power away from Congress and give it to the executive branch. What if a rogue president’s agenda was in conflict with the nation’s national security interest?

It recommends that the secretary “Can and should use his or her inherent, discretionary leadership authority to 'soft close’ ineffective and problematic corners of the department” and “Should plan to quickly remove all current members of the Homeland Security Advisory Committee and replace them as quickly as is feasible.”

A majority of the report focuses on restructuring and reforming border security and immigration. There are far too many details to include here but the plan would include changing the standards for family and unaccompanied detention and housing “to allow for large-scale use of temporary facilities (for example, tents)” and end the diversity visa lottery “while focusing on the nuclear family, and the existing employment visa program should be replaced with a system to award visas only to the ‘best and brightest.’”

Another particularly jarring section with blatantly partisan attacks concerns the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency. “Of the utmost urgency is immediately ending CISA’s counter-mis/disinformation efforts. In any event, the entirety of the CISA Cybersecurity Advisory Committee should be dismissed on Day One.” Project 2025 also advises moving CISA to the Department of Transportation.

In the 21 years since the department’s conception, there has not been a major terrorist attack on the United States. Due to the need to protect our national security secrets, the American people will never truly know what threats the brave men and women of DHS have prevented.

Current DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas shared the following remarks on the 20th anniversary of department’s creation: “Congress may not have predicted the extent of today’s threat environment when our Department was created 20 years ago, but our mission has never been more vital, our components have never collaborated more closely, our extraordinary workforce has never been more capable, and our nation has never been more prepared.”

It may sound trite to tie the following statement with our nation’s security but as the old saying goes, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” and our national defense is too precious to mess with.

More articles about Project 2025



    More in The Fulcrum about Project 2025


    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