Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

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 The Fulcrum's cross partisan analysis of Project 2025 relies on unbiased critical thinking, reexamines outdated assumptions, and uses reason, scientific evidence, and data in analyzing and critiquing Project 2025.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

    Pro-Trump protestors
    Trump supporters who attempted to overturn the 2020 election results are now seeking influential election oversight roles in battleground states.
    Andrew Lichtenstein/Getty Images

    Loving Someone Who Thinks the Election Was Stolen

    He’s the kind of man you’d want as a neighbor in a storm.

    Big guy. Strong hands. The person you’d call if your car slid into a ditch. He lives rural, works hard, supports a wife and young son, and helps care for his aging mom. Life has not been easy, but he shows up anyway.

    Keep ReadingShow less
    Project 2025 Drives Trump’s State Dept Overhaul

    U.S. President Donald Trump in the Oval Office of the White House on December 15, 2025 in Washington, DC.

    (Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

    Project 2025 Drives Trump’s State Dept Overhaul

    In May 2025, I wrote about the Trump administration’s early State Department reforms aligned with Project 2025, including calls for budget cuts, mission closures, and policy realignments. At the time, the most controversial move was an executive order targeting the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), shutting it down and freezing all federal foreign aid. This decision reflected Project 2025’s recommendation to scale back and "deradicalize" USAID by eliminating programs deemed overly politicized or inconsistent with conservative values. The report specifically criticized USAID for funding progressive initiatives, such as policies addressing systemic racism and central economic planning, arguing that U.S. foreign aid had become a "massive and open-ended global entitlement program" benefiting left-leaning organizations. The process connecting the report’s ideological critiques to this executive action involved a strategic alignment between key administration officials and Project 2025 architects, who lobbied for immediate policy adjustments. This coalition effectively linked the critique to policy by framing it as a necessary step toward realigning foreign aid with national interests and conservative principles.

    Back then, I predicted even more sweeping changes to the State Department. Since May, several major developments have indeed reshaped the department:

    Keep ReadingShow less
    SNAP Isn’t a Negotiating Tool. It’s a Lifeline.
    apples and bananas in brown cardboard box
    Photo by Maria Lin Kim on Unsplash

    SNAP Isn’t a Negotiating Tool. It’s a Lifeline.

    Millions of families just survived the longest shutdown in U.S. history. Now they’re bracing again as politicians turn food assistance into a bargaining chip.

    Food assistance should not be subject to politics, yet the Trump administration is now requiring over 20 Democratic-led states to share sensitive SNAP recipient data—including Social Security and immigration details—or risk losing funding. Officials call it "program integrity," but the effect is clear: millions of low-income families may once again have their access to food threatened by political disputes.

    Keep ReadingShow less
    Democrats’ Redistricting Gains Face New Court Battles Ahead of 2026 Elections
    us a flag on white concrete building

    Democrats’ Redistricting Gains Face New Court Battles Ahead of 2026 Elections

    Earlier this year, I reported on Democrats’ redistricting wins in 2025, highlighting gains in states like California and North Carolina. As of December 18, the landscape has shifted again, with new maps finalized, ongoing court battles, and looming implications for the 2026 midterms.

    Here are some key developments since mid‑2025:

    • California: Voters approved Proposition 50 in November, allowing legislature‑drawn maps that eliminated three safe Republican seats and made two more competitive. Democrats in vulnerable districts were redrawn into friendlier territory.
    • Virginia: On December 15, Democrats in the House of Delegates pushed a constitutional amendment on redistricting during a special session. Republicans denounced the move as unconstitutional, setting up a legal and political fight ahead of the 2026 elections.
    • Other states in play:
      • Ohio, Texas, Utah, Missouri, North Carolina: New maps are already in effect, reshaping battlegrounds.
      • Florida and Maryland: Legislatures have begun steps toward redistricting, though maps are not yet finalized.
      • New York: Court challenges may force changes to existing maps before 2026.
      • National picture: According to VoteHub’s tracker, the current district breakdown stands at 189 Democratic‑leaning, 205 Republican‑leaning, and 41 highly competitive seats.

    Implications for 2026

    • Democrats’ wins in California and North Carolina strengthen their position, but legal challenges in Virginia and New York could blunt momentum.
    • Republicans remain favored in Texas and Ohio, where maps were redrawn to secure GOP advantages.
    • The unusually high number of mid‑decade redistricting efforts — not seen at this scale since the 1800s — underscores how both parties are aggressively shaping the battlefield for 2026.
    So, here's the BIG PICTURE: The December snapshot shows Democrats still benefiting from redistricting in key states, but the fight is far from settled. With courts weighing in and legislatures maneuvering, the balance of power heading into the 2026 House elections remains fluid. What began as clear Democratic wins earlier in 2025 has evolved into a multi‑front contest over maps, legality, and political control.

    Hugo Balta is the executive editor of the Fulcrum and the publisher of the Latino News Network