Skip to content
Project 2025
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories
Tracy Chapman and Luke Combs on stage

Luke Combs, politics and healing our nation's divide

Capitol Dome surrounded by red, white and blue balloons

Ten steps toward a better democracy

Project 2025: The Voting Rights Act

People protesting for voting rights in front of the Capitol

Protesters calling for voting rights protections march in Washington, D.C., in 2023.

Michael Nigro/Pacific Press/LightRocket via Getty Images
Tracy Adair
By Tracy AdairAug 09, 2024
Tracy Adair
See More Writings by author

Adair is communications and operations manager for Stand Up America.

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 The Fulcrum's cross partisan analysis of Project 2025 relies on unbiased critical thinking, reexamines outdated assumptions, and uses reason, scientific evidence, and data in analyzing and critiquing Project 2025.

As we mark the 59th anniversary of the Voting Rights Act this week, Black voters and other voters of color face a renewed effort to erode critical civil rights protections and to increase barriers at the ballot box.

The Voting Rights Act was designed to safeguard voters of color from discriminatory practices that diminish their voting power. In recent years, the Supreme Court has chipped away at the VRA’s protections, undermining the power of voters of color. However, some on the right would like to go even further. Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation’s extreme agenda for a second Trump administration, could take America back to the Jim Crow era.

Project 2025 stands as the antithesis to the spirit of the Voting Rights Act. It seeks to fundamentally alter the federal government and reshape every aspect of Americans’ lives by implementing an anti-democratic, far-right agenda aimed at taking away our fundamental rights and freedoms.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Project 2025 proposes stripping the Department of Justice’s integral Civil Rights Division, which defends Americans of color in civil rights cases. This would open the floodgates for bad actors to discriminate against Americans of color in every aspect of their lives, from voting rights to housing to employment to education. This election year alone, the DOJ has already stood on the side of voters in New Hampshire who received intimidating calls as part of a robocall scheme during their presidential primary — calls that were a direct violation of the Voting Rights Act.

The proposal would also raise campaign contribution limits, giving the rich and powerful an even louder voice in our elections and drowning out the voices of ordinary citizens. It would be remiss to ignore that white Americans make up the majority of this affluent group.

Project 2025 would force the DOJ’s Criminal Division to investigate “voter registration fraud and unlawful ballot correction” — currently a responsibility of the Civil Rights Division. The myth of widespread voter fraud has continually been disproven, and this change only seeks to intimidate Black voters suffering disproportionately from these falsehoods.

It’s no surprise that Project 2025 targets the civil rights and political power of Americans of color. At least five of the authors of the agenda, like writer Richard Hanania and retired politician Corey Stewart, have a history of writing essays for white supremacist publications or praising white nationalists. Project 2025 clearly promotes hate and division, evidenced by the fact that seven of the organizations sitting on the advisory board are designated as extremist or hate groups.

However, there’s still time to inform voters — particularly voters of color — of who’s behind Project 2025 and the extreme policies they are pushing. Some political leaders, including members of the Congressional Black Caucus, are already highlighting the harm many policies would unleash on Black and Brown communities. Black leaders in the pro-democracy space launched Project FREEDOM to help educate and mobilize voters of color ahead of November.

Former President Donald Trump wants to feign ignorance and distance himself from Project 2025, acting as if it has nothing to do with his campaign. Americans shouldn’t be fooled when our rights and fundamental freedoms are on the line. At least 140 people who helped craft Project 2025 worked in the Trump administration as key advisors or former staff.

The 59th anniversary of the Voting Rights Act reminds us of the sacrifice and resistance of Black leaders in the civil rights movement and the ongoing struggle to cultivate a truly representative democracy. There’s a lot at stake this November and Project 2025 presents a unique threat to our democracy. Let’s honor the work of those who came before us by making our voices heard this November. By defeating Project 2025 we will protect our fundamental freedoms.

More articles about Project 2025


    Latest news

    A fictional, fanciful sign depicts the results of voter suppression through the unfair, partisan manipulation of district lines (gerrymandering).
    Electoral Reforms

    The worst congressional gerrymanders of the 2020s

    Nvidia building and logo
    Media & Technology

    Is AI too big to fail?

    Read More

    Donald Trump and Tulsi Gabbard on stage

    President-elect Donald Trump has nominated former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard to be the director of national intelligence.

    Adam J. Dewey/Anadolu via Getty Images

    How a director of national intelligence helps a president stay on top of threats from around the world

    In all the arguments over whether President-elect Donald Trump’s choice for director of national intelligence is fit for the job, it’s easy to lose sight of why it matters.

    It matters a lot. To speak of telling truth to power seems terribly old-fashioned these days, but as a veteran of White House intelligence operations, I know that is the essence of the job.

    Keep ReadingShow less
    People protesting with signs

    Hundreds of supporters of trans rights rallied outside the Supreme Court on Dec. 4. The court will consider a case determining whether bans on gender-affirming care for children are unconstitutional.

    Marvin Joseph/The Washington Post via Getty Images

    Supreme Court ruling on trans care is literally life or death for teens

    Last month, the Supreme Court heard arguments on whether banning essential health care for trans youth is constitutional. What the justices (and lawmakers in many states) probably don’t realize is that they’re putting teenage lives at risk when they increase anti-trans measures. A recent report linked anti-transgender laws to increased teen suicide attempts among trans and gender-expansive youth.

    In some cases, attempted suicide rates increased by an astonishing 72 percent.

    Keep ReadingShow less
    Mother offering a glass of water to her toddler son.
    vitapix/Getty Images

    Water fluoridation helps prevent tooth decay – how growing opposition threatens a 70-year-old health practice

    Driving through downtown Dallas, you might see a striking banner hanging at the U-turn bridge, near the Walnut Hill exit on Central Expressway (US 75): “Stop Fluoridation!” Below it, other banners demand action and warn of supposed dangers.

    It’s not the first time fluoride has been at the center of public debate.

    Fluoride alternatives

    For those who prefer to avoid fluoride, there are alternatives to consider. But they come with challenges.

    Fluoride-free toothpaste is one option, but it is less effective at preventing cavities compared with fluoride-containing products. Calcium-based treatments, like hydroxyapatite toothpaste, are gaining popularity as a fluoride alternative, though research on their effectiveness is still limited.

    Diet plays a crucial role too. Cutting back on sugary snacks and drinks can significantly reduce the risk of cavities. Incorporating foods like crunchy vegetables, cheese and yogurt into your diet can help promote oral health by stimulating saliva production and providing essential nutrients that strengthen tooth enamel.

    However, these lifestyle changes require consistent effort and education – something not all people or communities have access to.

    Community programs like dental sealant initiatives can also help, especially for children. Sealants are thin coatings applied to the chewing surfaces of teeth, preventing decay in high-risk areas. While effective, these programs are more resource-intensive and can’t replicate the broad, passive benefits of water fluoridation.

    Ultimately, alternatives exist, but they place a greater burden on people and might not address the needs of the most vulnerable populations.

    Should fluoridation be a personal choice?

    The argument that water fluoridation takes away personal choice is one of the most persuasive stances against its use. Why not leave fluoride in toothpaste and mouthwash, giving people the freedom to use it or not, some argue.

    This perspective is understandable, but it overlooks the broader goals of public health. Fluoridation is like adding iodine to salt or vitamin D to milk. These are measures that prevent widespread health issues in a simple, cost-effective way. Such interventions aren’t about imposing choices; they’re about providing a baseline of protection for everyone.

    Without fluoridated water, low-income communities would bear the brunt of increased dental disease. Children, in particular, would suffer more cavities, leading to pain, missed school days and costly treatments. Public health policies aim to prevent these outcomes while balancing individual freedoms with collective well-being.

    For those who wish to avoid fluoride, alternatives like bottled or filtered water are available. At the same time, policymakers should continue to ensure that fluoridation levels are safe and effective, addressing concerns transparently to build trust.

    As debates about fluoride continue, the main question is how to best protect everyone’s oral health. While removing fluoride might appeal to those valuing personal choice, it risks undoing decades of progress against tooth decay.

    Whether through fluoridation or other methods, oral health remains a public health priority. Addressing it requires thoughtful, evidence-based solutions that ensure equity, safety and community well-being.The Conversation

    Noureldin is a clinical professor of cariology, prevention and restorative dentistry at Texas A&M University.

    This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

    Keep ReadingShow less
    People holding a sign in Spanish

    People hold a sign that translates to “Because the people save the people” at a Nov. 18 rally in Hartford, Connecticut. Immigrant rights advocates have called on state officials to reassure the public that the state is a welcoming place for immigrants.

    Dave Wurtzel/Connecticut Public

    Conn. immigrant rights advocates, officials brace for Trump’s plans

    As concerns about Donald Trump’s re-election grow among Latino immigrants in Connecticut, state officials and advocacy groups are voicing their support as they prepare to combat his promises to carry out the largest deportation efforts in the country’s history.

    Generations face the ‘unknown’

    Talia Lopez is a sophomore at Connecticut State Tunxis and the daughter of a Mexican immigrant. She is one of many in her school who are fearful of what is to come when Trump takes office.

    Keep ReadingShow less
    © Copyright 2024