Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

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

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 The Fulcrum's cross partisan analysis of Project 2025 relies on unbiased critical thinking, reexamines outdated assumptions, and uses reason, scientific evidence, and data in analyzing and critiquing Project 2025.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

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



    Read More

    An Iranian flag and the message "No King" graffitied on the ruins of the data center building of Sharif University of Technology after a U.S.-Israeli missile strike on April 7, 2026 in Tehran, Iran.

    How has the meaning of military victory changed? Explore Iran, deterrence, nuclear weapons, and why modern wars are fought with limited objectives.

    Kaveh Kazemi/Getty Images

    The Last War We Understood

    Every modern conflict seems to produce the same debate.

    Supporters argue that military action achieved its objectives. Critics ask why the enemy still exists. Iran is only the latest example.

    Keep ReadingShow less
    United States Capitol building and blurred American flag against blue sky

    America’s aging Congress has no maximum age limit. Could a constitutional amendment create age limits for lawmakers and better represent younger voters?

    TGI /Tetra Images

    Congress Has an Age Floor and No Ceiling. That's Backwards for Gen Z.

    Senator Dianne Feinstein's visible decline in her final years in office. Senator Lindsey Graham's sudden death. Senator Mitch McConnell's own recent hospitalization, and his halting explanation of it afterward. Three senators, three separate incidents, no obvious connection between them, except that the saga of these three senators is really one story about the problem of not knowing when to step down. That framing asks the right question of individual leaders. But it assumes the problem is a matter of personal judgment, each senator, in his or her own time, finding the wisdom to recognize the moment has passed. I think that gets the American version of this problem backwards. Congress's age problem is not a string of individual judgment calls. It is a structural feature of the Constitution itself, and it is quietly reshaping who gets represented in American government.

    The Constitution sets a floor for federal office and no ceiling. A representative must be at least twenty-five. A senator must be at least thirty. A president must be at least thirty-five. Nothing in the document says how old is too old. Combine that asymmetry with the enormous advantages of incumbency, better name recognition, fundraising networks, committee seniority, and the result is predictable: a Congress that can start young but can never age out. It can only age up. The 119th Congress is now the third oldest in American history, with an average member age of nearly fifty-nine and a Senate averaging in the mid-sixties. This is not a temporary blip. It is the natural output of a system with a gate on one end and no gate on the other.

    Keep ReadingShow less
    The Enduring Illusion of Article the first
    a large white building with a flag on top of it

    The Enduring Illusion of Article the first

    This is the third and final installment of our series on “Article the first.” Previous parts examined the history of the single inverted word that turned an intended floor into a ceiling and its impact on the amendment’s failed ratification. This concluding part outlines the path forward for enlarging the House today.

    Part 3 — The Path Forward

    Keep ReadingShow less
    The Enduring Illusion of Article the first

    Painting from 1856 by Junius Brutus Stearns of George Washington at the Constitutional Convention of 1787.

    The Enduring Illusion of Article the first

    This is the second of a three-part series on the First Amendment proposed by Congress in 1789—often called “Article the first”—which was never ratified. Part 1 explained how a single inverted word in the text created a mathematical absurdity that has been misread for 237 years. This second part explores the untold history of how that defect affected the original ratification process in state legislatures.

    Part 2 — The Untold History

    Keep ReadingShow less