Skip to content
Project 2025
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories
U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN)

Trump’s Plan to Strip Rep. Omar of Her Citizenship Is Unconstitutional and a Threat to All of Us

JD Vance

JD Vance Tells Republicans Who America’s Real Birthright Citizens Are

Group of voters stand in line

Six Key Voting Blocs Hold the Balance of Power on Nov. 3

Five men sitting on one side of a table, as a panel at an event.

Congressional Inaction Raises Constitutional Change Alternative

Man holding American flag

This Is What Makes America Great

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
Tracy Adair is a contributor for The Fulcrum, a nonpartisan publication dedicated to strengthening democracy by fostering informed civic engagement and elevating diverse perspectives.
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 The Fulcrum's cross partisan analysis of Project 2025 relies on unbiased critical thinking, reexamines outdated assumptions, and uses reason, scientific evidence, and data in analyzing and critiquing Project 2025.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.

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

    "I Voted" sticker
    Elections

    New Tool Reveals Which Americans Hold Outsized Voting Power

    Man dressed in jaguar costume
    Community

    Why Language Access Matters for Indigenous New Yorkers

    Texas Democratic Senate candidate James Talarico
    Elections

    Are Independent Voters About to Flip Texas?

    Woman sitting and typing on laptop on her lap.
    Media & Technology

    AI’s Information Crisis: Why Trust Is Harder to Sustain Than Ever

    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
    © Copyright 2026