Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

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 The Fulcrum's cross partisan analysis of Project 2025 relies on unbiased critical thinking, reexamines outdated assumptions, and uses reason, scientific evidence, and data in analyzing and critiquing Project 2025.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

    Congress Bill Spotlight: Remove the Stain Act

    A deep look at the fight over rescinding Medals of Honor from U.S. soldiers at Wounded Knee, the political clash surrounding the Remove the Stain Act, and what’s at stake for historical justice.

    Getty Images, Stocktrek Images

    Congress Bill Spotlight: Remove the Stain Act

    Should the U.S. soldiers at 1890’s Wounded Knee keep the Medal of Honor?

    Context: history

    Keep ReadingShow less
    The Recipe for a Humanitarian Crisis: 600,000 Venezuelans Set to Be Returned to the “Mouth of the Shark”

    Migrant families from Honduras, Guatemala, Venezuela and Haiti live in a migrant camp set up by a charity organization in a former hospital, in the border town of Matamoros, Mexico.

    (Photo by Andrew Lichtenstein/Corbis via Getty Images)

    The Recipe for a Humanitarian Crisis: 600,000 Venezuelans Set to Be Returned to the “Mouth of the Shark”

    On October 3, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way for Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to end Temporary Protected Status for roughly 600,000 Venezuelans living in the United States, effective November 7, 2025. Although the exact mechanisms and details are unclear at this time, the message from DHS is: “Venezuelans, leave.”

    Proponents of the Administration’s position (there is no official Opinion from SCOTUS, as the ruling was part of its shadow docket) argue that (1) the Secretary of DHS has discretion to determine designate whether a country is safe enough for individuals to return from the US, (2) “Temporary Protected Status” was always meant to be temporary, and (3) the situation in Venezuela has improved enough that Venezuelans in the U.S. may now safely return to Venezuela. As a lawyer who volunteers with immigrants, I admit that the two legal bases—Secretary’s broad discretion and the temporary nature of TPS—carry some weight, and I will not address them here.

    Keep ReadingShow less
    For the Sake of Our Humanity: Humane Theology and America’s Crisis of Civility

    Praying outdoors

    ImagineGolf/Getty Images

    For the Sake of Our Humanity: Humane Theology and America’s Crisis of Civility

    The American experiment has been sustained not by flawless execution of its founding ideals but by the moral imagination of people who refused to surrender hope. From abolitionists to suffragists to the foot soldiers of the civil-rights movement, generations have insisted that the Republic live up to its creed. Yet today that hope feels imperiled. Coarsened public discourse, the normalization of cruelty in policy, and the corrosion of democratic trust signal more than political dysfunction—they expose a crisis of meaning.

    Naming that crisis is not enough. What we need, I argue, is a recovered ethic of humaneness—a civic imagination rooted in empathy, dignity, and shared responsibility. Eric Liu, through Citizens University and his "Civic Saturday" fellows and gatherings, proposes that democracy requires a "civic religion," a shared set of stories and rituals that remind us who we are and what we owe one another. I find deep resonance between that vision and what I call humane theology. That is, a belief and moral framework that insists public life cannot flourish when empathy is starved.

    Keep ReadingShow less
    The Myth of Colorblind Fairness

    U.S. Supreme Court

    Photo by mana5280 on Unsplash

    The Myth of Colorblind Fairness

    Two years after the Supreme Court banned race-conscious college admissions in Students for Fair Admissions, universities are scrambling to maintain diversity through “race-neutral” alternatives they believe will be inherently fair. New economic research reveals that colorblind policies may systematically create inequality in ways more pervasive than even the notorious “old boy” network.

    The “old boy” network, as its name suggests, is nothing new—evoking smoky cigar lounges or golf courses where business ties are formed, careers are launched, and those not invited are left behind. Opportunity reproduces itself, passed down like an inheritance if you belong to the “right” group. The old boy network is not the only example of how a social network can discriminate. In fact, my research shows it may not even be the best one. And how social networks discriminate completely changes the debate about diversity.

    Keep ReadingShow less