Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Project 2025: A threat to American values

David Pepper and Alexander Vindman

Kettering Foundation Senior Fellows Alexander Vindman and David Pepper

Kettering Foundation

This is part of a series offering a nonpartisan counter toProject 2025, a conservative guideline to reforming government and policymaking during the first 180 days of a second Trump administration. The Fulcrum'scross-partisan analysis of Project 2025 relies on unbiased critical thinking, reexamines outdated assumptions, and uses reason, scientific evidence, and data in analyzing and critiquingProject 2025.

Kettering Foundation Senior Fellows David Pepper and Alexander Vindman spoke with the organization’s chief external affairs officer and director of D.C. operations, Brad Rourke, about Project 2025, the controversial Heritage Foundation plan to reshape American democracy.


Pepper is a lawyer, writer, political activist, adjunct professor, former elected official, former chair of the Ohio Democratic Party. While leading the party in Ohio, he was engaged in numerous battles and extensive litigation over voter suppression and election laws in the Buckeye State, as well as reform efforts to enhance voting and end gerrymandering. Pepper is the author of “Laboratories of Autocracy: A Wake-Up Call from Behind the Lines” and “Saving Democracy: A User’s Manual for Every American.”

Vindman, a retired lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Army, was the director for European affairs on the National Security Council. He previously served at the Pentagon as the political-military affairs officer for Russia and as an attaché at the American embassies in Moscow and Kyiv. While on the joint staff, he authored the U.S. National Military Strategy for Russia. His military awards include two Legions of Merit and the Purple Heart, having sustained wounds in an IED attack during the Iraq War.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Pepper and Vindman unpack the dangers and profound changes posed by Project 2025, including threats to the rule of law, civil service integrity and military loyalty. This eye-opening conversation explores the potential future of U.S. governance and the values at stake.

Enjoy this insightful podcast:

This conversation was filmed on July 10 before the assassination attempt of former President Trump. The Charles F. Kettering Foundation condemns political violence. Such acts work against a healthy, inclusive democracy, and we must work toward a future where everyone can engage in the democratic process without fear.

More in The Fulcrum about Project 2025

      Read More

      The Fragile Ceasefire in Gaza

      A view of destruction as Palestinians, who returned to the city following the ceasefire agreement between Israel and Hamas, struggle to survive among ruins of destroyed buildings during cold weather in Jabalia, Gaza on January 23, 2025.

      Getty Images / Anadolu

      The Fragile Ceasefire in Gaza

      Ceasefire agreements are like modern constitutions. They are fragile, loaded with idealistic promises, and too easily ignored. Both are also crucial to the realization of long-term regional peace. Indeed, ceasefires prevent the violence that is frequently the fuel for instability, while constitutions provide the structure and the guardrails that are equally vital to regional harmony.

      More than ever, we need both right now in the Middle East.

      Keep ReadingShow less
      Money Makes the World Go Round Roundtable

      The Committee on House Administration meets on the 15th anniversary of the SCOTUS decision on Citizens United v. FEC.

      Medill News Service / Samanta Habashy

      Money Makes the World Go Round Roundtable

      WASHINGTON – On the 15th anniversary of the Supreme Court’s ruling on Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, and one day after President Trump’s inauguration, House Democrats made one thing certain: money determines politics, not the other way around.

      “One of the terrible things about Citizens United is people feel that they're powerless, that they have no hope,” said Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Ma.).

      Keep ReadingShow less
      Top-Two Primaries Under the Microscope

      The United States Supreme Court.

      Getty Images / Rudy Sulgan

      Top-Two Primaries Under the Microscope

      Fourteen years ago, after the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional the popular blanket primary system, Californians voted to replace the deeply unpopular closed primary that replaced it with a top-two system. Since then, Democratic Party insiders, Republican Party insiders, minor political parties, and many national reform and good government groups, have tried (and failed) to deep-six the system because the public overwhelmingly supports it (over 60% every year it’s polled).

      Now, three minor political parties, who opposed the reform from the start and have unsuccessfully sued previously, are once again trying to overturn it. The Peace and Freedom Party, the Green Party, and the Libertarian Party have teamed up to file a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Their brief repeats the same argument that the courts have previously rejected—that the top-two system discriminates against parties and deprives voters of choice by not guaranteeing every party a place on the November ballot.

      Keep ReadingShow less
      Independents as peacemakers

      Group of people waving small American flags at sunset.

      Getty Images//Simpleimages

      Independents as peacemakers

      In the years ahead, independents, as candidates and as citizens, should emerge as peacemakers. Even with a new administration in Washington, independents must work on a long-term strategy for themselves and for the country.

      The peacemaker model stands in stark contrast to what might be called the marriage counselor model. Independent voters, on the marriage counselor model, could elect independent candidates for office or convince elected politicians to become independents in order to secure the leverage needed to force the parties to compromise with each other. On this model, independents, say six in the Senate, would be like marriage counselors because their chief function would be to put pressure on both parties to make deals, especially when it comes to major policy bills that require 60 votes in the Senate.

      Keep ReadingShow less