Skip to content
Project 2025
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories
USA Presidential voters on electoral college map

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact Federalism at Its Best

​U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX)

Ted Cruz’s “Darkest Before Dawn” Melodrama Misses the Message of the Midterms

Voters in Alaska

What To Know About Alaska’s Election System

Blue wave with the US Capitol building

The 2026 Blue Wave: Voters Rejected Trump, Not Endorsed Democrats

President Donald Trump

Donald Trump’s Midterm Delusion: Why a Red Wave Turned Blue

Project 2025: Reshaping American Justice Under Trump

Opinion

Silver sign of Department of Justice on a classical concrete wall with plants as foreground.

Silver sign of Department of Justice on a classical concrete wall with plants as foreground.

Getty Images, Dragon Claws
Kristina Becvar
By Kristina BecvarApr 22, 2025
Kristina Becvar

In her role as co-publisher of The Fulcrum and Executive Director of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund, she is a driving force behind collaborative efforts to transform our democracy. Recognizing that no single idea or organization can address our complex challenges in isolation, Kristina excels in blending intuitive leadership with data-driven insights. Her extensive background in operations and change management, coupled with her M.S. in data analytics and research methods, equips her with a powerful skill set. Kristina brings a focused approach to the essential work required for a thriving democratic republic.

See More Writings by author

Last spring and summer, The Fulcrum published a 30-part series on Project 2025. Now that Donald Trump’s second term The Fulcrum has started Part 2 of the series has commenced.

Since President Trump returned to the White House in January 2025, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has undergone a rapid and radical transformation—one that closely mirrors the recommendations laid out in the controversial Project 2025 blueprint.

From day one, Trump wasted no time issuing Executive Order 14147, titled “ Ending the Weaponization of the Federal Government.” This directive wasn’t just symbolic—it set in motion sweeping investigations inside federal agencies, including the DOJ, demanding that department heads identify and root out so-called political bias and misconduct from past administrations. While framed as a return to impartial justice, the order is being used to target former officials who resisted Trump’s 2020 election claims, including former Homeland Security official Miles Taylor and Cybersecurity Director Chris Krebs. The message is clear: dissent will be punished.

Meanwhile, Attorney General Pam Bondi—another loyalist with deep ties to the Trump campaign—has accelerated enforcement changes that would have once been unthinkable. The DOJ has issued new guidance that threatens legal action against local and state officials who fail to comply with federal immigration crackdowns, particularly those in sanctuary cities. This represents a stunning reversal from previous DOJ positions and marks an expansion of federal muscle into local jurisdictions.

Also under Bondi’s watch, the DOJ has shifted its civil rights priorities. Voting rights enforcement has taken a back seat to high-profile investigations into so-called voter fraud —an issue consistently emphasized in Project 2025 as justification for tighter voting regulations. Civil rights groups warn that these investigations could be used to intimidate voters and justify future restrictions.

Simultaneously, under the guise of government efficiency, the newly created Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) is implementing mass layoffs and restructuring across federal agencies—including the DOJ. These moves are sold as cost-saving but they function as a loyalty purge, ensuring that only those aligned with Trump’s vision remain in key legal and policy roles.

Perhaps most telling is Trump’s nomination of Dean John Sauer as Solicitor General. Sauer is known for his far-right legal views and was involved in litigation efforts to overturn the 2020 election. His nomination is a loud declaration that this administration intends to fundamentally alter not just how laws are enforced but what laws deserve to be upheld.

None of these moves are happening in a vacuum. They are part of a deliberate strategy to centralize power in the executive branch, weaken federal independence, and reorient American justice toward loyalty over law. For those who brushed off Project 2025 as political fan fiction, the first 100 days of this administration are a sobering wake-up call.

The Department of Justice should be the ultimate guardian of impartiality and the rule of law. Instead, it is being reshaped into a political weapon—one that strikes down opposition and consolidates power behind a single ideology. If this continues, we may soon find ourselves asking not how far Trump will go but how much longer justice will be independent at all.


Kristina Becvar is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and Executive Director of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.


Latest news

You Can’t Buy Authenticity
Democracy

You Can’t Buy Authenticity

U.S. Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-LA)
Elections

The Customer Is Always Right: Why Speaker Johnson’s Post-Midterm Arrogance Misses the Mark

Judge's Gavel Hammer as a Symbol of Law and Order with Processor CPU AI Chip.
Media & Technology

Let the Bots Have the Internet!

Read More

​Protesters listen to speakers at a rally in support of a former Cornell University student known as Jane Doe

Protesters listen to speakers at a rally in support of a former Cornell University student known as Jane Doe at the Ithaca Commons on October 13, 2026 in Ithaca, New York.

(Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

Sexual Violence Requires More Than Legal Accountability

In the wake of public attention to the Cornell fraternity alleged gang-rape, headlines resound with statements of concern and calls for greater accountability. These calls are not new. They have followed countless incidents of sexual violence, whether on a college campus, in connection with work, or within an intimate relationship. Despite decades of law and policy reform, sexual violence continues to run rampant. While law and policy reform are sorely needed, we will not see long-lasting change unless we address what accountability truly means. Our collective response should aim for a world where no one would ever think it was ok to commit, condone, or be a passive witness to sexual violence, never mind that it would be ok to send the kind of text messages that were allegedly exchanged at the Cornell fraternity where the rape allegedly took place.

As policymakers consider reform, a comprehensive approach to accountability should consider the known limitations of criminal and civil justice systems. Problems with the criminal legal system are legion, both within and beyond sexual violence cases. These include racially discriminatory application of laws criminalizing sexual violence, that, for example, have led to harsher punishment when the accused is a person of color and lesser punishment when the survivor is a person of color. Survivors continue to be doubted and subjected to biases and stereotypes, including that survivors lie about their experience, that they somehow invited the violence, or act with self-interest or ulterior motive when coming forward.

Keep ReadingShow less
A gavel.

From the Gilded Age to Citizens United, discover how recent Supreme Court rulings empower mega-donors, reshape party spending, and impact American democracy.

Getty Images, David Talukdar

Supreme Court’s Campaign Finance Rulings Help the GOP

American elections have always been dominated by moneyed interests. For instance, during America’s last Gilded Age, in the presidential election of 1896, William McKinley, the Republican candidate, outspent his Democratic challenger by $3.5 million (roughly $140 million in today's dollars) to $400,000 (approximately $16 million today). McKinley went on to win the election with the help of robber baron J.P. Morgan and monopoly Standard Oil. As the example shows, powerful special interests have often translated their vast economic power into political influence. But recent court decisions threaten to permanently entrench the financial imbalance between the Republican and Democratic parties.

In this light, the Republican National Committee’s (RNC) decision to transfer more than $50 million to beleaguered congressional campaigns across the country must be judged. The impact of this massive infusion of cash into the otherwise struggling Senate campaigns cannot be overemphasized. On the other side, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) cannot match the GOP’s deep pockets filled by the likes of Elon Musk. The Republicans, even before this deluge of special interest money, enjoyed financial advantages. The money is coming at a particularly pivotal moment in the campaign as Republicans find themselves electorally underwater due to Trump’s unpopularity.

Keep ReadingShow less
Close up of a judge hammering a gavel

Investigations, indictments, dismissals, convictions: what each means and the questions to ask before judging claims of political weaponization of the law.

Chris Collins/Getty Images

Just the Facts: Trump, DOJ and the Legal Process

The Fulcrum approaches news stories with an open mind and skepticism, presenting our readers with a broad spectrum of viewpoints through diligent research and critical thinking. As best we can, we remove personal bias from our reporting and seek a variety of perspectives in both our news gathering and selection of opinion pieces. However, before our readers can analyze varying viewpoints, they must have the facts.


The legal battles involving the Trump administration have become a constant feature of American politics and governance. Supporters often argue that many lawsuits and investigations are politically motivated attempts to block the administration's agenda. Critics contend that certain actions by the administration and the Department of Justice are themselves politically motivated or represent an improper use of government power.

Keep ReadingShow less
gavel on top of a US flag
a judge's gavel on top of a flag
Photo by Bermix Studio on Unsplash

60 Former DOJ Attorneys Oppose California Election Lawsuit

Sixty former Department of Justice attorneys from both Democratic and Republican administrations are urging a federal appeals court to reject the Justice Department's last-minute intervention in California's election. They argue that the intervention violates longstanding department policies designed to prevent election interference. The former officials cite guidelines such as Justice Manual Section 9-85.500, which advises against overt investigative or prosecutorial steps near an election, and the department's non-interference policy, which seeks to avoid actions that could affect election outcomes or integrity.

In an amicus brief filed by the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law and Complex Appellate Litigation Group LLP, the former officials argue that DOJ is taking the unusual step of seeking election-related relief just days before the midterm election, contrary to department policies that discourage such actions near Election Day. They say these policies aim to prevent election interference, discourage voter participation, or disrupt election administration. The brief cites United States v. Cohen, 152 F.3d 321 (4th Cir. 1998), where courts recognized the importance of avoiding last-minute changes to election procedures. The amici also cite Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1 (2006), in which the Supreme Court cautioned against altering election rules close to an election, as such changes can cause confusion and undermine public confidence in the electoral process.

Keep ReadingShow less
© Copyright 2026