Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

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

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.


Read More

Shadow on a wall of Judge hitting gavel in court, concept of justice, law, and legal protection

The Rule of Law depends on action, not blind optimism. Explore how critical hope, civic engagement, and accountability can strengthen democracy.

Aitor Diago / Getty Images

Only Collective Action Can Turn Outrage Into Accountability and Protect the Rule of Law

The past year has shaken our faith in institutions and, perhaps, in each other. If not already eviscerated, the Rule of Law is under attack. In this atmosphere of constant chaos, we have become numbed by the events of each day and the scope of unprecedented executive action. Yet, even in the face of growing autocracy and oligarchy, the Rule of Law can prevail.

“There is a crack, a crack in everything. That’s how the light gets in.” In the current moment, it is tempting to reach for hope as comfort, or to repeat familiar lines about resilience, unity, or the promise of American ideals—such as this one from Leonard Cohen. But as educator Jeffrey Duncan-Andrade warns, not all hope is created equal. The kind of hope that ignores suffering, that insists the Rule of Law will revive itself without action, is not hope at all. It is what he calls “hokey or “mythical hope,” a passive optimism that ultimately deepens despair. What this moment demands instead is “critical hope”: a form of hope grounded in struggle and action.

Keep ReadingShow less

Are State Courts More Protective of Transgender People than Federal Courts?

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that state laws prohibiting trans women and girls from participating on female sports teams do not violate the Equal Protection Clause — the seventh Supreme Court ruling curbing the rights of trans people in just the past 14 months. Since May 2025, the Supreme Court has allowed the Trump administration to ban trans people from serving in the military, upheld a Tennessee law banning gender-affirming care for trans minors, given anti-LGBTQ+ parents a veto over LGBTQ+-inclusive content in their children’s classrooms, endorsed Trump’s policy requiring trans people to list their sex assigned at birth on their passports, reinstated an injunction against policies barring schools from outing trans students to their parents against students’ wishes, and determined that Colorado’s ban on anti-LGBTQ+ conversion therapy must be subjected to strict scrutiny, a form of judicial review that almost no law survives.

However, there may be some cause for optimism. In an article published in The Virginia Journal of Social Policy & the Law, I conducted a comprehensive survey of state court cases that impacted the rights and lives of trans people between 2022 and 2024. The survey showed state courts have an essential role to play in protecting trans people in an increasingly hostile political environment. Amongst some ominous signs for trans rights, there were important signals of hope in the survey.

Keep ReadingShow less
A gavel.

The rule of law, American democracy, constitutional rights, and judicial independence.

Getty Images, David Talukdar

In Texas, People Don’t Kill People, Guns Kill People

It has been said that a good prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. Apparently, that’s not the case in very red Collin County, Texas, where a self-described recovering alcoholic fatally shot his daughter in the chest, only to be let off the hook by a sympathetic grand jury. As a retired justice of the New York State Supreme Court, the case intrigued me and I tried to understand why the prosecutor, upon failing to obtain an indictment, did not try again.

In January 2025, the victim and her boyfriend traveled from England to visit her father at his home in Collin County where the shooting occurred. Although evidence presented to a grand jury cannot be disclosed, it is reasonably assumed that the grand jury was provided with the statement made by the father to the police at the scene immediately following the shooting. In that statement, the father related how he had taken his daughter, at her request, to see his gun, and that when he brought her to his bedroom and removed the gun from a cabinet in which he kept it, “it went off.” He could not recall if his finger had been on the trigger.

Keep ReadingShow less
Citizens in Name Only: What the Supreme Court Can’t Fix
beige concrete building under blue sky during daytime

Citizens in Name Only: What the Supreme Court Can’t Fix

This month, the Supreme Court will rule on Trump v. Barbara, the case that could upend birthright citizenship as we have known it for over a century.

But the current debate over birthright citizenship overlooks the fact that legal citizenship — by birthright or naturalization — has never fully protected marginalized Americans. People of color, women, LGBTQ, and lower-income Americans have long been CINOs: Citizens in Name Only. Throughout our 250-year history, they have lacked full social citizenship - access to social/welfare entitlements, political citizenship – access to voting rights, and cultural citizenship – recognition as members of the American family. So, while a court ruling can determine who gets a U.S. birth certificate, it cannot guarantee societal inclusion.

Keep ReadingShow less