Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Project 2025: Reshaping American Justice Under Trump

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

The Sanctuary City Debate: Understanding Federal-Local Divide in Immigration Enforcement
Police car lights.
Getty Images / Oliver Helbig

The Sanctuary City Debate: Understanding Federal-Local Divide in Immigration Enforcement

Immigration is governed by a patchwork of federal laws. Within the patchwork, one notable thread of law lies in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. The Act authorizes the Department of Homeland Security, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) programs, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to work in tandem with local agencies and law enforcement on deterrence and enforcement efforts. Like the now-discontinued Secure Communities program that encouraged information sharing between local police agencies and ICE, the law specifically authorizes ICE to work with local and federal partners to detain and deport removal-eligible immigrants from the country.

What are Sanctuary Policies?

Keep ReadingShow less
Lady Justice

On April 2, President Trump announced "Liberation Day"—the imposition of across-the-board tariffs on imports into the United States.

the_burtons/Getty Images

Trump’s Tariffs Are Unlawful: How the “Nondelegation Doctrine” Limits Congress

This guest post from Eric Bolinder, a professor of law at Liberty University, is based on his recent law review article on the constitutionality of President Trump's tariffs. Before Liberty University, Eric was counsel at Cause of Action Institute, where he helped litigate Loper Bright, the case that overturned Chevron deference, and at Americans for Prosperity Foundation.

On April 2, President Trump announced "Liberation Day"—the imposition of across-the-board tariffs on imports into the United States. Without congressional action, these tariffs are highly vulnerable to legal challenges as they may violate something called the "nondelegation doctrine." Recently, two courts, the Court of International Trade and the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, enjoined the tariffs (though both decisions are stayed), finding that the President had no statutory authority to implement them. These courts echoed what I'll discuss below, that if the statute does authorize tariffs, then they may be unconstitutional under the nondelegation doctrine.

Keep ReadingShow less
Just the Facts: Supreme Court Ruling in Trump v. CASA Narrows Judicial Power, Reshapes Legal Landscape
How reforming felony murder laws can reduce juvenile justice harms
Getty Images

Just the Facts: Supreme Court Ruling in Trump v. CASA Narrows Judicial Power, Reshapes Legal Landscape

The Fulcrum strives to approach news stories with an open mind and skepticism, striving to present our readers with a broad spectrum of viewpoints through diligent research and critical thinking. As best we can, 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 Supreme Court’s recent decision in Trump v. CASA marks a significant shift in the balance of power between the executive and judicial branches—particularly in how federal courts can respond to presidential actions.

Keep ReadingShow less
Manhunt in Minnesota Following “Politically Motivated” Shootings

A vehicle belonging to Vance Boelter is towed from the alley behind his home on June 14, 2025 in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Boelter is a suspect in the shooting of two Democratic-Farmer-Labor lawmakers.

(Photo by Stephen Maturen/Getty Images)

Manhunt in Minnesota Following “Politically Motivated” Shootings

A massive search is underway for Vance Boelter, accused of fatally shooting Democratic lawmaker Melissa Hortman and her husband and injuring State Sen. John Hoffman and his wife in what authorities are calling “politically motivated” shootings.

The FBI is offering a $50,000 reward for information that leads to the arrest of Boelter, whom authorities say was impersonating a police officer at the time of the shooting. Investigators also say the suspect had a vehicle with emergency lights and sirens. Inside the vehicle, they found a manifesto with lawmakers' names on it, as well as papers with No Kings written on them.

Keep ReadingShow less