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

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
How State Courts Can Help Deflect the Supreme Court’s Latest Blow to Multiracial Democracy

Black and white illustration of voters

State Court Report

How State Courts Can Help Deflect the Supreme Court’s Latest Blow to Multiracial Democracy

With its April ruling in Louisiana v. Callais, the Supreme Court delivered yet another blow to the Voting Rights Act, specifically Section 2, which governs race in redistricting. The decision was sad and utterly predictable, but still nothing short of astonishing. Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the Court’s conservative supermajority, stealthily setting aside 40 years of legal precedent under Section 2 largely on the belief that racism is a thing of the past and extreme partisan gerrymandering is, in effect, a fundamental right of state lawmakers. Callais had a tortured path to the Court, a feature of the case that has undoubtedly been eclipsed by the lawless nature of the ruling itself, all of which reveals that the Supreme Court represents the gravest threat to multiracial democracy in the United States. (I argued as much in a law review article, predicting the outcome and analyzing the ways a Court gone rogue might get to that ruling.)

What’s more? In recent years, the Court has played fast and loose with a “principle” purportedly meant to limit chaos around elections, known as Purcell. But instead of limiting chaos, the Court’s Purcell jurisprudence will hasten and aggrandize the already-problematic impact of the Callais ruling. As the nation’s redistricting wars inevitably continue — in this election season, the 2028 presidential campaign, and even the next decade — state courts can help stave off democratic erosion by resisting the urge to invoke Purcell.

Keep ReadingShow less
​Acting U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanch standing in front of a crowd.

Acting U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche announces the indictment of former Cuban President Raúl Castro, in Miami, Fla., on May 20, 2026.

US Indictment of Raúl Castro Comes Amid a Long History of American Aggression Against Cuba

The Trump administration on May 20, 2026, indicted former Cuban President Raúl Castro for murder, based on the downing of two planes near the Cuban coastline in 1996 that killed four people.

As a historian of Latin America and U.S. foreign policy, I believe the indictment may be the prelude to direct U.S. military action against Cuba.

Keep ReadingShow less