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

Killing Suspected Traffickers Won’t Win the War on Drugs

Killing suspected drug traffickers without trial undermines due process, human rights, and democracy. The war on drugs cannot be won through extrajudicial force.

Getty Images, SimpleImages

Killing Suspected Traffickers Won’t Win the War on Drugs

Life can only be taken in defense of life. That principle is as old as civilization itself, and it remains the bedrock of justice today. To kill another human being is justifiable only in imminent self‑defense or to protect the lives of innocent people. Yet the United States has recently crossed a troubling line: authorizing lethal strikes against suspected drug traffickers in international waters. Dozens have been killed without trial, without legal counsel, and without certainty of guilt.

This is not justice. It is punishment without due process, death without defense or judicial review. It is, in plain terms, an extrajudicial killing. And it is appalling.

Keep ReadingShow less
USA, Washington D.C., Supreme Court building and blurred American flag against blue sky.

Americans increasingly distrust the Supreme Court. The answer may lie not only in Court reforms but in shifting power back to states, communities, and Congress.

Getty Images, TGI /Tetra Images

The Supreme Court Has a Legitimacy Problem—But Washington’s Monopoly on Power Is the Real Crisis

Americans disagree on much, but a new poll shows we agree on this: we don’t trust the Supreme Court. According to the latest Navigator survey, confidence in the Court is at rock bottom, especially among younger voters, women, and independents. Large numbers support term limits and ethical reforms. Even Republicans — the group with the most reason to cheer a conservative Court — are losing confidence in its direction.

The news media and political pundits’ natural tendency is to treat this as a story about partisan appointments or the latest scandal. But the problem goes beyond a single court or a single controversy. It reflects a deeper Constitutional breakdown: too much power has been nationalized, concentrated, and funneled into a handful of institutions that voters no longer see as accountable.

Keep ReadingShow less
A person putting on an "I Voted" sticker.

The Supreme Court’s review of Louisiana v. Callais could narrow Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and limit challenges to racially discriminatory voting maps.

Getty Images, kali9

Louisiana v. Callais: The Supreme Court’s Next Test for Voting Rights

Background and Legal Landscape

Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is one of the most powerful tools for combatting racial discrimination in voting. It prohibits any voting law, district map, or electoral process that results in a denial of the right to vote based on race. Crucially, Section 2 allows for private citizens and civil rights groups to challenge discriminatory electoral systems, a protection that has ensured fairer representation for communities of color. However, the Supreme Court is now considering whether to narrow Section 2’s reach in a high profile court case, Louisiana v. Callais. The case focuses on whether Louisiana’s congressional map—which only contains one majority Black district despite Black residents making up almost one-third of the population—violates Section 2 by diluting Black voting power. The Court’s decision to hear the case marks the latest chapter in the recent trend of judicial decisions around the scope and applications of the Voting Rights Act.

Keep ReadingShow less
Beyond the Protests: How To Support Immigrant Communities Amidst ICE Raids

A small flower wall, with information and signs, sits on the left side of the specified “free speech zone,” or the grassy area outside the Broadview ICE Detention Center, where law enforcement has allowed protestors to gather. The biggest sign, surrounded by flowers, says “THE PEOPLE UNITED WILL NEVER BE DEFEATED.”

Credit: Britton Struthers-Lugo, Oct. 30, 2025

Beyond the Protests: How To Support Immigrant Communities Amidst ICE Raids

The ongoing U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids have created widespread panic and confusion across Chicago. Many of the city’s immigrant communities are hurting, and if you’ve found yourself asking “how can I help?”, you’re far from the only one.

“Every single one [U.S. resident] has constitutional rights regardless of their immigration status. And the community needs to know that. And when we allow those rights to be taken away from some, we risk that they're going to take all those rights from everyone. So we all need to feel compelled and concerned when we see that these rights are being stripped away from, right now, a group of people, because it will be just a matter of time for one of us to be the next target,” said Enrique Espinoza, an immigrant attorney at Chicago Kent College of Law.

Keep ReadingShow less