In the first episode of Rev. Dr. F. Willis Johnson’s podcast, Collage, Johnson discusses the promise of Black History Month.
Podcast: Collage: The promise of Black History Month

In the first episode of Rev. Dr. F. Willis Johnson’s podcast, Collage, Johnson discusses the promise of Black History Month.
A stethoscope and gavel.
Last spring and summer, The Fulcrum published a 30-part series on Project 2025. Now that Donald Trump’s second term has started, Part 2 of the series has commenced.
While the national spotlight often falls on state-level abortion bans or Supreme Court rulings, a quieter but more transformative effort is underway in Washington. In his second term, President Donald Trump is not simply revisiting past culture war battles—he’s enacting a structural overhaul of federal reproductive health policy, rooted in a sweeping plan known as Project 2025.
Drafted by The Heritage Foundation, Project 2025offers a comprehensive playbook for reshaping the federal government in alignment with hardline conservative priorities. On abortion, its recommendations are stark: revoke FDA approval for abortion medications, criminalize the mailing of reproductive health supplies, defund key providers like Planned Parenthood, and reorient public health policy around a singular “pro-life” vision.
But this isn’t just rhetoric—it’s already being translated into action.
Since January, the Trump administration has moved swiftly to implement some of the plan’s most impactful anti-abortion provisions. One of President Trump’s first acts was toreinstate the Mexico City Policy, blocking federal funds from reaching international organizations that even mention abortion in their family planning services. Shortly after, he signedExecutive Order 14182, which reaffirmed the Hyde Amendment’s ban on federal funding for most abortions and repealed Biden-era protections for reproductive healthcare access.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Perhaps most telling is how the Department of Justice hasscaled back enforcement of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act, the federal law that safeguards clinics and patients from threats or blockades. In an even bolder signal, Trumppardoned several activists previously convicted under the FACE Act, indicating a new era of tolerance—or even approval—for anti-abortion extremism.
Meanwhile, federal agencies are taking steps that align closely with Project 2025’s long-term goals. The administration has backed away from defending abortion access in emergency care scenarios. It recentlydropped its legal opposition to an Idaho law that bans nearly all abortions, even when necessary to stabilize a pregnant person in crisis—an alarming shift that could undermine emergency protections nationwide.
Other components of Project 2025 are gaining traction behind the scenes. While the FDA has not formally revoked approval of mifepristone and misoprostol, the administration hasmoved to dismiss a high-profile lawsuit challenging the drugs, possibly as a strategy to pursue regulatory rollback through more favorable channels. Efforts to defund Planned Parenthood bycutting Title X family planning grants are also in progress, with the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) freezing about $65.8 million in grants for reproductive healthcare—these grants did not fund abortion services, rather they funded birth control, cancer screenings, STI testing, and other low-income health care services.
Project 2025 also envisions the HHS being renamed the “Department of Life,” complete with a new agency to replace existing reproductive health programs. Though such rebranding has not yet occurred, early personnel appointments suggest the ideological groundwork is being laid.
All told, the administration is executing a deliberate, phased implementation of a far-reaching anti-abortion strategy—one that has flown largely under the radar. These aren’t isolated policy changes; they are building blocks in an intentional restructuring of federal health governance.
While a nationwide abortion ban or criminalization of contraception may still seem like political outliers, the infrastructure is being quietly put in place. And that makes this moment more urgent than ever. What’s unfolding in Washington isn’t just a rollback of Roe-era protections—it’s a federalization of a deeply restrictive reproductive policy regime.
If Americans believe that abortion rights have simply been returned to the states, they’re missing the bigger picture. Through Project 2025, the federal government is being weaponized to restrict reproductive autonomy from the top down. And unless this quiet revolution is met with equally organized resistance, the consequences could reverberate for generations.
Kristina Becvar is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and executive director of the Bridge AllianceEducation Fund.
ALBANY PARK – The laughter of preschool children permeates the hallways of the Carole Robertson Center for Learning on a sunny Thursday morning in Albany Park.
Teachers line their students up outside classrooms, counting names off one by one. Children congregate by their playmats and colorful rugs, about to be served breakfast.
As a Head Start grantee, critical federal funds help provide these nutritious meals, a majority of what a child at Carole Robertson will eat in a day. Now that funding is in jeopardy.
One of the largest early childhood and youth development organizations in the area, it serves nearly 2,500 children aged 0-17—a majority of whom are under the age of five.
Widespread federal cutbacks and the recent closure of five regional Head Start offices—including the Chicago branch, which services the entire Midwest—have sent hundreds of providers into panic.
Since its inception, Head Start has served nearly 40 million children nationwide and more than 790,000 in the last year alone.
“We heard about the regional office closure on April 1, the same day [it closed],” said Julissa Cruz, senior director of community-based advocacy at the Carole Robertson Center.
Regional offices provide Head Start affiliates with training, technical assistance, and operational and fiscal support. They also assign a direct contact to each organization to communicate with to ensure they have enough resources to operate seamlessly, according to Cruz.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
These closures come months after a temporary federal funding freeze disrupted Head Start programs across the country, briefly blocking affiliates’ access to aid that is used to pay employees.
While Carole Robertson receives some money from the state of Illinois and other partners to fund its early learning programs, Cruz said 76% of the operating budget comes from its Head Start grant.
In recent weeks, reports of an internal federal budget proposal to completely defund the 60-year-old organization were released, though no official steps have been taken yet by the Trump administration to further these plans.
On Monday, the Illinois Head Start Association (IHSA) joined several other states in a lawsuit against the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) over its plans to defund the program.
“When the regional office closed, it didn't necessarily interrupt our day to day,” said Cruz. “However, [the closure] points to this bigger kind of vision that the administration has for not only Head Start, but government programs at large,” she said.
Carole Robertson children line up to go play outside. (Credit: Claire Murphy)
A cancellation of the federal funds would impact their ability to offer vital resources to children and families. For other providers, who pull less money from different areas, it would mean a forced closure.
“In a lot of rural areas, Head Start is sometimes the only option available for parents, and parents won’t be able to go to work if they don’t have a safe, secure, educational place for their child,” said IHSA Executive Director Lauri Morrison-Frichtl. This would greatly impact not only the economic stability of the family but also the total welfare of the child, she said.
A 2018 analysis from the Center for American Progress found that Head Start is most critical in rural communities, where child care deserts are common. Of the 10 states surveyed, rural Head Start programs accounted for 22% of the state’s total child care capacity.
Almost 46% of all federally funded Head Start programs are located in rural districts. Without these programs, many rural communities would lose child care altogether.
IHSA serves over 28,000 low-income children and families across the state, with over 500 Head Start sites that provide direct childcare services. Morrison-Frichtl said IHSA receives over $478 million in federal funding for its Head Start and Early Head Start programs.
If the program were to be defunded, it would be a devastating hit for “the most at risk, children and families across the country,” she said.
But these programs do much more than provide educational care for children.
Carole Robertson, named for one of the four young girls killed in the 1963 KKK church bombing in Birmingham, Alabama, provides nutritional meals, medical screenings, and mental health and parental support.
“We have a team of family support specialists who help connect a family to resources,” said Cruz. These resources include assistance in navigating food insecurity, unemployment, housing concerns, and primary care access.
“If the child is not meeting their developmental milestones, there is a team of people who can work with that family so that that parent understands what their options are,” said Cruz. “It’s really 360 degrees of support.”
Through several external partnerships, the Carole Robertson Center for Learning reaches about 15,000 families across Chicago. (Credit: Claire Murphy)
Data from the Office of Head Start supports the assertion of the program’s long-term benefits for at-risk children.
Not only are Head Start children less likely to live in poverty and receive public assistance as adults, but they demonstrate higher levels of social-emotional skills, language abilities, and cognitive development than children who did not attend the program.
“Head Start has proven benefits for children's developmental needs,” said Terri Sabol, a developmental psychologist and an associate professor in the School of Education and Social Policy at Northwestern University.
“There's been several large-scale, randomized, controlled trials that basically show the short-term impact of Head Start for kids who attended Head Start versus those who weren't given access,” said Sabol.
Sabol is also the faculty co-director of the Early Childhood Research Alliance of Chicago (EC*Reach), which serves as a data hub for early childhood education.
Sabol’s department is currently examining Chicago neighborhoods that have the highest rates of enrolled Head Start children, which will subsequently be most impacted by the regional office closure.
IHSA is actively working with Illinois elected officials and congressional members to get the word out about potential funding cuts. Grantees have created advocacy and call-to-action toolkits that parents and supporters can share to social media.
“We’ve traveled this road before, and parents made the difference in keeping Head Start alive in difficult times,” said Morrison-Frichtl. “We are working with parents across the state to use their voice and let their members of Congress know how much this program means to them.”
Morrison-Frichtl is hopeful that external support will preserve Head Start’s place in the administration’s upcoming budget proposal.
“Head Start is celebrating 60 years this year. We plan to be here for another 60 years,” she said.
Claire Murphy is a master’s student in the investigative specialization at Northwestern University’s Medill School of Journalism. She is also a freelance journalist and is based in Chicago, IL.
As Trump pushes disruption, the markets push back.
Trump may have won the election, but he’s losing the markets. In just 100 days, Wall Street has erased nearly $6 trillion in global equity value, according to Bloomberg data cited in The Guardian. The S&P 500 has logged one of its worst openings to a presidential term since the Nixon years. And fund managers—the real-world referees of economic confidence—are sending a message Congress seems unwilling to deliver: enough.
While Trump’s second term has been marked by a tsunami of executive orders, tariff threats, and regulatory purges, the financial markets are refusing to play along. From panicked sell-offs to jittery consumer sentiment and retreating business investment, U.S. capital is staging its own quiet rebellion. Consumer confidence has dropped to its lowest level since 2020, with Americans’ outlook on jobs, income, and business conditions sinking to a 13-year low, according to The Conference Board.
It turns out that the stock market has sharper instincts than most of Washington. While institutions buckle and the GOP-led Congress dithers, Wall Street is stepping in as an unlikely check on executive power. Investors aren’t waiting for the courts or the next round of hearings—they’re responding in real time. Trump promised disruption. What he didn’t count on was that the disruption might start pushing back.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Populist Economics Meets Reality
Trump campaigned, as he always does, on grievance and bravado—promising to tear up trade deals, punish global freeloaders, and bring industrial jobs roaring back. It’s the kind of economic nationalism that plays well at rallies and with the base—but rattles investors and spooks consumers.
The core illusion is that you can upend global trade norms, slash taxes, and batter federal institutions without triggering economic backlash. But markets depend on stability, and consumers—already anxious about inflation, housing, and retirement—respond quickly to chaos. Trump’s second-term disruption isn’t just shaking confidence on Wall Street; it’s spreading across the economy. Investment is stalling. Sentiment is plunging. And financial markets are flashing warning signs before Congress even shows up to the fight.
Tariff Chaos and the Investor Revolt
Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs were pitched as economic self-defense. Instead, they sparked chaos. Businesses rushed to import goods before the new levies hit, driving imports up by 41% at an annualized rate—the sharpest spike in over a decade. The result was a distorted GDP report showing a 0.3% contraction in Q1 2025, which Trump tried to blame on a “Biden overhang.” However, economists quickly pointed to tariff-induced volatility, not inherited weakness, as the real culprit. Analysts widely attributed the downturn to companies scrambling to front-load imports before the tariffs hit, distorting the GDP report and creating a misleading picture of underlying demand.
Markets didn’t wait for clarification. Wall Street shed nearly $6 trillion in value during Trump’s first 100 days, with the S&P 500 suffering one of its worst openings since the 1970s. As investor panic spread, the administration quietly backpedaled—reaching out to China, softening its trade rhetoric, and restoring Ukraine aid to calm global jitters. The message was clear: Trump may thrive on conflict, but capital doesn’t. And this time, the revolt came from the boardroom, not the ballot box.
Trickle-Up Anxiety
The chaos hasn’t stopped at the trading floor. It’s made its way to kitchen tables, corner stores, and retirement accounts. Consumer confidence is cratering. Older Americans—typically the most financially stable—are expressing growing fears about healthcare, housing, and their financial future. That unease is no longer just anecdotal. It’s showing up in rising credit card delinquencies, frozen hiring, and delayed investment.
Minnesota Public Radio reports the case of Beth Benike, a Minnesota entrepreneur who founded Busy Baby, a company producing innovative placemats for infants. Her products are manufactured in China, and the recent tariffs have significantly driven up her production costs. Benike has warned that the financial strain could jeopardize not only her company but also her personal finances.
What began as a populist crusade to rebalance the economy is now dragging down the very people it claimed to champion.
The Market as a Guardrail
In an era when political institutions bend under pressure, financial markets remain one of the few forces that still say “no.” Not because they care about democratic norms—but because they care about risk. Trump can steamroll federal agencies, sideline Congress with continuing resolutions, and attack the press with impunity, but he can’t stop investors from pulling their money.
Unlike courts or legislatures, markets react in real time. They don’t wait for midterms or litigation. When policy turns reckless, capital flees—hitting portfolios, retirement accounts, and consumer confidence with speed and precision. It’s not principled resistance; it’s economic self-preservation. But the effect is the same: Trump’s second-term agenda keeps running into a wall of financial consequence.
Conclusion – When the Floorboards Creak
Financial markets aren’t defenders of democracy. But in Trump’s second term, they’re acting like the last remaining guardrail against political fantasy dressed up as economic strategy. Every tariff threat, every fiscal sleight-of-hand, every executive order that rattles stability is met, not with applause, but with retreat—from investors, consumers, and businesses alike.
This isn’t sustainable. Markets can restrain chaos, but they can’t repair institutions hollowed out by dysfunction. To alleviate the burden on small businesses like Busy Baby, policymakers could consider implementing automatic tariff exclusions for small importers, especially for products not readily available domestically. Additionally, providing financial assistance or tax relief to affected businesses could help them navigate the increased costs and maintain operations.
If Republican lawmakers don’t step up to restore balance—by asserting congressional authority, passing real budgets, and checking executive overreach—the floorboards won’t just creak. They’ll collapse. With the 2026 midterms looming and voter discontent mounting over economic instability, continued inaction will likely have consequences far beyond Wall Street.
Robert Cropf is a professor of political science at Saint Louis University. Follow on LinkedIn.
WASHINGTON, D.C. - There is an old saying: All politics is local. However, many voters may get the impression this is becoming less and less a reality -- particularly in US House and Senate elections where candidates are elected to represent specific districts or states, but campaign to a national audience.
This is because local influence in the most contested races is dying out -- a statement not contrived from opinion, but fact.
New analysis from OpenSecrets shows how much local influence has disappeared in congressional elections. The 2024 election cycle, in particular, marked a historic shift in campaign financing — confirming that local money is no longer the lifeblood of congressional campaigns.
According to campaign finance disclosures, House and Senate candidates relied heavily on money from outside their home districts and states. Only 17.6% of itemized contributions to House campaigns came from within the candidate’s district, while Senate hopefuls raised only 27.5% from in-state supporters.
These are the second-lowest figures on record, behind only the 2020 election cycle.
In an era defined by digital fundraising and national hyper-polarization, this has become the new norm. Digital fundraising platforms like ActBlue and WinRed -- which now pull in the most cash for the Democratic and Republican Parties -- have turned once-local races into nationwide battles.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
“What used to be a redistricted neighborhood contest is now a televised ideological fight that attracts donations from coast to coast,” said one campaign strategist.
States with smaller populations saw the most dramatic reliance on outside money. In the House, general election candidates in Delaware, Vermont, and Wyoming raised over 89% of their funds from out-of-district sources. Their Senate counterparts similarly saw over 92% of their support come from beyond state lines.
OpenSecrets offers detailed charts and breakdowns of the figures here.
The numbers are particularly striking for high-profile figures -- even those who rally for campaign finance reform. US Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Bernie Sanders, for example, each raised more than 97% of their individual contributions from donors outside their constituencies.
It seems like the bigger the name profile, the more massive the outside influence. In both chambers, the top 50 campaigns most reliant on non-local money saw strong electoral performance. In the House, 82% of these candidates won; in the Senate, 58% were victorious.
Other variables factor into electoral outcomes -- including the fact that about 90% of US House races are safe for one party or the other. However, there is no question that many candidates benefit from a national donor base that expands well outside their home districts and states.
There are a few candidates who successfully bucked the trend with strong in-district fundraising. However, their stories were the exception.
In the House, Reps. Nathaniel Moran (R-Texas) and Marcus Jones (D-Arizona) stood out for raising large shares of money locally — but only Moran won. Others, like Caleb Rudow (D-N.C.), lost despite pulling in over 70% of their funding from within their districts.
In the Senate, just two candidates — Raul Garcia (R-Wash.) and Mike Sapraicone (R-N.Y.) — crossed the 80% mark for in-state contributions. Both lost.
The data underscores a fundamental reality of today’s political landscape: the most successful campaigns are often those with stronger national appeal. Ruben Gallego (D-Arizona), for example, raised more than $46 million for his Senate bid — with less than 25% of it coming from within his state. He won.
Similarly, House winners who relied most heavily on non-local donors tended to be those with high visibility and ideological followings. But even among more locally rooted winners, there was a notable pattern: those who succeeded with high local percentages often represented districts with less national spotlight, where local ties still mattered.
The analysis from OpenSecrets raises obvious red flags on the subject of accountability. When the bulk of a candidate’s financial support comes from people who cannot vote for them, critics argue, the link between constituents and their representatives weakens.
“The growing gap between where campaign money comes from and who it’s meant to represent raises fundamental questions,” said one political analyst. “Are candidates more responsive to their communities — or to the donors fueling their campaigns from afar?”
With local fundraising hitting near-record lows in 2024, the answer may no longer be local.
Who Really Pays for Congress? Local Donors All but Disappear in 2024 was originally published by Independent Voter News and is shared with permission.
Shawn Griffiths Is An Election Reform Expert And National Editor Of IVN.us.