test spaces

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 2025 offers 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 to reinstate the Mexico City Policy, blocking federal funds from reaching international organizations that even mention abortion in their family planning services. Shortly after, he signed Executive Order 14182, which reaffirmed the Hyde Amendment’s ban on federal funding for most abortions and repealed Biden-era protections for reproductive healthcare access.

Perhaps most telling is how the Department of Justice has scaled 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, Trump pardoned 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 recently dropped 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 has moved 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 by cutting 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 Alliance Education Fund.

Subscribe

Testing Smartlinks


China’s official goal is to hit peak emissions by 2030 and reach “carbon neutrality” by 2060. The country’s electricity grid is Live Copper Price Chart (PRICE CHART) (with hydropower coming in at number two), as is its prolific production of steel and cement, which is energy and, specifically, coal-intensive. For a few years in the 2010s, Copper Outlook: World Edition (REPORT) than in the whole 20th century in the United States. China also accounts for Article (INTERNAL) of the world’s steel production. IODM Ltd (STOCKS)

Keep ReadingShow less
Why Air Products Investors Revolted Against Clean Hydrogen
Raw Exclusives

Why Air Products Investors Revolted Against Clean Hydrogen

After a proxy fight, a successful shareholder revolt, and the ousting of a CEO, Air Products, the largest hydrogen company in the world, is floundering. In early May, it posted a $1.7 billion net loss for the second quarter of the fiscal year. While Air Products produces an array of industrial gases, the newly appointed CEO, Eduardo Menezes, told investors on the company’s recent Q2 earnings call that he blamed its investments in clean hydrogen projects for its recent struggles.

“Over the past few years Air Products moved away from its core business in search of growth,” Menezes said. (That core business would be traditional industrial gases such as oxygen, nitrogen, and hydrogen, produced sans newfangled clean technologies.) “We deployed capital to complex, higher risk projects with first-of-a-kind technologies — and, more importantly, without committed offtake agreements in place.” The company took on significant debt and increased its headcount to try and carry out its ambitious agenda, he explained. “This had a negative impact on both cost and execution quality, leading to significant project delays.”

Keep ReadingShow less

Get stories worth sharing delivered to your inbox