The Bridge
Trump’s Project 2025 agenda caps decades-long resistance to 20th century progressive reform
The content discusses the ideological struggle in U.S. governance, highlighting conservative backlash against progressive reforms like the New Deal and Great Society, culminating in Project 2025’s agenda for Trump’s potential administration.
Colin Gordon, University of Iowa
For much of the 20th century, efforts to remake government were driven by a progressive desire to make the government work for regular Americans, including the New Deal and the Great Society reforms.
But they also met a conservative backlash seeking to rein back government as a source of security for working Americans and realign it with the interests of private business. That backlash is the central thread of the Heritage Foundation’s “Project 2025” blueprint for a second Trump Administration.
Alternatively disavowed and embraced by President Donald Trump during his 2024 campaign, Project 2025 is a collection of conservative policy proposals – many written by veterans of his first administration. It echoes similar projects, both liberal and conservative, setting out a bold agenda for a new administration.
But Project 2025 does so with particular detail and urgency, hoping to galvanize dramatic change before the midterm elections in 2026. As its foreword warns: “Conservatives have just two years and one shot to get this right.”
The standard for a transformational “100 days” – a much-used reference point for evaluating an administration – belongs to the first administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt.
Social reforms and FDR
In 1933, in the depths of the Great Depression, Roosevelt faced a nation in which business activity had stalled, nearly a third of the workforce was unemployed, and economic misery and unrest were widespread.
But Roosevelt’s so-called “New Deal” unfolded less as a grand plan to combat the Depression than as a scramble of policy experimentation.
Roosevelt did not campaign on what would become the New Deal’s singular achievements, which included expansive relief programs, subsidies for farmers, financial reforms, the Social Security system, the minimum wage and federal protection of workers’ rights.
Those achievements came haltingly after two years of frustrated or ineffective policymaking. And those achievements rested less on Roosevelt’s political vision than on the political mobilization and demands made by American workers.
A generation later, another wave of social reforms unfolded in similar fashion. This time it was not general economic misery that spurred actions, but the persistence of inequality – especially racial inequality – in an otherwise prosperous time.
LBJ’s Great Society
President Lyndon B. Johnson’s Great Society programs declared a war on poverty and, toward that end, introduced a raft of new federal initiatives in urban, education and civil rights.
These included the provision of medical care for the poor and older people via Medicaid and Medicare, a dramatic expansion of federal aid for K-12 education, and landmark voting rights and civil rights legislation.
As with the New Deal, the substance of these policies rested less with national policy designs than with the aspirations and mobilization of the era’s social movements.
Resistance to policy change
Since the 1930s, conservative policy agendas have largely taken the form of reactions to the New Deal and the Great Society.
The central message has routinely been that “big government” has overstepped its bounds and trampled individual rights, and that the architects of those reforms are not just misguided but treasonous. Project 2025, in this respect, promises not just a political right turn but to “defeat the anti-American left.”
After the 1946 midterm elections, congressional Republicans struck back at the New Deal. Drawing on business opposition to the New Deal, popular discontent with postwar inflation, and common cause with Southern Democrats, they stemmed efforts to expand the New Deal, gutting a full employment proposal and defeating national health insurance.
They struck back at organized labor with the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act, which undercut federal law by allowing states to pass anti-union “right to work” laws. And they launched an infamous anti-communist purge of the civil service, which forced nearly 15,000 people out of government jobs.
In 1971, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce commissioned Lewis Powell – who would be appointed by Republican President Richard Nixon to the Supreme Court the next year – to assess the political landscape. Powell’s memorandum characterized the political climate at the dawn of the 1970s – including both Great Society programs and the anti-war and Civil Rights movements of the 1960s – as nothing less than an “attack on the free enterprise system.”
In a preview of current U.S. politics, Powell’s memorandum devoted special attention to a disquieting “chorus of criticism” coming from “the perfectly respectable elements of society: from the college campus, the pulpit, the media, the intellectual and literary journals, the arts and sciences, and from politicians.”
Powell characterized the social policies of the New Deal and Great Society as “socialism or some sort of statism” and advocated the elevation of business interests and business priorities to the center of American political life.
Building a conservative infrastructure
Powell captured the conservative zeitgeist at the onset of what would become a long and decisive right turn in American politics. More importantly, it helped galvanize the creation of a conservative infrastructure – in the courts, in the policy world, in universities and in the media – to push back against that “chorus of criticism.”
This political shift would yield an array of organizations and initiatives, including the political mobilization of business, best represented by the emergence of the Koch brothers and the powerful libertarian conservative political advocacy group they founded, known as Americans for Prosperity. It also yielded a new wave of conservative voices on radio and television and a raft of right-wing policy shops and think tanks – including the Heritage Foundation, creator of Project 2025.
In national politics, the conservative resurgence achieved full expression in President Ronald Reagan’s 1980 campaign. The “Reagan Revolution” united economic and social conservatives around the central goal of dismantling what was left of the New Deal and Great Society.
Powell’s triumph was evident across the policy landscape. Reagan gutted social programs, declared war on organized labor, pared back economic and social regulations – or declined to enforce them – and slashed taxes on business and the wealthy.
Publicly, the Reagan administration argued that tax cuts would pay for themselves, with the lower rates offset by economic growth. Privately, it didn’t matter: Either growth would sustain revenues, or the resulting budgetary hole could be used to “starve the beast” and justify further program cuts.
Reagan’s vision, and its shaky fiscal logic, were reasserted in the “Contract with America” proposed by congressional Republicans after their gains in the 1994 midterm elections.
This declaration of principles proposed deep cuts to social programs alongside tax breaks for business. It was perhaps most notable for encouraging the Clinton administration to pass the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996, “ending welfare as we know it,” as Clinton promised.
Aiming at the ‘deep state’
Project 2025, the latest in this series of blueprints for dramatic change, draws most deeply on two of those plans.
As in the congressional purges of 1940s, it takes aim not just at policy but at the civil servants – Trump’s “deep state” – who administer it.
In the wake of World War II, the charge was that feckless bureaucrats served Soviet masters. Today, Project 2025 aims to “bring the Administrative State to heel, and in the process defang and defund the woke culture warriors who have infiltrated every last institution in America.”
As in the 1971 Powell memorandum, Project 2025 promises to mobilize business power; to “champion the dynamic genius of free enterprise against the grim miseries of elite-directed socialism.”
Whatever their source – party platforms, congressional bomb-throwers, think tanks, private interests – the success or failure of these blueprints rested not on their vision or popular appeal but on the political power that accompanied them. The New Deal and Great Society gained momentum and meaning from the social movements that shaped their agendas and held them to account.
The lineage of conservative responses has been largely an assertion of business power. Whatever populist trappings the second Trump administration may possess, the bottom line of the conservative cultural and political agenda in 2025 is to dismantle what is left of the New Deal or the Great Society, and to defend unfettered “free enterprise” against critics and alternatives.
Colin Gordon, Professor of History, University of Iowa
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Daily News
Major Construction Begins on Metro’s East San Fernando Valley Light Rail Line
LA Metro has moved the East San Fernando Valley Light Rail Transit Project into major construction. The 6.7-mile Van Nuys Boulevard line will add 11 stations, connect with the G Line and regional rail services, and is now targeted for completion in early 2032.
After years of utility relocation and planning, LA Metro is moving into major construction on a new rail line along Van Nuys Boulevard. The milestone also comes with a revised early-2032 completion target.
LA Metro has officially marked the beginning of major construction on the East San Fernando Valley Light Rail Transit Project, moving one of the region’s most important rail projects from preparatory work into full-scale construction.
Metro held a groundbreaking ceremony on October 19, 2026, for the 6.7-mile line, which will run along Van Nuys Boulevard from the G Line busway north to San Fernando Road in Pacoima. The project will add 11 light-rail stations serving Van Nuys, Panorama City, Arleta and Pacoima.
This was not the project’s first groundbreaking. Metro held an earlier ceremony in December 2022 when crews began relocating utility infrastructure. The new milestone is more consequential for riders: the major-construction phase covers the guideway, stations, traction-power substations, rail systems and a maintenance and storage facility.
From utility work to a new rail corridor
The project has spent several years in utility relocation, property acquisition, design and other early work. Metro’s current construction timeline shows major work continuing from 2026 through 2032, with phased traffic changes and K-rail installations expected along Van Nuys Boulevard.
When completed, trains are expected to operate every seven to 10 minutes during peak periods. The line will connect directly with the G Line and provide access to the Van Nuys Metrolink and Amtrak station. It is also expected to become an important transfer point for the future Sepulveda Transit Corridor and a planned Metrolink station in Pacoima.
The corridor already has a substantial transit market. Metro reported that bus Lines 233 and 761, which serve Van Nuys Boulevard, recorded nearly 20,000 boardings in September 2026. The agency also says approximately 19 percent of households in the project area lack access to a car, compared with about 8 percent countywide.
Those figures help explain why this project matters beyond its construction footprint. It is intended to give residents in some of the Valley’s most transit-dependent communities more reliable access to jobs, schools, healthcare and the wider regional transit network.
The opening target has moved to 2032
Metro’s current project page lists an estimated completion date of early 2032. That is later than the 2031 opening forecast the agency publicized when it celebrated an $893-million federal grant in September 2024. Earlier plans were more optimistic still: when utility work began in 2022, Metro said the first segment could open between 2028 and 2030.
The project’s financial scale has also grown clearer. In May 2026, the Metro Board established a life-of-project budget of approximately $3.999 billion and authorized the next phase of its progressive design-build contract with San Fernando Transit Constructors, a joint venture of Skanska and Stacy and Witbeck.
That authorization increased the construction contract’s value to roughly $2.431 billion. Funding for the larger project combines federal, state and local sources, including revenue from Los Angeles County’s Measure M transportation sales tax.
Rail returns to Van Nuys Boulevard
The East San Fernando Valley line will restore passenger rail to Van Nuys Boulevard for the first time since Pacific Electric ended streetcar service there in 1952. It will also become the first major new Metro rail project in the San Fernando Valley since the subway reached North Hollywood in 2000.
The historical parallel is significant. Van Nuys Boulevard once developed around electric railway service before the region shifted heavily toward automobiles and buses. Metro is now rebuilding rail in the same broad corridor, but as part of a modern network designed to connect local riders with bus rapid transit, regional rail and future high-capacity projects.
The current project ends in Pacoima. Metro continues to study a separate 2.5-mile northern extension that would reach the Sylmar/San Fernando Metrolink station. That extension is not included in the segment now entering major construction.
For riders, the October groundbreaking does not mean trains are imminent. Several years of disruptive and technically complex work remain, and the schedule has already moved beyond earlier forecasts. Still, it represents a tangible transition: the East San Fernando Valley line is no longer primarily a planning exercise or utility-relocation program. Metro has begun building the infrastructure that will carry trains.
That makes this a major step in Los Angeles County’s long effort to restore frequent rail transit to communities that lost it generations ago—and another chapter in The Long Track Back.
Primary sources
- LA Metro: Major construction will soon be underway
- LA Metro project page: East San Fernando Valley Light Rail Transit
- LA Metro Board meeting, May 28, 2026 — project budget and contract authorization
- LA Metro: $893 million federal grant announcement, September 6, 2024
- LA Metro: Advanced utility-work groundbreaking, December 2, 2022
This article is part of The Long Track Back, STM Daily News’ continuing coverage of how Los Angeles is rebuilding and expanding a passenger-rail network after decades of automobile-centered grow
STM Blog | Commentary | October 14, 2026
The viral allegations involving Texas Roadhouse and the treatment of Black customers raised an understandably disturbing question: Could diners trust that they were being served safely and respectfully?
After reviewing available coverage again on October 14, STM Daily News did not locate new verified evidence establishing that the alleged food tampering occurred. We also did not locate a publicly released final report from the outside firm the company said it hired.
The central distinction remains unchanged: the allegations have not been substantiated in the reporting reviewed, while Texas Roadhouse says its investigation points to a hoax.
What the available reporting says
In August, social media posts alleged that restaurant workers deliberately tampered with food served to Black customers. The claims circulated widely and prompted calls for a boycott. Texas Roadhouse said it had not identified current or former employees connected to the accusations.
In reporting updated August 26, KTXS noted that the viral post did not identify a particular restaurant location and that there was no verified evidence connecting the claims to a Texas Roadhouse employee.
The company told the outlet it had found no credible evidence of food tampering. It also said the original Facebook post had been deleted, some users had retracted posts amplifying the claims, and an outside firm had been engaged to investigate the accusations’ source and motives. These details come from August coverage, rather than a new October announcement.
What remains unresolved publicly
Our latest review did not locate a final outside investigation report that readers could examine. We therefore cannot describe that investigation as complete or independently assess its findings.
The company’s description of the claims as a hoax should continue to be attributed to Texas Roadhouse. Likewise, the allegations should not be repeated as though they describe a confirmed incident.
Not locating a new public report does not establish whether investigative work has continued privately. It means the public information we found does not support a stronger conclusion.
Why careful wording still matters
For Black diners, allegations of racist mistreatment can strike a painful nerve. Everyone deserves to sit down for a meal without worrying that their race could make them a target.
Taking that concern seriously requires credible complaints to be investigated thoroughly. It also requires care before assigning blame to a restaurant, a location, or its workers.
Social media can spread a warning far beyond its original audience before anyone verifies the underlying claim. Once that happens, a correction or clarification may never reach everyone who saw the accusation.
That makes transparency essential. Restaurants should explain what they have investigated and what they can substantiate. Those sharing accusations should be equally willing to share corrections and acknowledge uncertainty.
For now, the responsible position is to keep the evidence and the allegations separate. If new, verifiable findings become public, they should be assessed on their merits.
Join the conversation: What do you look for before trusting a viral warning about a business? Share your thoughts in the comments, and keep the conversation respectful.
Editor’s note: This is an October 14 status review of previously reported allegations. It does not announce a new investigative finding.
Sources
- KTXS: Viral post alleges Texas Roadhouse mistreated Black customers; company responds — Includes the company’s statement and explains the lack of verified evidence connecting the allegations to an employee or location.
- Houston Chronicle: Texas Roadhouse investigates Facebook hoax alleging racist food tampering — Covers the company’s denial and its decision to hire an outside investigative firm.
- MySA: Texas Roadhouse faces social media backlash over viral allegations — Details how the claims spread and the restaurant chain’s response.
Related reading
- Snopes: Posts claim Texas Roadhouse servers contaminated Black customers’ food — Examines the viral allegations.
- Restaurant Business: Texas Roadhouse says post alleging racist practices was a hoax — Restaurant industry coverage of the controversy.
- Texas Roadhouse official website — Company information and customer contact options.
Food Truths
Soul Food Has African Roots—and a Distinct Black American History
Soul food connects African heritage with generations of Black American creativity and community. Here’s why shared roots and a distinct cultural identity both deserve recognition.
Last Updated on October 15, 2026 by Daily News Staff
Shared ancestry connects the African diaspora. It also makes understanding each community’s food traditions worth the effort.
A debate over who can claim soul food raises a question larger than any social media argument: When does a shared cultural inheritance become a distinct tradition?
People across Africa and the African diaspora have foods that evoke home, family, comfort, and belonging. Recognizing that connection is valuable. But using “soul food” as a general description of comforting food is different from identifying the cuisine historically known by that name.
Soul food is a distinctly African American culinary tradition with African roots, shaped by generations of Black life in the United States. Recognizing its American development does not erase Africa. Recognizing Africa should not erase what Black Americans created.
African Roots, American Development
Enslaved Africans arrived with agricultural knowledge, cooking skills, and food traditions. They adapted those traditions to unfamiliar surroundings and unequal access to food, drawing on available ingredients and encounters with Indigenous and European foodways.
Okra, black-eyed peas, and vegetable-centered cooking offer important connections to African traditions. Corn and cornmeal reflect Indigenous American agriculture. These ingredients and influences became part of an evolving food culture rather than remaining unchanged copies of dishes from another continent. [1]
The distinction is between ancestry and development. A cuisine can descend from older traditions and acquire its own identity through the experiences of the people who preserve and transform it.
More Than a Story About Scraps
Slavery and deprivation belong in this history. Enslaved people supplemented restricted food supplies through gardening and other means, and used small amounts of meat to season vegetables. But telling the entire story as “making something out of scraps” understates their knowledge and creativity.
Black food history also includes seafood work, farming, skilled cooking, and enterprise. The Smithsonian’s account of Black foodways, for example, documents African Americans’ extensive involvement in harvesting, processing, and selling oysters. [2]
These were people with expertise. Their contributions deserve recognition as culinary work and cultural creation.
Why the Name Matters
The food traditions are older than the widespread use of the name “soul food.” The term became prominent during the 1960s, amid movements asserting Black identity and cultural pride. Smithsonian histories describe the soul food movement as celebrating foods that mainstream America had often disparaged. [3]
That context gives the name meaning beyond a meal that tastes good or brings comfort.
For some families, a pot of greens or a pan of cornbread carries memories of relatives, church dinners, holidays, and recipes learned by watching someone cook. Calling those foods “soul food” places them within a particular cultural story.
Southern Roots Traveled
Soul food also developed beyond the South. During the Great Migration, Black Americans carried Southern food traditions into new cities and neighborhoods, preserving familiar dishes while adapting their cooking. Smithsonian programming connects that movement directly to soul food’s development. [4]
That helps explain how a cuisine rooted in the South became part of Black community life across the country.
It also makes geography an imperfect test of authenticity. Soul food cooked in London can still be African American soul food. A cuisine’s cultural origins do not change simply because someone prepares it elsewhere.
Shared Heritage Does Not Mean Identical Cultures
Africa is a continent of many food traditions. The diaspora is similarly diverse. African American, Afro-Caribbean, Afro-Latin American, and Black British identities encompass different histories and relationships to food.
Someone may use “soul food” figuratively to describe a cherished family dish. That emotional use is understandable. The difficulty arises when it becomes a historical claim that all Black cuisines are versions of the same named tradition.
Shared ingredients and ancestry establish connections; they do not make distinct cuisines interchangeable.
A useful conversation would ask which dishes are related, what techniques survived, and how different communities adapted them. That approach gives people more history to appreciate.
Respect Through Recognition
Defending soul food’s African American identity need not become an attack on Africans, Caribbean people, or Black Britons. Equally, celebrating connections across the diaspora should include respect for Black Americans’ particular contributions.
Anyone can cook, enjoy, study, and share soul food. Cultural recognition does not require closing the kitchen door. It requires crediting the people and history behind the cuisine.
Soul food’s African roots and African American identity belong in the same sentence. Both deserve to be remembered.
What dish connects you most strongly to your family’s history—and who taught you to make it? Share your story in the comments.
Explore more food stories and culinary traditions in STM Daily News’ Food & Drink section.
Sources and Further Reading
- African and Native American Foodways and Resilience: From 1619 to COVID-19 — Research on food traditions, adaptation, and cultural resilience.
- Black Foodways and Cuisine — National Museum of African American History and Culture.
- African American History Highlights — National Museum of American History, including the soul food movement.
- Cooking Up History — National Museum of American History programming on migration and soul food.
