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.
STM Daily News
Supreme Court rules against trans girls participating in single‑sex sports, but leaves open larger questions of trans rights
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on June 30, 2026, that West Virginia and Idaho did not violate the Constitution by preventing transgender students from joining female sports teams, and that states can restrict who participates on women’s and girls sports teams based on a student’s sex assigned at birth.
Marie-Amelie George, Wake Forest University
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on June 30, 2026, that West Virginia and Idaho did not violate the Constitution by preventing transgender students from joining female sports teams, and that states can restrict who participates on women’s and girls sports teams based on a student’s sex assigned at birth.
This ruling, focused squarely on transgender students participating on single-sex sports teams, does not resolve other major questions that are important to trans rights. These issues include what bathrooms transgender or nonbinary students can use at school, as well as whether transgender individuals can update their names and gender markers on identity documents.
The court folded two related cases that address sports team participation at the middle, high school and college levels – Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J. – into one single decision that resolved both. The justices ruled 6-3 on the cases.
This ruling backs 25 other states that, over the past few years, have passed new laws restricting transgender students from participating on female sports teams.
Twenty-one states also have some sort of restriction on transgender and nonbinary students using school bathrooms designated by sex.
As a legal scholar and expert on LGBTQ+ rights, I believe that based on the court’s reasoning, it is likely that the conservative majority on the court would uphold states’ right to restrict school bathroom use based on sex assigned at birth. However, this ruling leaves bigger questions regarding transgender students’ broader rights in school, at work and elsewhere unanswered.
A political flash point
There were estimated to be fewer than 10 transgender athletes who participated in collegiate athletics in 2024.
But the issue of transgender students participating on sports teams is a hot-button issue for the Trump administration and Republicans, who argue that transgender female students have a biological advantage in competitive sports over athletes assigned female at birth.
The issue is nuanced and depends on factors including the athletes’ age and whether they have undergone gender-affirming hormonal therapy.
Some recent research shows that transgender female athletes who have undergone gender affirming hormone therapy have a comparable level of strength to cisgender female athletes.
What the rulings covered
At issue in these two Supreme Court cases were what protections Title IX – which bars sex-based discrimination in education programs and activities that receive federal funding – as well as the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment gave transgender students.
Little v. Hecox challenged Idaho’s 2020 law that allows only students whose sex was designated female at birth to participate on girls and women’s school sports team.
Lindsay Hecox, a transgender female student at Boise State University, alongside a cisgender student, filed a lawsuit against the state in 2020. Hecox, now 24, could not try out for the school’s track and cross country team because of the law. She instead ran at the club level.
In West Virginia v. B.P.J., a transgender middle school student athlete named Becky Pepper-Jackson similarly sued the state so she could continue participating in track and field. Pepper-Jackson won a state title in girls shot put in May 2026.
The state’s 2021 Save Women’s Sports Act requires public middle schools, high schools and colleges to designate all school athletic teams by biological sex.
Understanding Title IX and how it applies
The Supreme Court determined that states are permitted to restrict sports team participation under Title IX and its regulations, which explicitly permit schools to have separate male and female sports teams.
The opinion started by emphasizing there are “enduring” physical differences between males and females, and that if there were unified sports teams, females could be at a disadvantage.
“Separate sports teams for biological males and biological females are reasonable: Given the inherent physical differences between the sexes, allowing only biological females to play on women’s and girls’ teams can reduce the risk of physical injury and ensure fair competition,” the court ruled in its opinion on West Virginia v. B.P.J., authored by Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett joined the ruling.
Pepper-Jackson argued that this part of Title IX did not have relevance to her case because she had taken puberty blockers and never gone through male puberty.
As a result, she argued, she did not have heightened levels of testosterone or other physical differences that could raise the concern of a competitive advantage over cis female students in sports. She also posed no physical safety concerns for her teammates.
The court’s majority rejected this argument, saying that the Title IX regulations did not speak to this issue. The court recognized that although the laws might produce unfair results for someone like Pepper-Jackson, this did not make the restrictions improper.
The court added that Pepper-Jackson and other students in her position need to take up their concerns with state legislatures.
The court’s liberal wing – Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson – agreed with the conservative majority that the laws did not violate Title IX.
The role of the equal protection clause
The court also addressed the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution, which says that the government must apply its laws fairly and cannot treat people differently without a valid reason.
The court’s conservative majority ruled that the laws distinguished based on sex, and as a result they scrutinized the laws more carefully. However, the court concluded that the athletic restrictions nevertheless passed constitutional muster.
Here, too, the court’s majority cited the interests of safety and competitive fairness as important justifications for the laws.
The liberal justices disagreed with their colleagues’ analysis. In their view, the laws were too broad to satisfy the Constitution, because they banned transgender girls who had never experienced male puberty from female sports teams.
A side step
The decision is a narrow one. The court went to great lengths to emphasize that it was focused on sports, and that the court was not being asked about transgender people’s rights more broadly.
In the court’s telling, sports are unique because competition depends on the physiology and physical differences between those assigned male and female at birth. That is important, because there are few circumstances in which the physical differences between males and females continue to be relevant.
In the past, many occupations and schools were sex-segregated. Today, bathrooms, school sports teams, changing facilities, some college residence halls, juvenile detention centers and prisons are among the last places that remain segregated by sex.
Moreover, the court avoided ruling on the constitutional standard that should apply when transgender people are discriminated against. Under constitutional doctrine, courts will more closely scrutinize laws that discriminate against historically powerless minority groups, such as people of color and women.
One of the open questions in transgender rights litigation is whether transgender people qualify for that more searching review.
This case did not resolve that issue.
The court’s narrow ruling on transgender athletes ultimately did not resolve other key issues for transgender rights, which the court will likely be asked to address at a later date.
Marie-Amelie George, Associate Professor of Law, Wake Forest University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
📰 Enjoying STM Daily News? Join the conversation!
💬 Leave a comment, share your thoughts, and subscribe to our newsletter for the latest stories, updates, and “News You Can Use This Moment!” delivered to your inbox.
Stay connected with STM Daily News!
child education
When School’s Out, Community Steps In
Community: The joy of being a kid on summer vacation offers a time to explore with your friends, discover new things about the world and yourself and recharge for a few months before heading back to school in the fall. However, for millions of families, the end of the school year also marks the beginning of a stressful season filled with tough choices, as children can fall behind in the months away from the classroom.
(Feature Impact) The joy of being a kid on summer vacation offers a time to explore with your friends, discover new things about the world and yourself and recharge for a few months before heading back to school in the fall. However, for millions of families, the end of the school year also marks the beginning of a stressful season filled with tough choices, as children can fall behind in the months away from the classroom.
The summer gap begins when the school doors close and many children lose access to the daily routines, educational support and dependable nutrition that help them thrive. For families already juggling tight budgets and demanding schedules, summer can quickly become a season of added pressure and stress.
Summer learning loss – or the decline in academic skills and learning during the school break – can have a lasting impact on academic outcomes. Studies show over the summer, students can forget 20-30% of what they learned during the school year. Without the right support, students often start the new school year playing catchup, which can cause them to fall further behind.
Summer can also intensify food insecurity. Of the more than 22 million kids who rely on free or reduced-priced school meals, many lose access to these vital programs over the summer. When those meals disappear, families must stretch already limited budgets to cover up to 10 additional meals a week per child. In fact, recent United Way Worldwide data from 211 – the free 24/7 helpline that connects people with local resources – identified food access as one of the most pressing needs facing millions of families nationwide.
These overlapping pressures fall especially hard on millions of working families living paycheck to paycheck, including ALICE (Asset Limited, Income Constrained, Employed) households. They earn above the federal poverty level but still struggle to afford basic expenses like housing, medicine, food and transportation.
Addressing the summer gap requires a community-wide approach and solutions that meet hardworking families where they are. For example, United Way Community Schools are community-based hubs that bring together schools, social services agencies, volunteers and other community partners to provide students and families with essential support like tutoring, food access and health and wellness resources.
Families also need easy, practical, daily tips and local resources to make ends meet and help their kids stay on track.
Learning that Fits Your Day
For busy families, low- or no-cost learning moments that fit into packed schedules can make a real difference. Many communities and nonprofits offer dedicated programs to keep children active and learning during the summer, such as:
- Summer art classes, creative writing workshops and digital literacy tutoring at local libraries
- Free monthly book deliveries and reading challenges through Dolly Parton’s Imagination Library – a United Way partner – or book exchanges at Little Free Libraries in high-traffic areas
- Gardening classes, nature appreciation classes and swim lessons through local parks and recreation departments
- Free weekly youth workshops offered by many public museums, zoos and botanical gardens
- Free virtual museum field trips through institutions like the Smithsonian and NASA Glenn Research Center
- Free online courses in topics ranging from coding to art or language learning
Accessing Your Community’s Food Network
Families shouldn’t have to choose between nutritious food and other essentials. Help is available to ensure kids have the nutrition needed to thrive over the summer. While resources vary by community, examples include:
- Youth-serving organizations serving as open summer meal sites, offering free breakfast and lunch to kids and teens
- City parks departments offering daily meal stations
- School districts offering summer meal programs; food delivery may be an option
- Local places of worship hosting open-door meal programs or distributing weekend grocery bags for families
For those looking to make a difference this summer, consider lending a hand to help children and families. Volunteering is a rewarding way to give back to your community. Whether it’s mentoring, serving meals, reading with students or supporting local programs, even a small time investment can make a lasting impact. After all, when families thrive, communities thrive.
To learn more about childhood summer learning programs, food initiatives and ways to support your community, visit unitedway.org.
SOURCE:
The Bridge is a section of the STM Daily News Blog meant for diversity, offering real news stories about bona fide community efforts to perpetuate a greater good. The purpose of The Bridge is to connect the divides that separate us, fostering understanding and empathy among different groups. By highlighting positive initiatives and inspirational actions, The Bridge aims to create a sense of unity and shared purpose. This section brings to light stories of individuals and organizations working tirelessly to promote inclusivity, equality, and mutual respect. Through these narratives, readers are encouraged to appreciate the richness of diverse perspectives and to participate actively in building stronger, more cohesive communities.
https://stmdailynews.com/the-bridge
Community
StarKist® and Feed the Children Team Up Again to Help Put Child Hunger to Bed™
StarKist and Feed the Children are expanding the Put Child Hunger to Bed campaign (May 1–Sept 30, 2026), donating up to 100,000 pouches and matching up to $100,000 in donations.
Child hunger isn’t an abstract issue—it’s a daily reality for families in communities across the U.S. That’s why StarKist® is renewing its long-running partnership with Feed the Children through the Put Child Hunger to Bed™ campaign, turning simple, everyday actions into tangible support for kids who need it most.
Announced April 30, 2026, the campaign runs May 1 through September 30, 2026, and gives consumers two straightforward ways to participate: buy a product many already keep in their pantry, or donate directly online. Either way, the goal is the same—help more children and families access nutritious food and essential resources.
Two ways everyday choices can make an impact
StarKist is inviting shoppers to join the movement with built-in giving tied to routine purchases:
- Buy a tuna pouch, give a pouch: For every StarKist tuna pouch purchased, StarKist will donate one pouch to Feed the Children, up to 100,000 pouches.
- Donate online, double the impact: StarKist will match consumer donations dollar-for-dollar, up to $100,000, when donations are made through the campaign site.
Consumers can learn more or donate directly at StarKist.com/feedthechildren.
A partnership with more than 15 years behind it
StarKist and Feed the Children aren’t new collaborators. According to StarKist, the organizations have worked together for more than 15 years, combining product donations and financial contributions to support children and families experiencing hunger and hardship.
Michael Merritt Jr., Vice President and Head of Marketing & Innovation at StarKist, said the campaign is designed to make participation easy and meaningful—so consumers can be part of the solution through actions that fit naturally into everyday life.
Feed the Children also emphasized the broader impact: when families have reliable access to food and essentials, it doesn’t just help them get through today—it supports children’s development and future opportunities.
Jax joins the campaign to amplify awareness
To help bring the message to more families and communities, StarKist is partnering with a group of creators and advocates, including musician and mom Jax (@jax), who has 14.7 million TikTok followers and is known for uplifting, relatable content.
Jax shared that becoming a mom has deepened her perspective on food insecurity—and that no child should have to wonder where their next meal is coming from. As part of the collaboration, she’s also teaming up with Charlie The Tuna® for a new jingle tied to the campaign.
More voices joining the movement
Alongside Jax, StarKist is working with additional creators to encourage participation and share practical ways to support families:
- Becca Kufrin (@bkoof) – TV personality and mom
- Kit Hoover (@kithoover) – TV host
- Marina Chaparro (@nutrichicos) – Registered pediatric dietitian
- Samantha Busch (@samanthabusch) – Lifestyle influencer and philanthropist
The mix of entertainment, family lifestyle, and nutrition voices is intentional: the campaign is built to meet people where they already are—online, in stores, and in daily routines.
Why tuna pouches are the campaign’s centerpiece
StarKist is centering the campaign around its tuna pouches because they’re designed for convenience and nutrition—ready-to-eat, fully cooked, and available in more than 20 varieties. The company notes that each pouch delivers 12 grams or more of protein, making it an easy option for quick lunches, snacks, or on-the-go meals.
The bigger idea: when a product is already part of a household routine, tying it to giving can help scale impact—turning a small choice into support for families facing food insecurity.
How to get involved
If you want to participate between May 1 and September 30, 2026, you can:
- Purchase any StarKist tuna pouch (any size, type, or flavor) at your local grocery store or retailer
- Visit StarKist.com/feedthechildren to learn more or donate (with matching available up to the campaign limit)
Together, StarKist and Feed the Children say they’re working toward a shared goal: helping ensure kids can focus on growing, learning, and dreaming—rather than worrying about their next meal.
About the organizations
- StarKist Co. is a socially responsible company focused on convenient, nutritious proteins, known for its single-serve pouch products and its longtime mascot, Charlie The Tuna®.
- Feed the Children is a global nonprofit working to end childhood hunger in the U.S. and around the world by providing food, essentials, and opportunities to children and families.
To read more about community-related events, visit www.stmdailynews.com and search for “community.”
