Structural questions about the undergraduate political science major have spurred debates in the field for more than thirty years. Today, resurgent growth of unusually sharp threats to American democracy fuel familiar curricular questions with new urgency. However, the combined effects of inertia, bureaucratic hurdles, and resource constraints often limit the ability of departments to respond with meaningful programmatic changes. In this article, we describe our experience creating a "loosely sequenced" core curriculum within one subfield -- implemented without making any changes in official major requirements and with the support of only two faculty members -- and provide a model for how interested faculty might design a cohesive curriculum that leverages extant local expertise and disciplinary specializations to offer students rigorous, timely tools for interpreting the contemporary political world. We explore the benefits and limitations of this approach through a case study highlighting our core curriculum in the subfield of American Political Development.