The formulation of government policies often relies on the input of think-tanks, which represent a fusion between the realm of politics and academia. These institutions not only offer case-by-case policy proposals for an incumbent administration but also formulate ideas on post-election agendas. This is no novelty, The Heritage Foundation (established in 1973) has produced the series Mandate for Leadership since 1981 to serve as policy guidance for incoming administrations, the first one for Reagan, the current ninth one for Trump. Its Democratic alternative, Center for American Progress, founded in 2003, has been the most influential think-tank of the Biden era.
From Academia to Advocacy and Incubation
The impact of think-tanks in U.S. policymaking is difficult to grasp. On the one hand, the complexities of government policies require expertise to be called-in at some (if not all) stages of decision-making and execution. To a certain extent, the U.S. government relies on in-house experts at the Congressional Research Service, which has been providing analyses and overviews of key policy issues for the legislature since 1914. The market of intellectual services expanded rapidly with the foundation of think-tanks outside the government. The first such institutions represented scholarly analyses of the highest quality with their fellows having esteemed academic credentials. But as the number of think-tanks increased, their professional analysis turned into ideologized advocacy. They also serve as revolving doors for former high-ranking officials, providing them opportunity to share insights from public service, do research or, more importantly, networking between politicians, interest groups, and donors.
On the other hand, it is precisely their extra-institutional status that can make think-tanks less relevant in terms of everyday insight and influence. Politicians and decision-makers have multiple issues and perspectives to consider, and their decisions are more likely to reflect political realities: practicality is more important than academic finesse. Yet, think-tanks often serve as meeting points for government and non-government stakeholders. The political biases of think-tanks overtly leaning in one direction or the other (many being formally or genuinely non-partisan) have the advantage of providing safe spaces for rough ideas that may seem controversial for a broader audience. Running for the presidency in 2016, Donald Trump turned former taboos into issues of daily discourse. Geopolitical competition, free trade, border security had received great attention among think-tanks but had often lacked catchy formulations so as not to be deemed controversial.
Today, Project 2025 is also called “controversial” albeit few have actually read the nearly 900-page “Mandate for Leadership”, penned not exclusively by the Heritage Foundation but nearly a hundred conservative think-tanks and advocacy groups. Yet Donald Trump himself distanced himself from it during the campaign, and, more importantly, failed to unify conservative intellectuals, in spite of his remarkable victory. The frictions between the mainstreamers and Trumpians in the Republican Party have left marks on conservative think-tanks: while mainstream conservatives have focused on free-market and internationalism, Team Trump stressed social and cultural issues. The Heritage Foundation itself had been associated with the former, however, a change in leadership brought it closer to the latter camp in 2022. Project 2025 originates from intellectuals supporting Donald Trump, and it should be no surprise that many contributors have ties to the first Trump administration.
Power to the People—at Least Some
For all the differences between mainstreamers and Trumpians, the main theme of Project 2025 is something that most conservatives support: reforming the federal government. While progressives see this as a call for an illegitimate increase of presidential power, conservatives have long questioned the political and legal legitimacy of the “administrative state”. According to the progressive concept, government agencies should be examples of proficiency in public administration even if they face a fallback in popular support. Conservatives argue that an unruly “administrative state” took footing in Washington D.C. throughout the last century: government agencies have been utilizing the power of the executive, sometimes without the latter’s knowledge or approval. In itself, this would be a normal phenomenon, since the sheer size of the federal government does not allow for the President’s involvement in the everyday workings of lower-tier offices in the administration. However, when agencies initiate administrative procedures that limit or even overwrite the President’s political agenda, conservatives see a machine that is alive and self-aware. They believe that these rigid bureaucracies are both unprofessional and undemocratic, standing in the way of breakthroughs in policy areas that can only be performed by a President carrying out his mandate. A famous example is Ronald Reagan’s “Tear down this wall” address in 1987, when staffers in the Department of State had been against the President’s and his speechwriter’s idea of even mentioning the Berlin Wall.
The administrative state
While the similarities between Donald Trump and Ronald Reagan are highly debated, their distrust of the “administrative state” is without a question. Ironically, the first Trump administration was willy-nilly one of the most transparent presidencies: the various departments faced difficulties due to hurdles and fluctuations in hiring, while it was hard to keep count of the leaks coming via whistleblowers or detractors. In almost all cases, the root problem was either ideological resistance or political disloyalty (often with reference to ineptitude). Accordingly, it is the personnel aspect of Project 2025 that is perhaps the most important and controversial. The initiative calls for a renewed emphasis on vetting the appropriate people for work in the federal government. Whether this would succeed is questionable, given that certain policy areas have a limited pool of professionals. In the meantime, the first major test of influence for conservative think-tanks and advocacy groups is to be found in the Senate confirmation hearings of cabinet nominees. The Heritage Foundation has already decided to campaign for the approval of Donald Trump’s picks with some fellows defending the option for recess appointments whereby the President can circumvent the Senate. While this presidential authority does exist, it was designed for other purposes, therefore, conservatives are better off having all nominees go through a successful hearing and confirmation process even if this requires certain senators to meet with advocacy groups citing think-tank analyses.
Picked out as proof of authoritarian intent by many a media outlet on the Left and raising many conservative eyebrows, Heritage President Kevin Roberts stated on Trump ally Steve Bannon’s notorious War Room podcast about Project 2025 in July: „We are in the process of the second American Revolution, which will remain bloodless, if the left allows it to be.”
The author is a research fellow at the John Lukacs Institute at the Ludovika University, Budapest
Cover photo: Trump writing to rapper Eminem in a graffiti by Australian artist LUSHSUX on the wall in Bethlehem, West Bank
