Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Who’s Pulling Trump’s Strings? Inside Project 2025 and the 7 Think Tanks Reshaping America

From Heritage’s Project 2025 to America First Legal, these seven groups are driving Trump’s second-term agenda—reshaping federal agencies, civil rights, and global diplomacy


Opinion

Who’s Pulling Trump’s Strings? Inside Project 2025 and the 7 Think Tanks Reshaping America

Donald Trump

James Devaney/GC Images

Since the 1960s, think tanks and advocacy groups have been key influencers of presidential policymaking. For decades, Democrat and Republican presidents have relied on think tanks for research and policy ideas. Most recently, think tank roles have shifted from advisory to actual policy formulation and implementation, whereby the President is the marionette controlled by the think tank puppeteers.

Research is replete with the fact that seven conservative organizations have had, in just 285 days of Trump 2.0 – hundreds of their recommendations implemented. If, since Jan. 20, your mind has been spinning around after witnessing a rapidly reshaped federal government and change in international diplomacy and social norms, you may wonder who is pulling Trump’s strings.


Let’s examine the seven think tank puppeteers who have controlled President Trump since Jan. 20 and will continue to change the USA until Jan. 2029. This should help you better understand what’s going on at the White House.

Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025

Donald Trump posted on Truth Social in mid-2024 “I know nothing about Project 2025” despite an April 2022 speech at a Heritage Foundation event where he endorsed or acknowledged the project’s efforts (Salon, July 11, 2024).

Project 2025, a 922-page blueprint, contained 735 detailed policy proposals across for Trump to implement across 20 federal agencies (CBS News). Interestingly, only 31% of Republicans are aware of Project 2025 (Navigator Research) and of those who are knowledgeable, only 7% view the blueprint favorably (NBC News).

Data from the Center for Progressive Reform and Governing for Impact’s Oct. 15 report reveals the Trump 2.0 administration has already implemented 251 domestic policies written by the Heritage Foundation. Sixty-four of Project 2025’s foreign affairs and international economic policy proposals have also been implemented since Trump’s inauguration.

Together, this means 315 of Project 2025’s policy proposals (42.8%) have been implemented by Mr. Trump (The Hill). Additionally, about 70% of Trump’s cabinet and over 50 senior officials had prior roles with Heritage or its Project 2025 partner groups (DeSmog).

Here’s just nine high-profile recommendations Mr. Trump implemented: 1) disbanding U.S. Agency for International Development, 2) prohibiting transgender individuals from serving in the military, 3) allocating funds for 100,000 ICE detention beds, 4) laying off thousands of IRS employees and eliminating new funding for tax enforcement, 5) deploying Secret Service and other federal officers as law enforcement in Washington, D.C., 6) canceling federal contracts supporting diversity, equity and inclusion, 7) defunding NPR, PBS and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, 8) withdrawing the U.S. from the Paris Climate Agreement and 9) expanding tariffs on imports from Canada, Mexico and China. (The Hill and BBC)

America First Policy

America First Policy Institute (AFPI) prepared nearly 300 executive orders ready for Trump’s signature immediately after his Jan. 20 inauguration. AFPI dominates Trump’s “America First” economic nationalism, immigration restrictions and deregulation task forces personnel and their co-founder Linda McMahon is now Secretary of Education (NPR).

Center for Renewing America

The Center for Renewing America, founded by Russel Vought -- top Project 2025 architect and Director, Office of Management and Budget -- has been instrumental in shaping policies around Schedule F (civil service reclassification), Christian nationalist faith-based governance and federal budget restructuring (Politico).

Claremont Institute

The Claremont Institute has contributed ideological frameworks promoting “national conservatism,” advancing “constitutional conservatism,” state-level resistance to the federal bureaucracy, DEI reforms and climate-related executive orders (DeSmog).

Hillsdale College

Hillsdale College-trained figures have taken education posts across Trump’s agencies, promoting the nationalization of curriculum and the rollback of federal education standards (NCSL).

America First Legal

Stephen Miller’s organization, America First Legal, advises Mr. Trump on litigation and executive acts aimed at neutralizing federal civil rights enforcement, immigration enforcement, Department of Justice strategies and border governance (Politico).

Council for National Policy

The Council for National Policy is the hub for political appointments and helps integrate religious nationalist proposals into agencies’ missions, including Health and Human Services and Education (DeSmog).

285-day assessment of Trump 2.0

Mr. Trump has followed the playbooks presented to him by seven self-serving organizations. Already in play are 251 policies that span from federal agency restrictions to immigration crackdowns, rollback of environmental civil rights protections, and significant centralization of the executive branch.

Internationally, 64 policies created by think tanks are in force and have enabled Mr. Trump to take a sharp pivot toward isolationism, trade protectionism and militarized deterrence that is consistent with the “America First” concept (The Fulcrum).

But, hold your hat. The Project 2025 Tracker and other independent observers note that another 309 objectives of the marionette masters remain “in progress” (www.project2025.observer/en). Reformation of America has only just begun as we’ve still got 1,176 days of Trump 2.0 to go.

As the late Paul Harvey would say at the closure of his historic ABC News radio broadcasts, “and now you know the rest of the story. Good day.”

Steve Corbin is Professor Emeritus of Marketing at the University of Northern Iowa.


Read More

An empty grocery cart in a market.

NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani proposes five city-run grocery stores. See the arguments for and against, from food deserts to bodega concerns and the $70M cost.

Getty Images, Kwangmoozaa

Government-Owned Grocery Stores: Accessible Nutrition or Government Overreach?

Issue Introduction

Over the past few years, affordability has become the most central issue affecting Americans and the quality of life in the United States. The prices of groceries and basic necessities have risen 25-30% since the COVID-19 pandemic and are projected to rise another 3.2% in 2026. At the same time, the exodus of grocery chains from rural and low-income areas has scattered food deserts throughout individual states. Recent mass closures include Grocery Outlet’s shuttering of 36 stores and continued shut-downs of many Albertsons locations. These factors have led politicians to make affordability a major campaign issue.

During his progressive campaign for mayor of New York City, Zohran Mamdani raised the idea of opening grocery stores owned and operated by the city government to provide New Yorkers with affordable groceries. In his April 2026 public address that marked his first 100 days in office, Mayor Mamdani announced plans for the first of five city-run grocery stores. Mamdani’s proposed initiative will use $70 million in capital funding to build five city-owned municipal stores–one in each borough–and place them under control of the New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC). NYCEDC will then select third-party operating staff in accordance with city standards for affordability and proper labor practices. Public opinion following the announcement continues to be divided between uproar and support.

Keep ReadingShow less
​U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth

U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth testifies during a Senate Committee on Appropriations hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., on July 21, 2026. Hegseth is crafting a strong and masculine identity for his audience as he reportedly contemplates a presidential run.

(Alex Wroblewski/AFP/Getty Images/TNS)

Politicians Can’t Just ’Give the People What They Want’

For reasons that will baffle my many detractors, I am often asked for advice about being an opinion journalist. One of my standard responses is: You have to be willing to disappoint your biggest fans.

What I mean is that if you start to see your job as telling fans what they want to hear, you risk becoming an entertainer rather than a thinker, and eventually you become a caricature. I’ve seen it happen numerous times. Patrick Buchanan was a brilliant columnist and a serious person. But over the course of his career, he listened too much to the people who said, “Go Pat, go!” and too little to friends who said, “I think that’s taking it too far.”

Keep ReadingShow less
White marble exterior of the United States Capitol, often called the Capitol Building, is the home of the United States Congress and the seat of the legislative branch of the U.S. federal government

Congress approval is at a record-low 10%. Moderation and consensus-building, not partisan theatrics, are how Washington gets problems solved.

Richard Sharrocks / Getty Images

Reclaiming the Politics of the Possible

Washington is stuck in a cycle of performative conflict. The incentives seem to reward outrage, not outcomes that last; purity tests, not problem‑solving. So it’s no surprise that after three shutdowns in less than a year, public approval of Congress collapsed to just 10 percent this spring. (Gallup, April 2026.) But the country we live in — where many middle-income families report persistent financial strain and businesses are navigating unprecedented technological upheaval — cannot be governed by theatrics. Breaking this cycle requires moderation, consensus‑building, and a cooperative approach to governance.

This is not a call for centrism as an ideology. Instead, this is a call for transformative leaders to embrace moderation as their governing strategy, recognizing that in a pluralistic country of nearly 350 million people durable solutions require broad and stable alliances. Ultimately, this is a call for the 240 million of us who are eligible to vote in November to elect consensus-builders instead of bomb-throwers, and healers instead of arsonists.

Keep ReadingShow less
Adult man holds a microphone while asking a question during a town hall meeting.

Congress ignored 90% of public support for background checks. Learn how citizen assemblies and sortition helped Ireland break gridlock and could work in the US.

SDI Productions/Getty Images

Consensus Without Power: How Sortition Could Break America's Legislative Gridlock

In April 2013, four months after the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting killed twenty children, the US Senate voted on the Manchin-Toomey Act to expand background checks and to include gun-show and internet sales of firearms. Roughly nine in ten Americans, including a majority of gun owners, supported the bill—a figure that has held steady across more than a decade of polling. It fell short of the 60-vote threshold by six votes. This was not an outlier. On complex issues, representatives often fail to translate public consensus into reality. Research shows that legislators consistently vote in line with donor and interest group preferences over constituent opinion. Before the vote, the National Rifle Association (NRA) warned every senator it would “rate” their vote on its annual rating system, and a low NRA rating could cost senators their next primary. Consequently, the bill died 54-46, and the majority of Americans watched, powerless, as their consensus was overridden by self-interested representatives.

Liberal democracies need a method to bypass electoral incentives that run counter to public opinion. One already exists: Ireland faced the same stalemate on complex issues before it instituted a process called sortition. The beauty of sortition lies in its removal of the primary pressure that misaligns representatives’ interests from public interest: reelection. Much like jury duty, citizens are randomly drawn from the population. An independent body then stratifies the pool, so the final group mirrors the country by age, gender, geography, and income. The group meets over weeks or months, hearing from experts and the public, as well as debating frequently. At the end, it issues a recommendation that parliament may then put to a referendum or pass into law.

Keep ReadingShow less