Trojan horse
Think tanks have long been a fixture in American politics, but their influence has evolved significantly over the past century. Once regarded as independent institutions focused on research and policy recommendations, think tanks now play a crucial role in shaping not only public policy but also voter behavior and partisan dynamics. The rise of ideologically driven think tanks has transformed how Americans engage with politics, often contributing to the deepening polarization seen today. These institutions have shifted from being neutral research bodies to key players in partisan battles, heavily influencing legislative agendas, media narratives, and voter preferences. As a result, think tanks have become a powerful force, both reflecting and amplifying the divides that define modern American politics.
The Brookings Institution, founded in 1916 by businessman and philanthropist Robert S. Brookings, stands as one of the earliest and most influential think tanks in the United States. Established during a time when America was experiencing unprecedented wealth and economic growth, the institution aimed to improve government efficiency and address pressing socio-economic issues. Brookings played a key role in defining how modern think tanks operate and influence public policy. Initially, its focus was on fiscal responsibility and government reform, areas in which it helped set foundational principles for future policy research. At a time when the nation had the financial means to tackle complex social and economic challenges, Brookings’ data-driven approach to policymaking set the stage for a broader role of think tanks in shaping governance and reform efforts.
The Brookings Institution emerged from the merger of three key organizations: the Institute for Government Research, the Institute of Economics, and the Robert Brookings Graduate School of Economics and Government. Each of these institutes brought a distinct focus that contributed to Brookings' overarching mission. The Institute for Government Research focused on improving the efficiency and effectiveness of government operations, while the Institute of Economics specialized in economic policy and fiscal management. Meanwhile, the Robert Brookings Graduate School of Economics and Government provided an academic foundation, training future public servants and researchers. Together, they worked to address inefficiencies in governance and poor fiscal management, which were seen as major barriers to societal progress. Through rigorous research and evidence-based policy recommendations, Brookings aimed to reform government processes, advocate for fiscal responsibility, and enhance the effectiveness of public institutions.
Brookings played a pivotal role in shaping both domestic and international recovery efforts during two of the most critical periods in modern history. During the Great Depression, its research significantly influenced key elements of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal, helping to guide economic recovery strategies by balancing fiscal conservatism with the recognition of the need for targeted government intervention. This contribution to the national debate on economic stabilization helped frame policies that pulled the U.S. out of the economic crisis. Similarly, Brookings was instrumental in crafting the Marshall Plan after World War II, aiding in the reconstruction of war-torn Europe and reinforcing its growing influence on global economic recovery. Both contributions solidified Brookings’ reputation as a key player in shaping impactful, evidence-based public policy at home and abroad.
Throughout the mid-20th century, Brookings continued to contribute to public administration reform. Its researchers worked closely with federal agencies to improve government efficiency, develop better budgeting practices, and promote strategic planning. One of its major achievements during this time was advancing performance-based budgeting, a system widely adopted by governments to allocate resources more effectively. These initiatives reinforced Brookings’ commitment to enhancing the effectiveness of government institutions. As Brookings gained prominence, a wave of conservative think tanks emerged in response, challenging its centrist and occasionally liberal-leaning policy stances. One of the earliest was the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), founded in 1938 but gaining influence post-World War II. AEI focused on promoting free-market economics, deregulation, and smaller government—directly opposing the interventionist policies advocated by institutions like Brookings.
By the 1970s, the conservative think tank movement had gained significant momentum, largely driven by the establishment of the Heritage Foundation in 1973. This organization marked a distinct shift in the think tank landscape. Unlike traditional institutions like the Brookings Institution, which produced rigorous, peer-reviewed academic reports, Heritage focused on producing short, easily digestible policy papers tailored to directly influence lawmakers. This approach allowed Heritage to bypass the slower, research-heavy methods used by its predecessors, prioritizing political impact over academic integrity.
During Ronald Reagan’s presidency, the Heritage Foundation's Mandate for Leadership report became a key blueprint for shaping the administration’s policies, marking a significant moment in the rise of conservative think tanks as political powerhouses. The report, consisting of hundreds of policy recommendations, laid out a detailed conservative agenda focused on reducing the size of government, deregulating industries, and cutting taxes. However, despite its significant influence, the report—and much of Heritage's subsequent policy work—was often criticized for lacking the empirical rigor typically seen in academic research. Rather than being built on comprehensive, peer-reviewed studies, much of the report’s content reflected ideological objectives centered around free-market economics and limited government intervention.
Many of Heritage’s policy proposals, such as trickle-down economics, massive tax cuts for the wealthy, and deregulation, were designed to prioritize the interests of corporations and the affluent, while often ignoring or downplaying their potential harm to working-class Americans. Critics argued that these recommendations were not sufficiently grounded in evidence or data that demonstrated their real-world effectiveness. For instance, trickle-down economics, a central tenet of Reagan's policies, was widely promoted by Heritage but has since been discredited by numerous economists for failing to generate the widespread economic benefits it promised. Instead of promoting economic prosperity for all, these policies primarily benefited the wealthy and exacerbated income inequality.
Heritage’s emphasis on slashing social safety nets, such as welfare programs and healthcare funding, was rooted in an ideological opposition to government involvement in the economy rather than a careful consideration of the impacts these cuts would have on vulnerable populations. This approach highlights how think tanks like Heritage, while influential, often promote policies that align with their ideological vision rather than those supported by comprehensive, evidence-based analysis or a broad consensus of experts. The influence of Mandate for Leadership illustrated how think tanks can significantly shape political agendas, but it also revealed the risks of enacting policies driven by ideology rather than data and practical considerations.
The rise of conservative think tanks like the Heritage Foundation and the AEI can be seen as a response to the more centrist and progressive policies advanced by institutions like Brookings. However, whereas Brookings based its research on non-partisan, data-driven analysis aimed at improving government efficiency and addressing socio-economic challenges, organizations like Heritage leaned heavily on ideologically biased information. Their reports often framed issues in ways that aligned with conservative talking points, sometimes omitting inconvenient data or oversimplifying complex policy challenges to serve a political agenda.
This shift in the role of think tanks—from knowledge-driven institutions to advocacy groups—has had a profound impact on U.S. policymaking. Many modern conservative think tanks prioritize political expediency over academic rigor, producing research that is often more about reinforcing pre-existing beliefs than offering balanced, data-backed solutions. Today, this is particularly evident in areas such as climate change, healthcare, and economic policy, where the recommendations from conservative think tanks frequently contradict the broader consensus within the scientific or academic community. For instance, Heritage has long promoted climate change skepticism, publishing reports that downplay the severity of global warming despite overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary.
Over time, the influence of these ideologically driven think tanks has helped shape major legislative changes, especially within the Republican Party. But their policies often reflect a narrow set of interests—those of the business community, libertarians, and social conservatives—rather than the broader public good. The result is a policymaking environment where decisions are increasingly informed by biased or incomplete information, rather than by comprehensive, well-researched data.
In contrast to Brookings, which remains committed to evidence-based research and non-partisan policy recommendations, conservative think tanks have become vehicles for advancing specific political ideologies. Their rise has fueled polarization in U.S. politics, with policymaking often driven by ideological commitments rather than facts. This trend highlights a critical tension in the role of think tanks: should they serve as objective sources of information, or as advocacy tools for political agendas? In the case of modern conservative think tanks like Heritage, the latter has increasingly become the norm, with significant implications for the quality and direction of public policy.
Conservative think tanks, particularly in the U.S., have long been criticized for their deep financial ties to corporations and wealthy individuals who seek to influence public policy to serve their business interests. Over time, many of these organizations have become vehicles for corporate lobbying, promoting policies that align with the goals of their funders rather than the public good. The Heritage Foundation, the AEI, and others have been at the center of this controversy, raising concerns about the integrity and objectivity of their research.
Since their inception, conservative think tanks have positioned themselves as advocates for free-market principles, limited government, and deregulation. However, these ideals often dovetail with the interests of large corporations, particularly in industries like fossil fuels, pharmaceuticals, and finance. As a result, these industries have provided significant financial support to think tanks that promote policies such as tax cuts for corporations, deregulation of environmental protections, and the weakening of labor laws—policies that directly benefit corporate bottom lines.
One of the most prominent examples of corporate influence can be seen in the fossil fuel industry’s relationship with conservative think tanks. Organizations such as the Koch Brothers’ network, which includes Koch Industries—a massive conglomerate with deep investments in oil, gas, and chemicals—have been key financial backers of think tanks like the Heritage Foundation and AEI. These think tanks, in turn, have promoted climate change skepticism, consistently publishing reports and policy recommendations that downplay the urgency of addressing global warming. Despite overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change, these think tanks have framed environmental regulations as harmful to economic growth, effectively shielding their corporate backers from policies that could limit their profitability.
Similarly, the pharmaceutical and health insurance industries have used conservative think tanks to push for deregulation and policies that favor private healthcare over public options. These industries have funneled millions into think tanks to support research that opposes government involvement in healthcare, such as the Affordable Care Act. In some cases, the "research" produced by these think tanks has been criticized for lacking depth or ignoring real-world evidence, serving instead as political cover for corporate interests.
Corporate donations to these think tanks often come with strings attached, influencing the kind of research and policy recommendations that are produced. In some instances, think tanks have been accused of tailoring their research to meet the expectations of their donors. For example, ExxonMobil has funded several conservative think tanks that have produced reports undermining the environmental risks of fossil fuels. These reports are then used to influence lawmakers and the public, creating a false narrative that supports the interests of these corporations while ignoring the long-term environmental and social consequences.
The influence of corporate money on conservative think tanks also extends to policy debates on taxation. Many of these organizations have aggressively lobbied for lower corporate taxes and deregulation, presenting these policies as beneficial for the overall economy. However, in reality, such policies tend to disproportionately benefit large corporations and the wealthy, contributing to growing inequality. Think tanks funded by corporations have consistently promoted tax cuts for the wealthy and deregulation of industries under the guise of economic growth, but their proposals are often criticized for neglecting the needs of the middle and lower classes.
Close financial relationships between conservative think tanks and their corporate sponsors undermine the objectivity of the policy recommendations they produce. Rather than functioning as independent research institutions committed to unbiased analysis, these think tanks often serve as de facto lobbying arms for their corporate benefactors. This erosion of intellectual integrity has fueled distrust in the policy research produced by these organizations and raises questions about whether their recommendations genuinely reflect what is best for society.
Generally, conservative think tanks have been increasingly funded and influenced by corporations, shaping policies that align with their donors' interests. This has led to the promotion of biased, ideologically driven research that serves corporate goals, undermining the role of think tanks as independent voices in public policy debates. As a result, policymaking is often skewed toward the interests of a select few, rather than addressing the broader needs of the public, contributing to corporate influence over democratic processes.
Liberal think tanks, in contrast to their conservative counterparts, have generally been regarded as more academically rigorous, less ideologically driven, and more transparent in their funding sources. Institutions like the Brookings Institution, the Center for American Progress (CAP), and the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) emphasize data-driven, peer-reviewed research, often collaborating with academics, policy experts, and government officials to develop well-rounded and comprehensive policy recommendations. While no think tank is entirely free from bias, liberal think tanks have established a reputation for adhering more closely to academic standards and distancing themselves from the influence of corporate money.
One of the key differences between liberal and conservative think tanks is the approach to research. Many liberal think tanks place a strong emphasis on empirical evidence, often employing economists, social scientists, and other experts to conduct rigorous, peer-reviewed research. This academic approach ensures that the policies they advocate are grounded in data, scholarly analysis, and real-world outcomes, rather than in political ideology or corporate interests. For example, Brookings publishes in-depth reports that undergo extensive review, and its scholars are often cited in academic journals, reinforcing its reputation as a trusted source of unbiased information.
Liberal think tanks also tend to focus on policy areas where academic consensus already exists, such as climate change, healthcare reform, and income inequality. They use well-documented evidence and widely accepted research methodologies to advocate for progressive solutions, such as expanding access to healthcare, raising the minimum wage, and implementing strong environmental protections. For instance, the Economic Policy Institute has produced detailed research on wage stagnation and income inequality, providing a data-backed foundation for advocating policies that benefit workers and the middle class. Their studies often undergo peer review and draw from a wide range of academic sources, underscoring their commitment to methodological rigor.
Another important distinction is the source of funding. While conservative think tanks are often funded by corporations or wealthy individuals with specific political or economic interests, many liberal think tanks are funded through foundations, individual donations, and government grants that have fewer direct ties to corporate interests. This allows them to focus on policies that align with the public interest rather than serving the agenda of large corporations. For example, the Center for American Progress receives funding from progressive foundations such as the Ford Foundation and the Open Society Foundations, which support a wide range of initiatives aimed at promoting social justice, equity, and democracy.
While some liberal think tanks may receive contributions from individuals or businesses, these donations tend to be smaller in scale and less targeted toward shaping specific policies that benefit the corporate sector. Instead, liberal think tanks often prioritize issues like poverty reduction, healthcare access, environmental sustainability, and social justice, which have broad public support and are often grounded in extensive academic research. This allows them to maintain a level of independence and avoid the appearance of being "bought" by corporate interests.
Moreover, liberal think tanks are generally more transparent about their funding sources and research methodologies. Many publish detailed reports on their donors and openly disclose potential conflicts of interest, ensuring accountability in their work. This transparency contrasts with the opacity of some conservative think tanks, which have been criticized for hiding their corporate donors and tailoring research to fit the needs of their financial backers.
An example of this transparency can be seen in the operations of the Brookings Institution, which maintains strict guidelines to ensure its research remains independent. Brookings has a rigorous peer-review process, and its scholars are encouraged to disclose any conflicts of interest. This commitment to independence is one reason Brookings remains a respected institution across the political spectrum, even though its research often supports policies associated with liberal or centrist views.
While liberal think tanks do advocate for progressive policies, they tend to base their recommendations on a broader and more objective assessment of evidence, rather than narrowly tailoring their findings to meet ideological goals. For example, on climate change, the overwhelming scientific consensus is that human activity is a major driver of global warming. Liberal think tanks like the Center for American Progress and Brookings have used this evidence to argue for stronger environmental protections, supporting their positions with a wealth of data from climate scientists, economists, and environmental experts. In contrast, conservative think tanks have often relied on industry-funded studies that challenge the scientific consensus, highlighting the difference in the integrity and source of their research.
In general, liberal think tanks distinguish themselves from their conservative counterparts through their adherence to academic rigor, reliance on peer-reviewed and empirical research, and greater transparency in funding. By prioritizing evidence-based policies and distancing themselves from corporate money, liberal think tanks maintain a level of independence that allows them to produce research aimed at benefiting society as a whole, rather than advancing the narrow interests of wealthy donors or corporations. This commitment to academic standards and the public good makes liberal think tanks important players in shaping progressive policies that are rooted in data and designed to address the most pressing challenges of the modern world.
In fact, the terms "liberal" and "conservative" have long been used to categorize political ideologies, but when applied to think tanks, these labels often reflect more than just policy positions—they shape public perception and influence political debate. Over time, conservative and liberal think tanks have weaponized these labels to either discredit or promote ideological viewpoints, often blurring the line between fact-based analysis and partisan politics. This has led to a significant shift in how certain issues, like climate change, are framed. For instance, acknowledging the scientific reality of climate change—a position based on overwhelming evidence and consensus among climate scientists—has been labeled as "liberal." However, this is a distortion of the term. The reality of climate change is not an inherently liberal or conservative stance—it's a fact. What is truly ideological is how we choose to address climate change, with liberal solutions often favoring government intervention, regulations, and investment in green technologies, while conservative approaches might focus on market-driven solutions and minimal government intervention or regulation.
This shift in labeling facts as "liberal" reflects a broader trend, where certain truths or scientific realities are recast as partisan positions in order to influence public opinion. Conservative think tanks, particularly those funded by industries like fossil fuels, have been instrumental in reframing issues like climate change, systemic racism, and healthcare reform as part of a broader "liberal agenda." This tactic has been highly effective in fostering skepticism among conservative voters, leading many to view these issues not as evidence-based realities, but as political attacks on their values and way of life. For instance, recognizing systemic racism and addressing its consequences is often dismissed as a "liberal" concern, even though the data and history supporting these claims are well-documented.
This reframing has profound consequences for how the public engages with critical issues. By labeling scientific facts or social realities as "liberal," conservative think tanks and media outlets have successfully polarized debates, making it difficult for bipartisan action on urgent matters like climate change, public health, and economic inequality. As a result, discussions that should be driven by data and evidence become mired in ideological conflict, leaving little room for consensus or practical solutions.
What has happened is a form of ideological branding, where facts themselves become politicized. Conservative think tanks often aim to discredit scientific consensus by framing it as part of a broader liberal strategy for government overreach or social engineering. For example, climate change is often framed not as a scientific issue, but as a "Trojan horse" for government regulation and control. This strategy shifts the debate from the reality of the problem to the politics of the solution, allowing conservatives to rally against what they perceive as a threat to individual freedom, even if it means denying or downplaying the factual basis of the issue itself.
In essence, what we are witnessing is a transformation in how facts are perceived based on political ideology. Issues like climate change, systemic racism, or healthcare reform should be seen as problems that can be addressed through various policy approaches, whether liberal or conservative. Instead, by labeling facts themselves as ideological, the debate moves away from how to solve these problems and becomes focused on whether the problems even exist. This is a key tactic employed by ideologically driven think tanks to control the narrative and align public opinion with their broader political goals.
This transformation of facts into ideological battlegrounds is a direct reflection of the growing influence of think tanks in shaping not just policy, but public perception. What were once seen as objective issues requiring practical solutions have become highly politicized debates. Think tanks, particularly those with strong ideological leanings, have played a crucial role in this shift, using their platforms to promote agendas that align with their funders’ interests and political goals. This growing entanglement between research institutions and partisan politics has heightened the stakes in policy discussions. As governments grapple with increasingly complex challenges, think tanks wield more power than ever in influencing both the framing of issues and the solutions put forth. This influence is exemplified by initiatives like Project 2025, which underscores the capacity of ideologically driven think tanks to shape the future of American governance through carefully crafted policy roadmaps designed to reflect conservative priorities.
Project 2025 is a conservative blueprint aimed at reshaping the U.S. government in a potential future Republican administration, with a focus on deeply conservative reforms to key institutions like immigration, healthcare, and social policies. Organized by the Heritage Foundation, Project 2025 represents the culmination of right-wing efforts to lay out a detailed plan for dismantling federal oversight in areas such as Medicaid, education, and civil rights, and reinstituting policies from the Trump era.
Project 2025 emerged from the conservative think tank, the Heritage Foundation, which spearheaded the effort to create a detailed manual for Republican governance post-2024. The plan advocates for sweeping changes across several areas: immigration, healthcare, civil rights, and federal bureaucracy. Its goal is to give a future Republican president a clear and actionable policy framework from day one.
Some of the most significant recommendations include reinstating Trump's hardline immigration policies, such as the Migrant Protection Protocols (the "Remain in Mexico" policy), repealing the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), and drastically limiting refugee admissions. The plan also suggests cutting federal benefits and tightening eligibility requirements for safety-net programs like Medicaid, SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program), and TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families). Project 2025 further seeks to reshape American social policy by rolling back protections for LGBTQ+ individuals and reducing the influence of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives across federal agencies.
Initially, Donald Trump appeared to support the ideals of Project 2025. In a speech in April 2022 at the Heritage Foundation’s leadership conference, he praised the group’s work, saying they were laying the groundwork for future conservative governance. Trump’s speech emphasized that such plans were critical for the survival of American conservatism and that the right should prepare for a “colossal mandate to save America.” At that time, his comments were interpreted as a tacit endorsement of Project 2025.
This initial connection between Trump and the project seemed natural, given that many of the policy prescriptions in Project 2025 closely mirrored Trump’s first-term agenda. Stephen Miller, one of Trump’s closest advisors during his presidency and a key figure behind Trump’s immigration policies, played a significant role in shaping the project’s ideas on immigration enforcement. Miller’s influence is clear in Project 2025’s recommendations to deputize National Guard troops and local law enforcement to detain and deport undocumented immigrants across the U.S.
Despite these initial ties, Trump has since publicly distanced himself from Project 2025. In July 2024, Trump posted on his social media platform Truth Social that he had “nothing to do with” the project and was unaware of its specifics. He described some of the policy ideas in the project as “absolutely ridiculous and abysmal.” Trump emphasized that while Project 2025 was created by some figures on the far right, he personally did not endorse all of its contents and criticized efforts by Democrats to tie him to the plan. This distancing could be a strategic move by Trump to avoid being associated with some of the more extreme elements of the plan, particularly those that have generated backlash even among conservative circles. Trump has sought to portray himself as a more moderate figure compared to both the radical left and the radical right, suggesting that Project 2025 may align too closely with far-right ideologies for his liking.
Despite Trump's public rejection, many of Project 2025’s proposals align with his known policy preferences. For example, Project 2025 aims to dismantle the federal administrative state by eliminating thousands of federal employees and shifting many decisions to state governments, a move that Trump has previously advocated. Moreover, the project’s hardline stance on immigration mirrors Trump’s first-term priorities, and several former Trump officials, like Stephen Miller, are deeply involved in the project.
If Trump were to win the 2024 election, there is no doubt that many of Project 2025’s recommendations would find their way into his administration’s policies, despite his current disavowal of the plan. Trump's history of pushing aggressive immigration enforcement, cutting social welfare programs, and rolling back civil rights protections suggests that he might pursue parts of Project 2025’s agenda regardless of his distancing from the project in public.
Project 2025 represents a vision for conservative governance that is more radical and ambitious than even Trump’s first-term agenda. While Trump has publicly distanced himself from the project, its core proposals remain closely aligned with his political ideology. If Trump were to return to office, elements of Project 2025 may well be implemented, furthering a rightward shift in U.S. policy. However, Trump’s attempts to distance himself from the plan reflect his strategy to navigate the fine line between appealing to his far-right base and presenting himself as a more moderate leader to the broader electorate. Ultimately, Project 2025 is both a reflection of Trumpism and a glimpse into the potential future of conservative governance in America.
The growing power of think tanks in shaping American politics raises serious concerns about the influence of unelected, privately funded institutions on democratic processes. These organizations, often backed by wealthy individuals, corporations, or special interest groups, wield disproportionate sway over public policy, steering it in directions that frequently align with the interests of their benefactors rather than the broader public good. The increasing ideological polarization of think tanks has exacerbated this issue, as they push agendas that deepen divisions and distort policymaking by promoting biased research or oversimplified solutions to complex problems. This concentration of power in the hands of a few influential think tanks undermines the principles of transparency, accountability, and public participation in government, effectively allowing powerful donors to shape the future of the country without any electoral mandate. As a result, the role of think tanks in American politics raises fundamental questions about the fairness and integrity of the policy-making process in a democratic society.
Corporate-backed think tanks have consistently worked to undermine progressive policies related to human rights, workers' rights, the environment, and animal welfare, often prioritizing profits over public welfare. These institutions, driven by corporate interests, have opposed efforts to strengthen labor unions, which are crucial for protecting workers’ rights and ensuring fair wages and working conditions. In areas like environmental protection and animal welfare, think tanks funded by industries such as fossil fuels and agribusiness produce biased reports that downplay climate change and environmental degradation, thereby stalling policies that could mitigate ecological collapse and promote sustainability. By using research that favors deregulation and corporate freedom, these think tanks restrict the advancement of progressive legislation that could save lives, protect vulnerable populations, and preserve the planet for future generations. Their influence often leaves communities and ecosystems at risk, prioritizing short-term profits over long-term global well-being.
The policies championed by corporate-backed conservative think tanks, such as trickle-down economics, often disproportionately harm the very people who support them, particularly rural and working-class voters. Trickle-down economics, which advocates for tax cuts for the wealthy and deregulation under the assumption that benefits will "trickle down" to the broader population, has repeatedly failed to uplift the rural poor. Instead of fostering widespread prosperity, these policies tend to concentrate wealth among the top earners, leaving working-class communities with fewer resources and economic opportunities.
Many rural voters, who often align with Republican candidates influenced by these think tanks, are promised economic revitalization but instead face stagnant wages, deteriorating public services, and a declining quality of life. These think tanks also promote deregulation in sectors like healthcare, education, and agriculture—policies that often exacerbate the struggles of rural populations who rely on these essential services. Ironically, the very voters who support politicians backed by these think tanks are among the most adversely affected, as policies designed to benefit corporations and the wealthy fail to address their real needs, leaving them in a cycle of economic insecurity.
Given the harm caused by think tank-driven economic policies like trickle-down economics, it's worth considering how more modern think tank positions on issues such as immigration, gay rights, and abortion may also be negatively impacting rural and working-class communities, in addition to the broader population. Conservative think tanks often push for restrictive immigration policies, arguing that immigrants take jobs from native-born citizens. However, this narrative overlooks the fact that immigrants often fill essential roles in agriculture, construction, and service industries—jobs that sustain rural economies. By supporting policies that limit immigration, these think tanks can harm local economies and create labor shortages in industries that rural communities depend on.
On social issues like gay rights and abortion, conservative think tanks advocate for policies that restrict individual freedoms under the guise of "traditional values." While these stances may resonate with some rural voters, the broader implications are often damaging. Policies restricting LGBTQ+ rights contribute to the isolation and marginalization of rural queer individuals, further limiting their access to healthcare, legal protections, and social acceptance. Meanwhile, think tanks that advocate for restrictive abortion laws often fail to consider the lack of healthcare infrastructure in rural areas, where access to reproductive services is already limited. These policies force rural women to travel long distances or take extreme measures to seek medical care, creating additional economic and emotional burdens.
Project 2025 represents a dangerous blueprint for America’s future, particularly for rural, conservative, and poor communities who stand to suffer the most from its policies. Spearheaded by conservative think tanks and funded by corporate interests, Project 2025 is designed to drastically roll back government regulations, social programs, and environmental protections under the guise of promoting "freedom" and "economic growth." However, these policies, like deep cuts to healthcare, public assistance, and worker protections, will disproportionately harm the very rural voters who often support them. By weakening the government’s role in healthcare and cutting programs such as Medicaid and food assistance, Project 2025 leaves poor, rural communities without the resources they rely on for survival. Furthermore, its aggressive deregulation agenda, particularly in the environmental sector, ignores the long-term health and safety risks that unregulated industries pose to rural areas, where farming, water quality, and land use are vital. Ultimately, Project 2025 is a corporate-driven agenda disguised as conservative reform, and it prioritizes the interests of the wealthy and large businesses while exploiting the cultural values of rural communities, leaving them more vulnerable and economically marginalized.
Ultimately, while these think tank-backed positions may align with the cultural views of some rural voters, they disproportionately harm these communities by eroding civil rights and limiting access to critical services. In turn, this exacerbates social and economic disparities not only in rural areas but across the country.
Rural, poor, and conservative voters continue to support Republican politicians backed by think tanks, corporations, and lobbying groups, even when those policies do not serve their best economic interests, for several reasons. First, many rural voters prioritize cultural and social issues—such as religion, gun rights, opposition to abortion, and traditional family values—over economic concerns. Conservative politicians and think tanks often emphasize these values, framing them as central to voters' identities. This cultural alignment can overshadow the material impacts of economic policies that may be harmful to these communities. Additionally, decades of messaging from conservative leaders have fostered a deep distrust of government institutions, intellectual elites, and the media, which many rural voters perceive as condescending or out of touch with their way of life. Republican politicians position themselves as defenders of “real America,” giving rural voters a sense of representation against an establishment they believe neglects their needs.
Moreover, conservative think tanks and media outlets are highly skilled in framing policies in ways that appeal to these voters. For example, tax cuts for the wealthy are often presented as beneficial to everyone by promoting job creation and economic freedom, despite a lack of evidence supporting trickle-down economics. Messaging that emphasizes personal responsibility, small government, and freedom resonates deeply with many rural voters. This is reinforced by the significant influence of conservative media outlets, particularly talk radio and Fox News, which amplify think tank-produced narratives on immigration, cultural issues, and the economy, reinforcing the perception that Republican policies align with their interests.
Political tribalism also plays a role, as many rural voters view their support for the Republican Party not just as a political decision but as a stance against the Democratic Party, which they perceive as representing urban, liberal elites. This dynamic makes voting Republican part of their identity, a way to resist perceived threats to their values and communities. Lastly, in many rural areas, there is limited access to diverse news sources and alternative perspectives, which leads to the reinforcement of conservative viewpoints without much challenge. Misinformation and fear-mongering about progressive policies—often labeled as "socialist" or harmful to personal freedoms—further solidify conservative loyalties, even when the policies they support tend to favor corporations and the wealthy over working-class Americans.
The most effective way to combat misinformation and reduce susceptibility to biased information derived from think tanks is through education, which equips individuals with critical thinking skills, media literacy, and a well-rounded understanding of the world. Education fosters the ability to question, analyze, and verify information, making it harder for false or misleading narratives to take root. Rather than restricting education through practices like book bans, which limit access to diverse perspectives and complex ideas, promoting open, comprehensive education is essential. Book bans and censorship stifle intellectual growth and prevent students from engaging with different viewpoints, which is crucial for developing the ability to discern fact from bias. By promoting education that encourages curiosity, debate, and exposure to a wide range of ideas, we can build a society that is better informed, less vulnerable to manipulation, and more capable of making decisions based on evidence and reason. Instead of fearing uncomfortable or challenging topics, education should empower people to confront and understand them, which is key to resisting misinformation.
However, many conservative states have enacted restrictive policies that limit public education, particularly in areas related to race, gender, sexuality, and controversial historical topics. States like Florida and Texas have led the charge by implementing laws that restrict discussions on critical race theory, systemic racism, and LGBTQ+ issues. Florida's "Stop WOKE Act" and Texas's laws on critical race theory exemplify the push to limit how history and social justice issues are addressed in classrooms. States such as Tennessee, Oklahoma, and Missouri have followed suit with legislation that restricts how educators can discuss race, gender, and inequality, often leading to widespread book bans on materials addressing these subjects. In Idaho and Georgia, laws prohibit teaching about systemic racism or presenting material that challenges traditional narratives of American history. South Carolina, Arkansas, and Alabama have similarly passed laws that restrict both curriculum and access to books dealing with race, gender identity, and sexuality. These policies reflect a broader conservative movement to control public education, limiting exposure to diverse perspectives and critical discussions, and shaping how students engage with complex social and historical issues.
These restrictive education policies contribute significantly to the rise of identity politics, reinforcing conservative views that align with think-tank-driven agendas. By controlling how topics like race, gender, and sexuality are taught in schools, these laws shape students' understanding of their own identities and the identities of others, often framing them within narrow, traditionalist viewpoints. Conservative think tanks promote these policies as part of a broader cultural strategy, emphasizing "traditional values" while downplaying systemic issues like racism and inequality. This selective approach to education strengthens conservative identity politics by fostering a sense of cultural grievance among rural and conservative communities, who are led to believe that progressive discussions of diversity and inclusion threaten their way of life. In reality, these policies not only limit critical thinking but also deepen political polarization, as they push an agenda that encourages voters to align with conservative values on social issues, while often ignoring the economic interests of these same communities. By restricting education, think-tanks help shape a generation more likely to vote based on cultural identity rather than on policies that may better serve their economic and social well-being.
Ultimately, Project 2025 serves as a Trojan horse for conservative think-tank-driven politics, designed to benefit the corporate class while masquerading as a plan to restore American values. Under the guise of promoting "freedom" and "economic growth," its policies aim to dismantle crucial government regulations, social safety nets, and environmental protections—elements essential to supporting rural and working-class communities. Although presented as a plan to empower ordinary Americans, the real beneficiaries are corporations and wealthy elites who profit from deregulation and reduced oversight. Conservative think tanks strategically label opposition to these policies as part of a "liberal agenda," using this rhetoric to further polarize Republican voters and rally support. By framing fact-based proposals on education, healthcare, and environmental protections as liberal overreach, they push a narrative that convinces rural and working-class voters to support policies that ultimately work against their own interests. This tactic deepens ideological divides and enables think tanks to advance an agenda that erodes protections for the majority while entrenching the power of the corporate elite.
