Lessons from The Heritage Foundation

‍The Heritage Foundation’s headquarters in Washington, D.C. The Heritage Foundation is a leading conservative public policy think tank based in Washington, D.C. Founded in 1973 by Paul Weyrich, Edwin J. Feulner, and Joseph Coors, it promotes free-market economics, limited government, traditional values, and a strong national defense. The organization has played a major role in American politics, especially within the Republican Party. It maintains a large staff and budget (around $100 million annually) and is consistently ranked among the country’s most influential think tanks. Today its president and CEO is Kevin D. Roberts, and its board of trustees is chaired by Barbara Van Andel Gaby. The Heritage Foundation also sponsors Heritage Action for America, a separate 501(c)(4) advocacy arm founded in 2010 to lobby Congress and mobilize grassroots support for conservative policies.

Background and History

The Heritage Foundation was established on February 16, 1973, growing out of conservative activists’ desire for a policy-oriented institution. Its first president was Paul Weyrich (1973–1977). Early funding came from industry leaders: for example, Coors Brewing contributed an initial $250,000, and later billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife donated tens of millions over the following decades. Under subsequent presidents the foundation expanded. Frank J. Walton led the Foundation from 1977 to the early 1980s, during which time the organization’s budget grew and direct-mail fundraising was introduced.

In the 1980s the foundation became famous for Mandate for Leadership (1981), an extensive policy guide that influenced President Ronald Reagan’s agenda. Under Reagan and into the early 1990s, Heritage scholars regularly served in federal positions and its ideas helped shape conservative legislation. Edwin J. Feulner became president in 1985 and led the foundation through its peak influence; during his tenure the Heritage Foundation’s output and reputation grew substantially. A snippet of the foundation’s leadership timeline is shown below:

• Paul Weyrich 1973–1977
• Frank J. Walton 1977–1985
• Edwin J. Feulner 1985–2013
• Jim DeMint 2013–2017
• Kay Coles James 2017–2021
• Kevin D. Roberts2021–present

Heritage’s earlier decades emphasized anti-communism, free enterprise, and social conservatism. It grew from a small organization to a major center with millions of dollars in annual revenue. In 1992 it helped launch the State Policy Network, a consortium of conservative state-level think tanks, funded by sources like the Koch brothers. In the 1990s and 2000s Heritage continued to advise Republican presidents and Congress. After Reagan, presidents George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush incorporated many Heritage ideas on tax cuts, spending, and national security.

In the 2010s, Heritage’s role continued but saw more overt political advocacy. In 2013 it spun off Heritage Action for America (a 501(c)(4) advocacy group). In 2013 former Senator Jim DeMint briefly became president, but he was ousted by the board in 2017 over internal management disputes. Kay Coles James then led the foundation until 2021. In late 2021 Kevin D. Roberts, formerly of the Texas Public Policy Foundation, became president and CEO. Under Roberts, Heritage has emphasized an aggressive “Project 2025” transition plan for a Republican administration (see below) and has forged relationships with like-minded groups at home and abroad.

Mission, Philosophy, and Ideology

The Heritage Foundation describes its mission as “formulate[ing] and promot[ing] conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.” In practice, this means advocating for lower taxes, deregulation, privatization of certain government functions, and opposition to what it views as overreach by federal programs. It strongly supports free-market solutions to economic issues and typically pushes for balanced budgets and reduced government debt.

On social and cultural issues, Heritage aligns with social conservative positions. It opposes abortion rights, supports pro-family and religious initiatives, and has historically resisted expanded rights for LGBTQ+ people (for example, opposing same-sex marriage before it became law). It has attacked the teaching of critical race theory and similar programs as divisive. Heritage also generally contests aggressive environmental or climate regulations, arguing they harm economic growth; it often questions mainstream climate science conclusions and criticizes policies like the Kyoto Protocol. The foundation defends a strong national defense and traditional interpretations of the U.S. Constitution (including gun rights and other “constitutional originalist” policies).

Political analysts typically classify Heritage as a right-wing or conservative think tank. Critics often describe it as aligning with the “national conservative” or hard-right segment of politics, because of its promotion of policies like strict immigration control, rollbacks of regulatory agencies, and support for conservative judicial appointments. Heritage officials, however, emphasize that the organization serves “all the American people” and rejects ideological labels, saying it simply advocates classic conservative principles.

Organization and Governance

The Heritage Foundation is organized as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation. It is governed by a Board of Trustees (currently about 18 members), who oversee strategic direction and major decisions. The board includes prominent conservative figures and donors. Notable current trustees include Larry P. Arnn (president of Hillsdale College), Rebekah Mercer (financial supporter of conservative causes), and motivational speaker Brian Tracy. Long-time trustees have also included former government officials; for example, Edwin Meese, who was U.S. Attorney General under Ronald Reagan, served on the board. In 2025 co-founder Edwin Feulner stepped down from the board after more than 50 years. Princeton professor Robert P. George resigned his board position in 2025 amid disagreements over the foundation’s direction. Barbara Van Andel Gaby (of the Van Andel/DeVos family) serves as board chair.

The foundation maintains a large professional staff. As of 2023 it employed over 500 people in Washington, with dozens of policy experts (“fellows”) specialized in economics, defense, energy, health care, law, and other fields. The annual budget (revenue plus expenses) runs in the low hundreds of millions of dollars. In 2023 total revenue was roughly $100 million. Executive compensation reflects its scale: for example, CEO Kevin Roberts’s salary was about $954,000 in 2023, while the average staff salary was around $96,000. Heritage’s funding comes from individual donors, charitable foundations, and corporate contributions. Major donors have historically included business leaders and conservative philanthropies (the Coors and Scaife foundations were early backers, and Koch family–aligned donors have supported affiliated networks). Heritage does not endorse candidates or parties, as required by its tax status, but it advocates vigorously for conservative policies and campaigns on issues through Heritage Action.

Key Programs and Initiatives

The Heritage Foundation sponsors a range of publications, events, and projects to advance its policy goals. Some of its notable initiatives include:

• Mandate for Leadership – A flagship policy report first published in 1981, offering hundreds of recommendations for a conservative administration. Eight editions have been produced (roughly every four years), each outlining detailed proposals on budgets, regulations, and administrative changes for incoming Republican presidents. The 1981 edition famously guided President Reagan’s agenda.
• Index of Economic Freedom – An annual global report (co-published with The Wall Street Journal since 1997) that ranks countries based on economic policies: property rights, regulation, trade freedom, and similar metrics. Heritage’s economic analysts lead this study, which is used to promote free-market reforms worldwide.
• Index of Dependence – Since 2002, Heritage has issued this yearly survey of U.S. federal programs (like welfare, education subsidies, and health care) that it views as creating dependence on government. The report aims to quantify the federal footprint in those areas and argue for privatization or reform.
• The Daily Signal – Heritage’s online news and commentary website, launched in 2014 (replacing its earlier blog). It publishes news stories and opinion pieces from a conservative perspective, covering politics, policy, and culture. In 2024 The Daily Signal was spun off to operate independently with its own leadership.
• The Heritage Foundation Publications – Heritage used to publish Policy Review, a quarterly journal of policy analysis, from 1973 until 2001 (it was sold to the Hoover Institution). It now publishes The Insider, a quarterly magazine on public affairs. In 1995 Heritage co-founded the conservative news site Townhall.com, which became independent in 2005.
• Policy Events and Debates – The foundation hosts conferences, lectures, and events that draw political leaders and intellectuals. It co-hosted a Republican presidential foreign-policy debate in 2011 with the American Enterprise Institute. Heritage conferences have featured prominent figures (e.g. former Secretaries of State and Defense) speaking on security and economic issues.
• Project 2025 (Presidential Transition Project) – In 2023 Heritage published Project 2025, an extensive blueprint for the next Republican presidential transition. It proposes restructuring federal agencies, rolling back regulations, and curbing abortion and LGBTQ+ rights. The plan includes a database of candidates to staff the administration and draft executive orders. Project 2025 is sometimes described by critics as an “authoritarian” or sweeping agenda; Heritage presents it as a serious, practical handbook for future officials.
• Project Esther – Also in 2023 Heritage launched what it calls Project Esther to oppose what it characterizes as antisemitism on college campuses and the left. Critics of the foundation say Project Esther employs inflammatory rhetoric and is counterproductive, but Heritage frames it as combatting hate by publicizing campus protests and policies concerning Israel.
• Oversight and Watchdog Programs – The foundation runs centers focused on specific issues. For example, it has an Oversight Project that monitors and challenges federal agency actions. It also has the Asian Studies Center (established 1983) which publishes research on U.S. policy in Asia and the Pacific. Other centers include the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom (focusing on economic ideas) and the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy.

Influence and Activities

The Heritage Foundation wields significant influence in American politics. It is widely cited by lawmakers and media. Many Republican elected officials have consulted Heritage scholars or adopted its proposals. In the 1980s, President Reagan frequently drew on Heritage’s work (Reagan said “I don't want you to take all the credit. It's the American people who deserve the credit.” after implementing Mandate for Leadership recommendations). In more recent years, Heritage has sought to shape party platforms and legislation.

Heritage Action, the foundation’s affiliated 501(c)(4) group, plays a key role in this influence. It engages in lobbying, issue campaigns, and endorsements on Capitol Hill. Heritage Action mobilizes grassroots “Sentinel” activists across the country; by 2024 it claimed millions of supporters and tens of thousands of local volunteer activists. Heritage Action was notably active in campaigns on tax reform, healthcare, and regulatory issues, pushing Congress to pass conservative bills and enforce conservative priorities.

The Heritage Foundation also has played a role in presidential administrations. After Donald Trump won the 2016 election, Heritage’s influence was especially visible: the organization had maintained an expansive database of potential appointees, and dozens of Heritage alumni and fellows joined Trump’s administration (including cabinet members Betsy DeVos, Mick Mulvaney, Rick Perry, Scott Pruitt, and Jeff Sessions). In 2018, Heritage reported that the Trump administration had adopted roughly two-thirds of the Foundation’s policy recommendations. Under Trump, Heritage’s ideas on deregulation, immigration enforcement, and judicial nominations were implemented in significant measure.

Heritage’s analysts regularly testify before Congress, and the foundation produces scores of reports and policy briefs each year. Its scholars are frequent guests on television and speakers at public events. The foundation maintains an extensive communications operation (press offices, media training) to ensure its positions are heard. It also engages internationally: for example, it has collaborated with like-minded organizations in Europe and beyond to promote conservative economic policies.

Funding and Finances

As a nonprofit, The Heritage Foundation relies on donations rather than government funding. Its revenue comes from individual donors, conservative foundations, and corporate gifts. Major support historically came from wealthy conservative philanthropists (such as the Scaife and Coors families). In recent decades, figures associated with the Koch network and other conservative donors have given generously, especially to projects aligned with free-market economics. Heritage also raises funds through membership contributions and fees for conferences. It maintains a modest endowment and real estate holdings (such as the building and a couple of LLCs reported in financials), but most funding is renewed annually.

Financially, Heritage is a large organization. In 2023 it had about $100 million in annual revenue and expenditures, making it one of the wealthiest think tanks. It employs around 500 people, including over 100 scholars and experts. Charity evaluators have noted that Heritage spent roughly 70% of its budget on research and programs, with the remainder on fundraising and overhead. The foundation pays competitive salaries to attract top talent; for example, its president is paid close to $1 million per year. Heritage Action (its 501(c)(4) arm) is funded separately, primarily by the same donor network, and reports its own spending on advocacy.

The foundation’s financial records show transparency consistent with large charities. It files IRS Form 990s annually. In 2023, revenue sources included contributions, grants, event income, and investment returns. The Heritage Foundation has an A+ track record on governance by internal measures (though some watchdogs rate it slightly lower than perfect). The board ensures financial oversight, and two independent audits are performed each year. Overall, Heritage’s finances support a vast policy research enterprise, and it is regarded by donors as a reliable steward of conservative funding.

Criticisms and Controversies

Despite its prominence, the Heritage Foundation has faced many criticisms. Opponents on the left charge that it pushes an extreme agenda. For instance, its advocacy against abortion rights, climate regulations, and LGBTQ+ protections has led critics to label it “far right.” In 2020, civil rights groups pointed to Heritage’s Project 2025 and some personnel choices as evidence of an extremist tilt. Heritage strongly rejects such labels, contending that it merely advances mainstream conservative views.

Heritage’s social and cultural stances have provoked controversy. Critics note that its policies often align with white Christian conservatism. The foundation has been accused of promoting anti-government and anti–minority policies. For example, some of its scholars have likened welfare programs to dependency or made negative comments about minority communities, which opponents cite as insensitive or divisive. Heritage argues these positions are based on principle and data, not prejudice.

Internally, Heritage has experienced turmoil in recent years. Notably, in 2023–2025 the organization was engulfed in a public controversy over allegations of antisemitism on the right. Heritage president Kevin Roberts initially defended conservative pundit Tucker Carlson’s interview with known white supremacist Nick Fuentes, saying he wanted to reach Fuentes’s audience. The backlash was fierce: staffers and donors protested, and multiple board members resigned (including longtime trustee Robert P. George in 2025 and two others shortly thereafter). Scholars and fellows also left in protest or over unrelated management issues. Heritage apologized, cut ties with Carlson, and attempted to form an anti-hate task force; however, the task force ultimately disbanded amid leadership disputes. Some viewed this episode as Heritage failing to confront extremist views among its allies.

Controversy continued into late 2025 when Heritage appointed Scott Yenor, a professor with highly conservative views on gender and sexuality, to a leadership position. This sparked criticism that the foundation was embracing reactionary ideas, especially regarding women’s rights and LGBTQ+ issues. Heritage’s leadership defended the hire, stating that staff are free to debate ideas, but detractors saw it as evidence of ideological hardening.

Other criticisms include accusations of nepotism or insularity. There have been suggestions that the organization favors donors and insiders when hiring. The Heritage Foundation counters that it selects experts and leaders on merit, regardless of politics (and notes it has fellowship programs to train young conservatives). Some conservatives have also criticized Heritage for being insufficiently “team players” in Republican politics at times. For instance, before 2016, Heritage issued statements critical of then-candidate Donald Trump; some Trump supporters saw this as evidence of a “Never Trump” sentiment among parts of the organization. Heritage’s leaders have said they will work with any administration if policy goals align, and under Trump became one of the main think tanks participating in his transition.

Ethical concerns have occasionally been raised. In 2015, Heritage was among the institutions whose confidential communications were leaked by a hacking group; although not at fault, the incident put Heritage’s internal emails in the spotlight. Heritage managed the fallout by tightening security and refusing to politicize the breach. No major scandals of personal misconduct by Heritage staff have come to light publicly.

‍

Key Lessons for Policy Research Leaders

The Heritage Foundation provides a rich case study in how think tank leaders can achieve national influence – and the pitfalls it may encounter along the way. Here are key lessons and strategic insights drawn from Heritage’s experience:

• Clarity of Mission and Ideology: Heritage’s success began with a clear, compelling mission – to promote conservative principles in public policy – which allowed it to build a strong brand and loyal following. It identified an ideological gap (a need for a rapid-response conservative think tank) and filled it. Lesson: A think tank should articulate its core values and policy goals unambiguously. This clarity helps attract donors, talented staff, and policymakers seeking expertise.  Define a unique ideological or thematic niche and ensure all activities align with that mission (as Heritage does with its guiding principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional values, and strong defense
  
  
• Timing and Opportunism in Strategy: Heritage demonstrated the power of timing strategic initiatives to political moments. The classic example is Mandate for Leadership in 1981 – Heritage invested effort to prepare a comprehensive policy agenda before the Reagan administration began, which paid off massively when Reagan adopted those ideas Again in 2016, Heritage was ready with personnel lists when Trump won, giving it outsized sway. Lesson: Be proactive and forward-looking. Anticipate political changes or reform windows and prepare actionable ideas in advance. Whether it’s a new administration or emerging issue, having a “blueprint” ready can catapult a think tank’s influence. In practice, this means doing scenario planning and maintaining a pipeline of proposals (like Heritage’s tradition of transition manuals) to offer when opportunity knocks.
  
  
• Innovative Funding and Membership Model: Early on, Heritage broke the mold by cultivating hundreds of thousands of small donors (“members”) nationwide, rather than relying solely on a few large grants. This broad base gave Heritage financial stability and political cover – its fundraising appeals doubled as outreach, turning donors into an engaged constituency. Heritage’s member-funded model also ensured no single donor could dictate its agenda, preserving independence. Lesson: Diversify funding and consider a membership program. Explore building a broad supporter network (via newsletters, membership drives, local chapters, etc.) to both raise funds and create a built-in audience for its ideas. A large base of small donors can be a strategic asset, providing not just money but legitimacy (“our institute is backed by X citizens”). It also helps in downturns; if one funding source dries up, others remain. However, nurturing such a base requires continuous communication of the institute’s impact to keep supporters engaged – something Heritage excels at through frequent updates and appeals highlighting policy “wins.”
  
  
• Strong Governance and Leadership Continuity: Heritage benefited from stable, savvy leadership for decades under Ed Feulner, who was both an intellectual leader and an institution-builder. When leadership faltered (as with DeMint), the Board took decisive action to correct course. Lesson: Effective governance structures (active boards, clear performance metrics) and choosing leaders who understand both policy and management are crucial. Prioritize leaders who can inspire staff, maintain donor confidence, and navigate the political landscape. At the same time, the board must be willing to intervene if internal issues threaten the mission – as Heritage’s trustees did. Heritage’s experience suggests that a think tank president must balance being a public advocate with being an organizational steward; structure leadership development and succession planning to reflect those dual needs.
  
  
• Marketing, Communications, and Branding: One of Heritage’s great strengths is its communications strategy. From the beginning, it emphasized accessible, concise policy products (e.g. 2-3 page issue briefs, talking points) that busy lawmakers found useful. Heritage also invested in branding – its logo, its events, its publications all consistently reflect its conservative identity. In recent years, Heritage expanded into running its own media (Daily Signal) and mastering social media, ensuring its message is widely disseminated. Lesson: A think tank must not only generate good ideas but also market them effectively. Prioritize building a professional communications team to translate research into op-eds, videos, infographics, and social media content. Consider establishing a dedicated media platform or at least a robust blog to promote the institute’s perspective, similar to Heritage’s approach. Hosting regular events (panels, webinars, conferences) can also raise profile. The key is to make the institute’s work visible and understandable to target audiences – policymakers, journalists, and the public. Heritage’s tagline of being “consistently ranked the No.1 think tank for impact on public policy” is itself a marketing point they tout to donors.
  
  
• Cultivating Policy Talent and Networks: Heritage’s influence grew partly because it served as a talent pipeline for conservative governments. By training interns and fellows, and keeping an alumni network, Heritage ensured that when allies take office, they bring Heritage’s philosophy with them. Heritage also maintained relationships with like-minded officials – acting as a support system for them through research and behind-the-scenes advice. Lesson: Develop human capital. Establish fellowship programs, scholar networks, and advisory councils to involve current and rising policymakers in its work. Building a roster of affiliated experts who might rotate into government positions (or already have served) extends the institute’s reach. In short, invest in people as much as in white papers – the goodwill and shared expertise pay off when those people are in positions of influence.
  
  
• Agility and Adaptation: Heritage’s long history shows an ability to pivot focus as needed – e.g., intensifying culture war research in the 90s, counterterrorism in the 2000s, and now tech and populism issues in the 2020s. It also adapted structurally by creating Heritage Action to engage in activism when that became necessary. Not every initiative succeeded (there have been internal tensions around changes), but Heritage did not remain static. Lesson: Remain attentive to the changing policy environment and be willing to adjust its priorities and methods. This might mean periodically evaluating whether the institute’s issue focus and tactics are yielding impact or if a course correction is needed. If a new national issue arises aligned with its mission, be ready to provide thought leadership on it. Flexibility is key – rigid think tanks can become irrelevant as the world changes.
  
  
• Coalition and Alliance Building: A major factor in Heritage’s influence is its integration into a broader conservative coalition. It often leads or co-leads coalitions on specific issues, amplifying its voice. Heritage’s membership in networks like SPN and partnerships with other organizations (domestically and internationally) extend its reach beyond what it could do alone. Lesson: Collaboration can be as important as competition among think tanks. Identify peer organizations with complementary goals and form alliances where possible – be it co-hosting events, co-authoring open letters, or coordinating advocacy efforts. However, one cautionary note from Heritage’s experience: partnership choices can also bring controversy (e.g., Heritage partnering with more extreme elements brought internal conflict). Weigh the reputational implications of alliances and strive to partner in ways that enhance its credibility.
  
  
• Guarding Research Integrity: One of the pitfalls Heritage encountered was the perception (and occasional reality) that it compromised on scholarly rigor for political ends (examples: the flawed immigration study, or reports tailored to advocacy points). That damaged its credibility in those instances. Lesson: Maintain high standards of fact-based research, even as it advocates for its principles. Establishing a strict review process (perhaps external peer reviews or a firewall between research staff and donors/political staff) can protect integrity. The board should reinforce a culture where truth and accuracy come first, and policy conclusions flow from data, not vice versa. In the long run, an institute’s reputation for honest, quality work is its greatest asset. Be transparent about sources, acknowledging uncertainties, and correcting mistakes openly. Avoiding overstated claims will earn trust even from skeptics.
  
  
• Managing Public Image and Controversy: Heritage’s controversies teach that missteps can distract from an institute’s mission and erode support. Whether it was the Richwine incident or the 2025 election “war game” fiasco, Heritage had to engage in damage control instead of policy promotion. Lesson: Plan for crisis management. Have guidelines for social media use, clear review of publications for sensitive content, and a strategy for responding to criticism. When controversies arise (they inevitably will if the institute is active), respond with transparency and accountability. If a staff member’s work sparks outrage, assess it fairly – if the work is defensible, stand firm with facts; if it’s truly an error, take responsibility and fix it. Additionally, maintaining a respectful tone in discourse, even when advocating, can prevent some backlash. Heritage at times used very sharp rhetoric that, while energizing supporters, alienated potential allies and drew fire. Aim for a firm but reasoned tone to be seen as a “credible source” rather than just a partisan player. In balancing boldness with professionalism, Heritage’s experience is instructive: find the line between being impactful and being incendiary, and tread carefully.
  
  
• Long-Term Vision and Patience: Heritage did not achieve its influence overnight – it took sustained effort over decades, building incrementally. Early investments (like internships, donor cultivation, small research projects) blossomed years later into major impact. Heritage also weathered periods out of power (e.g., Democratic administrations) by sticking to its principles and continuing to develop ideas for the future. Lesson: Take a long view. Set measurable short-term objectives, but also nurture long-term projects that establish the institute’s intellectual capital. Sometimes the payoff from a think tank’s work (like welfare reform ideas or educational choice research) might come 5–10 years later when the political climate is right. Persisting and refining ideas over time, rather than chasing only immediate wins, is important. Also, maintaining institutional memory (documenting what strategies worked or failed) will help future leaders. Aim to become a permanent institution with its own legacy, which means prioritizing sustainability – financially, talent-wise, and reputationally – in all decisions.
  
  

In conclusion, The Heritage Foundation’s journey offers a blueprint of both aspirational strategies and cautionary tales. For leaders of new policy institutes, the key takeaways are: be bold in vision but meticulous in execution; build broad support but stay true to your mission; create influence through ideas and people, not just proximity to power; and remain adaptable yet principled. By emulating Heritage’s successful strategies – such as proactive policymaking, robust communications, and coalition leadership – while avoiding its pitfalls – like over-politicization or lapses in rigor. Heritage’s experience ultimately shows that a think tank with clear goals, strong governance, and relentless dedication to impact can indeed shape the course of public policy for generations.

‍

Books and Scholarly Publications

• Bjerre-Poulsen, Niels. 1991. “The Heritage Foundation: A Second-Generation Think Tank.” Journal of Policy History 3 (2): 152–172.
• Edwards, Lee. 1998. The Power of Ideas: The Heritage Foundation at 25 Years. Evanston, IL: Jameson Books.
• Edwards, Lee. 2013. Leading the Way: The Story of Ed Feulner and the Heritage Foundation. New York: Crown Forum.
• Stahl, Jason. 2018. Right Moves: How the Think Tanks Dismantled the American Dream. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
• Stevelman, Faith. 2025. “Think Tanks Awash in Dark Money.” Florida International Law Review (forthcoming).

News Reports and Official Publications

• Ball, Molly. 2013. “The Fall of the Heritage Foundation and the Death of Republican Ideas.” The Atlantic, September 25. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/09/the-fall-of-the-heritage-foundation-and-the-death-of-republican-ideas/279955/
• Chait, Jonathan. 2025. “The Conservative Movement’s Intellectual Collapse.” The Atlantic, November 24. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2025/11/trump-heritage-foundation-carlson-fuentes/685011/
• Edsall, Thomas B. 2005. “Think Tank’s Ideas Shifted as Malaysia Ties Grew.” The Washington Post, April 16. https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2005/04/17/think-tanks-ideas-shifted-as-malaysia-ties-grew/57dd8464-f2d1-408f-920c-439ecc8cb3c5/
• Glueck, Katie. 2016. “Trump’s Shadow Transition Team.” Politico, November 22. https://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/trump-transition-heritage-foundation-231722
• Haberman, Maggie; Savage, Charlie; and Jonathan Swan. 2023. “Trump and Allies Forge Plans to Increase Presidential Power in 2025.” The New York Times, July 17. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/17/us/politics/project-2025-alex-rogers.html
• Kaiser, Robert G.; and Ira Chinoy. 1999. “Scaife: Funding Father of the Right.” The Washington Post, May 2. https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1999/05/02/scaife-funding-father-of-the-right/1dfce557-87f4-4b75-b3d0-7e3ca0f9d854/
• Khimm, Suzy. 2013. “Heritage Action’s Distinct Lobbying Plan.” The Washington Post, January 25. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/01/25/heritage-actions-distinct-lobbying-plan/
• Martin, Jonathan; Jim Rutenberg; and Jeremy W. Peters. 2013. “Fiscal Crisis Sounds the Charge in G.O.P.’s ‘Civil War’.” The New York Times, October 19. https://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/20/us/politics/fiscal-crisis-sounds-the-charge-in-gops-civil-war.html
• Mascaro, Lisa. 2023. “Conservative Groups Draw Up Plan to Dismantle the US Government and Replace It with Trump’s Vision.” Associated Press, August 29. https://apnews.com/article/election-2024-conservatives-trump-heritage-857eb794e505f1c6710eb03fd5b58981
• Riccardi, Nicholas; and Anthony Izaguirre. 2021. “Conservative Group Boasts of Secret Role in Voting Laws.” Associated Press, May 14. https://apnews.com/article/politics-donald-trump-laws-voting-government-and-politics-c07c55f7dd3ad5847d31d7a5123bb82c
• Rogers, Alex; and James Politi. 2024. “Inside the Radical Trump-Backing Group Behind Project 2025.” Financial Times, October 29. https://www.ft.com/content/2350b3ed-501e-42b2-bb3b-6aeffd113d88
• The Heritage Foundation. n.d. About The Heritage Foundation – Mission. Heritage.org. https://www.heritage.org/about-heritage/mission
• The Heritage Foundation. 2017. “Statement From the Chairman of Heritage’s Board of Trustees.” Heritage.org, May 2. https://www.heritage.org/about-heritage/statement-the-chairman-heritages-board-trustees
• The Heritage Foundation. 2024. Financial Information. Heritage.org. https://www.heritage.org/financial

‍