Council For National PolicyEdit
The Council for National Policy (CNP) is a private, invitation-only network that bands together leaders from religious, business, philanthropic, and political spheres to discuss and coordinate conservative policy aims in the United States. Founded in the early 1980s, the CNP operates as a forum where high-level actors can exchange ideas, align strategic priorities, and build the groundwork for public policy campaigns. Proponents describe it as a pragmatic, rights-preserving assembly that helps ensure that policy proposals survive the glare of partisan politics and the media spotlight. Critics, however, portray it as a backstage engine for influence, capable of shaping public life without the usual transparency afforded to public institutions. The debate over its secrecy versus legitimacy is one of the defining tensions surrounding the organization.
History
The CNP emerged out of a coalition of conservative activists who sought a dedicated space to discuss strategic policy questions away from the public square. In discussions that included notable figures such as Tim LaHaye and Paul Weyrich, the group formalized a structure that could coordinate efforts across different lanes of the policy ecosystem—pastors and lay leaders, donors, think tank researchers, and political organizers. The aim was to connect the funding and advocacy work of the broader Conservative movement with on-the-ground political action. The organization’s early work centered on issues that would become defining topics in American public life: religious liberty, school choice and parental rights, traditional family policy, and limited government. Over the decades, the CNP has maintained a pattern of private, invitation-only gatherings in which participants discuss ideas that have the potential to influence public policy and electoral strategy. The exact membership and proceedings are not typically disclosed to the public, reinforcing the perception of the CNP as a discreet steering group rather than a public think tank.
Structure and activities
The CNP functions as a loose federation of leaders rather than a single, centralized institution. Its strength lies in its network: a cross-section of religious leaders, business executives, policy researchers, fundraisers, and political operatives who share an interest in advancing a durable conservative policy agenda. Its work typically unfolds through private conferences, advisory discussions, and coordinated efforts that align messaging, fundraising, and legislative priorities across different organizations. In many cases, participants connect with or influence other prominent entities within the ecosystem of the Heritage Foundation and other major policy groups, contributing to a broader, long-term strategy rather than a single issue pathway. Through this network, the CNP helps translate broad principles—such as broad-based economic freedom, constitutional limits on government power, and protection of religious liberty—into concrete policy proposals and campaigns. It also serves as a conduit for donor networks, enabling funding to flow toward grassroots mobilization, political campaigns, and public policy advocacy that align with the shared priorities of the network.
The group’s calendar and proceedings are not typically public, and entry is by invitation. That structure has fostered a perception that the CNP operates as a quiet steering hand within the larger conservative ecosystem, coordinating with major think tanks, advocacy groups, and political campaigns. In this sense, the CNP is often described as a hub that connects ideas from the religious right, the pro-market wing of the Republican Party, and the donor class into a coherent set of policy and political objectives.
Influence and controversies
From a perspective that emphasizes steady, principle-based governance and a disciplined policy process, the CNP is seen as a practical mechanism for preserving institutional memory and ensuring policy coherence across a broad coalition. By bringing together pastors, business leaders, and policy experts, it aims to produce policy proposals and strategic messaging that withstand the volatility of electoral cycles and the changing wind of public opinion. Supporters argue that such coordination helps prevent the fragmentation that can occur when multiple interest groups pull in different directions, and that it supports a consistent, pro-liberty, pro-market policy framework.
Critics, however, describe the CNP as a shadowy power broker that operates with limited accountability and without the normal transparency expected of public actors. They argue that the private, closed-door nature of its discussions can enable influence over public policy without the scrutiny that voters expect from representative government. In debates about democratic accountability, the CNP’s defenders contend that secrecy is a legitimate shield against political grandstanding and media sensationalism, allowing frank discussion and candid consideration of difficult policy trade-offs. They may also argue that the critique of secrecy often veers into the stereotype that all influence is improper, a charge that should be balanced against the fact that many legitimate policy conversations occur within closed professional and scholarly communities.
From a cultural and political standpoint, the organization sits at the intersection of the religious and civic spheres. Its work frequently touches on issues such as education policy, religious liberty, school choice, and the protection of conscience rights, while also engaging in broader questions about constitutional governance, regulatory reform, and the proper size of government. Critics who label the CNP as out of step with modern political norms may “woke” the debate by insisting that all policy deliberation be fully public and fully inclusive of every demographic voice. Advocates of the CNP would counter that inclusion and effectiveness are best achieved by bringing together those who have experience in law, theology, business, and public service to craft durable solutions, not by forcing a one-size-fits-all approach that treats private deliberation as inherently illegitimate.
Controversies around the CNP often center on questions of influence versus transparency. Debates about the balance between private deliberation and public accountability are not unique to this organization, but the high-profile nature of its participants can intensify scrutiny. Proponents argue that the CNP provides a forum to think through policy consequences in a principled way, while critics argue that it can shelter strategy from the voters’ watchful eye. In this framing, supporters insist that the group’s contributions reflect a desire to preserve constitutional norms, protect religious liberty, and promote economic liberty; detractors emphasize the risks of backroom coordination and the potential for policy to be shaped by a relatively small circle of wealthy or influential interests.
From the vantage point of a disciplined conservative policy tradition, the CNP’s role is to knit together the priorities of faith, free markets, and federalism with practical political organization. In doing so, it operates within a broader ecosystem that includes Conservative movement institutions, think tanks like the Heritage Foundation and others, and the political machinery of the Republican Party. This arrangement aims to translate enduring principles into durable public policy, even as it invites ongoing discussion about how much of that work should be conducted out of sight versus in the open.