A new report from risk analysis firm Baron Public Affairs LLC has identified a cadre of “intellectual super influencers” shaping the national-populist wing of the American right. The report, which analyzed citations in papers from six right-wing think tanks and one intellectual journal, compiled a list of the top 20 most cited individuals who, according to Baron, “most inform the policy leaders of the nationalist-populist movement.”
Aaron Renn, a writer focusing on urban policy and evangelical Christianity, was ranked as the No. 1 intellectual influencer in the study’s sample. Renn’s concept of the “negative world,” which posits that mainstream culture is inherently hostile to evangelical principles, has gained significant attention. The report also highlighted sociologist Brad Wilcox and commentator Michael Lind as highly cited figures.
Wilcox, associated with the Institute for Family Studies, is known for his empirical approach to social conservatism, often using data to support his views on the importance of marriage. Lind, who began his career with a left-labor populist stance, has increasingly written for conservative outlets and is seen as an influence on the populist right, despite not self-identifying as conservative. The report indicates that the list of influencers includes individuals with diverse backgrounds, such as Biden-era White House officials and writers from prominent left-leaning groups.
Shifting Conservative Priorities
The report suggests a shift in the intellectual focus of the right. Unlike previous generations of conservatives concerned with maximizing economic growth or projecting American power, these new intellectuals are primarily focused on issues such as declining fertility rates and the impact of trade competition with China on American cities and families. Renn described this focus as the “social health of the nation,” encompassing metrics beyond traditional economic indicators, such as American happiness, sense of purpose, and family stability.
While these thinkers’ preoccupations may have emerged alongside Donald Trump’s rise, the report suggests they are not necessarily aligned with Trumpism. Many, with backgrounds in quantitative social science, seek answers beyond what is characterized as “MAGA demagoguery,” even as their research topics appeal to those spaces.
Divisions Within the Right
Despite painting an appealing portrait of certain segments of the modern right, the Baron report may oversimplify the landscape by treating the group as homogenous. The methodology, which tracked citations across seven distinct publications—American Affairs, American Compass, The Foundation for American Innovation (FAI), The Claremont Institute, The America First Policy Institute (AFPI), The Center for Renewing America (CRA), and The Heritage Foundation—reveals significant differences.
Three of these outlets—American Affairs, American Compass, and FAI—align more closely with the interests of the identified “super influencers.” The other four are described as more aligned with MAGA principles, focused on defending a specific worldview or developing policy ideas that align with Trump’s impulses. Baron's analysis found that the first group of outlets regularly cites “heterodox liberals,” while the second group did not cite any.
This distinction highlights two primary groupings within the national-populist right: one influencing New Right outlets committed to their own ideological projects, and another influencing outlets closely associated with MAGA. The report’s findings suggest these are meaningfully distinct blocs, a division that could significantly impact the future direction of the American right.
Publications from the first grouping tend to engage more with liberals, prioritizing long-term policy goals and seeking coalition partners. Their work often exhibits empiricism and a focus on contemporary social problems. In contrast, the work from the other four outlets frequently frames political divisions in apocalyptic terms, viewing political opponents as villains whose power must be neutralized. Heritage president Kevin Roberts, for instance, described the current political climate as a "second American Revolution."
The question of whether the right can move beyond such zero-sum partisanship in the post-Trump era remains open. While the Baron report might suggest optimism if figures like Renn represent the leading edge of a more collaborative intellectual future, the deep-seated reasons for Trump’s influence and the loyalty of some conservative leaders suggest that more measured intellectual voices may have limited practical political influence for the foreseeable future.