Which prominent figures and organizations are affiliated with the Council for National Policy?
Executive summary
The Council for National Policy (CNP) is a long-standing, secretive conservative networking group founded in 1981 that brings together influential conservative leaders from business, government, religion and advocacy; leaked membership lists and reporting show hundreds of members including elected officials, activists and donors [1] [2] [3]. Critics — notably the Southern Poverty Law Center and monitoring organizations — say the CNP mixes mainstream conservatives with far-right and extremist figures and played roles in coordinating political action, while the CNP itself frames its work as private education and networking for limited-government, pro-defense, and Judeo‑Christian values [4] [2] [5].
1. A who’s-who of conservative power — and a guarded guest list
The CNP markets itself as “one of the oldest & most effective organizations in the history of the conservative movement,” hosting members drawn from politics, business, academia, faith leaders, and advocacy groups; its own materials and a September 2020 membership directory show the organisation convenes hundreds of influential conservatives and offers closed meetings and policy sessions [6] [7] [8]. Reporters and watchdogs obtained membership lists in recent years, demonstrating that the organization’s membership is broader and more concrete than its long-standing secrecy suggested [3] [9].
2. Prominent names documented in public and leaked lists
Media and leaked directories identify past and present prominent conservatives associated with CNP: founders and early figures such as Tim LaHaye and Paul Weyrich; public conservatives including William F. Buckley Jr.; and speakers like Dick Cheney and Mitt Romney at CNP conferences, indicating close ties to high-level Republican operatives and officials [1] [8]. InfluenceWatch, Documented and other compilers also list many contemporary figures across conservative institutions in leaked materials [2] [3].
3. Accusations of mixing mainstream and extremist actors
The Southern Poverty Law Center and SourceWatch argue the CNP “mixes large numbers of ostensibly mainstream conservatives with far‑right and extremist ideologues,” naming specific hard-line members and linking some to organizations the SPLC designates as extremist; SPLC’s reporting catalogues at least 18 hard‑line members and documents access CNP members had to the Trump White House [4] [10]. SourceWatch and monitoring projects point to CNP members who have promoted anti‑Muslim, anti‑LGBTQ, or other exclusionary agendas [10] [11].
4. Operational arms and political activity beyond meetings
CNP operates a 501(c) educational foundation and a separate CNP Action arm that runs “Action Sessions,” issues alerts and encourages member engagement on policy and political matters — blurring lines between private networking and coordinated political activity, according to CNP materials and critics [12] [13]. Watchers have tied some current and former CNP members to efforts around the 2020 post‑election rallies and to organizing public campaigns [3] [10].
5. Secrecy, discipline and the leak problem
CNP enforces strict confidentiality: internal policies threaten expulsion for revealing membership or internal discussions, and guests require executive committee approval [3]. That secretive posture, meant to shield members from media scrutiny and enable private strategy discussions, has been challenged by multiple directory leaks and investigative reporting that revealed membership lists and mapped influence networks [3] [9].
6. Competing narratives — self-description vs. watchdog framing
The CNP presents itself as a nonpartisan educational forum that does not lobby or endorse candidates and that aims to bolster conservative principles of limited government and Judeo‑Christian values [12] [5]. Watchdog groups portray the organization as a junction where mainstream conservatives and extremist actors intersect, with concrete examples of members tied to controversial campaigns and rhetoric [4] [10]. Both descriptions are supported in the record: CNP’s public materials emphasize education and privacy [12], while independent reporting documents the presence of well‑known and hardline members and links to political action [3] [4].
7. What reporting does not say (limits of available sources)
Available sources do not provide a comprehensive, up‑to‑date roster of every living member; instead they rely on leaked directories, historical accounts, CNP publications and watchdog lists — meaning any current membership claims remain partial and contingent on leaked or self‑published material [9] [7]. Detailed internal deliberations and the full extent of coordination between members and public political campaigns are not documented in the sources provided here beyond illustrative episodes [3] [10].
Conclusion: The CNP is an influential, private hub that counts many high‑profile conservatives among its ranks and has been linked by investigators to both mainstream Republican powerbrokers and more extreme actors; the organisation insists it is a non‑lobbying educational body, while watchdogs document specific members and activities that blur advocacy and private strategy [6] [4] [13].