How many Heritage Foundation alumni served in the Biden and Trump administrations, broken down by agency?
Executive summary
The available reporting shows a clear, documented pipeline from the Heritage Foundation into the Trump administrations but provides no comprehensive, agency-by-agency roster for either Trump or Biden; Wikipedia notes "at least 66" Heritage employees and alumni were hired into Trump’s first presidential term [1], while a CNN review cited by other outlets counted "at least 140 people working for Trump" who were involved with Heritage [2]. Reporting in the provided set does not supply a reliable, sourced breakdown of Heritage alumni by federal agency for either administration, and therefore a complete agency-by-agency tally cannot be produced from these sources alone [1] [2].
1. What the sources actually quantify about Heritage and Trump
Several mainstream and advocacy sources document a significant Heritage-to-administration channel: Wikipedia summarizes a Heritage-built database and reports that "at least 66 foundation employees and alumni were hired into the Trump's first presidential term" [1], while later coverage references a CNN review placing the number of people "working for Trump" who were involved with Heritage at "at least 140" [2]; additional narratives across The Independent, Politico and others describe numerous senior appointments and cabinet ties to Heritage but do not converge on a single, fully enumerated, agency-by-agency list in the materials provided [3] [4] [5].
2. Conflicting tallies and why counts diverge
Different counts reflect different methods and definitions: the "at least 66" figure is described in context as hires from a Heritage database during Trump’s first term [1], whereas the larger "at least 140" figure cited by outlets like Them and attributed to a CNN review appears to count broader involvement — people “working for Trump” who had ties to Heritage or Project 2025 — which may include contractors, outside advisers, or later-term hires beyond the first term [2]. The discrepancy underscores that public reporting mixes alumni, employees, visiting fellows, and broader affiliates without standardized inclusion criteria, making simple summation misleading unless the underlying dataset and definitions are disclosed [1] [2].
3. What reporting says about agency concentration (and what it does not)
Narratives and profiles point to concentrated influence in certain portfolio areas — for example, multiple Trump cabinet members and agency heads have had Heritage ties, and Heritage itself highlights former cabinet figures among visiting fellows [6] [7]. Journalistic accounts describe Heritage influence across White House staffing, the Department of Education, EPA, DOJ and other portfolios in qualitative terms [3] [4] [5]. However, none of the provided sources offers a rigorously sourced, itemized, agency-by-agency roster that would allow authoritative counts by department; the materials thus document influence and multiple individual placements without supplying the granular breakdown requested [3] [5].
4. What the sources reveal (and the limits for Biden counts)
The Heritage Foundation has also mounted oversight efforts focused on the Biden administration and has sought names of Biden appointees via FOIA requests, signaling adversarial scrutiny but not admitting to or publishing a list of Heritage alumni in Biden’s team [1]. The supplied reporting does not include a sourced total or agency-level mapping of Heritage alumni serving in the Biden administration; therefore any numeric claim about Heritage alumni in Biden’s administration or their distribution by agency would exceed what these sources substantiate [1].
5. Alternative interpretations and hidden agendas to watch for
Conservative outlets and Heritage’s own communications emphasize a narrative of institutional contribution and policy shaping, including the claim of former cabinet members associating with Heritage as visiting fellows [6], while progressive or watchdog sources frame Heritage as actively staffing and ideologically thrashed into the executive branch via Project 2025 and its database [3] [8] [7]. Reporters and researchers should therefore scrutinize whether tallies count only formal hires, paid staff, external advisers, or broader "involvement" — each choice materially changes totals and can reflect implicit agendas either to inflate influence or to minimize it [2] [5].
6. Bottom line and what would be needed to answer fully
From the material provided: documented, sourced minimums exist for Trump-era hires (at least 66 in Trump’s first term per Wikipedia; broader counts of at least 140 affiliated people appear in secondary reporting) but no source here offers a defensible agency-by-agency breakdown for either the Trump or Biden administrations, and the reporting does not supply a verified roster of Heritage alumni by department [1] [2]. A complete answer would require primary data — a reconciled list of appointees with Heritage employment or alumni status, plus standardized inclusion rules — none of which appears in the supplied reporting [1] [2].