Red States Embrace Liberal Policies, New Report Suggests
A recent report raises concerns that conservative states are subtly adopting liberal policies, such as diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) mandates, ESG investments, and gender ideology, largely influenced by national bureaucracy.
The State Leadership Initiative (SLI), which focuses on state-level policy reform, claims in its “Shadow Government” report that national associations that are unelected often inject progressive ideologies into state governance, regardless of the elected officials representing the voters.
The report states, “Conservative leaders frequently declare victory by winning elections and appointing key figures, yet the administrative machinery continues to advance openly—implementing equity initiatives and climate policies without distinguishing between voters.”
It suggests that numerous national organizations, often labeled as nonpartisan, manage this “shadow governance.” These organizations set policy frameworks, allocate federal funds, and provide guidance that aligns with left-leaning values.
Among the groups cited are the National Association of State Treasury (NAST), the National Association of Medicaid (NAMD), and the National Board of Education (NASBE).
Noah Wall, SLI’s founder, noted, “All these associations promote DEI. It doesn’t really matter if it’s related to wildlife or treasury; DEI is a central theme.”
SLI explored 23 major organizations mentioned in the report and discovered a significant adoption of progressive agendas, including DEI and ESG principles. This influence amounts to a form of “shadow governance,” where state officials align with national partners without consideration for voters’ opinions.
The report asserts, “As long as the ideological left controls bureaucratic pathways, it doesn’t need to overpower state legislatures.” It warns that this arrangement could lead to DEI programming influencing school curriculums, transportation sectors, and investment criteria, despite opposition from state finance professionals.
For example, the NAMD report promoted equity as a priority over outcomes for Medicaid. Another mention notes that NAST has a DEI committee focused on incorporating DEI into financial activities.
Wall argues that Republican governors and lawmakers may not fully grasp the scale of the issue, stating, “They don’t merely share best practices; they shape the internal culture of agencies and execute federal priorities discreetly. Even conservative states adopt liberal policies as a matter of course.”
In response to this so-called “shadow governance,” the SLI suggests a series of measures for conservative governors and lawmakers. These include auditing national associations tied to state agencies, assessing the use of taxpayer money in membership dues, and evaluating whether these groups’ agendas align with state laws.
Moreover, the report recommends halting the automatic adoption of policies from national associations and instead mandates state oversight and review. It further suggests that states should prohibit public funding for programs that push ideological agendas masquerading as guidance.
With these insights, the report underscores a complex reality where conservative states might not be as ideologically homogeneous as they seem, increasingly entangled in a web of national influences that push a progressive agenda.
