think-tank liberal progressive-economics antitrust inequality industrial-policy monopoly-power class-analysis
related: Goldman Sachs · SEIU
Who They Are
The Roosevelt Institute is a progressive economic policy think tank headquartered at 570 Lexington Avenue, New York City. Created in 1987 through the merger of the Eleanor Roosevelt Institute and the Franklin D. Roosevelt Four Freedoms Foundation, the organization spent its first two decades primarily as a presidential library support organization. In 2009, it launched the Four Freedoms Center and transformed into an active policy think tank focused on structural economic reform.
The Roosevelt Institute’s core argument is that inequality is not a market failure but a policy choice — that the “rules of the game” (tax code, antitrust enforcement, labor law, financial regulation) were deliberately rewritten starting in the 1970s to redistribute wealth upward, and they can be rewritten again. This thesis, articulated most prominently in the 2015 report “Rewriting the Rules of the American Economy” co-authored by chief economist Joseph Stiglitz, became a blueprint for the Biden administration’s economic agenda.
Budget: $22.8 million total revenue (FY2024), $14.1 million in expenses, $46.2 million in net assets. Revenue has grown from $4.7 million (FY2013) to $22.8 million (FY2024) — nearly a 5x increase in 11 years. Felicia Wong, who served as president and CEO from March 2012 to January 2025, is credited with quadrupling the overall budget.
Tax status: 501(c)(3). Tax-exempt since August 1972. EIN: 23-7213592.
President and CEO (until Jan 2025): Felicia Wong. Compensation: $516K (FY2024). Wong came from the Democracy Alliance, the major progressive donor collaborative. In January 2025, Wong transitioned to Chief Strategist for Roosevelt Society (fundraising, external relations, progressive talent network building).
President and CEO (Feb 2025–present): Elizabeth Wilkins. Formerly top adviser to FTC Chair Lina Khan and senior adviser to Biden Chief of Staff Ron Klain. Wilkins’s appointment signals a deliberate pivot: Roosevelt’s new leader comes not from the donor world (as Wong did via Democracy Alliance) but from the Biden administration’s most aggressive regulatory operation. The Wilkins appointment is the revolving door in action — the think tank that helped design the Biden antitrust agenda is now led by someone who executed it.
Chief economist: Joseph Stiglitz, Nobel laureate (2001), former World Bank chief economist, Columbia University professor. Stiglitz was formally appointed Chief Economist concurrent with the leadership transition, formalizing his long-standing intellectual role. His work on inequality, market power, and rent-seeking is the theoretical backbone of Roosevelt’s policy output.
Key researchers: Mike Konczal (Director of Macroeconomic Analysis, $186K), Suzanne Kahn (Managing Director of Research & Policy), Todd Tucker (Director of Industrial Policy & Trade), Ali Bustamante (Director of Worker Power & Economic Security).
Staff size: Approximately 40-50. Small relative to its policy influence.
Who Funds Them
Unlike RAND (government contracts) or Heritage (corporate mega-donors), the Roosevelt Institute is funded overwhelmingly by progressive foundations. 100% of its revenue comes from contributions (grants and donations) — zero program service revenue.
Key foundation funders:
- William and Flora Hewlett Foundation — $1.29 million in 2020 alone (including $1M general operating support, $250K climate finance regulatory project)
- Ford Foundation — major funder, supporting inequality and economic justice work
- MacArthur Foundation — general support
- Bauman Foundation — early and consistent supporter
- Carnegie Corporation — general support
- Arnold Ventures — research funding
- Walton Family Foundation — education policy research
Democracy Alliance connection: In 2015, the Democracy Alliance — the major progressive donor collaborative that coordinates giving among liberal mega-donors including George Soros, Tom Steyer, and others — added the Roosevelt Institute to its list of recommended funding targets. Wong’s background at the Democracy Alliance before taking the Roosevelt helm makes this connection particularly direct. The Alliance’s endorsement channels seven-figure donations from wealthy progressive donors into Roosevelt’s operations.
Board composition (notable members):
- Anne Roosevelt (Chair) — FDR’s great-granddaughter. The Roosevelt family name is the institution’s primary brand asset.
- Randi Weingarten (Board member, 2023 filing) — President of the American Federation of Teachers (AFT). Direct labor movement connection.
- Lisa Cook (Vice Chair, 2022) — Michigan State economist who became a Biden appointee to the Federal Reserve Board of Governors in 2022. Revolving door from Roosevelt board to federal policymaking.
- Sharon Block (Board member) — Harvard Law professor, former Biden appointee who served on the National Labor Relations Board task force.
- James P. Hoffa (Board member through 2023) — Former president of the Teamsters.
- Sabeel Rahman (Board member, current) — Former Roosevelt fellow → Demos president → Biden OIRA senior counselor (overseeing federal rulemaking). Direct revolving door.
Money
Roosevelt’s funding model is cleaner than most think tanks from a donor-corruption standpoint. Foundation money comes with fewer strings than corporate donations, and the institutional funders (Ford, Hewlett, MacArthur) are genuine progressive foundations, not corporate fronts. The Democracy Alliance connection is the pressure point: it channels wealthy individual donors whose interests may not fully align with Roosevelt’s structural reform agenda. When billionaires fund anti-monopoly research, the question is always whether the research will ever target the funders’ own monopolies.
What They Produce
Roosevelt’s output is concentrated in five policy areas, all framed through the “rewrite the rules” thesis:
1. Antitrust and competition policy
- “Rewriting the Rules of the American Economy” (2015, Stiglitz) — The foundational document arguing that rising inequality results from deliberate policy choices favoring corporate concentration
- Anti-monopoly research providing intellectual framework for the “New Brandeis” school of antitrust enforcement adopted by FTC Chair Lina Khan
- Competition policy analysis supporting Biden’s July 2021 Executive Order on Promoting Competition in the American Economy
2. Industrial policy
- “Industrial Policy 2025: Bringing the State Back In” — Framework for active government role in shaping economic development
- Analysis supporting the CHIPS Act, Inflation Reduction Act, and broader “Bidenomics” industrial strategy
- Research on public investment, procurement, and government capacity
3. Labor and worker power
- PRO Act advocacy research
- Minimum wage analysis
- Worker classification and gig economy research
- NLRB strengthening proposals
4. Financial regulation
- Regulatory reform frameworks — Sabeel Rahman’s “Rewiring Regulation” project directly influenced Biden OIRA approach
- Wall Street accountability research
- Consumer financial protection analysis
5. Climate and energy transition
- Climate finance regulatory project (Hewlett-funded)
- Green industrial policy
- Just transition frameworks
The Policy Pipeline
Roosevelt operates a distinctive pipeline: academic economics → policy paper → Biden administration appointment → executive order/rulemaking.
How Roosevelt research becomes policy:
- Stiglitz and fellows develop framework — Academic-grade economic research on inequality, market power, and structural reform
- Reports published with policy recommendations — “Rewriting the Rules” format: diagnosis + specific legislative/regulatory proposals
- Roosevelt alumni appointed to government — Lisa Cook to the Fed, Sabeel Rahman to OIRA, others to subcabinet roles
- Executive orders and rulemaking — Biden’s competition EO, industrial policy, regulatory reform all track Roosevelt frameworks
- Congressional testimony and media — Stiglitz’s Nobel Prize credibility lends authority to the policy recommendations
Donation-to-Policy Timeline
| Date | Recipient/Target | Amount | Policy Return | Time Gap |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2015 | Democracy Alliance endorsement | N/A (channel to donor network) | Roosevelt added to recommended funding list, enabling 5x budget growth | Ongoing from 2015 |
| May 2015 | Public (Stiglitz report) | Research investment | ”Rewriting the Rules” published — becomes progressive economic blueprint | Foundation for 2020s policy |
| 2020 | Hewlett Foundation | $1.29M | Climate finance regulatory project → feeds Biden climate policy framework | ~12 months |
| Jan 2021 | Biden White House (OIRA) | N/A (personnel) | Sabeel Rahman (Roosevelt fellow/board) → OIRA senior counselor, overseeing federal rulemaking | Fellow → government |
| May 2022 | Federal Reserve Board | N/A (personnel) | Lisa Cook (Roosevelt board vice chair) → Fed governor, confirmed 50-50 with VP tiebreaker | Board member → government |
| Jul 2021 | Biden White House | N/A (policy) | Executive Order on Promoting Competition — tracks Roosevelt antitrust framework | ~6 years from “Rewriting the Rules” |
| 2022–2024 | FTC/DOJ Antitrust Division | N/A (policy) | Lina Khan’s FTC enforcement agenda — intellectually aligned with Roosevelt/Stiglitz anti-monopoly framework | Indirect but systematic |
| 2022–2023 | Congress | N/A (policy) | CHIPS Act, IRA — industrial policy provisions track Roosevelt frameworks on public investment | ~3 years from Roosevelt industrial policy work |
| Feb 2025 | Elizabeth Wilkins → Roosevelt CEO | N/A (personnel) | Ex-Lina Khan adviser / Biden CoS adviser becomes president — government regulators → think tank. Pipeline now runs in both directions. | Immediate — Biden admin ends → Roosevelt absorbs its talent |
Money
Roosevelt’s policy pipeline is the progressive mirror image of Heritage’s Project 2025: develop the intellectual framework → train the personnel → place them in government → execute the agenda. The key difference is funding source: Heritage is funded by corporate donors who directly benefit from its policy output, while Roosevelt is funded by foundations and progressive donors. This makes Roosevelt’s pipeline less directly transactional — but the Democracy Alliance connection means wealthy individuals are still choosing which “structural reforms” get researched and which don’t.
The Revolving Door
Roosevelt’s revolving door runs primarily in one direction: from Roosevelt (and allied progressive organizations) into Democratic administrations.
| Name | Roosevelt Role | Government Role | Direction |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lisa Cook | Board Vice Chair (2020–2022) | Federal Reserve Board Governor (2022–present) | Board → Government |
| K. Sabeel Rahman | Fellow (2011–2018), Board member (current) | OIRA Senior Counselor, Biden admin (2021–2023) | Fellow → Government → Back to board |
| Sharon Block | Board member | Biden NLRB task force, Harvard Law | Government ↔ Think tank |
| Joelle Gamble | Board member (2020) | NEC Deputy Director, Biden White House | Board → Government |
| Felicia Wong | President & CEO (2012–2025) | Democracy Alliance → Roosevelt | Donor network → Think tank |
| Todd Tucker | Dir. Industrial Policy & Trade | Research cited in CHIPS Act, IRA development | Research → Policy (indirect) |
| Elizabeth Wilkins | President & CEO (Feb 2025–present) | Senior adviser to FTC Chair Lina Khan; senior adviser to Biden Chief of Staff Ron Klain | Government → Think tank |
The pattern: Roosevelt is a talent pipeline for Democratic economic policymaking. The board-to-government path (Cook → Fed, Rahman → OIRA, Gamble → NEC) is the key mechanism. Unlike the defense contractor revolving door (where officials return to lucrative private sector jobs), Roosevelt’s revolving door moves progressive academics and advocates into government positions where they implement the think tank’s policy frameworks.
Contradiction
Roosevelt’s revolving door is less financially corrupt than the corporate version — nobody is getting rich rotating between Roosevelt ($200K salaries) and government positions. But the structural function is identical: ensuring that policy decisions are made by people who share the institutional worldview of their pre-government employer. The question is whether “progressive” revolving doors produce different outcomes than corporate ones, or whether they simply give a progressive gloss to an economic system that continues to concentrate wealth. Biden’s antitrust revival was real, but Wall Street profits hit record highs throughout his presidency. Roosevelt’s intellectual framework didn’t prevent that.
What Their Funders Got
Progressive foundations got:
- Intellectual infrastructure for the most activist Democratic economic agenda since LBJ
- “Rewriting the Rules” framework adopted as Biden economic policy blueprint
- Personnel placed in key regulatory positions (OIRA, Fed, NEC)
- Competition policy revival — FTC under Khan, DOJ antitrust under Kanter
- Industrial policy legitimacy — CHIPS Act, IRA framed as public investment, not “big government spending”
Democracy Alliance donors got:
- An organization that channels progressive economic discontent into institutional reform proposals rather than more radical structural demands
- Tax and antitrust proposals that target corporate concentration but don’t threaten the wealth structure that allows progressive mega-donors to exist
- The credibility of a Nobel laureate (Stiglitz) backing policy positions that donors already preferred
Labor unions (AFT, Teamsters via board seats) got:
- Research supporting PRO Act, minimum wage increases, NLRB strengthening
- Academic legitimacy for labor’s policy agenda
- Access to the progressive policy network that shapes Democratic platforms
Class Analysis
The Roosevelt Institute occupies a unique and revealing position in the think tank ecosystem. It is the most intellectually serious progressive think tank — the Stiglitz connection gives it genuine academic credibility that CAP (a partisan Democratic operation) lacks. Its diagnosis of inequality as a policy choice rather than a market outcome is analytically correct and politically potent.
But the class function is more nuanced than it appears:
1. Channeling structural critique into institutional reform. Roosevelt’s “rewrite the rules” framework diagnoses the problem correctly (policy choices created inequality) but prescribes solutions that work within existing institutions (better antitrust enforcement, smarter regulation, more public investment). This channels energy that might otherwise demand more fundamental restructuring — worker ownership, wealth caps, democratic control of investment — into reform proposals that wealthy progressive donors find acceptable.
2. The foundation funding paradox. Ford, Hewlett, and MacArthur are themselves products of enormous concentrations of private wealth. They fund anti-inequality research, but their existence depends on the tax code provisions that allow billionaires to create tax-exempt foundations rather than paying higher taxes. Roosevelt’s research never targets the foundation model itself as a mechanism of wealth concentration and political influence.
3. The Democracy Alliance pipeline. Wong’s journey from the Democracy Alliance (a network of progressive mega-donors) to Roosevelt’s presidency is the tell. The Democracy Alliance’s endorsement in 2015 coincided with Roosevelt’s budget explosion. The think tank’s agenda is shaped by what progressive billionaires are willing to fund — which is reform, not transformation. Anti-monopoly research gets funded; research questioning whether billionaires should exist at all does not.
4. Real but bounded impact. Roosevelt’s influence on Biden-era policy was genuine: the competition EO, the FTC revival, the industrial policy turn. These are meaningful policy changes that benefit workers and consumers. But they operate within a framework that preserves the fundamental structure of concentrated wealth and corporate power. Roosevelt helps make capitalism slightly less extractive without questioning whether the extractive structure itself should survive.
Money
Roosevelt’s $22.8M budget is funded by the very wealth concentration its research critiques. The Ford Foundation exists because Henry Ford accumulated an industrial fortune; the Hewlett Foundation exists because Bill Hewlett built HP. These foundations now fund research arguing that such concentrations of wealth are bad for democracy. The intellectual output is sound — Stiglitz’s economics is rigorous. But the institutional structure ensures that “rewriting the rules” never means writing rules that would prevent the next Ford or Hewlett from accumulating the wealth that creates the next foundation that funds the next round of anti-inequality research. It’s a self-sustaining loop where progressive critique serves as a pressure valve rather than a catalyst for structural change.
Sources
- ProPublica Nonprofit Explorer: The Roosevelt Institute (EIN 23-7213592) (Tier 1)
- Roosevelt Institute: Rewriting the Rules of the American Economy (Stiglitz, 2015) (Tier 3)
- Roosevelt Institute: Joseph Stiglitz — Chief Economist (Tier 3)
- InfluenceWatch: Roosevelt Institute (Tier 3)
- Wikipedia: Roosevelt Institute (Tier 3)
- Federal Reserve Board: Lisa D. Cook Sworn In as Governor (Tier 1)
- The Fulcrum: Biden Taps K. Sabeel Rahman for OMB Post (Tier 2)
- Roosevelt Institute: Designing the Next Wave of Competition Policy (Tier 3)
- Roosevelt Institute: Building a More Effective, Responsive Government (Tier 3)
- Roosevelt Institute: Industrial Policy 2025 (Tier 3)
- Common Dreams: Progressive Contract with America Aims to ‘Rewrite the Rules’ (Tier 2)
- Roosevelt Institute: Sea Change — How a New Economics Went Mainstream (Wong, Kahn, Konczal, Hughes, Nov 2023) (Tier 3)
- Roosevelt Institute: President and CEO Felicia Wong to Transition to New Role (Jan 2025) (Tier 3)
- Roosevelt Institute: Celebrates Confirmation of Board Vice Chair Dr. Lisa Cook to Federal Reserve Board (May 2022) (Tier 3)
- NPR: Senate Approves Lisa Cook as First Black Woman on Federal Reserve Board of Governors (May 2022) (Tier 2)
- Roosevelt Institute: New Leadership at Roosevelt — Elizabeth Wilkins Named President and CEO (Feb 2025) (Tier 3)
content-readiness:: ready