By: AIF Staff
Cambridge, MA – In late March, AIF President and former Speaker of the House Paul Ryan took part in a John F. Kennedy policy forum with Anthony Foxx, former US Transportation Secretary and current Director of Harvard’s Center for Public Leadership.
The event, entitled: Leaders and Public Service in an Unpredictable World, was hosted by Harvard University’s Kennedy School. Ryan, who is spending time at Harvard as a Spring 2026 Hauser Leader, and Secretary Foxx discussed the challenges facing the next generation of American leaders and extolled the virtues of government service.
While on campus, Ryan held a roundtable conversation with students working with Harvard’s Institute of Politics and did interviews with the Harvard Crimson, the Harvard International Review, and Harvard Magazine.
Video of the JFK Forum is accessible here and excerpts of some of Ryan’s responses, edited for clarity, follow.
Developing policy expertise, scaling a meritocracy in Congress:
“I wanted to be an economic policy maker and the key committees for that are the Budget Committee and the Ways and Means Committee. In the House, it’s more of a meritocracy. We actually term-limit chairs as Republican — and the Democrats should do that, but they just don’t – so every six years you have a turn-over of chairs and you basically have to make your case to a panel of 21 Members of Congress, a cross-section of your conference, as to why you should be the next chair. I was 13th in seniority on the Budget Committee, but I was able to make a case on merit….
My big takeaway from this and the lesson for young people who want to get into this field is: Develop good habits, work really hard, know your subject matter, let the game come to you and rise through a meritocracy. A lot of people today think you can “fake it till you make it,” but that’s not true…
The best advice I got came from Barney Frank—he told me to be a specialist. Focus deeply on one or two areas and become the most informed person in that space. For me, that was the budget. That focus helped me earn the opportunity to lead.”
Ryan’s definition of “conservatism”:
“Conservatism, properly understood, is what I call “full-spectrum conservatism,” and it’s rooted in classical liberalism. It’s about conserving the principles and institutions that allow society to flourish….
Those principles come from a long intellectual tradition—think Edmund Burke, Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman, and others. At the core are liberty, freedom, self-determination, pluralism, and equality of opportunity—not equality of outcome. It’s grounded in natural law and natural rights—the idea that our rights are inherent and pre-government, and that government’s role is to protect those rights so people can pursue happiness in their own way, as long as they don’t infringe on others.
I come from the Reagan-era of classical liberal conservatism. I do think the current dominant strain in the Republican Party is different— it’s more nationalist and populist—and in my view, it departs from some of these core principles, particularly around markets and the idea of America as a nation defined by ideals….
What concerns me most is that both parties are drifting toward moral relativism—where the ends justify the means, and the other side is treated as the enemy. That’s a dangerous place for the country.”
Advancements in evidence-based policymaking can save the social contract:
“I really believe that we are getting, through the study of economics, better at learning about how to fight poverty more effectively and that we can take all the dollars we spend on the thousand-plus [poverty-fighting] programs and do it in a way where we fund programs based on outcomes and measurements, which is what we call evidence-based policymaking.
I wrote a law with Senator Patty Murray, a friend of mine who’s a progressive Democrat from Washington state, called the Evidence Act and the whole point of this law is that we pivot our policymaking not toward ideological, partisan fights, but to what works.
And so, I do think there is a consensus now. It took a while to get there between Republicans and Democrats… that our social contract is good and we want it and we define that social contract as health and retirement security for all Americans a safety net for the poor.”
Conservatives concerns with institutional, ideological “wokeism”
“Conservatives broadly see what’s happening with “wokeism” as a problem. If you break that down, it often comes to DEI and ESG. Diversity and inclusion are important—those are good aspirations. It’s the “equity” component that becomes ideological….
What conservatives see is important principles—like ending racism and increasing inclusion—being used in service of a broader ideological agenda. It becomes a situation where if you want to support those goals, you’re told you must also adopt a specific ideological framework. That’s what creates friction….
On the environmental side, the conservative approach is technology. Let’s pursue innovation—fusion, nuclear, better energy solutions. I serve on the board of a nuclear energy company working on nuclear waste recycling. We should double down on innovation rather than undermine our economy or energy independence.
On the social side, I think there are better ways to fight poverty than large government programs. We’ve learned a lot through economics about what works. I worked on the Evidence Act with Patty Murray, which is about funding outcomes—evidence-based policymaking.
There’s actually a growing bipartisan consensus that the social contract—health and retirement security and a safety net—is important. The question is how to design it.”
Reducing the national debt through prospective reforms to entitlements:
“The way to do it is to reform our entitlement programs. These are important programs—Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid — but they were designed in the 20th century and are now unsustainable in the 21st century. They make up about 75% of the budget and are the primary drivers of the debt.
We’ve learned a lot since these programs were created. We should apply those lessons—especially from markets and innovation—to reform them. I believe you can phase in reforms prospectively, protecting people in or near retirement while updating the system for younger generations.
The problem is we don’t have the political will to do that. So, the most realistic path is probably a statutory commission—something that forces Congress to act, with fast-track authority. At some point, the bond markets may force action. That may be what ultimately drives reform.”
Congress ceding authority to Executive Branch:
“As Speaker, I actually sued both the Obama and Trump administrations when I believed the executive branch was encroaching on legislative powers. That’s part of Congress’s duty.
This rarely happens under unified government. When one party controls both Congress and the presidency, there’s a reluctance to challenge the executive. But that’s when encroachment happens fastest, because the majority doesn’t want to undermine the president of their own party.
I do think the executive branch has been encroaching, particularly on funding authority— on the power of the purse, which is a core Article I power. Congress could do much more to defend its ground….
People say the branches are co-equal, but in the Constitution, the legislative branch is actually the most powerful. Article I is the most robust section. It’s the branch closest to the people. The founders expected each branch to jealously guard its powers, creating healthy tension. That tension breaks down under one-party rule.”