Cass Sunstein

Together with Richard Thaler, Sunstein popularised 'nudging' and libertarian paternalism, which involve modifying choice architecture to steer behaviour without formally removing options. This approach became extremely influential in public policy but was also criticised as potentially manipulative, paternalistic or insufficiently transparent, particularly when public decision-makers determine which option is considered preferable.

State of the evidence

Documented

Attribution

Directly implicated

A Washington Post investigation based on documents and interviews with Obama administration officials reported that several controversial regulations had been delayed before the 2012 presidential election to avoid political costs. The account notably mentions regular discussions between Sunstein, then OIRA director, and EPA officials concerning rules to be submitted.

State of the evidence

Reported by the press

As head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Sunstein was criticised by progressive associations, public health specialists and some regulators over review times, changes made to agency proposals and the opacity of informal exchanges with the White House and interested groups. Food safety and occupational health rules were among the delayed measures cited.

State of the evidence

Documented

Attribution

Direct responsibility

Cass Sunstein's work on animal law, including a 2004 book and a 2007 lecture, fuelled intense opposition during his nomination to OIRA. Hunting and livestock industry advocacy groups claimed that he wanted to give animals an independent right to bring legal proceedings or ban hunting.

State of the evidence

Documented

Attribution

Directly implicated

In a paper with Adrian Vermeule on conspiracy theories, Sunstein considered, among several options, 'cognitive infiltration': government agents or private allies could intervene in certain extremist networks or groups to introduce facts and arguments intended to weaken self-reinforcing conspiracy beliefs. The proposal triggered lasting controversy over freedom of expression, surveillance and the risk of covert manipulation of public debate.

State of the evidence

Documented

Attribution

Directly implicated