Applied History Project

The mission of Harvard’s Applied History Project is to revitalize applied history by promoting the production and use of historical reasoning to clarify public and private challenges and choices. Founded by Professors Graham Allison and Niall Ferguson in 2016, the Applied History Project builds upon the foundation laid by Professors Ernest May and Richard Neustadt in the 1980s, reflected in their book Thinking in Time: The Uses of History for Decision Makers. 

Advancing its mission, the Project sponsors the Applied History Working Group of faculty members across Harvard University to organize discussions with scholars and practitioners; supports historians and policymakers in producing Applied History; develops courses in Applied History; funds the Ernest May Fellowships in History and Policy for pre- and post-doctoral students; and holds Applied History Events open to the Harvard Community and the public. Harvard’s project is one of the leaders among a rapidly expanding network of universities and think tanks that are furthering the discipline of Applied History by clarifying predicaments and choices to inform better decisions.

The Project gratefully acknowledges the Stanton Foundation's generous support for its Applied History endeavors. 

Quote of the Week 

“No matter what you’re going to go into, whether it be business or politics or international relations or domestic politics, I don’t think you can go wrong if you maintain an avid interest in history.” – General James Mattis, interview with The Mercer Island High School Islander, 2017 

(More Quotes ») 

Article of the Week 

“Trump’s Iran playbook was written in the 1980s” – Alex Barker, Financial Times, March 23, 2026. 

Barker makes the case that “Trump’s musings from the 1980s are a guide to his mindset for the Iran war today.” While exploring a bid for president, Trump publicly criticized what he saw as a cautious US response to Iran’s threats against shipping in the Persian Gulf. Today, Barker argues, Trump keeps “riffing off the same core argument: that if US power was being exploited, it should either be priced properly or used more decisively.” Trump’s personal past also gives clues about his negotiating style, Barker writes. “Trump’s instinct, then as now, is to distil a situation into a small number of negotiating moves — an incident, a deadline, a response — and assume the party willing to use the most power will prevail.”