In 2008, Richard H. Thaler and Cass R. Sunstein’s best-selling book Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness set the standard for the philosophy and psychology of political influence. ^{Reference Thaler and Sunstein1} Sunstein’s works since then — Why Nudge: The Politics of Libertarian Paternalism (2014), ^{Reference Sunstein2} The Ethics of Influence: Government in the Age of Behavioral Science (2016), ^{Reference Sunstein3} and Human Agency and Behavioral Economics: Nudging Fast and Slow (2017) ^{Reference Sunstein4} — expand and expound on (what we shall call) “nudge science.” The following collection of essays will explore this body of work from a variety of disciplinary perspectives, with a special emphasis on explaining and predicting how each discipline might address the ethics of influence in a democratic society. The intent of the following articles is not to critique “nudge science” but to focus on current U.S. public debates — obesity policy (psychology), retirement savings policy (economics), breast cancer screening policy (medicine), and climate change policy (philosophy) — and, ultimately, to speculate on the immediate future of libertarian paternalism in the United States.