Follow us on social

47966815478_53ea2e250f_k

Can we make think tanks great again?

These institutions still have something to offer, but a lack of transparency has hurt their credibility as honest brokers.

Analysis | Media

Speaking in 1966 at the Brookings Institution’s fiftieth anniversary, President Lyndon Baines Johnson heralded the role of virtue, ethics and fact-driven research in pursuit of improved public policy. “The methods which have worked so well in advancing man's knowledge of himself and his universe are exactly the methods which can show us the way toward better public policies — a distrust of simple answers to very complex problems, and always healthy respect for the facts, a conscientious effort to submerge bias and prejudice, and a refusal to stretch the conclusions beyond the evidence,” said Johnson.

Johnson was highlighting the powerful role that think tanks, such as Brookings, play in shaping public policy. They connect academia and policymakers, conduct original research and translate obscure policy initiatives into more accessible op-eds, media talking points, written reports and testimony before Congress.

But fifty-five years later, confidence in our policymaking institutions and think tanks are reaching record lows. A Pew Research Center poll recently found that only 20-percent of Americans “say they trust the federal government to do what is right just about always/most of the time.” And that lack of trust trickles down to think tanks as well. While less research on think tanks has been conducted, a 2018 poll found that only 20-percent of Americans trust what think tanks have to say.

Indeed, the flood of dark money — opaque funds intended to influence political outcomes — opened up after the 2010 Citizens United Supreme Court decision has eroded public trust in government and the policymaking process. Think tanks have added to the public’s distrust by not disclosing donors and allowing donors to shape the content of their work. 

Examples of funding driving think tank’s work are, unfortunately, far too numerous. The United Arab Emirates paid the Center for a New American Security (CNAS) $250,000 for a report that recommends exporting military grade drones to the UAE and other countries, but made no mention of the UAE funding. The conservative Heritage Foundation received $5.8 million from a South Korean weapons manufacturer, then aggressively advocated for the company’s landmines, munitions, and military robots. The left-leaning Center for American Progress (CAP) watered down its public response to the brutal murder of Jamal Khashoggi, at the behest of a staffer with close ties to the UAE, a large donor to CAP.

Moreover, while some think tanks disclose detailed information about their biggest donors, all-too-many think tanks still choose not to disclose any information about their funders or only partially disclose, listing some top-level donors as “anonymous.”

Think tanks, as Johnson highlighted, can play a crucial role in our democratic process, but when they fail to disclose their funders and engage in pay-to-play research they further erode the public’s confidence in the policymaking process.  As we have documented in a recent report, to restore that trust, think tanks must take tangible steps to embrace funding transparency, compliance with the Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA) and conflict of interest disclosure and avoidance.

First and foremost, think tanks must be fully transparent about their funding. This simple standard can preempt criticism of undisclosed funding arrangements influencing research products.

Second, think tanks should make an increased effort to comply with FARA, a statute requiring disclosure of various political activities undertaken at the direction of a foreign principal. Think tanks are increasingly turning to foreign governments for funding – more than $174 million went from foreign governments to the top U.S. think tanks between 2014 and 2018, led by Norway, United Kingdom and the United Arab Emirates – but very few have registered their activities under FARA.

The Justice Department, for its part, has taken a heightened interest in FARA violations with high profile prosecutions of Michael Flynn and Paul Manafort, but improved guidance from the Department as to what activities require registration would be a crucial step in bringing think tanks, and much of Washington, into greater compliance with the statute.

Finally, think tanks should openly acknowledge that conflicts of interest between funding and research can occur and implement best practices to identify and disclose these instances. Scientific journals, The New York Times, and National Public Radio all lay out comprehensive conflict of interest avoidance policies and disclosure requirements. Think tanks must embrace similar policies toward conflict-of-interest avoidance and disclosure.

Taken together, these measures will help think tanks rise above the all too common, but well justified, cynicism about special interests, dark money, and foreign governments influencing our elected officials and policymaking institutions. 

In a political climate defined by fake news, misinformation and special interest money, the think tanks that Johnson envisioned more than 50 years ago, with a “healthy respect for the facts, a conscientious effort to submerge bias and prejudice,” are needed more than ever.


A ‘fireside chat’ between Senator Mark Warner and Victoria Nuland, a Nonresident Senior Fellow in the Center on the United States and Europe at the Brookings Institution, May 9, 2019.(BrookingsInstitution/Flickr/Creative Commons)
Analysis | Media
Steve Witkoff Donald Trump Israel
Top photo credit: President Donald Trump walks out with Steve Witkoff after taking part in bilateral meetings at the United Nations Headquarters in New York City, Tuesday, September 23, 2025. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)

Gaza plan: Looks Like peace, acts like occupation

Middle East

In Deir al-Balah, a mother told me her son now counts the seconds between blasts. Policy, to her, isn’t a debate; it’s whether trucks arrive and the night is quiet. Donald Trump’s 20-point plan promises ceasefire, hostages home, Israeli withdrawal, and reconstruction. It sounds complete. It isn’t.

Without enforceable mechanics, maps, timelines, phased verification, and real local ownership; it risks being a short-lived show, not a durable peace.

keep readingShow less
Van Jones
Top image credit: screen grab via https://www.youtube.com/@RealTime

Van Jones found out: Gaza dead baby jokes aren't funny

Media

On Friday, Van Jones joked about kids dying in Gaza.

“If you open your phone, and all you see is dead Gaza baby, dead Gaza baby, dead Gaza baby, Diddy,” Jones said on Bill Maher’s ‘Real Time’ HBO program.

keep readingShow less
Xi Jinping Donald Trump Vladimir Putin
Top image credit: Frederic Legrand - COMEO, Joey Sussman, miss.cabul via shutterstock.com

Why Trump won't get Afghanistan's Bagram base back

Middle East

In a September 20 Truth Social post, President Trump threatened the Taliban, declaring, “If Afghanistan doesn’t give Bagram Airbase back… BAD THINGS ARE GOING TO HAPPEN!!” He now wants the military base he once negotiated away as part of the U.S. withdrawal agreement his first administration signed in 2019.

Not unexpectedly, the Taliban quickly refused, noting “under the Doha Agreement, the United States pledged that ‘it will not use or threaten force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Afghanistan, nor interfere in its internal affairs.’” And with China now deeply entrenched in post-war Afghanistan, it’s likely Beijing will ensure that the threat remains little more than another off-the-cuff comment that should not be taken literally nor seriously.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.