Follow us on social

Us-capitol-scaled

Bipartisan 'Fighting Foreign Influence Act' targets think tank funding

Today's move follows incidents of high profile corruption and influence peddling involving well-connected Americans.

Analysis | North America

Just four days after the resignation of Brookings president John Allen, following the disclosure of a federal investigation into whether he secretly lobbied for Qatar, new legislation has been introduced in the House of Representatives addressing the dangers of foreign influences seeking to corrupt U.S. elections, government officials, and think tanks.

The legislation, “Fighting Foreign Influence Act,” sponsored by Rep. Jared Golden (D-ME), would require tax exempt organizations, including think tanks, to disclose large contributions from foreign governments or foreign political parties, impose a lifetime ban on former U.S. military officers, presidents, vice presidents, senior executive branch officials, and members of Congress from lobbying for foreign principals, and require political campaigns to verify that online donations can be tied to a valid U.S. address.

“Non-profit organizations and partisan think tanks play an outsized role in shaping public opinion and influencing policy decisions in the United States,” said Rep. Lance Gooden (R-TX), in a press release. “We must understand where these groups get their funding, who influences their agenda, and if adversarial nations are using non-profit groups to undermine the United States. The Fighting Foreign Influence Act would ensure there is finally transparency and accountability in the non-profit sector.”

“Americans distrust government no matter which party is in power,” said Rep. Katie Porter (D-Calif.), who cosponsored the bill. “By cracking down on foreign gifts, donations, and lobbying, we can begin the hard work of earning back the people’s trust. I am proud to join Democrats and Republicans to help introduce the Fighting Foreign Influence Act.”

“Current disclosure requirements for online donations make it easy for bad actors to violate federal contribution limits, or worse, for foreign money to influence U.S. elections. As technology advances, we must continue to stay ahead of the curve in thwarting those who wish to inappropriately influence our political processes,” said Congressman Paul Gosar (R-Wyo.). “Full disclosure of online contributions will ensure that the American people know the sources of campaign money and will greatly assist with maintaining a system of free and fair elections.”

The bipartisan effort to push foreign influence and funding out of the U.S. political process occurs alongside a heightened Justice Department interest in enforcing the Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA), a statute requiring agents of foreign principals to register with the Justice Department and regulate activities undertaken at the behest of their foreign clients.

Last week, a leaked search warrant revealed an FBI investigation into Brookings president John Allen, alleging he secretly lobbied for Qatar, a country which had also contributed over $30 million to Brookings over 14 years. Qatar was Brookings’ largest foreign government funder until the relationship ended last year. Allen denies the allegations and Brookings is not known to be under investigation.

And last month, the Justice Department sued billionaire real estate developer and Republican mega donor Steve Wynn to compel him to register as an agent of China under FARA. The government claims Wynn used his relationship with President Donald Trump to advance Chinese government interests. The Justice Department alleged that Wynn was operating casinos in the Chinese Special Administrative Region of Macau and sought to protect his business interests. Wynn has denied acting as an agent of the Chinese government.

The new bill’s sponsors cited a 2020 study by Ben Freeman, then-director of the Center for International Policy’s Foreign Influence Transparency Initiative, that revealed how at least $174 million flowed from foreign governments to U.S. think tanks between 2014 and 2018.

Freeman, who is now a research fellow at the Quincy Institute, and I authored a paper last year, “Restoring Trust in the Think Tank Sector,” laying out tangible steps that think tanks should adopt in order to earn back public trust. Steps included: disclosing sources of funding; complying with FARA, and proactively disclosing potential conflicts of interest between sources of funding and research products.


(shutterstock/trekandshoot)
Analysis | North America
Ratcliffe Gabbard
Top image credit: Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and CIA director John Ratcliffe join a meeting with U.S. President Donald Trump and his intelligence team in the Situation Room at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S. June 21, 2025. The White House/Handout via REUTERS

Trump's use and misuse of Iran intel

Middle East

President Donald Trump has twice, within the space of a week, been at odds with U.S. intelligence agencies on issues involving Iran’s nuclear program. In each instance, Trump was pushing his preferred narrative, but the substantive differences in the two cases were in opposite directions.

Before the United States joined Israel’s attack on Iran, Trump dismissed earlier testimony by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, in which she presented the intelligence community’s judgment that “Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Khamanei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003.” Questioned about this testimony, Trump said, “she’s wrong.”

keep readingShow less
Mohammad Bin Salman Trump Ayatollah Khomenei
Top photo credit: Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad Bin Salman (President of the Russian Federation/Wikimedia Commons); U.S. President Donald Trump (Gage Skidmore/Flickr) and Iran’s Ayatollah Khamenei (Wikimedia Commons)

Let's make a deal: Enrichment path that both Iran, US can agree on

Middle East

The recent conflict, a direct confrontation that pitted Iran against Israel and drew in U.S. B-2 bombers, has likely rendered the previous diplomatic playbook for Tehran's nuclear program obsolete.

The zero-sum debates concerning uranium enrichment that once defined that framework now represent an increasingly unworkable approach.

Although a regional nuclear consortium had been previously advanced as a theoretical alternative, the collapse of talks as a result of military action against Iran now positions it as the most compelling path forward for all parties.

Before the war, Iran was already suggesting a joint uranium enrichment facility with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) on Iranian soil. For Iran, this framework could achieve its primary goal: the preservation of a domestic nuclear program and, crucially, its demand to maintain some enrichment on its own territory. The added benefit is that it embeds Iran within a regional security architecture that provides a buffer against unilateral attack.

For Gulf actors, it offers unprecedented transparency and a degree of control over their rival-turned-friend’s nuclear activities, a far better outcome than a possible covert Iranian breakout. For a Trump administration focused on deals, it offers a tangible, multilateral framework that can be sold as a blueprint for regional stability.

keep readingShow less
Trump Netanyahu
Top image credit: White House April 7, 2025

Polls: Americans don't support Trump's war on Iran

Military Industrial Complex

While there are serious doubts about the accuracy of President Donald Trump’s claims about the effectiveness of his attacks on Iranian nuclear sites, the U.S./Israeli war on Iran has provided fresh and abundant evidence of widespread opposition to war in the United States.

With a tenuous ceasefire currently holding, several nationwide surveys suggest Trump’s attack, which plunged the country into yet another offensive war in the Middle East, has been broadly unpopular across the country.

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.