Follow us on social

Shutterstock_2152403209-scaled

Can think tanks be foreign agents?

New Justice Department guidance should serve as cautionary tale for those organizations doing other countries' bidding.

Analysis | Reporting | Washington Politics

Late Friday the Department of Justice’s Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) Unit issued guidance indicating that think tanks and non-profits doing work at the behest of a foreign government likely have an obligation to register under FARA.

In a new Advisory Opinion — the FARA Unit’s public, though heavily redacted, responses when organizations ask if they should register or not — the Chief of the FARA Unit argues that the unnamed organization in question should register under FARA as its work for foreign principals included outreach to policymakers in the defense community, facilitating “meetings and new partnerships in the United States, particularly with U.S. government officials,” and has agreed to prepare a study that would “foster bilateral exchange and cooperation between” a foreign government and the United States.

As the Chief argues, each of these actions constitutes “political activity” under the FARA statute, defined as attempts to “influence any agency or official of the United States or any section of the public within the United States with reference to . . . the domestic or foreign policy of the United States.”

All of this is also work that many foreign government funded think tanks do regularly. Outreach to policymakers — including those with sway over policies that would impact foreign funders — is an everyday occurrence for many think tanks. And, events and meetings in D.C. often feature officials from foreign governments that fund the think tank hosting the event. The United Arab Emirates, for example, is one of the top funders of U.S. think tanks and the UAE’s Ambassador in Washington regularly speaks at events, dinners, and on panels hosted by think tanks the UAE funds. 

Perhaps the most notable aspect of this latest FARA Advisory Opinion is the contention that an organization preparing a foreign government funded study that would foster bilateral exchange and cooperation between the foreign government and the United States would require FARA registration as, “furthering bilateral exchange with the United States constitutes political activities,” according to the Opinion. 

Josh Rosenstein, a partner at Sandler Reiff Lamb Rosenstein & Birkenstock, who advises clients on FARA, explained that “this provides some clarity on its face — that writing a paper for a foreign government advising them on engagement strategies with the U.S. government likely requires registration. But it's hard to tell whether the [FARA] Unit is more focused on that work itself or the contemplated outreach that might result from the paper.”

If the FARA Unit is, in fact, viewing papers published at the behest of foreign governments as grounds for FARA registration, think tanks should most definitely take notice. As Eli Clifton and I wrote in the Quincy Institute brief “Restoring Trust in the Think Tank Sector,” it’s not unusual for think tanks to be paid by foreign governments to write specific policy papers. For example, as The Intercept first reported, the Center for a New American Security (CNAS) was paid $250,000 by the UAE to write a report on the U.S. exporting military drones, which would, according to the UAE Ambassador, “help push the debate in the right direction.” CNAS then released a public report, recommending that the United States should export military drones to a number of countries, including the UAE. In November 2020 the Trump administration announced plans to sell $2.9 billion worth of armed drones to the UAE.

FARA unit Advisory Opinions do not have precedential value and are only intended as a response to the specific organization requesting the opinion, however. So, this new guidance does not automatically apply to CNAS, or any other think tank writing papers at the behest of a foreign government. At the very least though, this new Advisory Opinion should serve as a cautionary tale to think tanks doing the bidding of foreign governments and not registering under FARA.


Photo: Bo Shen via shutterstock.com
Analysis | Reporting | Washington Politics
Marco rubio state department
Top photo credit: Secretary Marco Rubio is interviewed by Lara Trump at the Department of State in Washington, D.C., July 21, 2025. (Official State Department photo by Freddie Everett)

Rubio takes annual human rights report to new heights of cynicism

Washington Politics

After much delay, Marco Rubio’s State Department finally released the 2024 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, known internally as the Human Rights Reports (HRRs).

These congressionally mandated reports are usually published in early spring about the events of the previous year. In addition to the significant lag in their release, the 2024 reports are drastically shorter and cover a much narrower range of human rights abuses than in previous years. They no longer include prison conditions and detention centers, civil liberties violations, or rampant corruption.

keep readingShow less
Trump putin alaska
Top photo credit: U.S. President Donald Trump shakes hand with Russian President Vladimir Putin, as they meet to negotiate for an end to the war in Ukraine, at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson in Anchorage, Alaska, U.S., August 15, 2025. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque/File Photo

Why Trump gets it right on Ukraine peace

Europe

Most of the Western commentary on the Alaska summit is criticizing President Trump for precisely the wrong reason. The accusation is that by abandoning his call for an unconditional ceasefire as the first step in peace talks, Trump has surrendered a key position and “aligned himself with Putin.”

This is nonsense. What Trump has done is to align himself with reality, and the real charge against him is that he should probably have done this from the start, and saved six months of fruitless negotiations and thousands of Ukrainian and Russian lives. Moreover, by continually emphasising a prior ceasefire as his key goal, Trump set himself up for precisely the kind of criticism that he is now receiving.

keep readingShow less
Deal or no deal? Alaska summit ends with vague hints at something
Top photo credit: U.S. President Donald Trump looks on next to Russian President Vladimir Putin during a press conference following their meeting to negotiate an end to the war in Ukraine, at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, in Anchorage, Alaska, U.S., August 15, 2025. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque TPX IMAGES OF THE DAY

Trump Putin

Deal or no deal? Alaska summit ends with vague hints at something

Europe

The much anticipated meeting between President Donald Trump and President Putin ended earlier than expected, but the two leaders addressed the press afterwards and appeared amicable while hinting at progress on an "agreement."

But no deal, nor a framework for a deal was announced. They did not take questions afterwards. Trump, who had said earlier that without a ceasefire at the end of the day he might slap Russia with new sanctions, did not go there. If anything they broached the issue of a second meeting. Putin even suggested it could be in Moscow.

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.