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
Fort Bragg horrors expose dark underbelly of post-9/11 warfare
Top photo credit: Seth Harp book jacket (Viking press) US special operators/deviant art/creative commons

Fort Bragg horrors expose dark underbelly of post-9/11 warfare

Media

In 2020 and 2021, 109 U.S. soldiers died at Fort Bragg, the largest military base in the country and the central location for the key Special Operations Units in the American military.

Only four of them were on overseas deployments. The others died stateside, mostly of drug overdoses, violence, or suicide. The situation has hardly improved. It was recently revealed that another 51 soldiers died at Fort Bragg in 2023. According to U.S. government data, these represent more military fatalities than have occurred at the hands of enemy forces in any year since 2013.

keep readingShow less
Trump Netanyahu
Top image credit: President Donald Trump hosts a bilateral dinner for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Monday, July 7, 2025, in the Blue Room. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)

The case for US Middle East retrenchment has never been clearer

Middle East

Is Israel becoming the new hegemon of the Middle East? The answer to this question is an important one.

Preventing the rise of a rival regional hegemon — a state with a preponderance of military and economic power — in Eurasia has long been a core goal of U.S. foreign policy. During the Cold War, Washington feared Soviet dominion over Europe. Today, U.S. policymakers worry that China’s increasingly capable military will crowd the United States out of Asia’s lucrative economic markets. The United States has also acted repeatedly to prevent close allies in Europe and Asia from becoming military competitors, using promises of U.S. military protection to keep them weak and dependent.

keep readingShow less
United Nations
Top image credit: lev radin / Shutterstock.com

Do we need a treaty on neutrality?

Global Crises

In an era of widespread use of economic sanctions, dual-use technology exports, and hybrid warfare, the boundary between peacetime and wartime has become increasingly blurry. Yet understandings of neutrality remain stuck in the time of trench warfare. An updated conception of neutrality, codified through an international treaty, is necessary for global security.

Neutrality in the 21st century is often whatever a country wants it to be. For some, such as the European neutrals like Switzerland and Ireland, it is compatible with non-U.N. sanctions (such as by the European Union) while for others it is not. Countries in the Global South are also more likely to take a case-by-case approach, such as choosing to not take a stance on a specific conflict and instead call for a peaceful resolution while others believe a moral position does not undermine neutrality.

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.