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
global warming
Top image credit: Scharfsinn via shutterstock.com

The US military is about to become a world class polluter

Military Industrial Complex

According to new analysis by the Climate and Community Institute (CCI), recent increases in Pentagon spending alone will produce an additional 26 megatons (Mt) of planet-heating gases — on a par with the annual carbon equivalent (CO2e) emissions generated by 68 gas power plants or the entire country of Croatia.

With the Pentagon’s 2026 budget set to surge to $1 trillion (a 17% or $150 billion increase from 2023), its total greenhouse emissions will also increase to a staggering 178 Mt of CO2e. This will make the U.S. military and its industrial apparatus the 38th largest emitter in the world if it were its own nation. It will also result in an estimated $47 billion in economic damages globally, including impacts on agriculture, human health, and property from extreme weather, according to the EPA’s social cost of carbon calculator.

keep readingShow less
Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan and Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev
Top image credit: Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan and Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev via Madina Nurmanova / Shutterstock.com

Is Trump's Armenia-Azeri peace plan yet another road to nowhere?

Asia-Pacific

Last week, U.S. President Donald Trump claimed that a peace agreement between Armenia and Azerbaijan — two longstanding foes in the South Caucasus who fought bloody wars in the 1990s and again in 2020 — was imminent.

He credited his administration’s diplomatic efforts: “Armenia and Azerbaijan. We worked magic there and it’s pretty close — if not, it’s already done,” he declared during a dinner with Republican senators.

keep readingShow less
Zelensky Putin
Top photo credit: Volodymyr Zelensky (Shutterstock/Pararazza) and Vladimir Putin (Shutterstock/miss.cabul)

There'll be no Ukraine peace breakthroughs today — or this year

Europe

President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine has said that a further round of talks between Ukraine and Russia could start as early as this week, and indicated that “everything had to be done to get a ceasefire.” Yet it is far from clear that a ceasefire will be possible. And it’s likely that the war will continue into 2026.

In June, Zelensky was pressing the European Union to go further in its sanctions against Russia, including calling for a $30 per barrel cap on Russian oil shipments. Washington effectively vetoed a lowering of the oil price cap at the recent G7 Summit in Canada. However, on July 18 the European Union agreed its 18th round of Russian sanctions since war began, overcoming a blocking move by Slovakia in the process.

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.