Follow us on social

Screen-shot-2022-12-15-at-9.38.22-am

DC think tank puts hawkish former Aussie PM on China Center board

Does the Hudson Institute need to register under the Foreign Agent Registration Act after appointing Scott Morrison as an adviser?

Reporting | Washington Politics

Australian media outlets exploded two weeks ago with articles about current member of Australian parliament and former Australian prime minister Scott Morrison joining the advisory board of the Hudson Institute’s China Center.

“Morrison joins advisory board of Rupert Murdoch-backed think tank,” blared the Sydney Morning Herald headline, citing Murdoch’s $100,000 in annual support to Hudson. While attention on Morrison’s new role at a U.S. think tank, while concurrently serving as the member of parliament for the New South Wales seat of Cook, drew scrutiny in Australia, his appointment to the advisory board of Hudson’s China Center raises questions about whether Morrison has entered into a principal-agent relationship with the China Center. If so, Hudson may need to register with the Justice Department as the agent of a foreign principal and disclose various aspects of the arrangement.

“Understanding the nature and dimensions of Morrison’s role is important in evaluating if his addition to the team at the Hudson Institute’s China Center creates FARA (Foreign Agent Registration Act) registration obligations,” David H. Laufman, a partner at Wiggin and Dana law firm who previously oversaw FARA enforcement at the Justice Department, told Responsible Statecraft.

"It seems odd to me for a current foreign government official to have a role at a U.S. think tank. It raises obvious questions about whether a foreign government will be influencing the Hudson Institute's devising and dissemination of content within the United States to influence U.S. public opinion or U.S. government officials,” said Laufman. “A position on a board of a program at a U.S. think tank connotes a measure of direction and control of the operations of that program.”

The Hudson Institute did not respond to multiple requests for comment on the role and responsibilities undertaken by Morrison as a member of the advisory board whose other two members are former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and former diplomat Paula Dobriansky.

The China Center is clearly focused on shaping U.S.-China policy.

The Center’s website says:

The China Center at Hudson Institute studies the ideological, structural, and long-term domestic and international forces at play in shaping China’s strategic intent, sharp power capabilities, and weaknesses and vulnerabilities, with the central goal of engendering America’s value-based, non-partisan, sound and effective responses to the China challenge.

Under the leadership of Hudson Senior Fellow Dr. Miles Yu, who previously served as the senior China policy and planning advisor at the State Department, the China Center will bring together leading China experts, policy makers, and national leaders to solidify and extend the non-partisan national consensus on America’s approach to China.

FARA, as described on the Justice Department’s website, “requires certain agents of foreign principals who are engaged in political activities or other activities specified under the statute to make periodic public disclosure of their relationship with the foreign principal, as well as activities, receipts and disbursements in support of those activities.”

Morrison’s role as a foreign individual and a member of Australian parliament and his advisory role over Hudson’s China Center raises the question about whether Hudson’s China Center is acting as an agent of a foreign principal.

“If I were still overseeing FARA enforcement at the Justice Department this is something I would allocate some scrutiny to, to determine the nature of Morrison’s role in the operations of this program in order to assess whether his involvement would constitute registerable activities under FARA for the Hudson Institute,” said Laufman. “The category I'd be looking at is whether Hudson Institute is engaging in ‘political activities’ as broadly defined under FARA, as a result of Morrison’s involvement in the China Center.”

“An ‘agent of a foreign principal’ is any person who acts as an agent, representative, employee, or servant, or otherwise acts at the order, request, or under the direction or control of a ‘foreign principal’…” and who engages in any of a number of activities, including, “[engaging] within the United States in political activities, such as intending to influence any U.S. Government official or the American public regarding U.S. domestic or foreign policy or the political or public interests of a foreign government or foreign political party,” according to the Justice Department.

Joshua Ian Rosenstein, an attorney focused on FARA at Sandler Reiff law firm, told Responsible Statecraft that the scenario of a foreign politician serving on the advisory board of a program at U.S. think tank wouldn’t necessarily trigger a FARA registration but he would advise a stringent set of measures in order to avoid a principal-agent relationship between the foreign individual and the U.S. think tank.

“I would recommend a set of guardrails to make sure that this foreign individual serves only in an honorary or advisory capacity and that officers and directors do not need to follow their directions,” said Rosenstein. “I might go even further as suggesting that the foreign advisor not make specific recommendations about programmatic activities.”

Hudson has provided no clarity about Morrison’s role, but his inaugural appearance at the think tank, an event held on December 6th where Morrison delivered prepared remarks and engaged in a conversation with Center director Miles Yu, emphasized Morrison’s interest in promoting U.S. policy in the Pacific centered on containing and pushing back against China.

Morrison heralded “the most trusted set of relationships in the world between Australia, the United States and the United Kingdom.”

He warned that China threatens these countries by seeking to “modify the global rules in ways based on an order that would better suit Chinese interests.”

The event, where Morrison highlighted U.S. and Australian defense cooperation in the Pacific in order to counter China and warned of “mutually assured destruction” if the U.S. and China clash over Taiwan, concluded with Yu presenting Morrison with a Winnie the Pooh mug, a nod to a Chinese internet meme mocking Chinese President Xi Jinping by comparing him to the portly bear.  

“What is noteworthy is that Australia has an interest in the U.S. role in Asia and countering China, so there's every reason to expect that Morrison would seek to ensure that the U.S. continues to be a mainstay to help promote Australian security in the region as a counterweight to threats from China,” said Laufman. “That increases the possibility that he will espouse views, in the course of this center’s operations, that the U.S. should aggressively try to counter China within Asia – views which promote Australian security interests."

Morrison did not respond to a request for comment.


The Hudson Institute's China Center hosted ex-Australian PM and new advisory board member for its China Center. Here with Center director Miles Yu on Dec. 6, 2022.(You Tube screengrab)
Reporting | Washington Politics
US Marines
Top image credit: U.S. Marines with Force Reconnaissance Platoon, Maritime Raid Force, 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit, prepare to clear a room during a limited scale raid exercise at Sam Hill Airfield, Queensland, Australia, June 21, 2025. (U.S. Marine Corps photo by Cpl. Alora Finigan)

Cartels are bad but they're not 'terrorists.' This is mission creep.

Military Industrial Complex

There is a dangerous pattern on display by the Trump administration. The president and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth seem to hold the threat and use of military force as their go-to method of solving America’s problems and asserting state power.

The president’s reported authorization for the Pentagon to use U.S. military warfighting capacity to combat drug cartels — a domain that should remain within the realm of law enforcement — represents a significant escalation. This presents a concerning evolution and has serious implications for civil liberties — especially given the administration’s parallel moves with the deployment of troops to the southern border, the use of federal forces to quell protests in California, and the recent deployment of armed National Guard to the streets of our nation’s capital.

keep readingShow less
Howard Lutnick
Top photo credit: Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick on CNBC, 8/26/25 (CNBC screengrab)

Is nationalizing the defense industry such a bad idea?

Military Industrial Complex

The U.S. arms industry is highly consolidated, specialized, and dependent on government contracts. Indeed, the largest U.S. military contractors are already effectively extensions of the state — and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick is right to point that out.

His suggestion in a recent media appearance to partially nationalize the likes of Lockheed Martin is hardly novel. The economist John Kenneth Galbraith argued for the nationalization of the largest military contractors in 1969. More recently, various academics and policy analysts have advocated for partial or full nationalization of military firms in publications including The Nation, The American Conservative, The Middle East Research and Information Project (MERIP), and The Seattle Journal for Social Justice.

keep readingShow less
Modi Trump
Top image credit: White House, February 2025

Trump's India problem could become a Global South crisis

Asia-Pacific

As President Trump’s second term kicked off, all signs pointed to a continued upswing in U.S.-India relations. At a White House press conference in February, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi spoke of his vision to “Make India Great Again” and how the United States under Trump would play a central role. “When it’s MAGA plus MIGA, it becomes a mega partnership for prosperity,” Modi said.

During Trump’s first term, the two populist leaders hosted rallies for each other in their respective countries and cultivated close personal ties. Aside from the Trump-Modi bromance, U.S.-Indian relations have been on a positive trajectory for over two decades, driven in part by mutual suspicion of China. But six months into his second term, Trump has taken several actions that have led to a dramatic downturn in U.S.-India relations, with India-China relations suddenly on the rise.

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.