Follow us on social

DC think tank addresses undisclosed conflicts of interest

DC think tank addresses undisclosed conflicts of interest

The Atlantic Council retroactively acknowledged content it was producing on energy and climate change had a connection to a major funder.

Reporting | Washington Politics

Washington-based think tanks have been notoriously slow to implement the same conflict of interest policies and disclosures commonly implemented by journalists, academics, and scientists. But a rush of retroactive disclosures of conflicts of interest in written materials published by Atlantic Council CEO and President Frederick Kempe, another Council staffer, and an un-bylined column published by the Council over the past week, raises questions about whether the Council and other think tanks are poised to more vigilantly disclose potential conflicts of interest between their funders and work products.

The Atlantic Council receives funding from foreign countries — including the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Japan, and South Korea — and weapons manufacturers — including Lockheed Martin, Raytheon and Boeing — which poses numerous potential conflicts of interest for a think tank that characterizes itself as “a nonpartisan organization that galvanizes US leadership and engagement in the world.”

Disclosing some of those conflicts of interest appeared to become an institutional priority for the Atlantic Council starting on January 16.

On January 14, Kempe published a column heaping praise on Abu Dhabi National Oil Company’s CEO Sultan Al Jaber who was appointed president-designate of the COP28 Climate Summit to be hosted by the UAE from November 30 to December 12. Al Jaber’s appointment was met with concern by climate activists, including ActionAid’s Teresa Anderson who told CNBC, “This appointment goes beyond putting the fox in charge of the henhouse.”

“Like last year’s summit, we’re increasingly seeing fossil fuel interests taking control of the process and shaping it to meet their own needs,” she added.

Kempe pushed back on Anderson’s criticisms in his column on the 14th, writing, “What that overlooks is that Al Jaber’s rich background in both renewables and fossil fuels makes him an ideal choice at a time when efforts to address climate change have been far too slow, lacking the inclusivity to produce more transformative results.”

Two days later, the Council updated his article with an editor’s note at the top that read, “This article was updated on January 16 to reflect the fact that the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company and Masdar, where Sultan Al Jaber serves as CEO and chairman, respectively, are sponsors of the Atlantic Council’s Global Energy Forum.”

Also on the 16th, an article by Council Deputy Managing Editor Daniel Malloy highlighting remarks made by Al Juber at the Atlantic Council’s Global Energy Forum, received a similar update two days after its January 14 publication date. “This article was updated on January 16 to reflect the fact that the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company, where Sultan Al Jaber serves as CEO, is a sponsor of the Atlantic Council’s Global Energy Forum,” said the update.

Yet another article on the Council’s Global Energy Forum published on January 14, this one without a byline, was updated on January 18 with 10 editor’s notes retroactively disclosing to readers that numerous panel participants were also sponsors of the event.

While the three updates on the Council’s website were relatively short and simply provided the relevant information that had been withheld from readers, a January 14 column by Kempe on CNBC.com titled, “Making the case for oil CEO Sultan Al Jaber to lead the UN Climate conference this year,” received a far harsher correction by CNBC after the network became aware of financial conflicts between Kempe and the recipient of his praise.

A January 17th update said:

Editor’s note: This article and headline were updated to reflect the fact that the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company and Masdar are major sponsors of the Atlantic Council’s Global Energy Forum. Sultan Al Jaber is CEO of ADNOC and chairman of renewable energy investing firm Masdar. The financial relationship between the companies and Atlantic Council as well as the obvious conflict of interest were not disclosed to CNBC prior to publication of this column and does not meet our standards of transparency.

When reached for comment, the Council’s director of strategic communications, Richard Davidson, told Responsible Statecraft:

We’ve been transparent about our donors on our website, annual report and in Global Energy Forum collateral and signage at the event. No effort to conceal — the opposite.

Along with our rigorous intellectual independence and editorial standards, our financial transparency has been consistently recognized with the industry’s highest four-star-rating in Charity Navigator. Like everyone, we make mistakes, and when we do we correct them.

Transparency into funding, however, is not a requirement for a four-star rating on Charity Navigator. Many nonprofits achieve four-star ratings on Charity Navigator while revealing no information about their donors. For example, the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research reveal no donor information to the public but hold four star ratings.  

The Atlantic Council, for its part, is less than completely transparent about its sources of funding. The think tank’s 2021 “honor roll of contributors” list three “anonymous” $250,000-$499,999 contributions, two “anonymous” $50,000-$99,999 contributions, one “anonymous” $10,000-$24,999 contribution, one “anonymous” $5,000-$9,999 contribution, and two “anonymous” contributions less than $1,000.


|Image screen grab via cnbc.com|Image via screen grab, cnbc.com
Reporting | Washington Politics
Trump Zelensky
Top photo credit: Joshua Sukoff / Shutterstock.com

Blob exploiting Trump's anger with Putin, risking return to Biden's war

Europe

Donald Trump’s recent outburst against Vladimir Putin — accusing the Russian leader of "throwing a pile of bullsh*t at us" and threatening devastating new sanctions — might be just another Trumpian tantrum.

The president is known for abrupt reversals. Or it could be a bargaining tactic ahead of potential Ukraine peace talks. But there’s a third, more troubling possibility: establishment Republican hawks and neoconservatives, who have been maneuvering to hijack Trump’s “America First” agenda since his return to office, may be exploiting his frustration with Putin to push for a prolonged confrontation with Russia.

Trump’s irritation is understandable. Ukraine has accepted his proposed ceasefire, but Putin has refused, making him, in Trump’s eyes, the main obstacle to ending the war.

Putin’s calculus is clear. As Ted Snider notes in the American Conservative, Russia is winning on the battlefield. In June, it captured more Ukrainian territory and now threatens critical Kyiv’s supply lines. Moscow also seized a key lithium deposit critical to securing Trump’s support for Ukraine. Meanwhile, Russian missile and drone strikes have intensified.

Putin seems convinced his key demands — Ukraine’s neutrality, territorial concessions in the Donbas and Crimea, and a downsized Ukrainian military — are more achievable through war than diplomacy.

Yet his strategy empowers the transatlantic “forever war” faction: leaders in Britain, France, Germany, and the EU, along with hawks in both main U.S. parties. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz claims that diplomacy with Russia is “exhausted.” Europe’s war party, convinced a Russian victory would inevitably lead to an attack on NATO (a suicidal prospect for Moscow), is willing to fight “to the last Ukrainian.” Meanwhile, U.S. hawks, including liberal interventionist Democrats, stoke Trump’s ego, framing failure to stand up to Putin’s defiance as a sign of weakness or appeasement.

Trump long resisted this pressure. Pragmatism told him Ukraine couldn’t win, and calling it “Biden’s war” was his way of distancing himself, seeking a quick exit to refocus on China, which he has depicted as Washington’s greater foreign threat. At least as important, U.S. involvement in the war in Ukraine has been unpopular with his MAGA base.

But his June strikes on Iran may signal a hawkish shift. By touting them as a decisive blow to Iran’s nuclear program (despite Tehran’s refusal so far to abandon uranium enrichment), Trump may be embracing a new approach to dealing with recalcitrant foreign powers: offer a deal, set a deadline, then unleash overwhelming force if rejected. The optics of “success” could tempt him to try something similar with Russia.

This pivot coincides with a media campaign against restraint advocates within the administration like Elbridge Colby, the Pentagon policy chief who has prioritized China over Ukraine and also provoked the opposition of pro-Israel neoconservatives by warning against war with Iran. POLITICO quoted unnamed officials attacking Colby for wanting the U.S. to “do less in the world.” Meanwhile, the conventional Republican hawk Marco Rubio’s influence grows as he combines the jobs of both secretary of state and national security adviser.

What Can Trump Actually Do to Russia?
 

Nuclear deterrence rules out direct military action — even Biden, far more invested in Ukraine than Trump, avoided that risk. Instead, Trump ally Sen.Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), another establishment Republican hawk, is pushing a 500% tariff on nations buying Russian hydrocarbons, aiming to sever Moscow from the global economy. Trump seems supportive, although the move’s feasibility and impact are doubtful.

China and India are key buyers of Russian oil. China alone imports 12.5 million barrels daily. Russia exports seven million barrels daily. China could absorb Russia’s entire output. Beijing has bluntly stated it “cannot afford” a Russian defeat, ensuring Moscow’s economic lifeline remains open.

The U.S., meanwhile, is ill-prepared for a tariff war with China. When Trump imposed 145% tariffs, Beijing retaliated by cutting off rare earth metals exports, vital to U.S. industry and defense. Trump backed down.

At the G-7 summit in Canada last month, the EU proposed lowering price caps on Russian oil from $60 a barrel to $45 a barrel as part of its 18th sanctions package against Russia. Trump rejected the proposal at the time but may be tempted to reconsider, given his suggestion that more sanctions may be needed. Even if Washington backs the measure now, however, it is unlikely to cripple Russia’s war machine.

Another strategy may involve isolating Russia by peeling away Moscow’s traditionally friendly neighbors. Here, Western mediation between Armenia and Azerbaijan isn’t about peace — if it were, pressure would target Baku, which has stalled agreements and threatened renewed war against Armenia. The real goal is to eject Russia from the South Caucasus and create a NATO-aligned energy corridor linking Turkey to Central Asia, bypassing both Russia and Iran to their detriment.

Central Asia itself is itself emerging as a new battleground. In May 2025, the EU has celebrated its first summit with Central Asian nations in Uzbekistan, with a heavy focus on developing the Middle Corridor, a route for transportation of energy and critical raw materials that would bypass Russia. In that context, the EU has committed €10 billion in support of the Trans-Caspian International Transport Route.

keep readingShow less
Syria sanctions
Top image credit: People line up to buy bread, after Syria's Bashar al-Assad was ousted, in Douma, on the outskirts of Damascus, Syria December 23, 2024. REUTERS/Zohra Bensemra

Lifting sanctions on Syria exposes their cruel intent

Middle East

On June 30, President Trump signed an executive order terminating the majority of U.S. sanctions on Syria. The move, which would have been unthinkable mere months ago, fulfilled a promise he made at an investment forum in Riyadh in May.“The sanctions were brutal and crippling,” he had declared to an audience of primarily Saudi businessmen. Lifting them, he said, will “give Syria a chance at greatness.”

The significance of this statement lies not solely in the relief that it will bring to the Syrian people. His remarks revealed an implicit but rarely admitted truth: sanctions — often presented as a peaceful alternative to war — have been harming the Syrian people all along.

keep readingShow less
The 8-point buzzsaw facing any invasion of Taiwan
Taipei skyline, Taiwan. (Shutterstock/ YAO23)

The 8-point buzzsaw facing any invasion of Taiwan

Asia-Pacific

For the better part of a decade, China has served as the “pacing threat” around which American military planners craft defense policy and, most importantly, budget decisions.

Within that framework, a potential Chinese invasion of Taiwan has become the scenario most often cited as the likeliest flashpoint for a military confrontation between the two superpowers.

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.