Follow us on social

google cta
First of its kind tracker cracks open DC's think tank funding

First of its kind tracker cracks open DC's think tank funding

New fun database filters the foreign interests, arms contractors, and US govt funding DC's top 50 orgs

Analysis | Video Section
google cta
google cta

Part of the so-called Washington swamp is the opacity of the funding going to powerful think tanks that provide policymaking expertise to Capitol Hill, to White House staff, and to agencies, including the Pentagon and State Department. It is no secret that the think tanks that have an outsized influence on foreign policy and national security affairs receive grants from the government to conduct studies and research to the tune of millions of dollars a year. Meanwhile, these organizations get tons of funding from the military contractors who stand to benefit from those reports and research in support of American war policy.

Foreign governments, too, are plowing millions into think tanks in hopes to influence the direction of policy their way.

Not only do think tanks generate a lot of paper but their experts write op-eds, they testify before Congress, they are called upon by reporters and producers to give their take on policy and world events — like the wars Washington is currently funding with American money and weapons — all over the information landscape. In short, they help shape perception and manufacture consent.

Oftentimes, whether in the hearing room or in the media, these experts' connections to government, industry, or foreign backers, is never disclosed. Doesn't the American public have a right to know who is paying for these experts? A new Think Tank Funding Tracker built by the Democratizing Foreign Policy program at the Quincy Institute is for the first time putting that information at your fingertips.

"Folks outside the Beltway aren't aware how many conflicts of interest there are in the foreign policy expert they are hearing from," says program director Ben Freeman, who co-wrote an accompanying report to the tracker's release today. "The American public has the right to know who is funding the experts they are seeing on TV, who they are hearing on the radio."

Check it out: you can search by think tank (among the Top 50), specific defense contractors or foreign government, and cross search and filter as much as you want. Top recipient of foreign money? Atlantic Council ($20.8 million over five years). Top recipient of Pentagon dollars? Atlantic Council ($10 million). Government funding? RAND ($1.4 billion), followed by the Wilson Center ($51 million over the last five years).

Is the tracker complete? Unfortunately not, because not every think tank discloses its donors in annual reports. This is true for the American Enterprise Institute, which has a robust foreign policy and national security portfolio and has pursued a neoconservative, American primacist worldview for decades. In fact, over one third of the top foreign policy think tanks in the U.S. publicly disclose little or no information about their funding. The database also provides rankings for transparency.

Nick Cleveland-Stout, junior researcher at the Democratizing Foreign Policy program, said this is set up to be a resource for journalists and the public alike. He also notes that "almost all of the top foreign policy think tanks are reliant on funding from defense companies and foreign governments, which can lead to sympathetic policy recommendations and even outright censorship in some cases." It's not illegal, but it is harmful if there is no transparency. Let the people decide.

"It should be common practice for a journalist to mention a relevant conflict of interest when quoting a think tanker, or for a policymaker to know who is funding an expert witness," said Cleveland-Stout. "With the creation of this database, they can go to our website and track down that information. Or, if our website notes that the think tank does not disclose any funding information, that might warrant raising some red flags."


(Video by Khody Akhavi)


- YouTube
google cta
Analysis | Video Section
nuclear weapons
Top image credit: rawf8 via shutterstock.com

What will happen when there are no guardrails on nuclear weapons?

Global Crises

The New START Treaty — the last arms control agreement between the U.S. and Russia — is set to expire next week, unless President Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin make a last minute decision to renew it. Letting the treaty expire would increase the risk of nuclear conflict and open the door to an accelerated nuclear arms race. A coalition of arms control and disarmament groups is pushing Congress and the president to pledge to continue to observe the New START limits on deployed, strategic nuclear weapons by the US and Russia.

New START matters. The treaty, which entered into force on February 5, 2011 after a successful effort by the Obama administration to win over enough Republican senators to achieve the required two-thirds majority to ratify the deal, capped deployed warheads to 1,550 for each side, and established verification procedures to ensure that both sides abided by the pact. New START was far from perfect, but it did put much needed guardrails on nuclear development that reduced the prospect of an all-out arms race.

keep readingShow less
Trump Hegseth Rubio
Top image credit: President Donald Trump, joined by Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Secretary of the Navy John Phelan, announces plans for a “Golden Fleet” of new U.S. Navy battleships, Monday, December 22, 2025, at the Mar-a-Lago Club in Palm Beach, Florida. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)

Trump's realist defense strategy with interventionist asterisks

Washington Politics

The Trump administration has released its National Defense Strategy, a document that in many ways marks a sharp break from the interventionist orthodoxies of the past 35 years, but possesses clear militaristic impulses in its own right.

Rhetorically quite compatible with realism and restraint, the report envisages a more focused U.S. grand strategy, shedding force posture dominance in all major theaters for a more concentrated role in the Western Hemisphere and Indo-Pacific. At the same time however, it retains a rather status quo Republican view of the Middle East, painting Iran as an intransigent aggressor and Israel as a model ally. Its muscular approach to the Western Hemisphere also may lend itself to the very interventionism that the report ostensibly opposes.

keep readingShow less
Alternative vs. legacy media
Top photo credit: Gemini AI

Ding dong the legacy media and its slavish war reporting is dead

Media

In a major development that must be frustrating to an establishment trying to sell their policies to an increasingly skeptical public, the rising popularity of independent media has made it impossible to create broad consensus for corporate-compliant narratives, and to casually denigrate, or even censor, those who disagree.

It’s been a long road.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

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.