Follow us on social

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

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
Analysis | Video Section
Steve Witkoff Donald Trump Israel
Top photo credit: President Donald Trump walks out with Steve Witkoff after taking part in bilateral meetings at the United Nations Headquarters in New York City, Tuesday, September 23, 2025. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)

Gaza plan: Looks Like peace, acts like occupation

Middle East

In Deir al-Balah, a mother told me her son now counts the seconds between blasts. Policy, to her, isn’t a debate; it’s whether trucks arrive and the night is quiet. Donald Trump’s 20-point plan promises ceasefire, hostages home, Israeli withdrawal, and reconstruction. It sounds complete. It isn’t.

Without enforceable mechanics, maps, timelines, phased verification, and real local ownership; it risks being a short-lived show, not a durable peace.

keep readingShow less
Van Jones
Top image credit: screen grab via https://www.youtube.com/@RealTime

Van Jones found out: Gaza dead baby jokes aren't funny

Media

On Friday, Van Jones joked about kids dying in Gaza.

“If you open your phone, and all you see is dead Gaza baby, dead Gaza baby, dead Gaza baby, Diddy,” Jones said on Bill Maher’s ‘Real Time’ HBO program.

keep readingShow less
Xi Jinping Donald Trump Vladimir Putin
Top image credit: Frederic Legrand - COMEO, Joey Sussman, miss.cabul via shutterstock.com

Why Trump won't get Afghanistan's Bagram base back

Middle East

In a September 20 Truth Social post, President Trump threatened the Taliban, declaring, “If Afghanistan doesn’t give Bagram Airbase back… BAD THINGS ARE GOING TO HAPPEN!!” He now wants the military base he once negotiated away as part of the U.S. withdrawal agreement his first administration signed in 2019.

Not unexpectedly, the Taliban quickly refused, noting “under the Doha Agreement, the United States pledged that ‘it will not use or threaten force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Afghanistan, nor interfere in its internal affairs.’” And with China now deeply entrenched in post-war Afghanistan, it’s likely Beijing will ensure that the threat remains little more than another off-the-cuff comment that should not be taken literally nor seriously.

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.