Follow us on social

US think tanks are the world's least transparent

US think tanks are the world's least transparent

A new global survey finds American institutions lagging behind in disclosing their donors

Analysis | Washington Politics

According to a new survey, North American think tanks are tied as the least transparent of any region. The poll, conducted by On Think Tanks, surveyed 335 think tanks from over 100 countries. The accompanying report, released today, found that only 35% of North American think tanks (mostly from the U.S.) that responded to the survey disclose funding sources. By comparison, 67% of Asian think tanks and 58% of African think tanks disclose their funding sources.

And there are signs that think tank funding transparency is trending towards more opacity. Just last month, the Center for American Progress — a major center-left think tank with $46 million in annual revenue — announced that it would no longer disclose its donors. The think tank said it was taking this “temporary protective step” out of concern that the Trump administration could target them.

In response to conservative influencer Charlie Kirk’s murder, both President Trump and Vice President JD Vance have suggested the White House will target left-wing groups and their donors.

Mark Schmitt, the Director of the Political Reform program at New America, suggests that think tanks should learn a lesson from other organizations that have drawn the ire of the Trump administration. “There’s no advantage or safety in bargaining with this administration or conceding wrongdoing where none exists,” he said.

Fear of political retribution is not the only reason U.S. think tanks may be reluctant to share financial information. Even before these new threats against left-leaning groups, a Quincy Institute report found that over a third of the major foreign policy think tanks do not disclose any donor information, oftentimes because of their heavy reliance on special interests. The top 50 American think tanks received at least $110 million from foreign governments and $35 million from defense contractors in the past 5 years alone.

Despite their positioning as objective and independent institutions, reliance on special interests can lead to self-censorship and perspective filtering. Researchers Kjølv Egeland and Benoît Pelopidas found in a study of think tank research on nuclear weapons that “the most generous funders exercise significant influence on the evolution of the foreign policy marketplace of ideas by affecting which questions are asked and which expert milieus are enabled to thrive.”

Transparency can invite scrutiny, but in a healthy democracy that is the point of transparency. It can help the public, media, and lawmakers understand a think tank’s values. Thomas Medvetz, an Assistant Professor of Sociology at the University of California, San Diego suggests this in his book “Think Tanks in America,” “Why not define a think tank in terms of its dependence on the very same institutions from which it is usually described as independent? After all, the vast majority of organizations labeled as think tanks typically rely on a patchwork of other outfits — for example, private foundations, government agencies, activist networks, and business corporations — for donations and other forms of material support, such as research contracts.”

Another key finding of the new On Think Tanks report is that optimism in think tank sector growth is declining, as 46% of think tanks said the political situation in their country impacted them unfavorably over the past year. Between 60-70% of think tanks surveyed are concerned about a shortage of new funding sources.

This is likely in part because of the retreating U.S. government funding of think tanks. In March, Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced that he would be canceling 83% of USAID’s programs and that the remaining initiatives would be absorbed by the State Department. The decision impacted think tanks all around the world that rely on USAID funding for policy research. USAID funded a variety of research organizations from CASE Ukraine, a Ukraine-based economic reform think tank, to Accountability Lab, an open government network that noted a drop of about 60% in its organizational budget in Pakistan after the cuts.

The Trump administration also cut funding for the Wilson Center and U.S. Institute for Peace, two congressionally-established think tanks that have been around since 1968 and 1984 respectively. The Wilson Center has hinted at a return, posting on X on September 4 that “Over the past months, the Wilson Center has been charting a path forward to strengthen our role as a trusted, fiercely nonpartisan bridge between scholarship and public policy.” On Monday, the Wilson Center announced new distinguished fellows, though did not respond to a request for comment from RS on its future.

Fundraising is the single most pressing challenge for the think tank sector currently, with 71% of think tanks identifying it as a main capacity gap, up from 66% in 2024. Many think tanks will no doubt look to other sources to fill the gaps in U.S. funding, particularly private companies and foreign governments willing to dole out millions of dollars with the intent to influence think tank research. Those sources will likely come with strings attached, spoken or unspoken. It’s up to the think tanks themselves whether they are forthcoming about those ties.


Top image credit: Metamorworks via shutterstock.com
Analysis | Washington Politics
Trump ASEAN
Top photo credit: U.S. President Donald Trump looks at Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., next to Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim when posing for a family photo with leaders at the ASEAN Summit in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, October 26, 2025. Vincent Thian/Pool via REUTERS

‘America First’ meets ‘ASEAN Way’ in Kuala Lumpur

Asia-Pacific

The 2025 ASEAN and East Asia Summits in Kuala Lumpur beginning today are set to be consequential multilateral gatherings — defining not only ASEAN’s internal cohesion but also the shape of U.S.–China relations in the Indo-Pacific.

President Donald Trump’s participation will be the first by a U.S. president in an ASEAN-led summit since 2022. President Biden skipped the last two such summits in 2023 and 2024, sending then-Vice President Harris instead.

keep readingShow less
iran, china, russia
Top photo credit: Top image credit: Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov and and Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi shake hands as Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Ma Zhaoxu looks on during their meet with reporters after their meeting at Diaoyutai State Guest House on March 14, 2025 in Beijing, China. Lintao Zhang/Pool via REUTERS

'Annulled'! Russia won't abide snapback sanctions on Iran

Middle East

“A raider attack on the U.N. Security Council.” This was the explosive accusation leveled by Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov this week. His target was the U.N. Secretariat and Western powers, whom he blamed for what Russia sees as an illegitimate attempt to restore the nuclear-related international sanctions on Iran.

Beyond the fiery rhetoric, Ryabkov’s statement contained a message: Russia, he said, now considers all pre-2015 U.N. sanctions on Iran, snapped back by the European signatories of the 2015 nuclear deal (JCPOA) — the United Kingdom, France, Germany — “annulled.” Moscow will deepen its military-technical cooperation with Tehran accordingly, according to Ryabkov.

This is more than a diplomatic spat; it is the formal announcement of a split in international legal reality. The world’s major powers are now operating under two irreconcilable interpretations of international law. On one side, the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and Germany assert that the sanctions snapback mechanism of the JCPOA was legitimately triggered for Iran’s alleged violations. On the other, Iran, Russia, and China reject this as an illegitimate procedural act.

This schism was not inevitable, and its origin reveals a profound incongruence. The Western powers that most frequently appeal to the sanctity of the "rules-based international order" and international law have, in this instance, taken an action whose effects fundamentally undermine it. By pushing through a legal maneuver that a significant part of the Security Council considers illegitimate, they have ushered the world into a new and more dangerous state. The predictable, if imperfect, framework of universally recognized Security Council decisions is being replaced by a system where legal facts are determined by political interests espoused by competing power blocs.

This rupture followed a deliberate Western choice to reject compromises in a stand-off with Iran. While Iran was in a technical violation of the provisions of the JCPOA — by, notably, amassing a stockpile of highly enriched uranium (up to 60% as opposed to the 3.67% for a civilian use permissible under the JCPOA), there was a chance to avert the crisis. In the critical weeks leading to the snapback, Iran had signaled concessions in talks with the International Atomic Energy Agency in Cairo, in terms of renewing cooperation with the U.N. nuclear watchdog’s inspectors.

keep readingShow less
On Ukraine and Venezuela, Trump needs to dump the sycophants
Top Photo Credit: (Official White House Photo by Molly Riley)

On Ukraine and Venezuela, Trump needs to dump the sycophants

Europe

While diplomats labored to produce the Dayton Accords in 1995, then-Secretary of Defense Bill Perry advised, “No agreement is better than a bad agreement.” Given that Washington’s allies in London, Paris, Berlin and Warsaw are opposed to any outcome that might end the war in Ukraine, no agreement may be preferable. But for President Trump, there is no point in equating the illusion of peace in Ukraine with a meaningless ceasefire that settles nothing.

Today, Ukraine is mired in corruption, starting at the very highest levels of the administration in Kyiv. Sending $175 billion of borrowed money there "for however long it takes" has turned out to be worse than reckless. The U.S. national sovereign debt is surging to nearly $38 trillion and rising by $425 billion with each passing month. President Trump needs to turn his attention away from funding Joe Biden’s wars and instead focus on the faltering American economy.

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.