Dubai, UAE. Photo: iStock

Most Americans undoubtedly have little idea what a think-tank actually does. Having worked at two of them myself, it’s fair to say that even those of us who have labored inside these basic building blocks for policymaking in Washington are often still trying to figure out just what many of them do. Still, whether they know it or not, Americans have certainly seen think-tank employees on cable news, heard them on the radio, or read their op-ed pieces.

After all, think-tanks are homes for so many of the “experts” who are the go-to sources for media coverage of foreign and domestic policy topics on just about any day – and are often key go-to sources for those making policy in Washington, too. You know, the former Department of Defense official you caught on NBC News discussing Iran or the Middle Eastern expert you saw quoted in Newsweek critiquing the Trump administration’s policies there. Outside the public eye, members of the US Congress and executive-branch officials rely heavily on think-tanks for expertise on a wide range of issues, for key congressional testimony, and even for quite literally helping craft public policy.

Those who run Washington generally trust the inhabitants of think-tanks of their political bent to provide the intellectual foundations upon which much of public policy is built. At least in some cases, however, that trust couldn’t be more deeply misplaced, since cornerstones of the ever-expanding think-tank universe turn out to be for sale.

Every year in the US, foreign governments pour tens of millions of dollars into those very institutions and, though many think-tanks are tax-exempt non-profits, such donations often turn out to be anything but charitable gifts. Foreign contributions generally come with critically important strings attached – usually a favorable stance toward that country in whatever influential work the think-tanks are doing.

In other words, those experts Americans regularly read or see onscreen, whose scholarship and advice Washington’s politicians and other officials often use, are in some cases being paid, directly or indirectly, by the very countries on which they are offering advice and analysis. And here’s the catch: They can do so without ever having to tell you about it.

The money trail

“I’ve never had to worry in my years at CAP about an analyst or me saying X, Y, and Z and worry about a funding source. Never thought about it. Never,” explained Brian Katulis of the Center for American Progress (CAP). He was speaking at a Middle East Institute (MEI) event in January titled “The Role of Think Tanks in Shaping Middle East Policy.” MEI president Paul Salem echoed this sentiment, noting that funding, particularly foreign government funding, shouldn’t ever shape a think-tank’s work. “Independence,” he proclaimed, “is sacred.”

Such comments, like the events themselves, are just the norm in Washington think-tank life – unless, that is, you follow the money, in which case they seem both striking and supremely ironic. On any given day, Washington is, in fact, awash in foreign-policy events at think-tanks. There, experts convene to discuss publicly just about every topic you’d want to hear about – except one, of course: their funding.

And that is what made the Katulis-Salem exchange particularly interesting. What they and their follow panelists never mentioned at an event extolling the importance of think-tanks in helping craft political Washington’s Middle East policies was this: Both CAP and MEI have received millions of dollars from authoritarian governments in the Middle East.

MEI has publicly reported receiving millions from Saudi Arabia and lesser amounts from the Persian Gulf states of Oman and Qatar. By far its largest donor, however, seems to have been the United Arab Emirates, reportedly making a “secret” US$20 million contribution to that think-tank, earmarked to “hire experts in order to counter the more egregious misperceptions about the region” and “to inform US government policymakers.” In other words, in the spirit of that MEI panel title, the UAE’s funding was explicitly designed to shape that think-tank’s – and so US – policy considerations.

While hardly in that $20 million range, CAP has also publicly reported receiving at least $1.5 million from the UAE.

And keep in mind that those two think-tanks are hardly the only ones receiving donations from countries in the Middle East. The Center for a New American Security, for instance, received $250,000 from the UAE to produce a study on the need for the US to export military-grade drones to countries like … the UAE. That think-tank’s subsequent report on the topic notes that the US doesn’t export drones to the UAE and other countries, but should because “this reluctance to transfer US drones harms US interests in tangible ways.” Never mind that a third of those killed in drone strikes in the devastating war in Yemen are civilians.

The Brookings Institution received a $14.8 million donation from Qatar. In fact, according to a New York Times analysis, nearly all of the most prominent foreign-policy think-tanks in Washington have accepted money from authoritarian regimes in the Middle East or elsewhere. And that, in turn, is just the tip of the iceberg, since think-tanks in the US are not legally required to disclose their funding publicly.

Charity or influence buying?

If think-tanks are to be believed, the money they receive from such funders changes little. Recent events at a number of think-tanks, including the Center for American Progress and the Middle East Institute, should, however, give pause to anyone who assumes that such institutions are by their nature insulated from the influence of foreign funders.

Recently, serious questions have been raised about whether CAP’s ties to the UAE, itself a close ally of the Saudi royals, contributed to its awkward response to the brutal murder of Washington Post journalist and Saudi citizen Jamal Khashoggi in that kingdom’s consulate in Istanbul, Turkey. After that killing, CAP released a response condemning the Saudis for their involvement in Khashoggi’s murder, but not calling for specific consequences to punish the kingdom.

According to reporting by The Intercept’s Ryan Grim, such consequences were stripped from the statement by a CAP staffer who just happened to be Brian Katulis. Then, in December, CAP largely sat on the sidelines as the Senate passed a historic resolution to end US involvement in the devastating Saudi-UAE war in Yemen. At the MEI event in January, Katulis dismissed those giving “energy and dynamism” to “the Yemen debate” for ignoring “the full complexity of the challenges.” Jamal Khashoggi’s name wasn’t even mentioned.

Despite MEI head Salem’s claim that “independence is sacred,” there’s reason to question how independent scholars can be when their work is, at least in part, dependent on foreign funding.

In at least one case, for instance, Salem’s institute published the work of Fahad Nazer, who was directly on the Saudi payroll. While earning $7,000 a month as a foreign agent for Saudi Arabia, Nazer wrote several pro-Saudi articles for both think-tanks and mainstream media outlets, including one for MEI that made no mention of his financial ties to the Saudis. That March 2018 article did, however, encourage yet more US support for the country’s ruling crown prince, Mohammad bin Salman, who, Nazer wrote, would “be good for Saudi Arabia, the United States, and the world.”

Just seven months later, bin Salman would reportedly authorize the murder of Khashoggi and, in January this year, Nazer himself would become the official spokesman for the Saudi Embassy in Washington.

Blurred lines

Nazer’s case also illustrates a growing pattern of interactions between US think-tanks that receive foreign funding and the registered foreign agents of those countries. In fact, Emirati foreign agents last year reported contacting US think-tanks at least 85 times, according to an analysis of Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) filings for a forthcoming report on the Emirati lobby in the US by the Foreign Influence Transparency Initiative at the Center for International Policy, which I direct.

Perhaps not surprisingly, CAP’s Katulis and MEI were among the top think-tank contacts for the UAE’s foreign agents. According to 2018 filings, Katulis was contacted at least 12 times by the Harbour Group, which the UAE paid more than $5 million in 2018 to “influence US policy,” according to the firm’s FARA filings. Katulis was a particular focus for them because he was helping to organize a “study tour” in which think-tank experts would take a luxurious trip to both the UAE and Saudi Arabia.

That group also contacted MEI at least 14 times on behalf of the UAE, directing most of its efforts toward a “speaking engagement at MEI” for the Emirati ambassador to the US, the same man who had directed that “secret” $20 million contribution to the institute.

Under current US law, it is perfectly legal for think-tanks that receive funding from foreign governments also to work with foreign agents registered to represent those very governments. FARA includes an exemption for those engaged in “bona fide … scholastic, academic, or scientific pursuits.” Like many parts of the FARA statute, it’s not at all clear what “bona fide” means, but think-tanks are presumably exempt from registration if they meet this threshold.

While the work done by both think-tanks and registered foreign agents can sometimes overlap, the two are worlds apart on one critical score: transparency. Under FARA, registered foreign agents are required to disclose a considerable amount of what they do, including whom they’re working for, how much they’re being paid, and whom they’re contacting, as well as when and where they do it, on behalf of foreign principals like the UAE. And most of that information is available online. Anything they distribute on behalf of a foreign backer must also include a “conspicuous statement” to let anyone know that what they’re reading is being distributed on behalf of a foreign principal.

Think-tanks in the US receiving funding from foreign sources are, however, not required to do any of the above.

As is appropriate during tax season, most of this should, in the end, be blamed on the US Internal Revenue Service. Think-tanks usually operate as tax-exempt organizations and, according to the IRS, “a tax-exempt organization is generally not required to disclose publicly the names or addresses of its contributors set forth on its annual return.”

While MEI and CAP do both disclose their funding sources on their websites – for which they should be commended – many think-tanks do not. And few, even among those that do, mention any potential conflicts of interest that might be reflected in their published reports or the speeches and media appearances of their members.

Even more worrisome, a Project On Government Oversight investigation by Lydia Dennett found numerous examples of think-tank experts not reporting or mentioning financial ties to foreign governments when testifying before the US Congress. Hiding such potential conflicts of interest is likely to leave the public and policymakers with the impression that they’re hearing truly objective experts, when they may, in fact, be taking testimony from someone who is functionally or literally on the payroll of a country with a deep stake in what they’re telling Congress.

If think-tanks are to remain credible sources of foreign-policy expertise, such ties must, at the very least, be laid bare.

A first step would simply be to require think-tanks to disclose publicly any foreign funding they receive, something easily done by amending the IRS code. In addition, just as registered foreign agents are required to include a “conspicuous statement” letting readers know they’re working on behalf of a foreign power, think-tanks should have to disclose fully their funding sources and any potential conflicts of interest in all their written products, as well as at speaking engagements, especially testimony before Congress.

It should also be incumbent upon the media to do a better job of vetting sources. Sure, journalists are extraordinarily busy, but if a simple Internet search can reveal that the Middle East “expert” you’re quoting is being paid by a country in the Middle East, it behooves you to tell your readers that.

Finally, transparency is essential, but it’s well past time for think-tanks themselves to focus on the track records of the countries they’re getting money from. The Brookings Institution did just that by cutting ties with the Saudis shortly after the murder of Khashoggi and, soon after, MEI too announced that it would decline any further funding from the Saudi government. More recently, and following the questions raised about CAP’s involvement with the United Arab Emirates, that think-tank announced that it would no longer accept UAE money. As a CAP spokesman said, “It’s just the right thing to do.”

CAP, MEI and Brookings are, however, the exceptions. Most US think-tanks haven’t done “the right thing” and dropped funding from autocratic regimes. Nor are they likely to increase transparency about that funding voluntarily. The burden then falls on Congress to enact reforms ensuring that senators and representatives will know when the expert they’re hearing discuss a specific country or the region it’s in is being paid by that very same country.

Failure to act could leave Americans asking a simple and uncomfortable question: Which country is buying US foreign policy today?

This article appeared previously at TomDispatch. Read the original here.

Copyright 2019 Ben Freeman

Ben Freeman

Ben Freeman is the director of the Foreign Influence Transparency Initiative at the Center for International Policy.

Join the Conversation

488 Comments

  1. I do not know if it’s just me or if perhaps everybody else experiencing problems with your website. It appears as though some of the written text on your content are running off the screen. Can someone else please comment and let me know if this is happening to them too? This could be a issue with my browser because I’ve had this happen before. Cheers|

  2. Hi there just wanted to give you a quick heads up. The words in your article seem to be running off the screen in Internet explorer. I’m not sure if this is a format issue or something to do with browser compatibility but I thought I’d post to let you know. The layout look great though! Hope you get the issue resolved soon. Kudos|

  3. Usually I do not read post on blogs, however I would like to say that this write-up very pressured me to try and do so! Your writing taste has been amazed me. Thank you, quite great post.|

  4. Hey there, I think your blog might be having browser compatibility issues. When I look at your blog site in Firefox, it looks fine but when opening in Internet Explorer, it has some overlapping. I just wanted to give you a quick heads up! Other then that, wonderful blog!|

  5. Hello! I could have sworn I’ve been to this site before but after browsing through many of the posts
    I realized it’s new to me. Regardless, I’m certainly
    pleased I came across it and I’ll be book-marking it and checking back often!

  6. I do not even know how I ended up here, but I thought this post was great. I do not know who you are but certainly you’re going to a famous blogger if you are not already 😉 Cheers!|

  7. I absolutely love your blog and find a lot of your post’s to be what precisely I’m looking for. can you offer guest writers to write content for yourself? I wouldn’t mind writing a post or elaborating on some of the subjects you write in relation to here. Again, awesome website!|

  8. I was suggested this web site by my cousin. I’m not sure whether this post is written by him as nobody else know such detailed about my trouble. You’re wonderful! Thanks!|

  9. Thanks for the good writeup. It actually used to be a enjoyment account it. Glance complicated to far introduced agreeable from you! However, how can we communicate?|

  10. Hi there, just became aware of your blog through Google, and found that it is really informative. I’m gonna watch out for brussels. I will be grateful if you continue this in future. Many people will be benefited from your writing. Cheers!|

  11. It’s good to come across a blog every once in a while that isn’t the same unwanted rehashed information. Excellent read! I’ve saved your site and I’m adding your RSS feeds to my Google account.

  12. Thanks a bunch for sharing this with all people you really recognize what you are talking approximately! Bookmarked. Please also talk over with my site =). We will have a hyperlink alternate agreement among us|

  13. Right here is the perfect blog for everyone who wants to understand this topic. You realize a whole lot its almost tough to argue with you (not that I actually will need to…HaHa). You certainly put a new spin on a topic that has been written about for a long time. Excellent stuff, just great!|

  14. Its not my first time to pay a quick visit this site, i am browsing this web page dailly and obtain fastidious facts from here all the time.|

  15. Nice post. I was checking constantly this blog and I am impressed! Very useful information specially the last part 🙂 I care for such information a lot. I was seeking this certain information for a long time. Thank you and good luck.|

  16. It’s good to come across a blog every once in a while that isn’t the same unwanted rehashed information. Excellent read! I’ve saved your site and I’m adding your RSS feeds to my Google account.

  17. Its like you read my mind! You seem to know so much about this, like you wrote the book in it or something. I think that you can do with some pics to drive the message home a little bit, but instead of that, this is wonderful blog. An excellent read. I will definitely be back.|

  18. Do you have a spam problem on this blog; I also am a blogger, and I was curious about your situation; many of us have created some nice methods and we are looking to
    swap methods with other folks, please shoot me an email if interested.

  19. I believe what you published made a great deal of sense. However, think on this, suppose you were to create a awesome post title? I mean, I don’t want to tell you how to run your website, but suppose you added something that makes people want more? I mean BLOG_TITLE is a little plain. You could glance at Yahoo’s front page and note how they create news headlines to grab viewers to click. You might try adding a video or a pic or two to grab people excited about what you’ve written. In my opinion, it could bring your website a little livelier.|

  20. Unquestionably believe that which you stated. Your favorite
    reason seemed to be on the web the simplest
    thing to be aware of. I say to you, I definitely get irked while people think about worries that they
    just don’t know about. You managed to hit
    the nail upon the top as well as defined out the whole thing
    without having side-effects , people could take a signal.

    Will probably be back to get more. Thanks

  21. Hello There. I discovered your weblog the use of msn. That is an extremely smartly written article. I’ll make sure to bookmark it and return to learn more of your useful info. Thank you for the post. I will definitely comeback.|

  22. I’m not sure exactly why but this web site is loading incredibly slow for me. Is anyone else having this issue or is it a issue on my end? I’ll check back later on and see if the problem still exists.|

  23. Its like you read my mind! You appear to know a lot about this, like you wrote the book in it or something. I think that you can do with a few pics to drive the message home a bit, but other than that, this is magnificent blog. An excellent read. I will certainly be back.|

  24. I am really inspired together with your writing abilities and also with the structure on your weblog. Is that this a paid subject or did you modify it your self? Anyway keep up the nice high quality writing, it’s uncommon to look a nice blog like this one these days..|

  25. Howdy would you mind sharing which blog platform you’re working with? I’m looking to start my own blog soon but I’m having a difficult time selecting between BlogEngine/Wordpress/B2evolution and Drupal. The reason I ask is because your design and style seems different then most blogs and I’m looking for something completely unique. P.S My apologies for being off-topic but I had to ask!|

  26. I will right away grasp your rss as I can’t to find your e-mail subscription link or e-newsletter service. Do you’ve any? Please allow me understand so that I may subscribe. Thanks.|

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *