The Case for Think Tank Transparency

Donald Trump will soon be returning to the White House after waging another victorious campaign against business-as-usual in Washington, including America’s broken foreign policy consensus. But if the incoming Trump administration is serious about ensuring that U.S. foreign policy puts America first, they shouldn’t overlook the murky world of think tank funding, where businesses and foreign interests buy influence over key nodes in the foreign policy-making apparatus with little scrutiny — often shifting U.S. policy to their own benefit, at Americans’ expense.

In July, the Department of Justice indicted Sue Mi Terry, a leading expert on the Korean Peninsula who held senior positions at prestigious think tanks like the Wilson Center and the Council on Foreign Relations, on charges of acting as a foreign agent for South Korea without registering under the Foreign Agents Registration Act.

For more than a decade, Terry allegedly fed Korean intelligence officers information in exchange for luxury goods and funding. Gregory Craig, a former White House Counsel — who himself faced FARA charges that were eventually dismissed — claimed that Terry’s actions are simply what it takes to “succeed in the think-tank universe.”

Craig is half-right: It certainly is the norm, not the exception, for think tanks to rely on connections with foreign governments and special interest groups. But these entanglements are not just what it takes to succeed — they also have a real effect on the research products and policy recommendations that think tanks produce.