Who drives much of the national security conversation? All those political appointments that take place with the change of one administration to another … where do those people get a paycheck in the off years?

The answer to both questions is largely the same – think tanks.

Nothing, especially in the DC area, is free. Producing quality products from quality people does not come cheap. Even our beloved USNI has to fund raise in order to keep the lights on and to produce the products that we all enjoy and hopefully help shape our national security environment in a constructive way.

People are allowed to earn a living and organizations must be able to keep the lights on. Both are a net good. Money is money, and all organizations need it. That isn’t in itself bad.

We often assume that in the world of national security related think tanks, that the responsibilities of their place in the ecosystem is reflected in the work they do. In a large part – as one would expect from professionals who live and die (professionally) by their reputation – they do. Few want to be seen as a hired hand, and regardless of where funds comes from, the best make it clear that it does not influence what they do.

That being said, how much visibility should consumers of think tank products have on where think tanks get their funding?

Well, it is in the news again;

H.R. McMaster, the retired general and former national security adviser, resigned in protest from the board of a Washington, D.C., think tank last month after expressing concern internally that funding from the billionaire Charles Koch was tainting the institution’s scholarship.

McMaster, according to two sources familiar with the situation, was alarmed by the publication in March of an Atlantic Council report arguing that the promotion of human rights undercuts America’s strategic interest. The report, authored by Emma Ashford and Matthew Burrows, was a product of an Atlantic Council project, the New American Engagement Initiative, funded by a $4.5 million grant from the Charles Koch foundation, according to a press release issued when the grant was announced.

At least he knows where the funding is coming from. That isn’t true with many think tanks. What if anything is the downside to having a think tank’s funding an open book?

Of the 237 think tank–affiliated witnesses who spoke before the House Foreign Affairs Committee, under 30 percent of think tank–affiliated witnesses appeared on behalf of institutions that fully disclose their donors.

 

A small number of think tanks dominate the witness table, and they happen to be institutions that are particularly opaque about their funders. Four think tanks accounted for about one-third of all expert witnesses at the House Foreign Affairs Committee in the past two Congresses,

 

…

 

…three (of the) think tanks most frequently invited to House Foreign Affairs Committee hearings provide incomplete, or no, information about their funding.

Not a new issue, from back in 2014,

More than a dozen prominent Washington research groups have received tens of millions of dollars from foreign governments in recent years while pushing U.S. government officials to adopt policies that often reflect the donors’ priorities, an investigation by The New York Times has found.

 

The money is increasingly transforming the once-staid think-tank world into a muscular arm of foreign governments’ lobbying in Washington. And it has set off troubling questions about intellectual freedom: Some scholars say they have been pressured to reach conclusions friendly to the government financing the research.

…

Most of the money comes from countries in Europe, the Middle East and elsewhere in Asia, particularly the oil-producing nations of the United Arab Emirates, Qatar and Norway, and it takes many forms.

Transparency of funding in think tanks should be looked at like body cameras on police – it protects the good and encourages those inclined to not be good to behave.

In something with life and death importance – for people and nations – like national security, transparency of funding should be encouraged and an easy sell.