Study blows lid off US think tanks’ hidden donors

By Al Mayadeen English
Source: Responsible Statecraft
17 Sep 2025 15:07

Researchers warn that opaque funding lets powerful donors steer US think tanks, shaping policy debates while leaving the public in the dark about key influences.

Listen

A subdued montage of major Washington think tanks set against the shadowy backdrop of cash, hinting at funding influence. (AI-generated)

A recent survey shows that North American think tanks, primarily from the United States, rank among the least transparent in the world. Conducted by On Think Tanks, the poll assessed 335 organizations across more than 100 countries.

The report found that only 35% of responding North American think tanks disclose their funding sources. By comparison, 67% of Asian think tanks and 58% of African think tanks reveal the origins of their financing.

Nick Cleveland-Stout, a research associate in the Democratizing Foreign Policy program at the Quincy Institute, noted in an analysis published by Responsible Statecraft that transparency in think tank funding appears to be declining. Just last month, the Center for American Progress, a major center-left organization with $46 million in annual revenue, announced it would no longer disclose its donors, citing concerns that the Trump administration could target them through political retribution.

Political pressure and threats

In the wake of MAGA influencer Charlie Kirk’s assassination, both President Trump and Vice President JD Vance suggested that the White House might target left-wing groups and their supporters. Mark Schmitt, director of the Political Reform program at New America, urged think tanks to resist yielding to political pressure. “There’s no advantage or safety in bargaining with this administration or conceding wrongdoing where none exists,” he said.

Political intimidation is not the only reason US think tanks may obscure their finances. A prior Quincy Institute report found that over a third of major foreign policy think tanks do not disclose donor information, often due to reliance on special interests. Over the past five years, the top 50 American think tanks received at least $110 million from foreign governments and $35 million from defense contractors.

Heavy dependence on external funders can shape research priorities. Researchers Kjolv Egeland and Benoit Pelopidas found that generous funders exert “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.”

Importance of transparency

While transparency may invite scrutiny, it remains essential in a democratic society. It allows the public, media, and lawmakers to evaluate a think tank’s values and independence.

Thomas Medvetz, assistant professor of sociology at UC San Diego, writes in 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.”

The On Think Tanks report also found waning optimism about the sector’s growth. Nearly half of respondents (46%) said the political situation in their country had negatively affected them over the past year, while 60–70% expressed concern about securing new funding sources.

Impact of US government funding cuts

Part of this funding shortfall stems from reduced US government support. In March, Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced cuts to 83% of USAID programs, with remaining initiatives folded into the State Department. This affected think tanks worldwide that rely on USAID support, from Ukraine’s CASE economic reform organization to Pakistan’s Accountability Lab, which reported a 60% budget drop following the cuts.

The Trump administration also scaled back funding for the Wilson Center and the US Institute of Peace, both congressionally established institutions dating back to 1968 and 1984. The Wilson Center has indicated a strategic reassessment, posting on X in September that it is “charting a path forward to strengthen our role as a trusted, fiercely nonpartisan bridge between scholarship and public policy.” On Monday, the Center announced new distinguished fellows but did not comment on its future plans.

Fundraising continues to be the think tank sector’s most pressing issue. According to the report, 71% of organizations identified it as a key capacity gap, up from 66% in 2024. Many will likely turn to private corporations and foreign governments willing to provide substantial funding, often with implicit or explicit conditions attached. Ultimately, the responsibility lies with think tanks to disclose such relationships.