In late July, the Department of Defense issued an internal memo suspending participation of its officials in think tank events. This was preceded by months of attacks on think tanks, universities and the broader intelligentsia under the Second Donald Trump administration. This, however is not the dismantling of the administration’s relationship with think tanks but strategic reshuffling of influence, guided by the Trump administration’s distinctive approach to power, loyalty, and legitimacy.
On 24 July, Pentagon press secretary Kingsley Wilson announced on X, “Going forward, no DOD official will attend events by America Last organisations that promote globalism and hate.” This came shortly after all Pentagon officials withdrew from the Aspen Security Forum (ASF) which is an event that, since 2010, has brought together top officials, academics, business leaders, and military brass in non-partisan policy dialogue.
Forums like ASF have historically played a crucial role in connecting government to the broader policy community. They enable collaboration across academia, industry, and the state, support civil-military-industrial coordination, and foster the revolving-door dynamic that has long shaped American policy making. But under the Trump administration, this model appears increasingly obsolete.
Following their political attacks and de-funding Ivy League institutions, think tanks, and the larger American bureaucracy through DOGE cuts, the administration has clearly displayed its disdain for establishment experts and academia. These actions have been preceded by years of discrediting experts not only from social science fields such as public policy, foreign policy, or economics but also from natural sciences such as climate and health. This attitude can also be attributed to the strong role of think tank experts and industry lobbyists in the Biden administration. Policy forums, conferences and lectures, which have long been hubs for the government’s interaction with the intelligentsia, thus become targets in the Trump administration’s mission against the ‘elites’.
These forums have also traditionally allowed the Pentagon to engage with industry leaders in shaping innovation policy. Historically, the DOD helped steer developments in tech, energy, and pharmaceuticals. However, its innovation leadership has declined in recent years, due in part to declining coordination with the private sector. However, the Trump administration’s equation with industry is unique in this regard.
President Trump enjoys strong personal ties across different industries. His presidential campaign and administration have a strong presence of several industry leaders, especially from the tech, auto, petroleum and crypto industries. This relationship is most prominently displayed in the administration’s close ties with entrepreneurs like Elon Musk, which controversially has also extended to the Pentagon. With such strong industry ties on their own, conferences and forums may be viewed as an unwanted facilitator between these two close parties. Under a ‘small-government’ agenda, the administration might also actively help this private sector domination in innovation and place the government only in a facilitating role.
There is also a public relations and communications risk for the administration. The public nature of think tank events increases the likelihood of officials making statements that contradict Trump’s often spontaneous, volatile messaging. As Tom Nichols has noted, under this administration, contradiction can be punished more harshly than incompetence. Avoiding public forums helps insulate the administration’s messaging from such risks.
Another underlying concern is the opaque funding structures of many prominent think tanks. The top 50 think tanks receive financial support from foreign governments or defence contractors, raising credible concerns about bias, undue influence, and even information trading. In an age of propaganda, promotion, and information overload furthered by social media proliferation, American think tanks are also criticised for shifting from once science- and evidence-based outputs to outputs driven by media narratives, partisanship, and ideology. Such strong allegations from credible parties within the field only further the concerns expressed by Pentagon officials and Trump supporters.
However, it is important to note that relationships between American think tanks and the US government have largely been stable since Trump’s ascension to office. Although Congress-chartered institutions such as the Wilson Center or United States Institute of Peace have been dismantled or defunded, funding and support for major think tanks like the RAND Corporation, Aspen, or the Atlantic Council have remained consistent. The funding for some of these think tanks has been resumed since the initial grant freeze for pre-approved projects, while a few received new projects as well. Earlier this week, the Wilson Center also hinted at a ‘restart’ under the new leadership of Natasha Jacome, highlighting their renewed commitment to non-partisan research. These exceptions likely hint not at a severing of ties, but a centralisation of them.
If we visualise the relationship between government and think tanks through a network diagram, previous administrations supported an interconnected structure, encouraging ‘links’ or interaction across the ‘nodes’ of academia, industry, and state. Under Trump, that structure is reoriented around a single node of the White House. Stakeholders are no longer encouraged to interact with each other, but expected to channel their engagement directly through the administration.
In Trump’s Washington, influence is not earned through credentials or policy expertise it is granted through proximity, funding, and loyalty. This explains the surprising scope he provides for tech billionaires and entrepreneurs to provide feedback on his policies. Similar is the case with think tanks and consultancies linked to the conservative movement or the defence-industrial lobby. It is debatable whether Trump actually takes their feedback into consideration while making decisions; however, under Trump, even the ability to provide feedback in itself is a privilege few have, and major think tanks seem to still have that.