How Think Tanks Shape National Security Decisions

Last updated 2 months ago. Our resources are updated regularly but please keep in mind that links, programs, policies, and contact information do change.

Think tanks wield influence over American national security policy through a network of former officials, policy papers, and behind-the-scenes access that transforms external ideas into presidential directives within the National Security Council.

The decisions made within the White House on matters of war, peace, and international strategy are among the most consequential for the United States and the world. At the heart of this process is the National Security Council (NSC), the president’s principal forum for deliberating on these critical issues with senior cabinet officials and advisors.

The Inner Sanctum: Understanding the NSC

To understand how external actors influence the NSC, one must first grasp the structure and function of the institution itself. The NSC is not a monolith but a highly structured, multi-layered system designed to process information, debate options, and forge consensus before a final decision reaches the President.

Mission and Mandate

The National Security Council was established by the National Security Act of 1947, landmark legislation that also created the Department of Defense and the Central Intelligence Agency. Its core statutory mission is to advise the President “with respect to the integration of domestic, foreign, and military policies relating to the national security.”

In essence, its purpose is to ensure that the various arms of the U.S. government—diplomatic, military, intelligence, and economic—are working in concert rather than at cross-purposes. The NSC itself is an advisory and coordinating body; it does not have its own budget for implementing programs, nor does it command troops or run intelligence operations. Its power lies in its ability to shape the presidential decisions and directives that are then sent down to the respective departments and agencies for execution.

Who’s in the Room

The composition of the NSC is a mix of statutory requirements and presidential discretion, allowing each administration to tailor the council to its specific priorities.

The statutory members, defined by law, are the President (who serves as chair), Vice President, Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, Secretary of the Treasury, and Secretary of Energy. Additionally, two statutory advisors are mandated to attend: the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who provides military advice, and the Director of National Intelligence, who serves as the intelligence advisor.

Beyond this core group, presidents have wide latitude to invite other officials to participate regularly. This choice of who gets a seat at the table often signals an administration’s priorities. The Biden administration expanded the list of regular attendees to include the Secretary of Homeland Security, Attorney General, and U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, reflecting a broader conception of national security that integrates domestic, economic, health, and environmental concerns.

The Power Center: National Security Advisor and Staff

Arguably the most powerful individual in the NSC process, apart from the President, is the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, commonly known as the National Security Advisor (NSA). The NSA is a presidentially appointed position that does not require Senate confirmation, a fact that underscores the close, personal nature of the role.

The NSA’s power stems from two key functions: acting as a direct advisor to the President and managing the entire interagency policy process. The NSA controls the agenda for NSC meetings, ensures preparatory papers are drafted, and is responsible for communicating the President’s final decisions to the relevant agencies.

Supporting the NSA is the National Security Staff (NSS), a body of several hundred experts organized into directorates focused on specific regions (like Asia, Middle East) or functional issues (like counterterrorism, cybersecurity). This staff is composed of a mix of career civil servants detailed temporarily from other agencies (like the State Department or Pentagon) and a smaller number of political appointees. In 2017, Congress passed legislation limiting the number of policy-focused staff to 200 persons.

The Decision-Making Ladder

The modern NSC operates through a hierarchical committee system designed to vet issues, resolve disputes, and refine policy options as they move up the chain to the President. This structure functions as a decision-making ladder:

Level 1: Interagency Policy Committees (IPCs) – These are the workhorses of the national security system. Comprised of Assistant Secretary-level officials from relevant departments, IPCs are responsible for day-to-day management of national security matters. They conduct the most detailed policy analysis and develop the initial set of options. Crucially, these committees are chaired by a Senior Director from the NSC staff, making this individual a powerful gatekeeper for ideas that enter the formal policy process.

Level 2: The Deputies Committee (DC) – Chaired by the Deputy National Security Advisor, the DC is the senior sub-Cabinet forum where the “number twos” from each department meet. Its primary functions are to review the work of the IPCs, manage unfolding crises, and resolve interagency disagreements before they escalate to the cabinet level.

Level 3: The Principals Committee (PC) – Chaired by the National Security Advisor, the PC is the senior Cabinet-level forum for considering policy issues. It brings together the Secretaries of State, Defense, Treasury, and other cabinet members to finalize policy recommendations for the President. It is the last stop for resolving major disputes before they reach the Oval Office.

Level 4: The National Security Council (NSC) – This is the formal meeting chaired by the President, where the final, conclusive decisions are made based on the options developed and refined through the preceding committee process.

This structured, multi-layered process creates multiple, distinct points of entry for external influence. The system is designed to resolve disagreements at the lowest possible level, ensuring the President receives well-vetted options. This very design means that an idea or policy framework introduced and accepted at the IPC level—the ground floor of the policy-making process—has a high probability of surviving its ascent up the ladder.

The World of Think Tanks

Think tanks are non-governmental, non-profit organizations that conduct research and engage in advocacy on a vast array of topics, including social policy, economics, military strategy, and technology. In the national security sphere, they function as a marketplace of ideas, developing the intellectual frameworks and specific policy proposals that compete for the attention of decision-makers inside the NSC.

What Is a Think Tank?

The first American think tanks emerged in the early 20th century, born from a Progressive Era belief that independent, non-partisan expertise could help solve the nation’s most pressing problems. The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace was founded in 1910 with the mission to “hasten the abolition of international war,” and the Brookings Institution followed in 1916, conceived as a bipartisan research center focused on the questions of the federal government.

Over the decades, the think tank landscape has exploded, with later generations of institutions often being more ideologically oriented, designed not just to analyze policy but to actively promote a particular political agenda.

The Business of Ideas: Funding and Independence

A think tank’s funding model is central to its identity and strategy. In the United States, financial separation from the government is considered essential for independence, so these institutions rely heavily on private sources of support. These sources are diverse and can include grants from large philanthropic foundations, donations from wealthy individuals, and contributions from corporations.

This reliance on external funding, however, is the source of the greatest controversy surrounding think tanks. A growing body of evidence suggests that funding can come with strings attached, raising serious questions about intellectual freedom, self-censorship, and “pay-to-play” research, where donors essentially purchase policy recommendations that align with their interests.

Funding from foreign governments has become particularly contentious, with critics alleging that some countries “buy influence” at Washington think tanks to shape U.S. policy in their favor.

A Spectrum of Influence

The Washington think tank ecosystem is diverse, with institutions occupying different points on the ideological spectrum and pursuing different strategies of influence.

The Centrists and Conveners: Institutions like the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and the Brookings Institution are generally considered non-partisan or centrist. CFR, founded in 1921, has long-standing ties to political, corporate, and media elites and serves as a premier forum for high-level discussions on foreign policy. Brookings describes itself as non-partisan and has scholars who have served in both Republican and Democratic administrations.

The Ideological Advocates: These think tanks have clear partisan alignments and focus on developing and aggressively promoting specific policy agendas. The Heritage Foundation, founded in 1973, is the preeminent example on the right, having played a leading role in the conservative movement and exerting significant influence on Republican administrations, particularly those of Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump.

The Specialists: Some organizations carve out a niche by focusing on specific policy areas. The Center for a New American Security (CNAS), founded in 2007, develops “strong, pragmatic and principled national security and defense policies” and has become a key voice on military and defense issues.

A think tank’s funding model and ideological orientation are not just background details; they are primary determinants of its strategy for influencing the NSC. The NSC is therefore not influenced by a monolithic “think tank community” but is instead the target of multiple, distinct influence campaigns, each tailored by the unique identity and mission of the organization waging it.

The Five Pathways of Influence

Think tanks exert their influence on the NSC through a variety of channels, both formal and informal. These pathways often work in concert, creating a reinforcing ecosystem that can elevate an idea from an academic paper to a presidential directive.

The Personnel Pipeline: The Revolving Door

One of the most direct and effective forms of influence is the constant flow of people between think tanks and senior government positions, a phenomenon often called the “revolving door.” Think tanks serve as a “government-in-waiting,” providing a home for experts and former officials when their party is out of power. When a new administration comes in, it often turns to this ready pool of talent to fill key roles on the NSC staff and in other national security positions.

This constant interchange builds deep personal and professional networks that facilitate the flow of ideas and information. An NSC official is far more likely to read a report or take a meeting with a think tank scholar who is a trusted former colleague.

The Trump administration drew heavily from the Heritage Foundation, with at least 66 former Heritage employees taking positions in the administration. Similarly, the Biden administration appointed numerous experts from the Brookings Institution to senior NSC and other national security roles.

The traffic flows both ways; after leaving government, former National Security Advisors like Condoleezza Rice, Susan Rice, Stephen Hadley, and Thomas Donilon have all maintained affiliations with the Council on Foreign Relations.

The Idea Factory: Setting the Policy Agenda

Think tanks function as “idea factories,” generating the new concepts, strategies, and policy frameworks that shape national security debates. Unburdened by daily crises and bureaucratic demands that consume government officials, think tank scholars have the time and resources to conduct long-term research and “think big” about America’s role in the world.

Their influence can be direct, as when a think tank produces a detailed policy blueprint that is later adopted by an administration. The Heritage Foundation’s Mandate for Leadership series, first published for the incoming Reagan administration in 1981, is a classic example of a think tank providing a comprehensive, ready-made governing agenda.

Influence can also be more subtle, as think tanks work to legitimize and provide intellectual justification for policies an administration is already inclined to pursue. Perhaps the most famous example of a think tank shaping an entire strategic era is George F. Kennan’s “X Article” in the Council on Foreign Relations’ journal Foreign Affairs in 1947, which introduced the concept of “containment” that would become the cornerstone of U.S. policy toward the Soviet Union for the next four decades.

The Neutral Ground: Convening Power and Informal Access

Think tanks play a unique and crucial role as conveners, providing neutral, off-the-record venues where policymakers, including NSC officials, can interact with a wide range of individuals they might not otherwise meet. These forums—which can range from large public conferences to small, private dinners—bring together government officials, foreign diplomats, business leaders, academics, and journalists.

This convening power serves several vital functions. It allows for informal diplomacy and back-channel communications. It provides a “safe space” for officials to float new ideas or test reactions to a potential policy shift without committing the U.S. government. For funders and other stakeholders, it offers invaluable access to powerful individuals.

While it may be difficult for a corporate CEO to schedule a meeting with the Secretary of the Treasury, it is perfectly acceptable for them to “run into each other” at a think tank event.

The Expert Witness: Direct Advice and Public Persuasion

A more formal pathway of influence is through the production and dissemination of expert analysis. Think tanks publish a torrent of reports, policy briefs, and books that are sent directly to relevant officials on the NSC staff and in the various departments.

A particularly visible form of direct advice is congressional testimony. Think tank experts are frequently called to testify before House and Senate committees on pressing national security issues. Organizations like the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) and the Wilson Center prioritize this engagement, viewing it as a key element of their mission to provide bipartisan policy solutions to Congress.

While this testimony is directed at legislators, it has a significant indirect effect on the NSC. It helps shape the political environment and public narrative around an issue, and the questions and concerns raised by lawmakers often find their way into the interagency debates managed by the NSC staff.

The Echo Chamber: Shaping the Media Narrative

Finally, think tanks wield enormous influence by shaping the media narrative that surrounds national security policy. Their scholars are the go-to experts for television news, radio programs, and major newspapers, quoted daily to explain complex global events.

By publishing op-eds, giving interviews, and engaging on social media, they frame the public debate, defining what issues are considered important and what policy options are seen as credible. This can create a powerful “discourse coalition” or echo chamber, where a particular viewpoint is amplified and repeated across multiple media platforms, building a political consensus that can pressure NSC decision-makers to act.

These five pathways—personnel, ideas, convening, testimony, and media—do not operate in isolation. They form a mutually reinforcing ecosystem. An idea developed by a think tank scholar gains traction when that scholar, a former colleague of the current NSC director for that region, briefs them personally. The think tank then hosts a private event to discuss the idea with other senior officials, after which the scholar testifies before Congress and appears on a major news network to discuss their testimony.

Influence in Action: Two Case Studies

The influence of think tanks is best understood through concrete examples. Two major U.S. national security decisions—the 2007 troop “surge” in Iraq and the fundamental shift in strategy toward China—illustrate two distinct models of how outside ideas can shape inside policy.

Case Study 1: The Iraq War “Surge” (2007)

By late 2006, the situation in Iraq was catastrophic. Sectarian violence between Sunni and Shia militias was tearing the country apart, U.S. casualties were mounting, and the Bush administration’s strategy was visibly failing. Following the Republican party’s defeat in the 2006 midterm elections, which was widely seen as a referendum on the war, the White House faced a profound crisis and a policy vacuum.

Into this void stepped the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), a prominent conservative think tank. AEI launched its own “Iraq Planning Group,” led by military historian and resident scholar Frederick W. Kagan. In early January 2007, just days before President Bush was scheduled to announce a new strategy, AEI released a detailed report titled “Choosing Victory: A Plan for Success in Iraq”.

The report’s recommendations were clear and specific:

• A fundamental shift in the U.S. military’s mission from training Iraqi forces to directly securing the Iraqi population through a “clear, hold, and build” counterinsurgency strategy
• A significant increase—a “surge”—of seven additional Army brigades and Marine regiments (roughly 30,000 troops) to execute this mission, with the primary focus on stabilizing Baghdad
• A sustained commitment of at least 18 months to give the strategy time to work, coupled with a dramatic increase in reconstruction aid

The alignment between AEI’s plan and the strategy President Bush announced to the nation on January 10, 2007, was striking. Bush’s “New Way Forward” called for the deployment of more than 20,000 additional U.S. troops, with the majority sent to Baghdad to “help Iraqis clear and secure neighborhoods.”

AEI scholars, particularly Kagan, had been influential in shaping the discourse, providing an intellectual and strategic blueprint for the surge at a moment when the administration desperately needed one.

In retrospect, the surge is credited with a significant reduction in violence. However, a balanced assessment must include critical perspectives. Scholars at the Brookings Institution argued that while the surge was a tactical success, it was ultimately a strategic failure because its primary political goal—to create a “breathing space” for national reconciliation among Iraq’s warring factions—never materialized.

Case Study 2: Forging the China Consensus

The influence of think tanks on U.S. policy toward China demonstrates a different, more cumulative model of influence. For decades, U.S. strategy was guided by a policy of “constructive engagement,” based on the belief that integrating China into the global economy would eventually lead to its political liberalization.

By the 2010s, however, a new consensus began to form across the Washington think tank world: engagement had failed. Under President Xi Jinping, China was becoming more authoritarian at home and more assertive abroad, and it now represented the primary long-term strategic competitor to the United States. This was not the result of a single report, but a multi-front intellectual campaign waged over several years by a diverse coalition of think tanks.

The Center for a New American Security (CNAS) was instrumental in framing the issue as a “strategic competition” across military, economic, and technological domains, publishing numerous reports on how to maintain America’s edge.

The Heritage Foundation adopted a more confrontational stance, popularizing the idea of a “New Cold War” and calling for a comprehensive plan to “Counter the CCP” (Chinese Communist Party).

The Brookings Institution and the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) provided deep, nuanced analysis of the challenges, advocating for a complex strategy that blended competition with necessary cooperation and providing expert testimony to Congress on how to counter China’s economic and technological strategies.

This external intellectual shift was adopted internally by the NSC. The Trump administration’s 2017 National Security Strategy formally reoriented U.S. policy toward great power competition, and the Biden administration retained this framework, with NSC officials frequently using the language and concepts developed in think tanks.

The revolving door reinforced this new consensus, as China experts from Brookings and CFR, such as Mira Rapp-Hooper and Rush Doshi, were appointed to senior NSC positions responsible for Indo-Pacific strategy.

These cases reveal two distinct models of think tank influence. The Iraq surge represents a “Crisis Response” model, where a think tank provides a specific, actionable plan that fills an urgent policy vacuum. The shift on China policy illustrates a “Paradigm Shift” model, where think tanks, over time, collectively change the entire intellectual weather system, creating the new assumptions and vocabulary that make a fundamental reorientation of national strategy seem not just possible, but logical and necessary to officials inside the NSC.

A Double-Edged Sword: Benefits and Risks

The deep integration of think tanks into the national security policy process presents both significant benefits and considerable risks for American democracy and foreign policy.

The Benefits: Expertise, Innovation, and Democratic Debate

In an increasingly complex world, the U.S. government benefits immensely from the specialized knowledge that think tanks provide. They act as “brokers of policy knowledge,” converting deep academic and empirical research into accessible insights and actionable recommendations for policymakers who lack the time for such in-depth analysis.

They serve as incubators for new ideas, expanding the range of possible solutions to intractable problems and offering alternative policy proposals that can challenge government “groupthink.” Furthermore, by publishing their work, hosting public events, and engaging with the media, they can educate citizens and enrich the public discourse, contributing to a more informed democratic debate on foreign policy.

The Risks: Donor Influence, Polarization, and Intellectual Capture

Despite these benefits, the role of think tanks is fraught with serious challenges that threaten their credibility and the integrity of the policy process.

Donor Influence and Transparency: The most significant risk is the potential for funders to influence research outcomes. The reliance on donations from corporations, wealthy individuals, and foreign governments creates the possibility of “pay-to-play” research, where think tanks produce analysis that serves their donors’ financial or political interests.

This problem is compounded by a lack of transparency; most think tanks are not legally required to disclose their donors, making it difficult for policymakers and the public to assess potential conflicts of interest. Investigative reports have highlighted specific concerns:

• The Center for a New American Security (CNAS) has been identified as a top recipient of funding from defense contractors. Reports have noted instances where CNAS has advocated for specific weapons systems without disclosing in the report that the manufacturer is a major donor.
• The Heritage Foundation operates an affiliated 501(c)(4) “dark money” group, Heritage Action for America, which can spend millions on lobbying and political advertising without disclosing its donors.
• The Brookings Institution has faced scrutiny for past funding from foreign governments, including Qatar and Saudi Arabia. While Brookings states it has since terminated this funding and has robust policies to ensure research independence, the issue highlights the broader challenge of foreign influence.

Polarization: The rise of overtly ideological think tanks has contributed to the deepening of political divides. Rather than serving as sources of objective expertise, they often function as partisan actors, providing intellectual ammunition for one side of a political debate. In Congress, it is common for Democrats to invite experts from liberal think tanks to testify, while Republicans invite those from conservative ones, reinforcing partisan echo chambers rather than fostering consensus.

Intellectual Capture: The close, interconnected world of Washington’s NSC staff and think tank experts can create an intellectual bubble. A narrow consensus can form among this elite community, marginalizing dissenting views and leading to major policy failures. Some critics argue this dynamic was at play in the lead-up to the 2003 Iraq War, where pro-war arguments from influential scholars at think tanks like AEI and Brookings dominated the public discourse, while the few dissenting voices, such as those at the Cato Institute, were largely ignored.

The Core Tension

The core tension in the think tank-NSC relationship is the conflict between two valuable public goods: independent expertise and democratic accountability. The system is designed to leverage the former but often struggles to ensure the latter.

An NSC official reading a policy paper faces a critical question: is this a piece of objective analysis, or is it sophisticated lobbying paid for by an undisclosed special interest? In a system that lacks mandatory, specific donor disclosure laws, it is nearly impossible to answer that question with certainty.

The ongoing debate over funding transparency is therefore not a procedural squabble; it is the central battleground for the soul of the think tank industry and its legitimate role in a democratic society. As think tanks continue to play an increasingly prominent role in shaping American national security policy, the challenge of maintaining both their valuable contributions and the integrity of the democratic process becomes ever more pressing.

The influence of think tanks on NSC decisions represents both the strength and vulnerability of American democracy—the openness to new ideas and expertise that drives innovation in policy, but also the susceptibility to manipulation by special interests that can undermine the public trust essential for effective governance.

Our articles make government information more accessible. Please consult a qualified professional for financial, legal, or health advice specific to your circumstances.