Think Tank PIIE Has Deep Ties to Chinese Billionaires

Here is more from the Washington Free Beacon:

A former Chinese official has donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to a prominent D.C.-based think tank over the last decade, influencing its research on at least one occasion.

Hong Kong-based billionaire Ronnie Chan sits on the board of directors of the Peterson Institute for International Economics, an influential think tank. He is also one of its most prolific supporters, donating between $350,000 to $575,000 to the think tank since 2010. And while the think tank insists that donors exert almost no influence on its publications, a 2013 report on U.S.-China relations credited Chan, noting that the report "has benefited from discussions with and the comments of" Chan and a litany of other donors.

Chan is an ex-government official in Hong Kong who mobilized his resources to support the election of Carrie Lam, the city's chief executive who cracked down on pro-democracy protesters at the behest of Beijing in recent years. Chan is also a governor of the China-United States Exchange Foundation, a nonprofit organization widely considered to be a front group for the Chinese Communist Party to exercise influence in academia. The foundation has also cut a check to PIIE, sending between $50,000 to $75,000 to the think tank in 2012.

The article says that another billionaire with close ties to China, Min Zhu, a former deputy governor of the People's Bank of China, sits of PIIE's board.  It also notes that PIIE's board of directors page does not mention Chan's or Zhu's past stints in government, even though it does so for other members.

Chan, according to the article, has appeared on a panel discussion hosted by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and has served on the governing boards of the East-West Center and Maureen and Mike Mansfield Foundation.

Update: Here is a new Washington Free Beacon piece entitled "Huawei-Funded Think Tank Takes Aim at Top China Hawk," saying that PIIE works with Chinese government officials to rebut China criticism.  Among other things, it outlines PIIE's ties to Huawei.

New Study: Explosion of Foreign Funding at US Think Tanks

Foreign governments have given the top 50 US think tanks more than $174 million from 2014-2018, according to a new report by the Center for International Policy's (CIP) Foreign Influence Transparency Initiative (FITI).

The nearly 900 different donations to those 50 think tanks came from more than 80 different countries and international institutions.

According to the report, the top recipient of foreign funding was the World Resources Institute (WRI), with an eye-popping $63 million.  WRI was followed by the Center for Global Development (CGD), which received $37,580,000.  Next was the Brookings Institution, which received $27,350,000.

Here are the top 15 recipients of foreign funding:

1. WRI: $63,000,000
2. CGD: $37,580,000
3. Brookings: $27,350,000
4. Atlantic Council: $12,192,000
5. Aspen Institute: $8,418,574
6. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace: $$7,025,000
7. German Marshall Fund: $6,249,998
8. New America: $2,804,058
9. Center for American Progress (CAP): $2,490,000
10. Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS): $1,930,000 
11. Urban Institute: $1,060,000
12. Hudson Institute: $870,000
13. Center for Climate and Energy Solutions: $806,000
14. Peterson Institute for International Economics (PIIE): $725,000
15. Chicago Council on Global Affairs: $624,177

Here are the top 15 donor countries/institutions to US think tanks:

1. Norway: $27,681,856
2. United Kingdom: $27,123,775
3. United Arab Emirates: $15,406,016
4. Germany: $12,250,999
5. Sweden: $9,313,999
6. Australia: $9,231,000
7. The Netherlands: $9,200,050
8. Qatar: $8,500,600
9. Canada: $6,712,250
10. Denmark: $5,543,000
11. Japan: $4,856,774
12. United Nations: $4,720,500
13. World Bank: $3,485,700
14. Switzerland: $3,395,500
15. Taiwan: $3,250,000

Interestingly, it appears that many think tankers do not even know the funders of their own think tanks.

Think Tank Watch should note that many colleges and universities also receive significant amounts of funding from foreign governments and international institutions.  George Washington University, for example, has received $80 million in funding from foreign governments in recent years.

And the Wall Street Journal has just reported that the US Department of Education has opened an investigation into Harvard and Yale as part of a continuing review that it says has found US universities failed to report at least $6.5 billion in foreign funding.

Update: Here is what Dan Drezner of Tufts University thinks about FITI's new report.

New Report Documents UAE's Deep Ties to Think Tanks

The Center for International Policy's (CIP) Foreign Influence Transparency Initiative (FITI) has published a new report showing the United Arab Emirates' (UAE) deep connection to US think tanks.

Among other things, the report found that UAE foreign agents had contacted 200 congressional offices, 18 think tanks, and most mainstream media outlets in 2018. Those 18 think tanks were contacted a total of 85 different times last year (and that is just contacts that were reported).

The top five think tanks most contacted by UAE foreign agents were:

1. Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP): 18
2. Middle East Institute (MEI): 14
3. Center for American Progress (CAP): 11
4. American Enterprise Institute (AEI): 10
5. Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS): 5

The report says that UAE foreign agents "directed their efforts towards some of the most prominent and influential think tanks in D.C. and towards experts at think tanks the UAE was directly or indirectly funding."  In turn, the report added, "UAE foreign agents often help to distribute the work of these experts at think tanks the UAE is funding."

Over the past year, there has also been a significant effort to track Saudi influence at US think tanks.

Atlantic Council Gets Tangled in Impeachment Probe

Here is an excerpt from Breitbart:

A staffer for Rep. Adam Schiff's House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence took a trip to Ukraine last month sponsored and organized by the Atlantic Council think tank.

The Atlantic Council is funded by and routinely works in partnership with Burisma, the natural gas company at the center of allegations regarding Joe Biden and his son, Hunter Biden.

The Schiff staffer, Thomas Eager, is also currently one of 19 fellows at the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Congressional Fellowship, a bipartisan program that says it “educates congressional staff on current events in the Eurasia region.”

Eager’s trip to Ukraine last month was part of the fellowship program and included nine other House employees. The bi-partisan visit, from August 24 to August 31, was billed as a “Ukraine Study Trip,” and culminated in a meeting with former Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko.

The dates of the pre-planned trip are instructive. Eager’s visit to Ukraine sponsored by the Burisma-funded Atlantic Council began 12 days after the so-called whistleblower officially filed his August 12 complaint about President Donald Trump’s phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

Kurt Volker, who has just resigned as the Trump Administration's special representative for Ukraine, is a senior advisor at the Atlantic Council and also heads the McCain Institute.

Max Blumenthal says that the Atlantic Council has become a "clearinghouse for legal corruption."

Update I: (from Brietbart): "Impeachment star witness William Taylor has has long relationship with Burisma-backed think tank." 

Update II: Second Schiff staff linked to Atlantic Council.

Think Tank CNI Taking Financial Hit From Mueller Probe

The Washington, DC-based think tank Center for the National Interest (CNI) and those connected to it have faced a significant financial blow stemming from the Mueller probe into Russian interference in the 2016 US presidential election.  Here is more from Bloomberg:

Dimitri Simes’s name appears 134 times in the redacted version of special counsel Robert Mueller’s report on Russian interference in the 2016 election. Born and educated in Moscow, Simes has been a fixture in Washington since the 1970s, brokering advice and authority for contacts in both capitals. Those relationships proved helpful to the nascent presidential campaign of Donald Trump, later drawing the scrutiny of Mueller’s team.

Mueller’s investigation resulted in a total of 34 indictments covering everyone from Russian hackers to Trump campaign officials, but not Simes or anyone else at his Washington think tank, the Center for the National Interest. And yet, as the probe unfolded, Simes and his staff incurred punishing legal bills during the hours they sat for interviews with the special counsel’s team. The think tank’s largest donor drastically cut his financial support earlier this year, according to four people familiar with the organization’s finances, and Simes himself dealt with unwanted public exposure. With no finding of wrongdoing to show for their travails, Simes and the center are nevertheless an object lesson in the unexpected costs of influence-peddling.

Simes has spent his career mostly behind the scenes, moving to the U.S. in 1973 and serving as an informal foreign policy adviser to President Richard Nixon. Nixon personally installed him at the helm of the Center for the National Interest when he founded it in 1994 as the Nixon Center for Peace and Freedom. 

The Center for the National Interest organized the event where Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner first met Henry Kissinger, and it also hosted Trump’s first foreign policy speech at Washington’s Mayflower Hotel. Furthermore, as the Mueller report says, Simes met Jared Kushner in August 2016 to offer dirt on the Clinton family’s relationship with Russia.

The last two years have been a drain on Simes’s think tank, which is down to about $1.2 million in assets, a person familiar with its finances says, from $5.3 million at the end of 2016, according to a tax filing. The Center for the National Interest ran up huge legal bills with its longtime attorneys David Rivkin and Lee Casey of BakerHostetler, say three people familiar with the costs; one of them says some monthly bills ran in the hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Simes’s think tank has found itself in a precarious financial position in part because its largest donor, a foundation overseen by Maurice “Hank” Greenberg, the former American International Group chief executive officer and former Center for the National Interest board chairman, has pulled much of its support. Last August the Daily Beast published a story connecting Greenberg to Maria Butina, once the darling of the pro-gun right, who has since pleaded guilty to federal charges of acting as an agent of the Russian government, in matters unrelated to the Mueller probe.

Charles Boyd, the think tank’s current chairman and a retired four-star general in the U.S. Air Force, expects that new interest from donors and increased revenue from its magazine, the National Interest, will help the organization bounce back. Jacob Heilbrunn, the magazine’s editor, says an investment in “the six figures” into the National Interest’s website and magazine has boosted traffic and advertising; monthly revenue is in excess of $250,000, while monthly page views hit 16.6 million in March, Heilbrunn says.

Here is a previous Think Tank Watch piece about CNI hosting Donald Trump for a foreign policy speech.  After that event, CNI fired one of its employees for questioning the think tank's ties to Trump.

Here is a link to an interview that Simes just had with Christiane Amanpour on the Russia probe and the think tank's ties to Russia.

Update: Here is a new Politico piece on Simes and his ties to Jared Kushner. And here is a piece by Washington Post's Josh Rogin entitled "Dimitri Simes Flew Too Close to Trump, and His Think Tank Got Burned."

Think Tank CAP Will No Longer Accept Funds From UAE

Here is what The Guardian is reporting:

The Center for American Progress, one of the most prominent liberal think tanks in Washington, will no longer accept funding from the United Arab Emirates, the Guardian has learned.

The group said it is parting ways with what it views to be anti-democratic governments across the globe, seeking to distinguish itself from the authoritarian regimes with which Donald Trump’s administration has developed a close rapport.

“With a rising undemocratic tide around the world, and serious questions about which side of that struggle our own president stands on, it seemed clear that all Americans should take extra steps and leave no doubt where they stand,” a CAP spokesperson told the Guardian.

CAP recently fired two staffers suspected of being involved in a leaking an email exchange that staffers thought reflected improper influence by the UAE within the think tank.

Think tanks are now being pressured to sign a "democracy pledge" to accept funding only from fellow democracies.

Manafort Ally Had Close Ties to Think Tanks

Here is more from The Atlantic:

[Paul Manafort] grew reliant on Konstantin Kilimnik, a Soviet-born native who could render idiomatic English and translate the cultural nuances of the region that might elude outsiders. Manafort would describe him to others in his office as “my Russian brain.” For a decade, Kilimnik was a fixture in Manafort’s meetings with the region’s leading politicians and oligarchs.

After so much time spent in close quarters, the relationship between the two became trusting and deep. By 2011, Kilimnik had taken over Manafort’s office in Kiev. This made Kilimnik the primary interface for Manafort’s lone client, a corrupt clique of former gangsters that ruled Ukraine under the banner of their political organization, the Party of Regions.

With his access and his ability to trade information, he built an impressive network. His rolodex came to include reporters from big international news organizations, including The New York Times, as well as denizens of Washington think tanks and diplomats. They would describe him as “user-friendly”—unusually smart, almost always available, and able to perfectly express complex thoughts in English.

The office of Special Counsel Robert Mueller recently confirmed that Kilimnik is the focus on a grand jury investigation.

Hudson Official Quits After Learning of Donation from Putin-Linked Billionaire

Here is more from the New York Post:

Chaos has erupted at a conservative think tank after it was revealed that one of its new donors is Len Blavatnik, the Ukrainian-born billionaire who owns the Warner Music record label.

Charles Davidson — the founder of the Hudson Institute’s Kleptocracy Initiative, a group dedicated to exposing threats by authoritarian regimes to US democracy — said he quit as its executive director upon learning that the Hudson Institute had accepted a $50,000 donation from Blavatnik.

“Russian kleptocracy has entered the donor pool of Hudson Institute,” Davidson said in an exclusive interview with The Post. “Blavatnik is precisely what the Kleptocracy Initiative is fighting against — the influence of Putin’s oligarchs on America’s political system and society — and the importation of corrupt Russian business practices and values.”

Think tank donations have come under intense scrutiny in recent years, an many influential think tanks have been rocked by pay-for-play schemes involving foreign money.

A piece that recently appeared in the Washington Post has called on think tanks to sign a "democracy pledge" to accept funding only from democracies.

Interestingly, Hudson says that it "does not seek or accept financial contributions from non-democratic foreign governments or groups or individuals acting on their behalf."

Think Tank CAP Fires Two Staffers Amid Leak Investigation

Here is more from The Intercept:

The Center for American Progress fired two staffers suspected of being involved in leaking an email exchange that staffers thought reflected improper influence by the United Arab Emirates within the think tank, according to three sources with knowledge of the shake-up. Both staffers were investigated for leaking the contents of an internal email exchange to The Intercept, but neither of the former employees was The Intercept’s source.

One of those fired, Ken Gude, was a senior national security staffer. He worked at CAP since 2003 and previously served as the progressive think tank’s chief of staff.

A CAP spokesperson acknowledged two employees were fired as a result of the leak investigation, but said that the leak was not the reason they were fired: “We are not going to discuss internal personnel matters, but no one was fired at CAP for leaking or whistleblowing.” Internally, however, multiple members of CAP leadership have used the leak as the leading rationale for the firings in multiple settings, sources said.

At issue was an internal debate over how to frame CAP’s response to the murder of Washington Post contributing columnist Jamal Khashoggi, who was dismembered by Saudi Arabian officials inside the nation’s consulate in Istanbul on October 2.

The initial draft of the CAP’s statement condemned the killing and Saudi Arabia’s role in it, calling for specific consequences. Brian Katulis, a Gulf expert at CAP, objected to the specific consequences proposed in an email exchange with other national security staffers, according to sources who described the contents of the thread to The Intercept. 

The UAE, Saudi Arabia’s closest ally, is one of the top donors to the think tank. Katulis is close with the UAE’s ambassador in Washington, Yousef Al Otaiba.

 Katulis is CAP’s link to Otaiba. As The Intercept has previously reported, Katulis worked with the diplomat to help organize UAE-sponsored trips to the wealthy Gulf country for American think tank experts, according to emails purloined from Otaiba’s Hotmail inbox.

The Center for American Progress (CAP) has experienced lots of drama the past couple years.  In April, the think tank was bashed for its response to sexual harassment claims. 

Chinese Tycoon Sought Influence From Washington Think Tanks

Here is more from the New York Times:

He struck billions of dollars’ worth of deals in Russia, Eastern Europe and Africa. He sought business with war-torn places like Chad and with international pariahs like North Korea.

Ye Jianming, a fast-rising Chinese oil tycoon, ventured to places only the most politically connected Chinese companies dared to go. But what he wanted was access to the corridors of power in Washington — and he set out to get it.

Soon, he was meeting with the family of Joseph R. Biden Jr., who was then the vice president. He dined with R. James Woolsey Jr., a former Central Intelligence Agency director and later a senior adviser to President Trump. He bestowed lavish funding on universities and think tanks with direct access to top Washington leaders, looking for the benefits access can bring. He asked one former American security official: If he bought oil fields in Syria, could the former official persuade the American military not to bomb them?

To build influence, Mr. Ye turned to Vuk Jeremic, a Serbian diplomat and former president of the United Nations General Assembly whom CEFC hired as a consultant, and Mr. Ho, a former Hong Kong official. CEFC also donated at least $350,000 to the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security, a politically connected think tank, according to court testimony. The think tank counts Robert C. McFarlane, the Reagan-era national security adviser, as its president and Mr. Woolsey, a Clinton-era C.I.A. director, as its co-chairman. 

A link to the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security (IAGS) can be found here.  IAGS projects include the United States Energy Security Council, the Global Forum on Energy Security, the Technology and Rare Earth Metals Center (TREM), the Set America Free Coalition, and the Mobility Choice Coalition.

In related news, it was recently reported that Huawei paid the Brookings Institution to write favorable reports.

A group of China specialists recently released a report saying that China is trying to influence US think tanks.

GMF Trying to Make Sure Georgia Stays United With West

Here is more from Axios reporter Dave Lawler:

I'm coming to you from the Republic of Georgia, where I spent the past four days as part of a German Marshall Fund delegation observing Sunday's presidential election and meeting with the leading candidates, the current president, foreign minister, speaker of parliament, and leaders in civil society, the clergy and business. What I saw and heard here will comprise the top half of today's edition.

The German Marshall Fund (GMF) recently held an event entitled "Keeping Georgia's Euroatlantic Future on Track."  GMF Senior Fellow Laura Rosenberger recently spoke about foreign election interference.

Last year, GMF, in partnership with the government of Georgia and the Heritage Foundation, held a conference marking the 25th anniversary of diplomatic relations between the US and Georgia.

In 2012, GMF, in partnership with the Center for Independent Journalism from Romania, organized a study tour to Georgia prior to elections there.

Funding for GMF comes from a number of domestic and foreign entities, including USAID, US State Department, US Defense Department, US Mission to the European Union, NATO, the European Commission, Airbus, BP, Boeing, Daimler, Google, Exxon, Microsoft, and the governments of Germany, Sweden, Norway, Taiwan, Finland, Latvia, Belgium, and the Netherlands.

In related GMF news, Karen Kornbluh will join the think tank as director of its new technology policy program and senior fellow.  She most recently was a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), and served as policy director to Barack Obama in the Senate and was ambassador to the OECD in the Obama Administration.

Also, GMF and Energy Cities just launched an 18-month transatlantic project addressing the role of cities in driving the energy transition.

The Saudi Think Tank Whisperer

Here is more from Politico:

Even as evidence mounted last week that a Saudi Arabian hit squad had murdered and dismembered his friend, Jamal Khashoggi, Washington operative Ali Shihabi took to Twitter to do what he does best: defend the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

The global outrage over Khashoggi’s murder has forced many Washington lobbyists and public relations pros to cut ties with the Saudi government. But not Shihabi, a Saudi national who may be the country’s most effective defender in the U.S. capital. Media savvy and politically shrewd, Shihabi has relationships with prominent journalists, Trump administration officials and think tank experts throughout Washington. The Saudi ambassador left Washington earlier this month and reportedly may not return, but it matters less given that many already consider Shihabi, who is close to the Saudi leadership, to be the kingdom’s unofficial envoy.

A former banker and novelist who leads the nonprofit Arabia Foundation — a think tank founded in the belief that the Saudi government was not making an effective case in the U.S. — Shihabi can often be seen on the D.C. circuit, hitting book parties hosted by the likes of the operative-hostess Juleanna Glover and dining at spots like the Monocle and the Four Seasons with such A-list media figures as Fox News host Tucker Carlson. He also hosts off-the-record dinner-discussions in Georgetown for journalists and policymakers.

He describes the foundation as an independent think tank funded by himself and other Saudi businessmen. The foundation doesn’t take Saudi government money, Shihabi says, though he acknowledges that he informed Saudi officials about his plans to establish the foundation, partly to ensure financial support from other Saudis. 

Here is a link to the Arabia Foundation.

Here is a previous Think Tank Watch post about think tanks weighing whether or not to take Saudi money.

CFR President: Think Tanks Should Refuse Chinese Money

Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) President Richard Haass has just penned a piece for the Wall Street Journal saying that US think tanks should stop accepting funding from the Chinese government.  Here is more:

Strengthening controls on Chinese investment in the U.S. is also a step in the right direction. Some supply chains may need to be rerouted away from China, although such interdependence is one bulwark against conflict. Universities and think tanks should refuse to accept Chinese government funding. And if the U.S. isn’t to be left behind by Beijing’s major technology push, “Made in China 2025,” the public and private sectors will need to cooperate much more in developing critical fields such as artificial intelligence.

A number of US think tanks receive money from China, including the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), which also gets money from Taiwan.  The Brookings Institution, which has an overseas research center in China (Brookings-Tsinghua Center for Public Policy), receives money from a number of Chinese entities/people.

Haass's statement comes on the heels of a big push to get US think tanks to stop accepting money from Saudi Arabia in light of the alleged murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi by a group of Saudis.

Do liberal/progressive think tanks in the US get more Chinese money than libertarian/conservative think tanks?

Think Tanks Continuing to Weigh Whether to Take Saudi Money

A number of US think tanks have been distancing themselves from Saudi Arabia following the alleged murder of Jamal Khashoggi by a Saudi assassination squad.

The Brookings Institution announced that it would terminate a research grant from Saudi Arabia.  The think tank will also stop taking money from Aramco Services Company "effective immediately."

The Middle East Institute (MEI), which receives money from Aramco, said it will no longer participate in New York museum exhibits and programs funded by Saudi Arabia.  MEI's Board of Governors reportedly will meet next week to make additional decisions about its Saudi funding.

Mr. Alexander Nazaryan of Yahoo News also has some interesting updates about think tank thinking on Saudi money:

The Wilson Center, where Khashoggi has been offered and accepted a position as a fellow, said that in July, it had requested funds from the Saudi government for work on an index of female leaders. “The Saudi Arabian government never confirmed that funds would be forthcoming,” said Wilson spokesman Ryan McKenna in a statement. He added that if it turns out that Khashoggi was indeed murdered by the Saudis, “we will withdraw our pending funding request.”

Not all think tanks are rushing to distance themselves from Saudi Arabia. The Center for Strategic and International Studies told Yahoo News that the think tank “has received funding from the Saudi Arabian government to conduct diplomatic training exercises,” Andrew Schwartz, the organization’s spokesman, said in a statement. “We are following the Jamal Khashoggi story closely and haven’t made any decisions.”

Several think tanks were able to say that they do not accept any Saudi government funding. These included several prominent conservative and libertarian institutions, including the Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute and the Cato Institute. The Council on Foreign Relations also said it did not accept funds tied to the Saudi government. 

The announcements come after a number of people started calling for think tanks to disclose their Saudi funding.

Hudson Institute chief Kenneth Weinstein notes that five years ago, the think tank's board of trustees set a policy to refuse funds from non-democratic governments.  "Yes, the policy undoubtedly cost us tens of millions of dollars but it was and is the right thing to do."

Here is a similar story about Saudi funding of think tanks by Emily Tamkin of BuzzFeed News.

To put things into perspective, Daniel Drezner notes that think tanks get relatively little money from Saudi Arabia compared to big consulting firms like McKinsey & Company.

Updates: Here is a map from the Washington Post showing Saudi Arabia's influence in Washington.

In the UK, a member of parliament is being scrutinized over his links to a Saudi think tanks, the King Faisal Center for Research and Islamic Studies.

The Washington Institute says it neither solicits nor accepts financial support from any foreign source, relying solely on American donors.

A Washington Post editorial says think tanks and universities must rethink their ties with Saudi Arabia.

Brookings Terminates Research Grant From Saudi Arabia

The Brookings Institution has become the latest entity to distance itself from Saudi Arabia over the alleged killing of dissident Jamal Khashoggi.

Here is more from the Washington Post:

The Brookings Institution said Friday that it would “terminate” its “sole research grant” from Saudi Arabia, which was earmarked for an analysis of the Saudi think tank sector. “We felt we would be unable to conduct further research with this funding” given the Khashoggi case, Brookings said.

The announcement came after a number of people criticized Washington think tanks for taking Saudi money.

The top of Brookings' homepage currently features a piece by Shadi Hamid entitled "Saudi Arabia is Taunting Trump."  Here is a link to all the center-left think tank's writings on Saudi Arabia.

Brookings receives funding from a large number of foreign governments, including Qatar, United Arab Emirates (UAE), Norway, Taiwan, Australia, Denmark, Finland, European Union (EU), South Korea, Japan, France, Netherlands, and others.

After Think Tank Watch posted that Brookings receives money from Aramco Services Company, a subsidiary of Saudi Aramco which is 100% wholly-owned by the Saudi government, a Brookings spokesperson reached out to tell us it will no longer be accepting funding from Aramco "effective immediately."

In related news, the Middle East Institute (MEI) said it will no longer participate in New York museum exhibits and programs funded by Saudi Arabia.

Here is a previous piece about how a think tank speech could have helped trigger Khashoggi's apparent death.

Here is a piece from Vox entitled "How Saudi Arabia Captured Washington," which discusses Middle East funding of various Washington think tanks.

According to Ben Freeman, who directs the Foreign Influence Transparency Initiative program at the Center for International Policy, registered foreign agents working on behalf of interests in Saudi Arabia contacted congressional representatives, the White House, the media, and figures at influential think tanks more than 2,500 times in 2017 alone.

South Korea Blacklisting Think Tank Scholars for Criticizing Its North Korea Policy?

Foreign governments often demand a lot from the US think tanks they donate to.  In return for hundreds of thousands (and often times millions) of dollars each year, those foreign nations expect (and often demand) in return a specific outcome from the think tank product.  When a think tank does not tow the line, they often try to force out specific scholars, and, as a last resort, cut funding.

Here are a few excerpts from the One Free Korea blog, which is authored by Joshua Stanton:

The Chosun Ilbo and the Joongang Ilbo now report that the South Korean government directed the Korean Institute for International Economic Policy (KEIP) to cut most of its funding to Johns Hopkins University's US-Korea Institute (USKI), except for some Korean language and Korea studies training.  KIEP calls itself a "government-funded think tank," but it is a certain creation of South Korean law and has a "go.kr" web address.  And as you're about to see, it clearly takes its direction from the South Korean government.

Paradoxically, USKI is best known for publishing the reliably soft-line, anti-anti-North Korean, pro-"engagement" 38 North blog.  It's the last outlet you'd think Moon Jae-in's people would mess with.  USKI was founded in 2006, the year after the Korea Foundation pulled its funding from AEI.  According to USKI's website, it receives "generous support from the Korea Institute for International Economic Policy (KIEP)," among others.  The Joongang Ilbo also reports that USKI runs a Korea training program for students entering the US State Department, which sounds like a great way to plant the seeds of long-term influence over our government's policies.

Not surprisingly, USKI and the KIEP have different explanations for KIEP's funding decision, and by the end of this post, you'll see why.  KIEP says the National Assembly demanded the cut over questions about transparency of USKI's budget.  But Robert Gallucci, the Director of USKI, says the real reason is that the Blue House wanted him to fire Jae Ku, one of the few right-of-center thinkers at USKI.  Later, Gallucci says the Blue House also told him to fire Jenny Town, a co-founded of 38 North.

Separately, a column in the Joongang Ilbo reports that the Moon administration has been blacklisting Korean and American scholars for criticizing its North Korea policy.  According to the column, the Sejong Institute's new management forced out David Straub, a highly respected Korea scholar, author, and former diplomat as a Visiting Researcher...Evidently, the Blue House objected to Straub's warnings that policy differences between Moon and Trump could lead to a "decoupling" of the US-Korea alliance. 

Johns Hopkins houses a variety of think tank and think tank-like entities, including the the Center for Transatlantic Relations and the the Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI).

The following are some other Korea-related stories we've recently reported on:

• Meet the one-man think tank on North Korea. 
• Three of the top think tanks (Brookings, CSIS, Heritage) have former high-ranking CIA/intelligence officers running their Korea programs.
• Following his canceled nomination as US Ambassador to Korea, CSIS's Victor Cha joins MSNBC team as a Korean affairs analyst.
• A US spy agency is partnering with NGOs and think tanks to track North Korea.
• North Korea is reaching out to think tanks to understand President Trump. 

Update:  The Associated Press (AP) is now reporting that USKI, which was receiving $1.8 million each year from the Korean government, will close after it rejected South Korean demands to change its leadership.  Officials at Johns Hopkins said up to eight people could lose their jobs.

The Washington Post's Anna Fifield has some more interesting details about the situation.

Mueller Probe Witness Linked to Shady Think Tank Payments

Foreign money flowing to think tanks is alive and well.  While some US think tanks have policies of refusing to accept foreign funds, that overseas money often ends up at the think tank anyway via secretive shell companies and other tactics.

Here is more from the New York Times, showing how a top fundraiser for President Donald Trump received millions of dollars from a political adviser to the United Arab Emirates (UAE) to push an anti-Qatar agenda, in part by using think tanks:

Mr. [George] Nader did, however, provide a $2.7 million payment to Mr. [Elliott] Broidy for "consulting, marketing and other advisory services rendered," apparently to help pay for the cost of conferences at two Washington think tanks, the Hudson Institute and the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, that featured heavy criticism of Qatar and the Muslim Brotherhood.

Hudson Institute policies prohibit donations from foreign governments that are not democracies, and the Foundation for Defense of Democracies bars donations from all foreign governments, so Mr. Nader's role as an adviser to the U.A.E. may have raised concerns had he donated directly.

Documents show Mr. Nader's payment was made by an Emirati-based company he controlled, GS Investments, to an obscure firm based in Vancouver, British Columbia, controlled by Mr. Broidy, Xieman International.  A person close to Mr. Broidy said the money was passed through the Canadian company at Mr. Nader's request, and the reason for its circuitous path could not be determined.

Here is a link to the above-mentioned Hudson event, which took place on October 23, 2017.  Here is a link to the May 23, 2017 FDD event, co-hosted by Hudson and George Washington University's Center for Cyber & Homeland Security.

These latest revelations come on the heels of a new poll which shows that only 20 percent of Americans trust think tanks.