Here is a link to the VladTepesBlog social media Mastodon Pod. Please feel free to check it out and sign up for an account if you are sufficiently annoyed with Twitter and Facebook to try something new.
Each day at just after midnight Eastern, a post like this one is created for contributors and readers of this site to upload news links and video links on the issues that concern this site. Most notably, Islam and its effects on Classical Civilization, and various forms of leftism from Soviet era communism, to postmodernism and all the flavours of galloping statism and totalitarianism such as Nazism and Fascism which are increasingly snuffing out the classical liberalism which created our near, miraculous civilization the West has been building since the time of Socrates.
This document was written around the time this site was created, for those who wish to understand what this site is about. And while our understanding of the world and events has grown since then, the basic ideas remain sound and true to the purpose.
So please post all links, thoughts and ideas that you feel will benefit the readers of this site to the comments under this post each day. And thank you all for your contributions.
This is the new Samizdat. We must use it while we can.
twitter @shellenberger
Governments worldwide are cracking down on free speech, and so we are fighting back.
Join Matt Taibbi, Russell Brand and me in London on June 22 for the launch of a new free speech alliance to dismantle the Censorship Industrial Complex, once and for all.
+ 1 min 16 video
https://twitter.com/shellenberger/status/1665009786033942531
===========================
Censorship Industrial Complex Exposed! Live in London.
Warning: The US government is targeting you.
It has moved from fighting ISIS recruiters and Russian bots to censoring and de-platforming ordinary Americans and public figures they don’t like.
Funded by billions of taxpayer dollars, the Censorship-Industrial Complex is using direct coercion along with the most sophisticated AI tools to manipulate people, label social media posts, and discredit factual information.
Just because they don’t agree with them.
The Complex is a network of government agencies, academic institutions, and NGOs that are censoring American citizens on a whole host of issues, all without their knowledge.
Everyone, no matter where they are on the political spectrum, must take notice and help end this assault on our right to free speech.
https://censorshipindustrialcomplex.org/
the telegraph – Exclusive: Ministers had ‘chilling’ secret unit to curb lockdown dissent
Critics of Covid restrictions targeted by counter-disinformation team at the heart of the Government
A secretive government unit worked with social media companies in an attempt to curtail discussion of controversial lockdown policies during the pandemic, The Telegraph can reveal.
The Counter-Disinformation Unit (CDU) was set up by ministers to tackle supposed domestic “threats”, and was used to target those critical of lockdown and questioning the mass vaccination of children.
Critics of lockdown had posts removed from social media. There is growing suspicion that social media firms used technology to stop the posts being promoted, circulated or widely shared after being flagged by the CDU or its counterpart in the Cabinet Office.
Documents revealed under Freedom of Information (FoI) and data protection requests showed that the activities of prominent critics of the Government’s Covid policies were secretly monitored.
An artificial intelligence firm (AI) was used by the Government to scour social media sites. The company flagged discussions opposing vaccine passports.
Many of the issues being raised were valid at the time and have since been proven to be well-founded.
The BBC also took part in secretive meetings of a government policy forum to address the so-called disinformation.
On Friday, MPs and freedom of speech campaigners condemned the disclosures as “truly chilling” and “a tool for censoring British citizens” akin to those of the Chinese Communist Party.
Much of the Government’s wider work on disinformation is shrouded in secrecy for “national security” reasons. Large parts of official documents are still redacted.
In America, Twitter has released similar information showing how the US government also introduced a secretive programme to curtail discussion of Covid lockdowns.
It can now be revealed that the activities of Prof Carl Heneghan, the Oxford epidemiologist who has advised Boris Johnson, and Dr Alexandre de Figueiredo, a research fellow at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM), were monitored by government disinformation units.
Molly Kingsley, who set up a campaign to keep schools open during the pandemic, also had her social activity monitored.
As well as the CDU, the Government operated a Rapid Response Unit (RRU) in the Cabinet Office that hunted online for content it considered disinformation.
The CDU, which is still operating, was embedded in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS).
The department has “trusted flagger” status at social media companies including Facebook and Twitter, which means that requests for content to be removed are fast-tracked for consideration.
In some cases, individuals whose social media posts were recorded by the units have subsequently faced sanctions by Twitter and Facebook. Ministers denied asking for posts by Prof Heneghan, Dr de Figueiredo or Ms Kingsley to be removed.
The Government has said that the CDU “is focused on helping the Government understand online disinformation narratives and understand attempts to artificially manipulate the information environment”.
The Government also ran a Counter-Disinformation Policy Forum, which brought together civil servants from the DCMS and technology giants – including Facebook and Google – as well as the BBC to discuss how to limit the spread of what was considered Covid-19 disinformation.
This forum and the two units were not the only way the Government tried to apply pressure on social media companies during the pandemic.
The Lockdown Files, published by The Telegraph earlier this year, revealed that Matt Hancock, the former health secretary, repeatedly lobbied Sir Nick Clegg, the former deputy prime minister and now a Facebook executive, about vaccine misinformation.
Facebook has been open about its efforts to tackle misinformation about Covid. During the pandemic, it removed posts and in April 2020 alone put warning labels on about 50 million pieces of content.
The CDU was established in 2019 and was focused on the European elections before turning to focus on the pandemic.
During Covid, the unit worked closely with the Cabinet Office’s now defunct RRU, whose responsibilities included tackling “purported ‘experts’ issuing dangerous misinformation”.
The RRU has admitted in an FoI obtained by Big Brother Watch and passed to The Telegraph that it made requests for social media posts to be taken down.
As part of its work, the Cabinet Office also passed the CDU “media monitoring” reports.
Documents revealed that the material flagged to the CDU included articles published by The Telegraph.
One of these was a piece by Ms Kingsley published in February 2022, arguing that it was “indefensible” that children’s lives were still not back to normal when the rest of society was. She urged ministers to make a clear statement that children’s extracurricular activities should not be subject to additional curbs.
One of Ms Kingsley’s tweets from December 2020, in which she said it would be “unforgivable to close schools”, was also passed to the CDU.
Sir Gavin Williamson, then the education secretary, closed schools days later. However, he has since admitted that the decision caused a major row with Mr Hancock and that he considered resigning.
When the dispute was exposed by The Telegraph’s Lockdown Files investigation, Sir Gavin said the closure “wasn’t done for the right reasons” and that he regretted agreeing to it.
The RRU also logged articles by Prof Heneghan published in The Telegraph and The Spectator.
One of these questioned the science behind the rule of six – later abandoned by Government – and discredited the data used by the Government to justify the second lockdown.
He had social media posts about face masks and the accuracy of coronavirus death data removed after the technology giants raised concerns about Covid disinformation.
The CDU has also commissioned reports from an external artificial intelligence firm, Logically, which uses AI to trawl the internet.
The company has been paid more than £1.2 million by the DCMS since January 2021 for work that included helping to “build a comprehensive picture of potentially harmful misinformation and disinformation”.
In one of the firm’s reports for the CDU, a post by Dr De Figueiredo, the LSHTM researcher who also works for the Vaccine Confidence Project, was flagged.
He wrote: “People who think we should be mass vaccinating children against Covid-19 poorly understand at least one of the following: (a) risk, especially absolute risk (b) ethics (c) natural immunity (d) vaccine confidence (e) long Covid.”
When Dr De Figueiredo made the comment, the Joint Committee on Vaccines and Immunisation had opted not to recommend mass vaccinations for children.
Nadhim Zahawi, the former minister for Covid vaccines deployment, said he believed the Government included Dr De Figuerido’s tweet because of “c–k-up rather than conspiracy”.
He added in an interview for The Telegraph’s forthcoming podcast, The Lockdown Files, that the CDU was there to combat “clearly completely wrong or false information”.
Miriam Cates, a Conservative MP, said: “Any attempt by governments to shut down legitimate debate is hugely concerning, but to discover that DCMS actively sought to censor the views of those who were speaking up for children’s welfare is truly chilling.
“It is becoming increasingly clear that many of the foundations of our democracy – such as free speech and parliamentary scrutiny – were completely disregarded during the pandemic.”
Silkie Carlo, director of Big Brother Watch, said: “The very concept of ‘wrong information’ dictated by a central authority is open to abuse and should be considered far more critically, lest we mirror Chinese-style censorship.
“Whilst everyone would expect the Government and tech giants to act against foreign hostile disinformation campaigns, we should be incredibly cautious about these powers being turned inwards to scan, suppress and censor the lawful speech of Brits for wrongthink, as is shockingly the case right now.”
A Whitehall source said the comparison with China was “just plain wrong”.
The source added: “On the contrary, the unit was set up to counter the threats disinformation poses to, among other things, UK national security, much of which is spread by hostile states.”
Jacob Rees-Mogg, the former Cabinet minister, called for the Covid inquiry to investigate government disinformation units.
“The inquiry clearly ought to investigate the oppressive methods used to override dissent,” he said.
“It is clear from Hancock’s messages that steps were taken to manipulate public opinion and now it appears underhand methods may have been employed to stop free speech.
“This is not what ought to happen in a free country.”
A government spokesman said: “The unit’s purpose is to track narratives and trends using publicly available information online to protect public health and national security.
“It has never tracked the activity of individuals and has a blanket ban on referring journalists and MPs to social media platforms.
“None of the people named in this report were ever referred to social media platforms by the Government and any claim otherwise is objectively false.
“The RRU, which closed in July 2022, tracked government policies and important issues – not individuals. It used publicly available information, including material shared on social media, to assess UK disinformation trends and narratives.”
A BBC spokesman said the broadcaster attended the Counter-Disinformation Policy Forum in an observer-only capacity.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/06/02/counter-disinformation-unit-government-covid-lockdown/
GBN – Curbing Covid dissent: Government used secret unit to curtail critics of lockdowns
---------------------------------------------.... censorship was the correct path
DEPOPULATION THROUGH FORCED VACCINATIONS ( 6 min ago )
We must really thank the UK'S Behavioural Insights Team and their team of online influencers for their part in moulding the behaviour of the british public throughout this plandemic, also not forgetting the british army's 77th brigade of the 6th (United Kingdom) Division, 13th Signal Rregiment, GCHQ, The Tavistock institute, The Tony Blair Institute for Global Change and SAGE psychologists as well as many others I've not mentioned, their tactics, tenacity and their overall ability to control the narrative by flagging and removing dangerous comments and misinformation online as well as creating fake scare stories to frighten the masses, is what is was helping them to achieve their overall agenda.
------------------------------------------------------------
Woke: A Culture War Against Europe | James Lindsay at the European Parliament
( 28 min )
On March 29, 2023, James Lindsay delivered a short address before a conference at the European Union Parliament in Brussels, Belgium.
This speech has been widely recognized as making the nature of the Neo-Marxist Cultural Revolution engulfing the West extremely clear, with a sharp warning to Europe not to follow in the footsteps of the Anglophone countries.
In the two months since, this speech has gone viral and received incredible praise and feedback for its clarity and ability to articulate the true nature of the so-called “culture war” or “Woke” phenomenon threatening the West.
Join him to understand what’s happening all around us and why we must take it seriously.
global news –Meta tests blocking news on Facebook, Instagram in Canada over Bill C-18
Meta is preparing to block news for some Canadians on Facebook and Instagram in a temporary test, a dry run of what could come to pass if the Canadian government passes its controversial Bill C-18.
The temporary test is expected to last the majority of the month, but the company is prepared to block news permanently, Meta said.
Bill C-18, which is currently being studied in the Senate, will require tech giants to pay publishers for linking to or otherwise repurposing their content.
Kyle Benning has more on the test and Meta’s plan to remove news in Canada, and the government’s response.
Elon Musk reveals former Twitter employee who colluded with DHS to censor James O’Keefe now works for Google
Department of Homeland Security official Brian Scully admitted to working alongside Twitter to censor the journalist during a deposition.
Journalist James O’Keefe of O’Keefe Media Group revealed on Saturday that Twitter censored his reporting at the direction of the Department of Homeland Security before Elon Musk took over the social media platform in 2022.
Elon Musk ultimately revealed that the responsible Twitter employee has since left the company.
O’Keefe uploaded a video to his Twitter account which revealed Department of Homeland Security official Brian Scully admitting to working alongside Twitter to censor the journalist during a deposition.
“More Twitter Files: Here is Brian Scully, DHS official being asked about the “debunking” teams at Counter Foreign Interference Task force, trying to stop the spread of O’KEEFE video journalism,” O’Keefe wrote. “In the deposition, Brian Scully confirms he was emailing TWITTER back and forth in efforts to debunk our videos.”
“Twitter responds, ‘Thank you so much, we’ve applied a label to the tweet,'” said O’Keefe.
The guerilla journalist, who was recently ousted from Project Veritas, released a series of documents that allegedly shows communications between DHS and Twitter discussing “debunking” O’Keefe’s reporting, although the emails are redacted in the document.
“This is the email between Scully, and apparently those at Twitter (their emails were redacted). Maybe @elonmusk can let me know who at Twitter was emailing DHS about journalists?” O’Keefe said, calling on Elon Musk to oust the employees.
According to the document, Scully and alleged officials with Twitter discussed “debunking,” otherwise known as slapping content with a “fact-check,” on O’Keefe’s reporting of USPS whistleblowers alleging fraudulent activity surrounding mail-in ballots during the 2020 presidential election.
“Hi Brian, have you seen // heard of any debunks of the Project Veritas USPS videos?” one email sent to Scully said.
Scully responded, “Which video? There appears to be more than one. I’m looking at USPS employee in NV, but have been told there’s also a “whistleblower” in MI.
“I just checked with our teams so you don’t have to spin your wheels. Doesn’t look like a debunk exists yet,” an alleged Twitter employee replied.
==============================
twitter @JamesOKeefeIII
https://twitter.com/JamesOKeefeIII/status/1664727433424121857
============================
more :
https://thepostmillennial.com/elon-musk-reveals-former-twitter-employee-who-colluded-with-dhs-to-censor-james-okeefe-now-works-for-google
europravda – Blinken: any future peace talks with Russia must be on Ukraine’s terms
Blinken has ruled out any immediate ceasefire, saying any future peace talks with Russia must be on Ukraine’s terms.
BBC – Russia’s invasion of Ukraine ‘strategic failure’, says US Secretary of State
Blinken also said the invasion had weakened Russia diplomatically, economically and militarily.
CBS News – Petraeus deems Russian winter offensive a failure
CNN – Hear why retired general believes Ukraine took drone use to a ‘new level’
DEUTSCHE PRAVDA – Is the Ukraine counteroffensive happening on Russian soil?
WSJ – The Complex M1 Abrams Tank Logistics Ukraine May Struggle With
WSJ – How Russia Is Preparing for Ukraine’s Counteroffensive
… satellite images and videos show how Moscow has been strengthening its defense lines.
Dispatch: Ukrainian soldiers get Nato-standard training at secret facility in Kharkiv
Ukrainian troops are being taught by Western ex-military instructors, including from Britain and the US.
They are being taught the same tactics used by elite units like the British SAS and the US Navy SEALs, who carried out the Bin Laden raid.
As well as storming buildings, they are also being taught how to set ambushes and conceal themselves from the enemy.
First-aid is a big part of the training, with soldiers learning how to use tourniquets to stop bleeding and save lives.
JUNE 02 2023 Kyiv Using ‘Ukrainian Storks’ For Reconnaissance Over Bakhmut
A Ukrainian reconnaissance unit flies a domestically developed Leleka drone over the city of Bakhmut.
The Leleka, which means stork in English, tracks enemy movements in the area.
Russia claims its forces have taken full control of Bakhmut, but Ukraine insists it still holds a part of the city.
Ukrainian Air Force holds large-scale military helicopter drills ahead of counteroffensive
Scott Ritter – The Main Offensive Goal of Putin.
The Biden admin is clearly insane as they are ignoring reality. Just exactly how is the US proxy Ukraine which is losing going to dictate terms to Russia ?
Scott Ritter – Is the Biden Team Delusional about Ukraine War?
========================
https://www.youtube.com/@WindowtoMoscow/videos
==============================
https://www.youtube.com/@insef
======================
https://www.youtube.com/c/TravellingwithRussell/videos
============================
redacted – Scott Ritter: NATO’s war on Russia has failed
Former U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter joins Redacted to talk about his month long trip to Russia and what he saw in the stores, streets, and among the people.
What he saw is frankly SHOCKING.
Moscow was hit with another round of drone strikes by NATO and Ukrainian forces. Russia just struck Ukraine’s intelligence headquarters destroying it.
JUNE 03 2023 – WSJ – Ukraine’s Zelensky: We Are Ready for Counteroffensive
Ukrainian president also discusses U.S. elections, NATO and China in wide-ranging interview
As the world waits for Ukraine’s counteroffensive against Russia, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky sat down with Wall Street Journal editor in chief Emma Tucker in Odesa to talk about the need to cement Ukraine’s long-term security as the country faces an uncertain future
ODESA, Ukraine—Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said he was now ready to launch a long-awaited counteroffensive but tempered a forecast of success with a warning: It could take some time and come at a heavy cost.
“We strongly believe that we will succeed,” Zelensky said in an interview in this southern port city as his country’s military girded for what could be one of the war’s most consequential phases as it aims to retake territory occupied by Russia.
“I don’t know how long it will take,” he told The Wall Street Journal. “To be honest, it can go a variety of ways, completely different. But we are going to do it, and we are ready.”
In a wide-ranging, hourlong discussion, Zelensky, 45 years old, said he feared U.S. elections next year could bring a less-supportive administration to power and called on the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to offer a clear path to membership for Kyiv.
He also urged China to try to restrain Russia and said Ukraine urgently needed more U.S.-made Patriot missile-defense systems to protect citizens from aerial bombardments and to shield front-line troops.
Zelensky acknowledged Russian air superiority on the front lines and said a lack of protection from Russian air power means “a large number of soldiers will die” in the counteroffensive.
Ukraine would have liked to have more Western-supplied weapons for the coming campaign, he said. Still, Ukraine is ready to move. “We would like to have certain things, but we can’t wait for months,” he said.
Zelensky said Ukraine’s ground forces were “stronger and more motivated” than the dug-in Russian troops trying to hold on to the roughly 20% of Ukraine they control in the country’s east and south.
The counteroffensive is a pivotal moment for Zelensky, a former actor and comedian whose leadership during the war has propelled him to global prominence. The outcome will shape the contours of Western military backing and diplomatic jockeying over Ukraine’s future.
Ukraine’s backers have provided billions in military and financial support that has been essential to Kyiv’s war effort, and calls for Zelensky to seek a peace deal could grow if the counteroffensive fails to deliver a significant breakthrough.
Zelensky veered from expressions of gratitude to Western supporters for weapons deliveries to words of frustration over their reluctance to give Ukraine greater quantities of powerful arms to fend off the Russians.
His statements reflected the balance he must find between pressing to get what he needs to retain Ukraine’s independence and domestic political support while not pushing allies too far and eroding their backing.
Zelensky said he was aware that Western leaders sometimes take offense at his harsh tone, but couldn’t understand why, in his view, they were drip-feeding more-advanced arms that they know would protect lives and help Ukraine win.
If Ukraine isn’t able to withstand Russia, Zelensky said, “that animal, that beast will develop a taste” for conquest and go further.
“Let’s not compare who should be grateful to whom,” he said.
Zelensky spoke at a government residence after a day visiting wounded soldiers, meeting military commanders and visiting the port to discuss how to increase exports. Wearing a black T-shirt emblazoned with his country’s name, he looked a touch weary, but perked up when asked how he keeps his spirits up.
“There is no place for weakness,” he said.
The West has helped train and equip tens of thousands of soldiers to try to strengthen Kyiv’s hand for the counteroffensive.
Ukraine repelled a Russian assault on its capital in February last year and took back swaths of territory in the northeast and south in two earlier counteroffensives in 2022.
In recent weeks, Ukraine has stepped up long-range attacks with missiles and drones aimed at crippling Russian supply lines ahead of the campaign. Ukraine-backed Russian volunteers have staged cross-border raids aimed at forcing Russia to shift troops away from front lines inside Ukraine.
Western officials said they thought Ukraine’s counterattack was imminent, and that Kyiv was waiting for the ground to dry out.
Russian offensive efforts this year have yielded tiny gains, including the capture of the small eastern city of Bakhmut, but cost thousands of lives and strained Russia’s military.
Ukraine’s Western backers recognize that Kyiv’s own offensive won’t end the war, but want it to demonstrate to Russian President Vladimir Putin the futility of his strategy of digging in and waiting for support for Ukraine to erode, a Western official said.
The Biden administration has committed more than $37 billion in security assistance to Ukraine since the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion and pledged further military aid. European allies have followed.
But former President Donald Trump, the leading Republican contender for the 2024 presidential election, declined last month to say he would back Ukraine, saying instead that he would seek to bring a swift end to the war, without saying how.
Zelensky said he was concerned that any change in administration could affect aid.
“In a situation like this, when there is support, you are afraid of changes,” he said. “And to be honest, when you mention a change of administration, I feel the same way as any other person—you want changes for the better, but it can also be the other way around.”
Zelensky said he couldn’t understand Trump’s claim he could end the war in 24 hours, as Trump hadn’t done so while in office, when Russia was already occupying Crimea and parts of eastern Ukraine.
Biden has an emotional attachment to Ukraine that has underpinned his administration’s support for the country, Zelensky said. Trump’s presidency came before the full-scale invasion, and “I’m not sure how Trump would have acted,” he said.
Still, Ukraine’s president said he was encouraged by bipartisan support in the U.S. and the backing of ordinary citizens, and hoped that both parties and Congress would continue to support Ukraine and pressure any new administration to keep up flows of assistance.
A more immediate concern for Zelensky is to secure a clear path to NATO membership at a summit in Vilnius, Lithuania, in July.
NATO said in 2008 that Ukraine would become a member, but gave no timeline. Ukraine applied for membership last year, but the U.S., the alliance’s unofficial leader, largely has sidestepped discussions of how or when Ukraine might join NATO, instead focusing on boosting Kyiv’s security and military strength.
Zelensky said some in NATO were unwilling to admit Ukraine owing to fear of Russia. But pressure is growing on the alliance to offer concrete security guarantees and a path to membership.
Zelensky said he didn’t expect Ukraine to join NATO while fighting continued, but wanted a pledge that it would be admitted after the war.
“If we are not given a signal in Vilnius, I believe there is no point for Ukraine to be at this summit,” he said. Asked whether he thought he would get such a signal, he replied: “I don’t know. I honestly don’t know.”
Zelensky said he was grateful to Western countries for supplying weapons systems, but that deliveries should be faster and in greater numbers as delays were costing lives.
In particular, he said, Ukraine needs more Patriot missile batteries—which consist of several launchers, a powerful radar, a control station and other support equipment—to protect its cities and front-line troops.
Ukraine now has at least two Patriot batteries, but Zelensky said he would like as many as 50, as it is the only system capable of intercepting some of the advanced missiles fired from Russia.
Zelensky’s administration has sought to isolate Russia by working to win support from countries including China, India and Brazil that maintain friendly relations with Russia.
He is trying to convene a summit around his 10-point peace plan, which calls for Russian troops to withdraw from Ukrainian territory.
“Putin has to know that people won’t shake his hand, that he no longer sits at the table with serious countries, that Russia is not part of international organizations,” he said.
China, which hasn’t condemned Russia’s invasion and has blamed the U.S. and its allies for the war, has sought to insert itself in diplomacy aimed at peace. Ukraine has said it is prepared to listen to China’s views but won’t agree to any proposal that would involve ceding territory.
Zelensky has said he urged Chinese President Xi Jinping in an April phone call not to supply Russia with weapons or other technologies, and Xi reassured him that China wasn’t providing arms to Russia.
China is bigger and more powerful than Russia and could play an important role in bringing peace, Zelensky said.
“I would not want such a country to stand by and watch people die,” he said. “If you are big, this is what national greatness means. This is not a painting or a museum; it is a real, bloody war.”
https://archive.ph/tbt0V#selection-733.0-749.195
=========================
redacted – “They were all killed instantly!” – Donetsk under continued devastating attack
NATO continues to strike residential centers inside of pre-war Russia.
This morning Ukraine and NATO attacked Moscow using UAP’s.
In response Putin launched a devastating strike at NATO decision making centers inside of Ukraine.
Patrick Lancaster joins us with the latest attacks on residential neighborhoods in Donetsk.
QUINCY INSTITUTE – Defense Contractor Funded Think Tanks Dominate Ukraine Debate
Executive Summary
Think tanks in the United States are a go–to resource for media outlets seeking expert opinions on pressing public policy issues. But think tanks often have entrenched stances; a growing body of research has shown that their funders can influence their analysis and commentary. This influence can include censorship — both self-censorship and more direct censoring of work unfavorable to a funder — and outright pay–for–research agreements with funders. The result is an environment where the interests of the most generous funders can dominate think tank policy debates.
One such debate concerns the appropriate level of U.S. military involvement in the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Since Vladimir Putin’s illegal and disastrous decision to launch a full–scale invasion of Ukraine, the United States has approved approximately $48.7 billion in military spending. Despite the very real risk that escalations could lead to direct U.S. military involvement in the war, few think tanks have critically scrutinized this record setting amount of U.S. military assistance.
Within the context of public debate about U.S. military involvement in the Ukraine war, this brief investigates Department of Defense (DoD) and DoD contractor funding of think tanks, those organizations advocacy efforts for policies that would benefit those funders, and the media’s predominant reliance on think tanks funded by the defense sector. The analysis finds that the vast majority of media mentions of think tanks in articles about U.S. arms and the Ukraine war are from think tanks whose funders profit from U.S. military spending, arms sales and, in many cases, directly from U.S. involvement in the Ukraine war. These think tanks also regularly offer support for public policy solutions that would financially benefit their funders without disclosing these apparent conflicts of interest. While this brief did not seek to establish a direct causality between think–tank policy recommendations and their arms industry funding in the case of the Ukraine war, we find a clear correlation between the two. We also found that media outlets disproportionately rely on commentary from defense sector funded think tanks.
The vast majority of media mentions of think tanks in articles about U.S. arms and the Ukraine war are from think tanks whose funders profit from U.S. military spending, arms sales and, in many cases, directly from U.S. involvement in the Ukraine war.
The analysis offers a number of key findings.
First, of the 27 think tanks whose donors could be identified, 21 received funding from the defense sector (77 percent). Unfortunately, because donor disclosure is voluntary, we cannot determine the percentage of think tank funding that is derived from defense contractors.
Second, in articles related to U.S. military involvement in Ukraine media outlets have cited think tanks with financial backing from the defense industry 85 percent of the time, or seven times as often as think tanks that do not accept funding from Pentagon contractors.
Third, despite a general trend towards greater donor transparency at think tanks, nearly a third of the top U.S. foreign policy think tanks still do not provide the public with information about their funders.
Fourth, media outlets rarely identify conflicts of interest posed by experts they cite from defense industry funded think tanks in cases where they offer their opinions on policies that would benefit the defense industry.
These findings lead to several policy recommendations:
– Think tanks are not required to publicly disclose their donors and many choose not to, hiding their potential conflicts of interest from the public and policymakers. Congress should end the era of “dark money” think tanks by enacting legislation that requires think tanks to publicly disclose any funding they receive from the United States or foreign government agencies or firms that work for them.
– Think tanks should also adopt a professional standard of disclosing, within the publications themselves, any funding the think tank receives from entities that have a financial interest in the subject matter of the publication.
– Media outlets should, similarly, adopt a professional standard to report any conflicts of interest with sources discussing U.S. foreign policy. By not providing this information media outlets are deceiving their readers, listeners, or viewers. This information provides important context for evaluating expert commentary and is, arguably, as important as the commentary itself.
Introduction
Few Americans know what a think tank is or does, although they play a pivotal role in the U.S. political process. Think tanks operate as something of a conduit between academia and the policymaking community, conducting research and opining on pressing policy issues, including everything from healthcare to climate change to U.S. foreign policy. Think tanks also work directly with policymakers in the executive branch and Congress. Their experts regularly testify before Congress and go on to serve in key positions in the executive branch. Former government officials in turn often go on to work for think tanks, earning them the nickname of “holding tank” where former government officials await a change in party affiliation of Congress or the Presidency.
Of most direct relevance to this brief is the fact that think tanks are a go–to source for media outlets seeking opinions on pressing policy issues. Think tank experts provide the comments and articles you read in prominent national media outlets . They’re the voices you hear providing commentary on NPR, podcasts, and even local radio stations. They’re the faces you see on CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC opining on the most pressing U.S. policy issues of the day. In short, think tanks are a key component of public debates about U.S. politics and policy.
But think tanks are often biased. Many now take stances that are decidedly ideological, even partisan, which are sometimes explicitly spelled out in their mission statements. Think tanks also rely on a powerful force that has the potential to influence their work: funding. The nation’s top think tanks raise tens of millions of dollars in revenue every year — the Brookings Institution, for example, which has regularly been cited as the top think tank in the world,4 had operating revenues of more than $94 million last year. These are enormous budgets for non–profit organizations, 97 percent of which have budgets below $5 million, according to the National Council of Nonprofits.
To fill these enormous coffers, think tanks rely on financial support from individuals, foundations, universities, philanthropic organizations, corporations and governments — both foreign and domestic. Some of this funding can create conflicts of interest, wherein think tanks are funded by those with a financial stake in the policies they are discussing. A growing field of research has documented how funding impacts the work of think tanks.
Perhaps the most well known investigations of think tank funding were a pair of New York Times exposés headlined “Foreign Powers Buy Influence at Think Tanks,” and “How Think Tanks Amplify Corporate America’s Influence.” The former documents the prevalence of foreign government donations to think tanks and showed how, at some think tanks, that funding appeared to bias the think tanks work in favor of those foreign funders. Similarly, the latter New York Times article exposed several instances where think tanks funded by the defense industry conducted research, and other activities that some might consider lobbying, to promote the interests of their funders. For example, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), conducted work that “culminated with a report released in February 2014 that reflected the defense industry’s priorities,” according to the Times, and CSIS staff “initiated meetings with Defense Department officials and congressional staff to push for the recommendations.” At another think tank, The Hudson Institute, a defense contractor who funded a research project there was “given regular briefings on the research and the opportunity to suggest revisions to early drafts,” according to the Times.
These articles, at least in part, helped to spark a growing field of research that seeks to investigate funder influence at think tanks. The consensus of this research is that, as one academic analysis explained, “Think tanks are vulnerable to conflicts of interest due to their sources of funding, face pressures to market research in a partisan and results–oriented — rather than enlightened debate toward social welfare — fashion, and focus on gaining public and political attention through media visibility.”
Some think tank funding research has focused explicitly on the impact that funding from the U.S. defense industry has on think tanks. A report I authored for the Center for International Policy identified more than $1 billion in funding from the U.S. government and defense contractors going to the top think tanks in the United States. A report by The Revolving Door Project investigated one of these think tanks, the Center for a New American Security (CNAS), and found “CNAS has made multiple policy recommendations that would directly benefit some of the think tank’s donors, including military contractors and foreign governments.”
Another study, authored by Kjolv Egeland and Benoît Pelopidas of the Center for International Studies in Paris, identified rampant conflicts of interest in nuclear weapons policy analysis. The study authors interviewed grant managers and former and current employees at think tanks funded by the nuclear weapons industry, who offered candid explanations of how funding biased these organizations’ work. One former think tank analyst went so far as to say “what we were producing was not research, it was a kind of propaganda.”
The Egeland and Pelopidas study also demonstrated the mechanisms through which funding influences think tank work, namely: outright censorship, self–censorship, and perspective filtering. While outright censorship — akin to the editing of reports by funders in the New York Times expose — was relatively rare, nearly all of the think tank analysts interviewed by Egeland and Pelopidas reported engaging in self–censorship to avoid alienating funders. Perspective filtering then effectively serves to filter out the perspectives of experts who disagree with the biggest funders. As the authors explain, it is, “the systematic platforming or elevation of certain ways of viewing the world over others. Indeed, the most generous funders exercise 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.”
“Censorship becomes largely unnecessary when you only hire people who agree with the views of the censor…This helps to produce an artificial consensus: experts all seem to agree with one another only because most dissenting experts are excluded from the conversation,” explained Brett Heinz, co-author of the Revolving Door Project’s report on CNAS’s ties to the military industrial complex.
While think tank experts might have myriad reasons for supporting increased U.S. military spending, some have an additional incentive: their employer is funded by military contractors profiting from the war.
This study aims to build upon these prior research efforts by analyzing think tank funding within the context of the debate about U.S. responses to the war in Ukraine. Russia’s illegal and disastrous invasion of Ukraine has dominated foreign policy debates for over a year and many think tanks have been some of the loudest champions for increasing U.S. military spending.
While think tank experts might have myriad reasons for supporting increased U.S. military spending — not the least of which is protecting the Ukrainian people — some have an additional incentive: their employer is funded by military contractors profiting from the war. This offers an incentive for them to advocate for policies that benefit these firms. Through the mechanisms of donor censorship, self–censorship and perspective filtering identified in previous studies, the expectation here is that think tanks funded by the defense industry will be more likely to advocate for U.S. military solutions to the Ukraine war.
To analyze the impact of defense industry funding on the public debate about arming Ukraine, the remainder of this brief proceeds in four parts. The first section provides information on defense industry funding of the top rated U.S. foreign policy think tanks.
The following section analyzes these think tanks published articles and reports related to the war in Ukraine. The results of this analysis show that think tanks funded by the defense sector are much more likely to recommend policies that would be of financial benefit to the arms industry than are think tanks not funded by the defense industry.
The third section presents the results of an analysis of think tank media mentions related to U.S. military responses to the war in Ukraine. These results show that think tanks with more defense industry funding have an outsized presence in media related to arming Ukraine. This section also examines the content of these media mentions, with a specific focus on the top five most–mentioned think tanks. And, again, finds evidence that defense industry funded think tanks publicly advocate for policies that would benefit the defense industry.
The fourth section addresses a troubling lack of transparency on the part of many think tanks, which do not disclose their funders. Additionally, this section addresses the trend of media outlets citing scholars from think tanks — who do publicly disclose their defense industry funding — without disclosing this potential conflict of interest when those scholars offer support for policies that would benefit the defense industry. Finally, the brief concludes with recommendations that would improve transparency and trust in the think tank sector.
DoD and DoD contractor funding of the top foreign policy think tanks in the United States
This section provides an overview of defense industry funding of the top think tanks in the United States, offering a brief discussion of the prevalence of arms–maker money at some of the nation’s leading think tanks. Previous research has shown that think tanks are awash in funding from the arms industry. An academic study focused on nuclear arms found that, of the world’s top 40 foreign policy think tanks, 58 percent received funding “from companies involved in the production or maintenance of nuclear–weapon systems.” The percentage was even higher at the most venerated think tanks, with eight of the top 10 think tanks in the world all reporting funding from nuclear–weapons makers or maintainers.
Eight of the top 10 think tanks in the world all report funding from nuclear–weapons makers or maintainers.
A 2020 Center for International Policy report, “U.S. Government and Defense Contractor Funding of America’s Top 50 Think Tanks,” which I authored, found that 84 percent of the top U.S. think tanks accepted funding from defense contractors. The report also found widely divergent levels of donor transparency at the top think tanks in the United States, with 12 of the top 50 not disclosing any donor information. As discussed below, some think tanks still refuse to disclose their donors, or only disclose very limited donor information. To build upon these previous analyses, this brief provides an updated accounting of defense contractor funding of the top foreign policy think tanks in the U.S.19 Those think tanks are shown in Table 1 below.
To obtain information about the financial ties of these institutions to Pentagon contractors we took a three pronged approach. First, we sought out all publicly available information think tanks voluntarily provide about their funders. This information typically came from think tanks’ annual reports and disclosures on their websites.
Second, given that think tanks are not required to publicly disclose any of their funders and many think tanks choose not to do so, we then sought out third–party sources of information about these think tanks’ funding sources. This primarily consisted of credible investigative journalists reporting about these think tanks previously undisclosed funding sources. Finally, when neither of these methods yielded information about a think tanks’ funding, the information was requested via email. In several cases — that are discussed in greater detail in the “Troubling Think Tank Transparency” section below — think tanks still opted to keep their funding sources secret.
For the 27 think tanks that we were able to obtain donor information from, we then evaluated whether any of their funding came from DoD contractors or the DoD itself. Table 1 provides a list of these top foreign policy think tanks and indicates whether they received defense sector funding.
Table 1: Top ranked U.S. foreign policy think tanks and defense contractor funding24
Think Tank Ranking Think Tank Name Defense Contractor Funding?
1 Brookings Institution Yes
2 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace Yes
3 Center for Strategic and International Studies Yes
4 Wilson Center (Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars) Yes
5 RAND Corporation Yes
6 Atlantic Council Yes
7 Council on Foreign Relations Yes
8 Center for American Progress Yes
9 Center for a New American Security Yes
10 Hudson Institute Yes
11 Heritage Foundation No
12 Cato Institute No
13 Hoover Institution Not Disclosed
14 Human Rights Watch No
15 Foreign Policy Research Institute Yes
16 Chicago Council on Global Affairs Yes
17 Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments Yes
18 Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies Not Disclosed
19 Asia Society Policy Institute Yes
20 United States Institute of Peace No
21 American Enterprise Institute Yes
22 Belfer Center for Science and International Relations Not Disclosed
23 Inter-American Dialogue Yes
24 Stimson Center Yes
25 Pacific Council on International Policy Yes
26 Middle East Institute Yes
27 Center for Transatlantic Relations Not Disclosed
28 Newlines Institute for Strategy and Policy No
29 Institute for Science and International Security Yes
30 German Marshall Fund of the United States Yes
31 Independent Institute No
32 Global Security Institute Not Disclosed
33 International Peace Institute Not Disclosed
As Table 1 indicates, the vast majority of the top foreign policy think tanks in the United States are funded by the Pentagon or its contractors. Of the 27 think tanks where donor information was obtained, more than two-thirds (78 percent) received funding from the Pentagon or a Pentagon contractor. Among the top ten ranked foreign policy think tanks in the United States, this figure jumps to 100 percent.
Of the 27 think tanks where donor information was obtained, more than two-thirds received funding from the Pentagon or a Pentagon contractor.
The extent of funding each of these top foreign policy think tanks receives from the defense industry varies considerably. Unfortunately, the precise amount of defense industry funding most think tanks receive cannot be determined, as think tanks are not required to disclose their funders and, even amongst those that do, many think tanks list donors without indicating the amount of donations and others just list donors in ranges (e.g., $250,000 to $499,999). We can, however, arrive at a conservative estimate of defense industry funding for some think tanks by taking the lower end of the ranges each defense contractor is listed in.
Using this imperfect and conservative measure, it becomes clear that many of the top rated foreign policy think tanks are awash in defense industry dollars.For example, the Center for Strategic and International Studies, the Atlantic Council, and the Center for a New American Security all receive more than a million dollars annually from the defense sector. As discussed below, the extent of reliance on defense industry funding appears to be correlated with these think tanks’ support for policies that would benefit the defense industry.
The RAND Corporation works directly for U.S. national security agencies — including the Army, Air Force, Department of Homeland Security, and other defense organizations — which provide more than half of the think tanks revenue. However, because of these close ties with national security agencies, RAND has adopted a policy to “not accept funds (i.e., project sponsorship or philanthropic support) from firms or segments of firms whose primary business is that of supplying equipment, materiel, or services to the U.S. Department of Defense.”
Defense industry funded think tanks offer support for U.S. military responses to the war in Ukraine
While the vast majority of the top foreign policy think tanks in the United States receive defense contractor funding, this may have little or no impact on these think tanks’ work. After all, many think tanks publicly proclaim that they maintain strict standards of intellectual independence that insulates their scholars from donor influence . On the other hand, previous research on think tank funding has repeatedly found that funders are able to influence think tank work through the mechanisms of censorship, self–censorship, and perspective filtering mentioned above. This section seeks to investigate this phenomenon in the context of the debate about increasing U.S. military spending as a result of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. In short, this analysis analyzing the content of the top ten think tanks (listed in Table 1) finds a pattern of Pentagon and Pentagon contractor funded think tanks offering greater support for U.S. military responses to the Ukraine war than think tanks without this military industry funding.
Content analysis of think tank publications
To investigate think tanks’ public support for increasing U.S. military spending as a result of the war in Ukraine this section presents the results of an analysis of the top ranked foreign policy think tanks’ 10 most recent publications related to the Ukraine war, prior to the one–year anniversary of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2023.
Think tanks with financial ties to the arms industry often support policies that would benefit the arms industry.
The results of this analysis demonstrate that think tanks with financial ties to the arms industry often support policies that would benefit the arms industry. Some of the articles from think tanks with defense industry funding were even similarly titled, like a CSIS article, “Aid to Ukraine: Much More than Tanks,” and an Atlantic Council article, “Tanks are vital but Ukraine will need much more to defeat Putin’s Russia.” AEI also published multiple articles supportive of further escalations in U.S. military weaponry provided to Ukraine. One piece, for example, argued that Ukraine receiving Western tanks may “presage the need for other advanced capabilities, whether longer–range missiles or fourth-generation fighter aircraft, in the months ahead.” Another AEI publication argued that Ukraine’s greatest vulnerability “pertains to the amount of assistance” it receives from the United States.
Other think tanks that received funding from the defense industry made similar arguments. The Brookings Institution, for example, published articles entitled “Arming Ukraine without crossing red lines” and the “The Long War in Ukraine,” which argue that the United States can send tanks and other vehicles, missiles, and even aircraft without violating any red lines and raising the costs of escalation.
A Wilson Center article, “Four Reasons Why Supporting Ukraine is a Good Investment” takes this argument a step further and contends that military aid is critical not just to help Ukrainians, but to avoid global war, improve the U.S. image abroad, showcase the superiority of American security, and even protect LGBT rights.
A report by the RAND Corporation, “How the Ukraine War Accelerates Defense Strategy” takes this seemingly new version of Ronald Reagan’s famous “Peace through strength” argument a step further and says that fighting Russia through Ukraine improves America’s position against China as well. At a more functional level, a Council on Foreign Relation’s article, “The West is Sending Light Tanks to Ukraine. Will They Make a Difference?” argues that sending light tanks and other armored vehicles to Ukraine could make a difference at all levels of warfare: operational, tactical, and strategic. The Center for a New American Security article, “The Surprising Success of U.S. Military Aid to Ukraine” argues that a number of U.S. supplied weapons, including “howitzers, High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems (HIMARS), anti–ship missiles, air–defense capabilities, and infantry fighting vehicles and tanks,” were all vital for Ukrainian success on the battlefield.
Much of the Hudson Institute’s publications related to Ukraine similarly called for U.S. military responses to the conflict. For example in “Ukraine Should Take Crimea from Russia” a Hudson institute scholar declares that to retake Crimea, “All Kyiv needs is Western weapons and munitions. For the sake of stability — within and outside the region — let’s give Ukraine the tools it needs to get the job done now.”
In “NATO’s New Opportunity: US Commitments in Europe after Russia’s War in Ukraine,” a Hudson scholar argues the U.S. should continue isolating Russia after the war is over and even “encourage Russia’s defense customers to consider new, more reliable suppliers for their militaries.”
Some of the articles published by these think tanks, particularly the Atlantic Council, were dismissive of diplomatic solutions to the conflict, arguing for a “rejection of any compromise with the Kremlin,” for example. Another Atlantic Council article called for a marked increase in hostilities in the war, arguing that “Ukraine has the right of proportionate retaliation. This begins with a right to destroy critical infrastructure in Russia and plunge Moscow and other cities into darkness.”
On the other hand, think tanks that received little or no funding from the arms industry published articles that had little resemblance to their defense industry funded peers. Much of the work of The Carnegie Endowment, which receives minimal defense industry funding compared to other top think tanks, focused on comparative politics and Russia’s domestic institutions. Many of these pieces were expository rather than prescriptive. The few prescriptive pieces advocated for passing existing security obligations to Europe, thereby reducing U.S. military involvement. The expository pieces covered the interplay between domestic institutions in Russia — political, economic, and religious. Interestingly, there were multiple pieces on how Russia’s own invasion has increased rent–seeking from well–connected players, including low–level politicians, oil companies, and private mercenary groups. There were also multiple pieces that focused on the conflicts between Church and State in both Ukraine and Russia. The remaining pieces focused less on the United States and more on in–depth analysis of the relations between Russia and other relevant parties, such as Ukraine, Serbia, and the former Soviet states.
Think tanks that received little or no funding from the arms industry published articles that had little resemblance to their defense industry funded peers.
The Center for American Progress — whose only defense industry funder is the tech-giant Microsoft, which also receives hundreds of millions of dollars in DoD contracts every year — was also much more measured in its work on the Ukraine conflict. For example, the article “Why the United States Must Stay the Course on Ukraine” supported U.S. efforts in Ukraine, but did not support any particular kind of security assistance or defense product. It also mentioned the need for greater defense spending and leadership from the European Union in the long run as opposed to a purely U.S.–led effort.
The Heritage Foundation has, historically, accepted defense contractor funding. In fact, a prior think tank funding report found that Heritage was one of the top think tank recipients of defense industry funding from 2014–18. But a Heritage Foundation spokesperson explained via e–mail that the organization has now severed ties with the defense sector. According to Rob Bluey, Vice President of Communications for the Heritage Foundation, “This year, Heritage made the decision to refuse funding from the defense industry, which protects our ability to provide independent analysis without even the perception of influence on the part of any defense contractor.” The organization’s publications appear to reflect some of this independence. For example, the Heritage’s President has even publicly proclaimed a readiness to confront “well–connected defense contractors… in order to keep the nation both solvent and secure.”
The publications by Human Rights Watch — another think tank that does not accept funding from the U.S. military or its contractors — primarily documented war crimes by Russia with a special focus on the role that particular kinds of weapons can play in exacerbating said crimes. The two pieces that focused exclusively on weapons, highlighted the use of landmines and cluster munitions as weapons that disproportionately kill civilians. The remaining pieces reported on different war crimes by Russia, including kidnapping, torture, and attacks on energy grids, hospitals, and cultural sites. The one piece that highlighted a response to the war crimes mentioned using multilateral organizations to pursue further investigations and use accountability mechanisms to inform the rest of the world.
Publications from think tanks with little or no funding from the Pentagon or Pentagon contractors typically stood in stark contrast to those funded by the defense industry in their emphasis on expository rather than prescriptive analysis, support for diplomatic solutions, and a focus on the impact of the war on different parts of society and the region.
In sum, publications from think tanks with little or no funding from the Pentagon or Pentagon contractors typically stood in stark contrast to those funded by the defense industry in their emphasis on expository rather than prescriptive analysis, support for diplomatic solutions, and a focus on the impact of the war on different parts of society and the region.
These findings do not demonstrate funding is leading any individual scholar to adopt positions they might not otherwise have taken. The challenges of demonstrating any causal relationship in that regard are well beyond the scope of this analysis. The findings here show a correlation between funding and publications by think tank scholars, but do not necessarily establish causality.
However, if previous research on the impact of funding on think tank analyses is any indication, defense industry funding could be influencing think tank work through a combination of donor censorship, self–censorship, and perspective filtering, wherein scholars that are critical of defense industry donors are simply filtered out of top foreign policy think tanks.
Media mentions of the top U.S. foreign policy think tanks related to the Ukraine war
Media outlets rely upon an immense variety of sources, including current and former government officials, academics, industry experts, and many others. It is beyond the scope and objectives of this analysis to do a full accounting of all sources used by media outlets. The focus here is on one aspect of this wider universe of sources used in media — i.e., think tanks. Specifically, we ask the following questions: Are military contractor funded think tanks dominating the debate about appropriate U.S. military responses to the Ukraine war? And, is the media further magnifying their already dominant presence in the overall think tank space?
To answer these questions we analyzed mentions of the think tanks listed in Table 1 in the The New York Times, Washington Post, and Wall Street Journal. To account for the fact that most of these think tanks do much more than foreign policy research — and are quoted quite liberally for it — we used Factiva to search each of these three media outlets from March 1, 2022 to January 31, 2023 for mentions of each of these think tanks alongside other keywords to focus just on media related to military responses to the war in Ukraine.
Table 2: Think Tank Media Mentions Related to U.S. Military Support for Ukraine (ranked by media mentions)
Think Tank Total Media Mentions Defense Contractor Funding?
Center for Strategic and International Studies 157 Yes
Atlantic Council 157 Yes
Human Rights Watch 118 No
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace 109 Yes
American Enterprise Institute 101 Yes
Council on Foreign Relations 88 Yes
German Marshall Fund of the United States 79 Yes
Brookings Institution 66 Yes
Foreign Policy Research Institute 58 Yes
RAND Corporation 53 Yes
Center for a New American Security 47 Yes
Chicago Council on Global Affairs 34 Yes
Stimson Center 31 Yes
Middle East Institute 23 Yes
Hudson Institute 19 Yes
Hoover Institution 17 Not Disclosed
Heritage Foundation 14 No
Wilson Center (Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars) 13 Yes
Belfer Center for Science and International Relations 11 Not Disclosed
Institute for Science and International Security 9 Yes
Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies 8 Not Disclosed
Asia Society Policy Institute 8 Yes
Center for American Progress 7 Yes
Cato Institute 5 No
Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments 5 Yes
Newlines Institute for Strategy and Policy 5 No
United States Institute of Peace 3 No
Independent Institute 2 No
Inter-American Dialogue 0 Yes
Pacific Council on International Policy 0 Yes
Center for Transatlantic Relations 0 Not Disclosed
Global Security Institute 0 Not Disclosed
International Peace Institute 0 Not Disclosed
Table 2 provides the results of this analysis and shows that the vast majority of media mentions of think tanks in articles about the Ukraine war are from think tanks whose funders profit from U.S. military spending, arms sales, and, in many cases, directly from U.S. involvement in the Ukraine war. Of the 1,247 think tank media mentions that we tracked related to U.S. arms and the war in Ukraine, 1,064 (85 percent) were from think tanks that receive funding from the defense industry, and just 147 (12 percent) were from think tanks that do not receive defense industry support.64 In other words, when citing think tanks, these media outlets were more than seven times as likely to cite a think tank with defense sector support as they were to cite a think tank without it.
Media outlets were more than seven times as likely to cite a think tank with defense sector support as they were to cite a think tank without it.
Human Rights Watch is one of the few top think tanks in the United States that does not accept financial support from defense contractors; that is by design, because the organization’s rules prohibit taking money from industries or individuals that they work on. “This is central to our reputation,” as an organization that regularly exposes the harm caused by weapons in war, explained Arvind Ganesan, the Director of HRW’s Economic Justice and Rights Division in an interview. Ganesan explained that HRW has policies and systems in place to avoid conflicts of interest and that the organization, “tries to be as diligent about how we raise our money, as we are about how we do our work.”
As is discussed below, the content of media mentions of Human Rights Watch reflected this lack of arms–maker funding and was, instead, critical of human right abuses committed in the war, including those committed with U.S. made arms. Human Rights Watch was, however, an anomaly being the only top 15 most mentioned think tank that does not accept defense contractor funding.
The remainder of Table 2 is dominated by think tanks with substantial defense sector funding. The Atlantic Council and the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) tied for most media mentions at 157. Both think tanks are transparent about their funding, providing detailed publicly available lists of their donors, and both are heavily funded by the arms industry. CSIS’s most recent publicly available information shows the think tank received at least $2.2 million from Pentagon contractors last year.65 Similarly, the Atlantic Council reported receiving at least $1.3 million from the Pentagon and its contractors in 2021. Both think tanks reported receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars from Lockheed Martin and Raytheon, which have already been awarded billions of dollars in Pentagon contracts as a result of the war in Ukraine.
Content analysis of media mentions
Media mentions alone indicate that think tanks funded by the defense sector dominate public debate about U.S. responses to Ukraine. But a count of media mentions only tells part of the story and, critically, doesn’t account for the content of think tank commentary in these media outlets.
This section analyzes the content of think tank media mentions to gauge the extent to which think tanks funded by the defense sector are arguing for increased U.S. military spending as a result of the Ukraine war. In short, the investigation found that think tanks with funding from the arms industry offer support for increasing U.S. military spending as a result of the Ukraine war and are, at times, dismissive of diplomatic solutions to the conflict.
Think tanks with funding from the arms industry offer support for increasing U.S. military spending as a result of the Ukraine war and are, at times, dismissive of diplomatic solutions to the conflict.
To gauge the tenor of think tanks’ public commentary, we conducted a content analysis of media mentions for the top five most mentioned think tanks in Table 2. For the sake of making the scope manageable, this content analysis was limited to the last 10 media mentions for each think tank during the time period of this analysis, which ended on January 31, 2023.
Think tanks that receive substantial funding from military contractors are regularly mentioned in media outlets offering support for military solutions to the conflict . In the lead up to the U.S. decision to send Abrams tanks to Ukraine, for example, these think tanks were quick to offer their support for this uptick in U.S. military involvement. The President of AEI, for example, was cited in multiple Wall Street Journal articles, explaining that “Tanks and armored personnel carriers are essential,” and agreeing to provide them will “let Ukraine know that it can afford to risk and expend more of its current arsenal of tanks in counteroffensive operations because it can count on getting replacements for them.”68 Similarly, a New York Times article explained “officials worry that American tanks would be seen as a sign of escalation by the United States,” but a CSIS scholar dismissed these concerns, arguing that the United States has already given precision guided munitions and other advanced weapons which had already, “raised the escalatory roof.”
These think tanks also offered considerable support for increasing U.S. military spending and production of artillery and munitions as a result of the war in Ukraine. A CSIS scholar, for example, told the New York Times that, “With the front line mostly stationary, artillery has become the most important combat arm.” The Washington Post cited a CSIS study that offers a variety of solutions to the problem of low U.S. munitions stockpiles as a result of the Ukraine war, nearly all necessitating increased U.S. military spending. A subsequent CSIS study “Empty Bins in a Wartime Environment,” which similarly recommends a number of solutions to this problem that would significantly increase U.S. military spending, was widely cited in media outlets, including the Wall Street Journal. None of these articles or the report itself mentions CSIS funding from defense contractors who have already been awarded billions of dollars in contracts to arm Ukraine. When asked why CSIS did not disclose this industry funding in the report, a spokesperson for CSIS explained that, “CSIS is an independent non–profit with a diverse funding base and the conclusions of our scholars are theirs alone,” and that “CSIS discloses our donors on our website. We also disclose funders of our research reports in the reports themselves. We do this because we believe our audience should know who supports our work.” Yet, the spokesperson explained that this only applies to research with dedicated external funding and that donors are not disclosed in reports, like the one in question, that are undertaken with general support funding.
In some cases scholars from think tanks with defense industry backing were also arguing against diplomatic solutions to the conflict. For instance, an Atlantic Council scholar was quoted in the New York Times arguing that “The United States and European partners should not forestall the possibility, even likelihood, of more Ukrainian military success by insisting on a cease-fire in place or by assuming that it’s impossible for Ukraine to, for example, liberate the Donbas or even Crimea.” An AEI scholar told the Washington Post that a statement by General Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, that neither Ukraine nor Russia could achieve a full military victory was “unhelpful.”
The content of media mentions is markedly different for think tanks with little, or no, financial ties to the weapons industry. None of the media mentions of the Carnegie Endowment, which receives less than 1 percent of its annual funding from defense contractors, indicated support for increased U.S. defense spending or arms sales as a result of the Ukraine war. Instead, the Carnegie Endowment provided more general commentary about the war. For example, the New York Times editorial board cited a Carnegie report which argues the Russian economy will face decades of stagnation as a result of the war,78 and the Washington Post quoted a Carnegie expert on growing political tensions between Putin and the Russian elite.79 One Carnegie scholar even offered a detailed accounting of the costs — both human and financial — of U.S. military conflicts.
The content of media mentions is markedly different for think tanks with little, or no, financial ties to the weapons industry.
Commentary from Human Rights Watch — which receives no funding from weapons-makers — was agnostic on the issue of providing U.S. military assistance to Ukraine. Instead the think tank exclusively focused on human rights abuses in the conflict. Many of these media mentions were related to a Human Rights Watch report on the Russian military using cluster munitions against civilians in Ukraine. “Residents of Kherson survived eight months of Russian occupation, and are finally free from fear of torture, only to be subjected to new indiscriminate attacks, apparently including cluster munitions,” an HRW scholar told The Washington Post.
Lack of transparency at many think tanks and media outlets
As previously mentioned, a growing body of research has demonstrated the impact that funders can have on the work of think tanks. This has contributed to remarkably low levels of trust in think tanks. All of these studies point to the need for donor transparency, as well as conflict of interest avoidance and disclosure, as Eli Clifton and I recommended in the Quincy Institute brief, “Restoring Trust in the Think Tank Sector.”
Unfortunately, many of the think tanks mentioned here have not heeded that advice; nor have media outlets taken steps to alert their readers to these easily identifiable conflicts of interest.
Nearly a third of the top foreign policy think tanks in the United States do not provide the public with donor information.
This analysis found that nearly a third (10 of 33) of the top foreign policy think tanks in the United States do not provide the public with donor information. This includes many of the think tanks that were cited most by media outlets in the analysis discussed above. The American Enterprise Institute, for example, does not publicly provide donor information and did not respond to multiple requests for comment about its defense industry ties, despite the Chairman of its Board of Directors, who has donated at least $20 million to the organization, being the head of the Carlyle Group, which owns multiple U.S. military contractors. AEI scholars have noted the organization’s defense industry funding at public events, however. For example, at an AEI event featuring panelists from Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman, the moderator explained that, “We’d be remiss if we didn’t mention that both Lockheed and Northrop provide philanthropic support to AEI. We are grateful for that support.” Unfortunately, this information is still missing from the organization’s website.
Even some think tanks that do not accept defense industry funding also do not publicly disclose their donors. A spokesperson for the Cato Institute, for example, confirmed the organization does not accept defense industry funding and provided a copy of the think tank’s annual report that includes donor information. However, the Cato Institute’s publicly available version of this annual report does not disclose this donor information.88 Similarly, a spokesperson for Human Rights Watch provided a version of the organization’s annual report that includes donor information, but these 10 pages are omitted from the organization’s publicly available version of the annual report.
None of the media mentions analyzed here included disclosures of defense industry funding of these think tanks that were, at times, recommending policies that could financially benefit their funders.
The media outlets analyzed here also failed to provide their readers with any indication of the potential conflicts of interest posed by experts from defense industry backed think tanks commenting on the defense industry. In fact, none of the media mentions analyzed here included disclosures of defense industry funding of these think tanks that were, at times, recommending policies that could financially benefit their funders. Perhaps the most glaring example of this was a CSIS study that recommends creating a “strategic munitions reserve,” which would be a windfall for arms makers, that was cited in numerous media outlets including The Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg, and Defense News. None of these articles mentions the millions CSIS has received from the arms industry, including Lockheed Martin, who has already received hundreds of millions of dollars in Ukraine related contracts and whose CEO is even quoted in the CSIS report. Ultimately, this indicates a failure of judgment by leading media outlets reporting on vital issues of war and peace in Ukraine.
Recommendations
The analysis undertaken here points to a number of recommendations that would help to restore public trust in the think tank sector and the media. First, think tanks should publicly disclose their funders. Many of the think tanks contacted for this analysis mentioned the need for donor privacy, but that is a protection for individuals, not companies. Donor privacy is especially irrelevant for firms–like many in the defense industry–who derive a majority of their income from government contracts. The fact that many “dark money” think tanks still refuse to disclose their donors creates an uneven playing field where transparent think tanks, like CSIS and the Atlantic Council, reveal all of their funders. Congress should enact legislation to rectify this imbalance and require think tanks to publicly disclose any funding they receive from the United States or foreign governments or firms that work for them.
Second, think tanks should also adopt a professional standard of disclosing, within the publications themselves, any funding the think tank receives from entities that have a financial interest in the subject matter of the publication. Many of the studies analyzed here included recommendations that would be of direct financial benefit to those think tanks’ funders. At the very least, readers of those studies, especially policymakers and journalists, should be made aware of these potential conflicts of interest.
Third, media outlets should, similarly, adopt a professional standard to report any conflicts of interest with sources discussing U.S. foreign policy. By not providing this information media outlets are deceiving their readers, listeners, or viewers. This information provides important context for evaluating expert commentary and is, arguably, as important as the commentary itself. Some media outlets, like CNBC, have been quick to identify these conflicts of interest and provide their readers with this information. All media outlets should follow suit and proactively disclose the potential conflicts of interest of the sources they’re citing.
https://quincyinst.org/report/defense-contractor-funded-think-tanks-dominate-ukraine-debate/
https://quincyinst.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/QUINCY-BRIEF-NO.-41-MAY-2023-FREEMAN.pdf
JUNE 03 2023 – GERMANY – FALKENSEE – OLAF SCHOLZ
Douglas Macgregor – Bakhmut – Ukrainian Forces are Stronger and More Lethal.
LGBTQ Activists Clash With Concerned Parents Outside North Hollywood Elementary School (Video)
By Anthony Scott Jun. 3, 2023 10:20 am7 Comments
Parents and concerned members of the North Hollywood community protested outside Saticoy Elementary School after the school released plans to host a Gay Pride and Rainbow Day Assembly.
The news of the assembly attracted hundreds to protest against the school’s decision, but also garnered the attention of LGBTQ activists who agitated the parents who came to exercise their First Amendment rights.
At first, both sides peacefully protested. However things turned quickly changed and a clash between the two groups occurred.
WATCH:
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/06/lgbtq-activists-clash-concerned-parents-outside-north-hollywood/
Claims of ‘Racial Profiling’ After Chicago Walgreens Removes All but Two Aisles from Customers’ View
By Jack Davis, The Western Journal Jun. 3, 2023 9:15 am299 Comments
A new store model introduced by Walgreens as a way to reduce theft has already flunked the racism litmus test.
On Tuesday, Walgreens debuted a new design in one downtown Chicago store with only two aisles where customers can grab for themselves. Everything else requires customers to use a kiosk to place an order that will be waiting for them at the counter.
“This redesigned store will have the latest in e-commerce offerings to increase customer service, mitigate theft, and increase safety for our customers and employees,” the company said in an email to one local resident, according to CWBChicago, which labeled the location an “anti-theft” store.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/06/claims-racial-profiling-chicago-walgreens-removes-two-aisles/
West Virginia State Trooper Fatally Shot, Suspect in Custody
By Margaret Flavin Jun. 3, 2023 9:00 am44 Comments
West Virginia State Trooper Sgt. Cory Maynard was fatally shot Friday in southern West Virginia.
West Virginia Governor Jim Justice shared the heartbreaking news in a statement on Facebook.
“I am absolutely heartbroken tonight to report that Sergeant Cory Maynard of the West Virginia State Police was fatally wounded in an incident this afternoon near Matewan.
Cathy and I share our deepest sympathies and our heartfelt prayers to all of Trooper Maynard’s loved ones and the entire law enforcement community of West Virginia for this tragic loss tonight.
The brave men and women of law enforcement, and all first responders who put their lives on the line every day to keep us safe, are an inspiration to us all. I again ask all West Virginians to join Cathy and I in embracing Trooper Maynard’s family, loved ones, and all of our courageous West Virginians in uniform during this incredibly difficult time.”
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/06/west-virginia-state-trooper-fatally-shot-suspect-custody/
Six Flags to Host ‘All-Ages’ Drag Shows at Parks All Over the Country Throughout June
By Cassandra MacDonald Jun. 3, 2023 7:00 am447 Comments
Six Flags is hosting “all-ages” drag shows at theme parks across the country throughout June.
In their announcement, Six Flags Over Texas wrote, “All content is rated PG and is considered to be family-friendly and inclusive for all ages. Anyone under 17 should consult with a parent or guardian if there is concern.”
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/06/six-flags-host-all-ages-drag-shows-parks/
Corrupt DOJ will refuse to prosecute Biden Crime Family
Brad Johnson
Brad Johnson
—
June 2, 2023
0
https://intelreform.org/doj-refuses-to-prosecute-obvious-biden-family-crimes/
Twitter Safety Executives Exit as Concerns About Policing Content Grow
A.J. Brown’s departure comes after Ella Irwin, company’s head of trust and safety, left Thursday
By Suzanne Vranica
Twitter lost a second senior executive in charge of content and safety issues, people familiar with the matter said Friday, as the Elon Musk-owned platform struggles with content-moderation controversies and advertiser skittishness.
A.J. Brown, Twitter’s head of brand safety and ad quality, has decided to leave the company, the people said. He was a top executive who has worked to assure advertisers that Twitter is a safe place for their ads.
WHAT’S NEWS
https://www.wsj.com/articles/twitter-loses-second-safety-executive-within-days-1954a51e
Chicago Set to Move 400 Illegals Into Daley College, Tempers Flare at Community Meeting
By Margaret Flavin Jun. 3, 2023 11:00 am
Residents respond to illegal shelter at Richard J. Daley College on Chicago’s Southside.
As The Gateway Pundit recently reported, the city of Chicago has approved $51 million in spending on illegal immigrants.
This has many in Chicago’s black community outraged, as they think that sort of funding should go to citizens, not illegal border crossers.
On Thursday, residents in the Southside neighborhood around Richard J. Daley College gathered to hear the city’s plan to convert three buildings on the campus, including the gymnasium, to a temporary shelter for illegals. The shelter could begin accepting arrivals as soon as this weekend.
Many in the crowd shared their objections to the decision.
One citizen asked, “When do citizens of The United States of America come first?”
Another said, “How about this, give them all these politicians’ addresses and put them in their back yards, in their basements, in their houses.”
People staying at the Daley College shelter will need to abide by city rules: No visitors, no illegal drugs or alcohol, they must check in and out at the front desk and must abide by an 11 p.m. curfew, said Christine Riley, director of homeless prevention with the city’s Department of Family and Support Services. City contractor SkyTech Security Services will provide 24/7 security at the building and police officers will patrol the area regularly.
Ald. Derrick Curtis (18th), whose ward includes Daley College, was one of the 13 alderpeople who voted against allocating $51 million in surplus funds to staffing, transportation and food at the city’s temporary migrant shelters. At Thursday’s meeting, he said he still has many questions about the city’s plan. He also said he was alerted about the city’s plan less than a week ago.
“There’s a lot of pros and cons about this,” Curtis said. “It’s not because I don’t want asylum-seekers here. But I have my issues still.”
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/06/chicago-set-move-400-illegals-daley-college-tempers/
ctv – Poilievre drums up support against Bernier in federal by-election
“[INTERVIEW] Global Vaccine Deaths Are ‘Eye-Popping’ And, At Minumum, A Cover-Up – Edward Dowd” Bright Light News – 3 days ago
https://rumble.com/v2r125r-interview-global-vaccine-deaths-are-eye-popping-and-at-minumum-a-cover-up-e.html
New anti theft stores
https://youtu.be/L-8FApPH62Q
YouTube now allows talk about stolen 2020 election.
https://youtu.be/7sAyN2S6L7g
Bud Lite pledged millions to LGBTQ CAUSES
https://youtu.be/1eZS7MqBGz4
Actually $200,000
Harley Davidson stocks drop after partnering with Bud Lite
https://youtu.be/wk9oTm9K4XU
“Bill O’Reilly Tells C&B Why He Still Thinks Biden Won’t Be the Democrat Nominee” Clay & Buck – June 1, 2023
https://www.clayandbuck.com/bill-oreilly-biden-nominee/
South Africa Drafts Water Usage Regulations to Limit White People’s Access
By Margaret Flavin Jun. 3, 2023 3:50 pm277 Comments
While South Africa deals with rising violent crime, as many as three murders per hour, the government seems determined to focus on driving White South Africans from the country. In May, the African National Congress (ANC) drafted regulations that would create race quotas surrounding the allocation of water use licenses for businesses.
The Gateway Pundit previously reported on government rules that will make it nearly impossible for business owners to hire whites or Indians in the country. Controversial affirmative action policies mean blacks take precedence over whites in the job market and will force many white South Africans to leave the country under the current regime’s latest apartheid legislation.
And now water is the latest weapon.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/06/south-africa-drafts-water-usage-regulations-white-people/
Parents and Students Protested After Kellogg High School Punishes and Excludes Senior from Graduation Ceremony for Saying, “Guys are Guys and Girls are Girls, There is No In-Between” (VIDEO)
By Jim Hoft Jun. 3, 2023 4:10 pm115 Comments
Over 100 parents and students gathered outside Kellogg High School in Shoshone County Idaho, protesting against the principal’s decision to punish a student for saying that “guys are guys and girls are girls. There is no in-between.”
The protest reflects a growing concern over the boundaries of free speech and silencing dissenting viewpoints within educational institutions.
The controversy began when High School senior Travis Lohr, 18, participated in a school activity in which seniors gave advice to students in lower classes, Idaho Tribune reported.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/06/parents-students-protested-after-kellogg-high-school-punishes/