At the center of the Pentagon’s move to cut participation in think tank events is one basic question: Who cares?
Is it the ultimate example of an inside-Washington story with little relevance to most Americans? Or could it have a lasting impact on the quality of public discourse across the country?
Either way, the Department of Defense’s new policy of “thorough vetting” of such forums — the kinds of D.C. staples routinely hosted by the Brookings Institution, Atlantic Council, Heritage Foundation and dozens of other organizations — before granting military officials permission to attend could upend decades of tradition in U.S. civil society.
For the Trump administration, it seems to be the next logical step in an effort to sever connections between the Pentagon and its senior officials from any outfit deemed “globalist” in nature, or those seen to be advocating for the kinds of left-wing social values that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has vowed to root out of the military.
But analysts say the impacts of the new think tank policy will be felt far beyond political and academic circles in the nation’s capital. They argue that it could fundamentally weaken the flow of accurate information from the government to its citizens and cut off the kinds of high-level policy discussions and debates that fuel a healthy, functional democracy.
“A lot of people think that think tanks are there to attack, to be a shadow government, that you’re going into the belly of the beast. But it’s not true,” said Jim Townsend, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for European and NATO policy during the Obama administration.
“It’s critical for them to know when they pull themselves out of think tanks and become this isolated fortress, they’re isolating themselves from friends, they’re isolating themselves from the opportunity to clarify things,” said Mr. Townsend, now an adjunct senior fellow at one such think tank, the Center for a New American Security.
“A democracy is not successful if the voter doesn’t stay on top of issues or understand issues. It’s harder today to understand the complexities of the issues that politicians have to be involved in. Civil society is what does this,” he said in an interview.
It’s worth noting the civil society-to-government pipeline that thrives in Washington no matter which party is in power. During a change in administrations, it is common for outgoing officials to take high-profile jobs at D.C.-based think tanks and work on similar policy portfolios to those in which they specialized while inside government. Many of those individuals then return to government years later during administration changeovers.
Unanswered questions
There are significant questions around what the Pentagon’s actual policy is.
Last month, the Defense Department pulled several high-level military officials from engagements at the Aspen Security Forum just days before the event started. Officials said the forum, which for the past 15 years has hosted top foreign policy, military, national security and intelligence officials from administrations of both parties, did not align with the values of the Defense Department.
Navy Secretary John Phelan; Navy Adm. Samuel J. Paparo, commander of U.S. Indo-Pacific Command; Gen. Stephen N. Whiting, commander of U.S. Space Command; and Army Gen. Bryan P. Fenton, commander of U.S. Special Operations Command, were among those scheduled to speak.
Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell said that moving forward, other organizations and forums also will be examined with such considerations in mind.
“In order to ensure the Department of Defense is not lending its name and credibility to organizations, forums, and events that run counter to the values of this administration, the department’s Office of Public Affairs will be conducting a thorough vetting of every event where Defense officials are invited to participate,” Mr. Parnell said in a statement.
The DoD’s think tank review was first reported by Politico.
When asked by The Washington Times, the Defense Department would not address whether guidance will be issued to military branches and other offices inside the Pentagon about which kinds of events are acceptable to attend. It also did not explain whether certain think tanks or other organizations will be given standing approval, or if each event must be scrutinized.
It’s unclear if specific individuals, such as the moderator of a panel discussion at a think tank forum, will be among the factors used to decide whether a military official can attend.
The review of such events by the Pentagon’s Office of Public Affairs seems to be a significant shift in how the government functions in its relationship with civil society. Mr. Townsend and other former officials said they did not have to seek approval, beyond that of their supervisors or commanders, to attend such events.
Typically, requests for officials to attend think tank events are funneled through the office or service in which that official works. It appears that such requests will now also need to flow through the Office of Public Affairs.
Some former defense officials told The Times they fear such a system will lead to tension within the Defense Department, specifically between military services and the office of the defense secretary.
What’s the impact?
Until recently, the system seemed to be functioning as usual. The Center for a New American Security, for example, hosted Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David W. Allvin and other active-duty military officers at its 2025 National Security Conference in June.
There are other think-tank events still being advertised as including high-ranking military officials, including an Aug. 26 Center for Strategic and International Studies forum featuring Vice Adm. Daniel L. Cheever, commander of Naval Air Forces and of the Naval Air Force, U.S. Pacific Fleet. CSIS is partnering with the U.S. Naval Institute to host that forum.
Some specialists argue that those kinds of events are invaluable in promoting a healthy discourse with the most important decision-makers in the country — though some concede that the think tank ecosystem may have grown too large.
“I think there are more than we need,” said Michael O’Hanlon, senior fellow and director of research in foreign policy at the Brookings Institution. “But they are useful for laying out a bigger vision with more time and cogency than congressional hearings sometimes allow, and with the credibility of having an interviewer who is usually not unfriendly but still paid to be objective and even at times skeptical or contrarian,”
“It creates a healthy intellectual dynamic,” Mr. O’Hanlon told The Times. “There are usually not a lot of ’gotcha’ questions but there are sometimes back-and-forths that go in interesting directions and that could not be scripted in advance.”
Mr. Townsend, an adjunct senior fellow at CNAS, said the moderators, hosts and interviewers at think tank events often act as “explainers” that help route information from officials to the press and ultimately to the public.
“You need explainers, too,” Mr. Townsend said, referring to the media.
