Center for a New American Security

11 min read

VERIFIEDPRIMARY SOURCES
VERIFIED 2026-03-27
1 primary12 investigative3 secondary

think-tank centrist defense national-security revolving-door military-industrial-complex class-analysis

related: _Think Tank Framework · _Think Tank Index

Who They Are

The Center for a New American Security (CNAS) is a Washington, D.C. national security think tank founded in 2007 by Michèle Flournoy and Kurt Campbell — both Clinton Defense Department veterans who went on to hold senior positions in the Obama and Biden administrations respectively. CNAS was designed from inception as the Democratic Party’s national security policy shop: a holding pen and training ground for Democratic foreign policy professionals between administrations.

The Wall Street Journal identified CNAS as the Obama administration’s “top farm team” before Obama even took office. By spring 2010, at least 14 CNAS staffers had been selected for positions in the Obama Defense and State departments. The Biden administration repeated this pattern: at least 16 CNAS alumni were placed in senior national security positions.

CNAS is currently led by CEO Richard Fontaine ($777K compensation, FY2024). Its board reads as a who’s who of the bipartisan national security establishment: Michèle Flournoy (co-founder), Jon Huntsman Jr. (former ambassador to Russia and China), Admiral Cecil Haney (ret., former STRATCOM commander), Admiral John Richardson (ret., former Chief of Naval Operations), Jeh Johnson (former DHS Secretary), the late Joseph Lieberman, James Murdoch (Rupert Murdoch’s son), Anne Neuberger (former Biden Deputy NSA for Cyber), and David Schwimmer (CEO of London Stock Exchange Group).

Budget: $14.1M revenue / $13.8M expenses (FY2024) Net assets: $24.6M (FY2024) Total assets: $37.8M (FY2024) Tax status: 501(c)(3), EIN 20-8084828 Location: 1701 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Washington, DC

2026 development: In February 2026, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth ordered the Pentagon to sever fellowship ties with CNAS as part of a broader campaign against think tanks and elite universities he characterized as venues for “woke indoctrination.” Beginning in the 2026-2027 academic year, U.S. service members are barred from CNAS fellowship programs. The ban also affected Brookings, CFR, and New America — the four centrist/liberal think tanks most embedded in the national security revolving door. For CNAS, which placed 16+ alumni in the Biden administration and whose entire operational model depends on cycling military and civilian personnel between the think tank and the Pentagon, the Hegseth ban represents a direct attack on its core function. If sustained, it severs the talent pipeline that makes CNAS relevant.

Who Funds Them

CNAS discloses its donors publicly, but not individual amounts. The Center for International Policy’s 2020 review of 50 major U.S. think tanks found that CNAS was the single largest recipient of defense contractor money from 2014 to 2019, with 29 different defense companies contributing.

Defense contractor funding (2019-2023):

  • Total defense contractor funding: $6.67M
  • Northrop Grumman — largest single defense donor
  • Lockheed Martin
  • RTX (Raytheon)
  • Additional defense firms among the 29 documented

U.S. government funding (2019-2023):

  • Total government grants: $3.99M
  • Department of State, Department of Defense, Department of Energy

Foreign government funding (2019-2023):

  • Total foreign government funding: $2.81M
  • Japan, South Korea, Germany, European Union

Additional corporate donors: Amazon, Google, Chevron, and other major corporations.

Board-level corporate connections:

  • James Murdoch — board Director (News Corp/media empire heir)
  • David Schwimmer — board Director (CEO, London Stock Exchange Group)
  • Douglas Beck — board Director (Apple VP, previously)

Money

CNAS received $6.67M from Pentagon contractors while simultaneously serving as the primary personnel pipeline for Democratic national security appointments. The same institution that takes Northrop Grumman money produces the officials who oversee Northrop Grumman’s contracts. The 2018 B-21 bomber case makes this explicit: CNAS recommended the Air Force purchase 50-75 additional B-21 jets — built by Northrop Grumman, one of their largest donors — without disclosing the conflict. Estimated ROI on Northrop Grumman’s $2.36M in donations: 1,390,000%.

What They Produce

CNAS produces policy reports and personnel across four main program areas:

Defense Program:

  • Military force structure recommendations
  • Defense budget analysis
  • Weapons systems procurement advocacy (including the B-21 bomber recommendation that triggered the ethics investigation)
  • War gaming and scenario planning (including China contingency exercises)

Indo-Pacific Security:

  • China competition strategy
  • Taiwan policy frameworks
  • AUKUS and allied defense integration
  • Led by Lisa Curtis (former Trump NSC Senior Director for South Asia — rare bipartisan crossover)

Energy, Economics, and Security:

  • Sanctions policy research (Elizabeth Rosenberg → Treasury sanctions enforcement)
  • Technology competition and export controls (Emily Kilcrease)
  • Economic statecraft frameworks

Transatlantic Security:

  • NATO modernization
  • European defense integration
  • Russia/Ukraine policy

AI and Emerging Technology:

  • Paul Scharre (EVP) — leading voice on autonomous weapons policy, author of Army of None
  • AI governance frameworks adopted by DoD

The Policy Pipeline

CNAS operates less as a traditional think tank and more as a Democratic administration pre-assembly facility. The pipeline works:

  1. Out of government: Senior Democratic national security officials leave government after a Republican administration begins
  2. CNAS incubation: Officials join CNAS as fellows, program directors, or board members. They produce policy papers while maintaining clearances and relationships.
  3. Policy development: CNAS publishes reports that become the incoming administration’s policy playbook
  4. Back to government: When Democrats win, CNAS alumni fill senior positions across DoD, State, NSC, Treasury, and intelligence agencies
  5. Policy implementation: Officials implement the policies they designed at CNAS — policies developed while funded by defense contractors who benefit from them

Donation-to-Policy Timeline

DateRecipient/TargetAmountPolicy ReturnTime Gap
2007CNAS founded (Flournoy/Campbell)N/ADemocratic national security policy shop createdFoundation year
2009-2010Obama administrationN/A14+ CNAS staffers placed in DoD/State — Flournoy becomes Under Secretary of Defense for Policy2 years
2014-2019CNAS (from defense contractors)$6.67M+ (through 2023)B-21 bomber procurement recommendation (50-75 jets) favoring top donor Northrop Grumman~4 years
2018U.S. Air ForceN/ACNAS report recommends additional B-21 purchases — undisclosed Northrop Grumman conflictImmediate
2021 JanBiden administrationN/AAvril Haines (board) → DNI; Campbell (co-founder) → NSC Indo-Pacific; Ratner (EVP) → Asst Sec Defense0-2 years at CNAS
2021Biden State DepartmentN/AVictoria Nuland (CNAS CEO) → Under Secretary of State for Political AffairsDirect transfer
2021Biden TreasuryN/AElizabeth Rosenberg (Program Director) → Asst Secretary for Terrorist FinancingDirect transfer
2021-2024U.S. foreign policy apparatusN/A16+ CNAS alumni in senior Biden national security rolesContinuous pipeline
2026 FebPentagon / HegsethPolicy changeHegseth severs Pentagon fellowship ties with CNAS — bars military personnel from CNAS programs; “woke indoctrination” framing targets the revolving door pipeline directlyImmediate threat to core model

Money

The B-21 bomber case is the clearest single illustration of the military-industrial-think-tank complex in the entire vault. Northrop Grumman gives CNAS $2.36M. CNAS publishes a report recommending the Air Force buy 50-75 more B-21 jets, worth $33-49B to Northrop Grumman. CNAS does not disclose the conflict. When caught, CNAS does not add a disclaimer. The Revolving Door Project calculated the potential ROI at 1,390,000%. This is not a think tank producing independent research. It’s a defense contractor policy laundering operation wearing academic clothing.

The Revolving Door

CNAS operates the most aggressive revolving door between a think tank and a presidential administration documented in this vault. The 990 filings reveal the personnel pipeline directly:

CNAS → Biden Administration (at least 16 placements):

  • Avril Haines — CNAS board Director → Director of National Intelligence (the nation’s top intelligence official)
  • Kurt Campbell — CNAS co-founder/Chairman → NSC Indo-Pacific Coordinator (2021-2024), then Deputy Secretary of State (2024)
  • Victoria Nuland — CNAS CEO → Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs (2021-2024)
  • Ely Ratner — CNAS Executive VP → Assistant Secretary of Defense for Indo-Pacific Security Affairs
  • Elizabeth Rosenberg — CNAS Program Director → Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Terrorist Financing and Financial Crimes
  • Susanna Blume — CNAS Program Director → Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation, Pentagon
  • Ilan Goldenberg — CNAS Program Director → State Department special envoy for Middle East
  • Loren Schulman — CNAS Deputy Director → NSC staff
  • Nathaniel Fick — CNAS board Director → Ambassador at Large for Cyberspace and Digital Policy (first ever)
  • Anne Neuberger — CNAS board Director → Deputy National Security Advisor for Cyber and Emerging Technology

CNAS → Obama Administration (14+ placements):

  • Michèle Flournoy — CNAS co-founder/CEO → Under Secretary of Defense for Policy (2009-2012)
  • Plus 13+ additional staffers to DoD and State Department positions

Bipartisan crossover:

  • Lisa Curtis — Trump NSC Senior Director for South Asia → CNAS Program Director → demonstrates bipartisan credibility that makes CNAS more effective
  • Richard Armitage — Bush Deputy Secretary of State → CNAS board (demonstrates bipartisan network)
  • Jon Huntsman Jr. — Republican Governor, Ambassador to China/Russia → CNAS board

Contradiction

CNAS brands itself as “bipartisan” and “independent” while functioning as the Democratic Party’s national security personnel holding company. The bipartisan framing — Huntsman, Lieberman, Armitage on the board — provides cover for what is primarily a Democratic revolving door. Of the 30+ documented government placements, the overwhelming majority went to Democratic administrations. The “bipartisan” label serves the same function as “centrist” at Brookings: it launders partisan policy through an independence brand.

What Their Funders Got

Northrop Grumman: $2.36M in documented donations (2014-2019) purchased a report recommending $33-49B in additional B-21 bomber purchases without conflict disclosure. Additional CNAS alumni in DoD positions overseeing procurement.

Defense contractors collectively: $6.67M bought the personnel pipeline. When CNAS alumni move to the Pentagon, they bring CNAS’s defense contractor-funded policy recommendations with them. The same officials who wrote papers at CNAS funded by Lockheed Martin now oversee Lockheed Martin contracts.

Foreign governments (Japan, South Korea, Germany, EU): $2.81M buys influence over the think tank whose alumni set U.S. alliance policy. When Campbell (CNAS co-founder) becomes Deputy Secretary of State overseeing Indo-Pacific alliances, Japan’s $2.81M investment in CNAS becomes influence on the official overseeing the U.S.-Japan alliance.

Amazon/Google/tech companies: Technology and AI policy research that shapes the regulatory environment these companies face — particularly on defense AI applications, surveillance technology exports, and tech competition with China.

Class Analysis

CNAS is the purest expression of the military-industrial-think-tank complex in American politics. It performs three functions simultaneously:

1. Personnel laundering. Defense industry money funds the institution that trains and houses the officials who will oversee defense spending. The revolving door is not a side effect — it is the product. CNAS exists to maintain a standing reserve of Democratic national security professionals between administrations, funded by the defense contractors those professionals will regulate when in government.

2. Policy laundering. Defense contractors cannot directly write procurement recommendations. But they can fund a “nonpartisan think tank” that recommends the government buy their products. The B-21 bomber case — $2.36M in donations producing a recommendation worth $33-49B — is idea laundering at industrial scale.

3. Bipartisan credibility laundering. By maintaining a Republican minority on the board (Huntsman, Lieberman, Armitage), CNAS converts what is functionally a Democratic Party operation into “bipartisan, independent” research. This framing makes CNAS policy recommendations more difficult for Republicans to oppose and more credible to media.

The class function is transparent: CNAS ensures that regardless of which party controls the White House, the defense establishment’s preferred policies — military primacy, alliance maintenance, defense spending growth, great power competition — remain the baseline of U.S. national security policy. The personnel rotate; the policy stays constant. The donors fund both administrations through different think tanks (CNAS for Democrats, Heritage/Hudson for Republicans), producing the Both-Sides Illusion at the level of national security strategy.

The Hegseth fellowship ban (February 2026) is the first time a Defense Secretary has directly attacked the think tank revolving door infrastructure. By severing Pentagon fellowship ties with CNAS, Brookings, CFR, and New America simultaneously, Hegseth targeted the four institutions that collectively staff Democratic national security administrations. The ban reveals that the revolving door is not invisible to the opposing party — it’s a known pipeline, and the Trump administration has chosen to disrupt it. If sustained, it forces CNAS to find alternative personnel cultivation channels. If reversed by a future Democratic administration, it confirms that the revolving door serves partisan rather than institutional interests.

Patterns present: Revolving Door (Policy), Bipartisan Credibility Shield, Idea Laundering, Donor-Class Override, Both-Sides Illusion.

Sources

content-readiness:: ready

Graph View

Backlinks

Related Profiles

Pages sharing the most connections with this one